Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: big_p on January 05, 2025, 02:59:42 pm
-
Cancelled today due to a formal complaint etc. 8)
Dear Sir or Madam
I am authorised as attached. My complaint is twofold:
1. Your website.
2. Your parking department's handling of this case.
Your website
This has been, and still is, not fit for purpose since it contains misinformation. The attached does not tally with the NOR sent to my client offering a discount. Furthermore, this issue has been the subject of many appeals at the Tribunal.
Your parking department's handling of this case
The 2003 act states that, when a NOR is not received and an OFR has been signed to that effect, the authority shall refer the matter to the Tribunal. Therefore, I can do no better than state that the issue of the attached NOR flies in the face of the law.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted
Desired outcome
In light of your parking department's departure from the statutory scheme, I request that the PCN be cancelled forthwith.
Yours faithfully
007
***
It took them not very long to cancel. At least they had the sense and decency to cancel. I also phoned them on Friday and had a frank chat.
***
I am also concerned by yet another PD from the CA bypassing councils' having to refer the matter to the Tribunal. This I did not know at the time of writing; but, I was prepared to go the full distance.
***
Well done for staying the course. Let's hope more develops!
https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/attention-all-recipients-of-pcns-from-lambeth-lewisham-andor-southwark-proposed-/
These three should face a Judicial Review re their websites.
-
Taking over the case now. They have reissued another NOR and their website demands £130 while the NOR states can pay £65. Not exactly the strict rules of golf. ::)
-
I have left a phone message. Relax. ;D
-
I'm wondering if it's still worth it as I feel a little worried that it won't pay off.
Worry not !! All 'in-time' statutory declarations must be accepted by TEC, (unless you fill the form in incorrectly!)
If it pays off, you're back to the £130 penalty with a possibility of the adjudicator accepting your reps, so you pay nothing. If not then its the existing amount on thhe Order for Recovery, no more. This is a process that has been undertaken by thousands of people since decrim. enforcement of parking and traffic offences came in; nothing strange or off=putting about it at all.
When filling the SD form in, remember that you are the 'Respondent', the council is the 'Applicant'. You just tick the relevant box, there is no need to put anything in the "Reasons" box.
-
I will PM you my phone number. Tis seemples! TEC will cancel the Charge Certificate and rescind the OFR. L'ham then must refer to the adjudicator which is where I can come in. For Gawd's sake do not pay anything!
-
Thank you,
Do you have any guidance on how to identify and contact a court?
This feels quite serious, and I'm wondering if it's still worth it as I feel a little worried that it won't pay off.
Is this all standard procedure? It's all new to me. Thanks.
-
I don't know why you have included the last page which is part of the PCN,
Anyway, you tick the middle box and do not sign it until you either make an appointment with a solicitor and/or a court. The latter is free. Then copy it and send it to the TEC via e mail. You need to enter your full name and address. No need to enter any details of your appeal. Lewisham will then be informed by the TEC and refer the matter to the Adjudicator for directions. You must keep a copy of everything, especially your formal reps. and when and how they were sent.
-
Hello H,
We have just received the next letter. Please may you advise what we do now?
Thank you very much in advance.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just relax.
-
Enforcement process:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process
Wait for the Order for Recovery and then we will advise which box to tick and sign in front of a witness.
Thank you H.
I have just checked the link and I can see that I should receive the Order For Recovery in a couple of weeks.
And that I should be able to reply to that by checking the box marked:
"You made representations to the Enforcement Authority concerned but did not receive a Notice of Rejection from that authority; or"
When I receive the Order For Recovery I shall come back to this thread for your excellent advice.
Is there any worries at this stage that the fine will continue to snowball, and I may be taken to court? Should I be concerned and therefore just pay the £190?
Cheers again
-
Enforcement process:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process
Wait for the Order for Recovery and then we will advise which box to tick and sign in front of a witness.
