Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Mike_D on January 14, 2025, 09:36:33 pm
-
:)
Too much hustle and too much time to spend...
Anyway, thanks again mate!
-
Well if you know your financial terms Havering have pretty much ruled out moral hazard on our part by not reoffering the discount on rejection even at informal stage
-
Nah, I think I am good and happy enough with this outcome...
But suppose I filed a complaint, would they compensate me for moral damage? ;)
-
If they'd stupidly taken it to the tribunal you'd have had a good case for costs. As it stands I think you have grounds for complaint that they failed to look at this obvious error earlier.
-
Hi guys,
I have just received their response: Notice of Acceptance (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b3847xgsa653219aeudqe/PCN-appeal-approval.jpg?rlkey=tra0iip8svrxzu7cdfds8c1rj&st=qp5bf6xs&dl=0)
It worked, they have cancelled the PCN!
They have admitted it directly - a CEO error 8)
Many thanks for all your input and support, you are great - cheers! 🍺🍺🍺
-
Great, my chances are increasing :), but I think it will end in the Tribunals anyway - I guess Havering will still stick to their position...
-
This case from yesterday confirms it's an off-street car park. Or at least that's the status of this particular PCN.
-------
Case reference 2250165091
Appellant RPBaker Ltd
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM N11KBK
PCN Details
PCN HG33536523
Contravention date 12 Aug 2024
Contravention time 16:15:00
Contravention location Market Place Car Park, Romford
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in a restricted area in a car park
Referral date -
Decision Date 03 Jun 2025
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant Company was represented by the diver Mr Richard Baker, who appeared in person via MS Teams.
The Enforcement Authority did not attend and was not represented, either in vision, by telephone, or in person.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is parked in a restricted area of an off-street car park.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was parked in Market Place car park, or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The images show that the vehicle may be parked beyond the marking of a bay, although not shown to have a connection one. However, whilst parking beyond the bay markings is one of the conditions of use for this car park, contravention of which may lead to the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice, parking in a restricted area of the car park is not.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the contravention stated on the face of the Penalty Charge Notice did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
-
OK, so 26th June it is.
That will give me a lot of time to react before my vacation - if they reject again.
As I have another PCN to challenge (dated 17.04.2025) HERE (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lb-havering-code-31j-entering-and-stopping-in-a-box-junction/), I will not wait till next week to do it, but I will make the representation as soon as possible.
Thanks for confirming the timelines!
-
The legislation - current is the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 - specifies 56 days from the date on which the authority receives representations. Nothing to do with working days - that's just their mistake and probably down to a general policy for responding to all types of reps.
-
Yes, I did it on 2nd of May.
So the message was wrong and it should be 56 calendar days, actually?
I am a bit lost here...
...........
So if the 2nd May is day one then the 26th June is day 56. The response of accepted or refused needs to be issued and posted such that it is delivered to you not later than the 26th June. Else the EA is deemed to have accepted your representation.
In the above example the 24th June is the last day they could issue and post such a letter as 1st class post in the regulations is deemed to have arrived on the 2nd working day after posting.
-
Yes, I did it on 2nd of May.
So the message was wrong and it should be 56 calendar days, actually?
I am a bit lost here...
-
For a TMA 2004 PCN it should be 56 calendar days.
When did you actually submit your representation? 2nd May?
Yes, 56 days for responding to reps against a Notice to Owner
-
For a TMA 2004 PCN it should be 56 calendar days beginning with the day the formal representation against the Notice to Owner was received by the Enforcement Authority.
When did you actually submit your representation? 2nd May?
So if the 2nd May is day one then the 26th June is day 56. The response of accepted or refused needs to be issued and posted such that it is delivered to you not later than the 26th June. Else the EA is deemed to have accepted your representation.
In the above example the 24th June is the last day they could issue and post such a letter as 1st class post in the regulations is deemed to have arrived on the 2nd working day after posting.
-
Guys, I had some second thoughts and I got confused again.
The message I got after making the representation clearly says they will respond within 56 WORKING days, not calendar days.
This excludes weekends and bank holidays, right?
If so, their deadline is (after recalculation) 23.07.2025...
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n2bx0mphhgnd33mxmai9s/Representation-code-62.jpg?rlkey=gnk1765vok805pnprw90e1eue&st=3i8m2coy&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/n2bx0mphhgnd33mxmai9s/Representation-code-62.jpg?rlkey=gnk1765vok805pnprw90e1eue&st=3i8m2coy&dl=0)
-
My bad!
It's June, not July - I have no idea how I had calculated that before... :-[
-
Submitted.[2 May]
56 working days will fall on 25.07.2025.
Really?
If submitted online then day 1 is 2 May. Day 56 is therefore 26 June.