-
cont.
final 2 images below:
5. Their letter to me dated 20th Feb
6. Lewisham PCN portal checked 22nd feb (post reps)
There has been no correspondence [at least none that I can find] between Jan 13th (the date I sent rep) and Feb 20th.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
PM received. You made reps. so wait for the Order for Recovery.
Thanks, H
What is Order For Recovery?
I have attached all images below (and on the next post due to the attachment limit) so they're in one place:
1. Initial PCN
2. Screenshot of Lewisham PCN portal pre-repts
3. Reps letter
4. Their receipt of my reps
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
PM received. You made reps. so wait for the Order for Recovery.
-
Whilst you are waiting for the experts to chip in, please post up the rest of the Charge Certificate and have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/charge-certificates-london-local-authorities-and-tfl-act-2003-london-l-1805/
-
Hi, me again.
Since the representation that Hippocrates helped me write, I heard nothing until the 20th Feb.
On the letter (see image attached) it says they replied to my representation on Jan 14th but they hadn't. There is not evidence of any email reply, nor a letter in the post.
The web portal also now says due to me not responding to their reply to the representation, they have doubled the fine and are disallowing further correspondence.
Do I have any power here? It feels unfair to demand I pay double the amount when I hadn't see their reply to my representation.
It appears that there is now no long any option to contact them, and they've set a deadline of 14 days so I have no idea what to do.
I welcome all and any advice.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
On their website as they seem not to answer/register e mails? Compose it as a pdf.
-
@big_p
Dear Lewisham
Ref: PCN RM
I make this collateral representation as follows:
The Penalty Charge Notice
On several occasions it describes itself as acting as a Notice to Owner, or Penalty Charge Notice/Notice to Owner and contains a whole section pertaining to Parking Legislation which should not be there. It is averred that, if it acts as a Notice to Owner, then it should contain the necessary grounds, which are absent.
Furthermore, it fails to mention payment by post option which it must. I rely upon case no 2200527816.
Your website
This currently contains an intimidatory demand for money which flies in the face of the statutory process, whether it creates prejudice or not. Furthermore, the date is wrong as per the attached screenshot.
https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4526.0;attach=10253;image
In this regard I refer you to the following decision: 2240362722.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
Thanks so much H!
Can I submit this on the website, or need I write it and send it via mail?
If I do it via the website, I'm not given too many options - do you have any submission advice?
-
@big_p
Dear Lewisham
Ref: PCN RM
I make this collateral representation as follows:
The Penalty Charge Notice
On several occasions it describes itself as acting as a Notice to Owner, or Penalty Charge Notice/Notice to Owner and contains a whole section pertaining to Parking Legislation which should not be there. It is averred that, if it acts as a Notice to Owner, then it should contain the necessary grounds, which are absent.
Furthermore, it fails to mention payment by post option which it must. I rely upon case no 2200527816.
Your website
This currently contains an intimidatory demand for money which flies in the face of the statutory process, whether it creates prejudice or not. Furthermore, the date is wrong as per the attached screenshot.
https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4526.0;attach=10253;image
In this regard I refer you to the following decision: 2240362722.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
-
Hey Hippocrates,
I don't suppose you found anything in the screenshot that could be useful?
Cheers!
Hey Hippocrates - I don't suppose you had a chance to draft something?
Just have one eye on the penalty doubling, which I can't let happen!
I really appreciate any help you can provide.
Asa
-
1. It is a threat.
2. The date is wrong. The price increases on the 15th day from 24th which is 6th January. I will draft reps later but they will be technical.
I won a case v Lambeth on exactly this issue some months ago.
You hero, thank you so much.
I hadn't noticed the discrepancy in the date, and I'm unaware of the 'threat' appeal. Thank goodness for this forum and for folks like you who offer free advice.
I shall await your draft.
Thanks again.
-
1. It is a threat.
2. The date is wrong. The price increases on the 15th day from 24th which is 6th January. I will draft reps later but they will be technical.