-
Advice for you and all readers. Do not go on holiday for a month leaving your post untouched. No good can come fromk missing a deadline.
-
Thanks!
Submitted.
56 working days will fall on 25.07.2025.
I'll be on my holiday by the time, and I will be back on 14-15th of August - which will still give me ca. 10 days to react if they reject.
Fingers crossed they won't! :)
-
A is fine
-
Guys,
I am making the representation.
What should I mark as the Representation Reason?
A - The alleged Contravention did not occur (as I claim it did not)
F - There has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority (as they issued the PCN for an on-street contravention on an off-street parking)
G - The traffic order contravened is invalid (on-street vs. off-street, as above?)
I suppose it's A, but I'd like to be 100% sure here.
-
You are trying to jump your fences early and have no idea what form the fence will take or even if there is going to be one there at all.
I was just wondering (out of sheer curiosity), but I will surely follow the instructions exactly.
I will do it on Friday 04.05 to stretch the timelines as much as I can.
Cheers!
-
You are trying to jump your fences early and have no idea what form the fence will take or even if there is going to be one there at all.
-
I agree with Stamfordman that his draft is fine. I have done a PCN or two at this location.
The alleged on-street contravention of footway parking cannot have occurred as my car was parked in Market Place, one of your off-street car parks.
As the PCN was issued in error I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
Do not add anything else.
The representations must be in the same name as on the Notice to Owner.
I am available to be your free tribunal representative if you get rejected.
Thanks, mate!
I will do so, but won't they just answer the same way they did rejecting my informal appeal?[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Reps should be submitted no later than 6 May.
(Issued 7 Apr; Deemed served 9 Apr, which is day 1; Day 28 will be 6 May).
-
I agree with Stamfordman that his draft is fine. I have done a PCN or two at this location.
The alleged on-street contravention of footway parking cannot have occurred as my car was parked in Market Place, one of your off-street car parks.
As the PCN was issued in error I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
Do not add anything else.
The representations must be in the same name as on the Notice to Owner.
I am available to be your free tribunal representative if you get rejected.
-
Guys, I have received the NtO.
Is is dated 07/04/2025, but we were out for holidays and we came back just yesterday - it must have come just after we left.
28 days after the date of issue will be on 05/05/2025.
Here it is: LINK
[attachmini=1]
What do I do know?
Should I (officially - my wife as the Owner) make representations to the Havering Council now, as stated in the NtO, or go directly to the London Tribunals?
How does it work? You know I am a virging at this ;)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Use the intervening time wisely.
Get hold of a copy of the order under which Market Place is treated as a car park.
Worst case, your offside front wheel was partially on a road other than a carriageway. In which case, IMO de minimis should be your focus.
If where this wheel was is part of the car park then as a car park cannot be a highway or road then the contravention did not occur.
And as for 'by making an informal challenge you have waived your right to pay the discounted charge', nail their ******* feet to the floor. Paying the discount is a statutory right within the 14-day discount period. Therefore the only legitimate reason for you not being entitled to the discount is that the authority failed to respond within the 14-day period.
-
OK, I'll get back here when the NTO comes.
Cheers!
-
They've ignored the challenge, which is a failure to consider, and fobbed you off with a template that is sent to anyone with footway parking.
As Havering don't offer the discount on rejection, just wait for the NTO but check the V5C logbook address is correct.
-
Hi John,
As I was advised above, I went with the wrong contravention approach:
I appealed online (as the driver) and the wording was something like:
I have received a PCN for an alleged contravention of parking “with one or more wheels on a footpath”, code 62 (an on-street contravention).
The alleged on-street contravention of footway parking cannot have occurred as my car was parked in Market Place, one of your off-street car parks: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4681461.
I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
-
Hello guys!
. . .
What do I do now?
Should I wait for the NTO (I am not the owner, my wife is, and we have different surnames) or should I go directly to the London Tribunals (on my own behalf)?
Only the owner (or the owner's nom,inated representative) can go to tribunal after their reps against the NtO have been rejected by the Council.
Please show us a copy of what was written to the Council, so we can see how well it was considered by the Council.
-
Hello guys!
Back to the topic - yesterday I received their response to my appeal. They have rejected it...
Here it is:
Page 1 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wdyoy2tdwrj47w6lzjmoy/inf_appeal_rej_page1.jpg?rlkey=dzy20bfhmebebhydpbkpj9ze2&st=pn77udfv&dl=0)
Page 2 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gdq83imdqx6b0bcjccdtz/inf_appeal_rej_page2.jpg?rlkey=0whdcktvbbwitj1klj9lngzhm&st=gf81nya3&dl=0)
What do I do now?
Should I wait for the NTO (I am not the owner, my wife is, and we have different surnames) or should I go directly to the London Tribunals (on my own behalf)?
-
OK guys, as I don't think anyone more will chip in, I'll go with the wrong contravention approach, leaving the triviality argument for later - if they refuse.
Cheers!
-
Sorry Tuesday. Just 5 mins before it became non-operational but you would have got 10 mins grace if paid up til 7pm.
Note that Havering does not reoffer the discount if it rejects but I really do think this is a wrong contravention.
-
Yup, exactly.
The irony here was that I got back to the car at 18:58 in order not to get a PCN for overstaying, but instead I got a PCN for parking on a wrong kind of cobblestone ::)
PS That was Tuesday, but doesn't matter in this case - the car park was operational at the time.
-
It's an unusual situation as it's a part-time off-street car park but at other times it appears to be a zone subject to a motorised vehicle ban and a 20mph speed limit, albeit only for permit holders whom I presume are traders.
At the time of your PCN - 18:55 on Monday - the car park was operational.
-
What you're doing is mutually exclusive - saying the contravention cannot have occurred but it did occur and was trivial.
In an off-street car park there is no such thing as footway parking. As you've deduced a correct contravention could be:
86 Not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space
Anyway no one else has chipped in apart from Mick who rightly says some car park areas can be on-street but I really don't think Market Place is one.
There is no rush so wait for other views.
Indeed, fair point!
Though I used the word "alleged" and put contravention in caption marks, maybe irony and sarcasm is not the right way here...
Apart from The Gazette, I have found another clue that this really is an off-street parking – RingGo website also classifies it as such too:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6vtza359m4mfmlwa79bun/RingGo.JPG?rlkey=niwbgae6rnuldgamp4n6am56y&st=6et1r2vo&dl=0
-
I recall now that Market Place is barred to motorised vehicles as a pedestrian and cycle zone on Weds, Fri, Sat and Sun 6am-7pm apart from permit holders.
As a car park it's only open for certain operational times on other days and not overnight on some days.
-
personally I would go with the wrong contravention code argument and see what they come back with, and leave out the de minimus argument for later.
-
What you're doing is mutually exclusive - saying the contravention cannot have occurred but it did occur and was trivial.
In an off-street car park there is no such thing as footway parking. As you've deduced a correct contravention could be:
86 Not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space
Anyway no one else has chipped in apart from Mick who rightly says some car park areas can be on-street but I really don't think Market Place is one.
There is no rush so wait for other views.
-
Guys, I decided to add the key phrases from @stamfordman (thanks!) into my rationale after all.
I added the link to The Gazette just in case they tried to dispute the "off-streetness" of the car park.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have received a PCN for an alleged contravention of parking “with one or more wheels on a footpath”, code 62 (an on-street contravention).
The alleged on-street contravention of footway parking cannot have occurred as my car was parked in Market Place, one of your off-street car parks: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4681461 .
I parked my car there at 18:20 on 14/01/2025 on western part of Market Place, adjacent to North Street.
Additionally, according to the Conditions of Use of the car park, a vehicle should not be parked “beyond the bay markings”. However, this area of the square has no clearly marked parking spaces that a vehicle should be parked at. Such bay markings are clearly visible on the other part of Market Place, where white and yellow lines leave no doubt about it, but the area near North Street has no such lines. There are just some decorative patterns of cobblestone and stone slabs, which are hardly visible after dark and in wet conditions. I have parked there for the first time ever and it didn’t even cross my mind that anything there might be considered as “bay markings”. I just parked my car near several other cars parking in a similar manner, not posing any danger or being an obstacle for pedestrians or other vehicles.
My alleged “contravention”, according to the CEO, is probably having one wheel parked on 10 cm of just another type of cobblestone, which can hardly be considered as a separate footpath at all (the actual footpath, where people do walk, is alongside the shops and North Street, very far away from any parked cars). No parking beyond any visible bay markings occurred as well.
Please find the attached pictures of the position of my car.
Given the:
- On-street contravention was used on an off-street parking
- No visible bay markings present in the area where and when I parked my car
- Triviality of the alleged “contravention”
I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
Best regards,
Does it look alright?
-
indeed.
they call it a "car park" is it not impossible for a "car park" to be on street?
-
This is a basic point that the contravention cannot be given where you parked so anything else is redundant
But I may be wrong so wait for others to look. There's no rush.
Here's a recent amendmnet to the order which clearly shows it's an off-street car park in my view.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4681461
-
Thanks!
Should I add these two sentences somewhere to that long scribble of mine or just send these two alone?
-
I would send this. But wait for others.
-----------
The alleged on-street contravention of footway parking cannot have occurred as my car was parked in Market Place, one of your off-street car parks.
As the PCN was issued in error I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
-
Guys, thanks for your support.