I won a case v Lambeth on exactly this issue some months ago.
-
Hey Hippocrates,
I don't suppose you found anything in the screenshot that could be useful?
Cheers!
-
Please screenshot the website payment page and report back.
Hi Hippocrates,
See attached - anything noteworthy?
Thanks in advance.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please screenshot the website payment page and report back.
-
In addition to the two signs that faced you head-on, is an advance warning sign : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7bGxuZCFLuPNDNci7
There is also an advance warning sign on Ardgowan Road : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Bo58EwB7MG5xVLmr9
So as far as I can see, the council have discharged their duties under LATOR Regulation 8
Anything you can think of that might have distracted you from seeing the signs ?
There may be a 'technical' appeal based on possible council mismanagement of the enforcement process, or content errors in the PCN.
You're right - these signs I didn't see on the day, but I suspect my reasons for distraction aren't grounds for a representation as they are subjective, emotional reasons: I was dropping off my mum at the station, to get to Gatwick, to fly to the States over Xmas to visit a dying friend for the last time.
This meant the drive was a particularly emotional one as it meant the family was broken up for xmas and my mum was embarking on a very upsetting journey.
As difficult, and distracting, as this was it shouldn't really have impaired my ability to check for road signs. while I have no evidence, I doubt the arbiter would accept this sort of appeal.
What sorts of technical appeals might be plausible? Do you have any examples that might prompt my investigation into that?
Thanks for all your help with this.
-
In addition to the two signs that faced you head-on, is an advance warning sign : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7bGxuZCFLuPNDNci7
There is also an advance warning sign on Ardgowan Road : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Bo58EwB7MG5xVLmr9
So as far as I can see, the council have discharged their duties under LATOR Regulation 8
Anything you can think of that might have distracted you from seeing the signs ?
There may be a 'technical' appeal based on possible council mismanagement of the enforcement process, or content errors in the PCN.
-
I simply put East Croydon in Google maps and followed the route.
It is absolutely fatal to use satnav in London on its own and not look out for signs, they are almost always out-of-date, and some may not even handle restrictions like this. Even driving your route virtually the night before using GSV may not turn up all the restrictions.
(note: The PCN was served to my mum, not me, but I was the driver.)
Who was driving is irrelevant, the owner of the vehicle has responsibility for all PCNs. So your mother must either submit representations herself, or authorise you to do so. If the case is lost the owner must pay the PCN.
Please also post a GSV link to the exact location
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your comments.
The GSV location is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fvzpY1eyGStwyKFz6
Is that helpful?
-
I simply put East Croydon in Google maps and followed the route.
It is absolutely fatal to use satnav in London on its own and not look out for signs, they are almost always out-of-date, and some may not even handle restrictions like this. Even driving your route virtually the night before using GSV may not turn up all the restrictions.
(note: The PCN was served to my mum, not me, but I was the driver.)
Who was driving is irrelevant, the owner of the vehicle has responsibility for all PCNs. So your mother must either submit representations herself, or authorise you to do so. If the case is lost the owner must pay the PCN.
Please also post a GSV link to the exact location
-
Hello folks, could I please get assistance with the below? I can see that a few of us have been stung with it on this forum.
Essentially, a portion of road outside a school becomes a pedestrian zone between certain times
Not knowing this, I drove my mum (in her car) to East Croydon train station so she could get to Gatwick and catch a flight. I simply put East Croydon in Google maps and followed the route. (note: The PCN was served to my mum, not me, but I was the driver.)
I have seen others in this forum make a representation simply saying the contravention didn't occur, which I was about to do, but then a message on the webhub made me think twice: "I confirm that the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that making a false statement may result in prosecution and a possible fine of up to £5000."
I can see another example where somebody made a representation of the grounds that the sign was difficult to read but that didn't fly.
Do you know of grounds for avoiding this charge, or do I have to pay the 65?
Thanks in advance.
[attachment deleted by admin]