I have drafted my rationale for challenging the PCN, but as I am totally new to this (and English is not my first language), I would appreciate if you could add something and/or re-word it in any way necessary. Are there any legal key phrases that would be useful here?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have received a PCN for an alleged contravention of parking “with one or more wheels on a footpath”, code 62.
I parked my car on the Market Place Car Park at 18:20 on 14/01/2025 on western part of Market Place, adjacent to North Street.
According to the Conditions of Use of the car park, a vehicle should not be parked “beyond the bay markings”. However, this area of the square has no clearly marked parking spaces that a vehicle should be parked at. Such bay markings are clearly visible on the other part of the square, where white and yellow lines leave no doubt about it, but the area near North Street has no such lines. There are just some decorative patterns of cobblestone and stone slabs, which are hardly visible after dark and in wet conditions. I have parked there for the first time ever and it didn’t even cross my mind that these might be considered as any “bay markings”.I parked my car near several other cars parking in a similar manner, not posing any danger or being an obstacle for pedestrians or other vehicles.
My alleged contravention is probably having one wheel parked on 10 cm of just another type of cobblestone, which can hardly be considered as a separate footpath at all (the actual footpath, where people do walk is alongside the shops and North Street, very far away from any parked cars).
Please find the attached pictures of the position of my car.
Given the above triviality of the “contravention”, I would like to file for the cancellation of the PCN.
Best regards,
Besides the triviality, should I challenge code 62 as well?
I don't know the actual status of that car park - it is pretty ambiguous.
Certainly, there is no curb you could park right by, but on the other hand, you can't exactly say that it is "constructed away from the public roads or streets so that the parking does not affect the pedestrians and flow of traffic directly" - it is marked as a pedestrian and cycle zone in certain hours on certain days: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VQRawHVTnrzN2nrH6
-
So this looks like an off-street car park to me and they've given you an on-street contravention.
(https://i.imgur.com/1rXlttE.png)
-
As we all know, Havering is a venal and rapacious council, but this PCN really does take the biscuit ! It would be well worth getting this into the local press to shame them.
Whilst they say they are not re-offering the discount if you submit representations, the discount period remains valid, so if you submit reps and have not had a reply before it expires you are entitled to pay the discounted amount. A case on this very subject was won at Nottingham when am appellant tried to pay the discount within the allowed period, having already appealed. The adjudicator was quite clear that the discount period was a lawful period for paying a reduced sum regardless of whether representations had previously been submitted. As I recall (it was some years ago !), the adjudicator also commented that it was a procedural impropriety to say that submitting reps forfeited the discount.
So submit reps on the basis of triviality of contravention. If they respond within the discount period, you are entitled to the discount. If they refuse it, take them to London Tribunals where you will win, and in all likelihood would be able to claim costs. If they have not responded, pay the discount before the period expires. Again, if they refuse it, they are behaving unlawfully.
Here are the relevant regulations: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2/made
-
I suppose it is an off-street parking...
I found a StreetView pic of the conditions of use: https://maps.app.goo.gl/imR62ESdVEqxUSVVA
It states that a PCN may be issued when "parked beyond the bay markings".
Bay markings - white/yellow lines - are clearly visible on the other side of the square, but the part where I parked has none - just these cobblestone patterns, which are hardly visible in dark and wet conditions... Can they even be recognized as bay markings?
-
Isn't Market Place an off-street car park? In which case a code 62 is a nonsense.
As for the alleged contravention it looks a trivial wheel a bit on the flat tarmac.
-
Hi All,
I wonder if I can appeal/challenge a PCN for Havering.
I have to pay by the 27th of Junuary in order to be within the reduced charge period.
Today I parked my car at Marketplace in Romford, as on these pics:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cunhe20ax8dtmk88hd38i/20250114_190105.jpg?rlkey=r13esig8f29t5zyu59g9es66t&st=q0smlon7&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8774797s2gdj89x01mhqa/20250114_190322.jpg?rlkey=if1xe43taq2jsyj281hdycwa2&st=rk6rkepi&dl=0
At the time I parked my car, other cars were parked behind mine in a similar manner, but most of them were already gone when I was taking the pics.
As you can see, there are no clear lines that would mark a clear distinction between the parking space and the "footpath" there, especially when it's dark and wet like today (my phone camera brightens it a lot).
A whole empty square and I get a notice for parking one wheel 10 cm over a different kind of cobblestone?
The exact location is: https://maps.app.goo.gl/R9iv2JBwcF9Jai2r5
My car was parked exactly where that blue VW is visible on the StreetView pic.
The scan of the PCN is here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/q33qia9zk9i7r1xgcvvce/PCN.jpg?rlkey=wbddxa884p5v9c2l38dg2yfex&st=vkkej2ie&dl=0
Do you think it is reasonable to appeal, considering Havering's policy of loosing the 14-day discount when you challenge the PCN?
@cp8759