Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Bergy10 on February 10, 2025, 09:06:39 pm
-
@Bergy10 the discount is off the table so the only sensible option is to appeal to London Tribunals, I'll drop you a PM in case you'd like me to represent you.
-
@cp8759
Hope all is well mate. Just an update. I have been looking out for a letter and have not seen anything even though it's been since February when we sent in reps.
I have gone onto the website and it still, just like it has when we were sending the reps, shows as £130.
However when I look further I notice under key events it says the following:
PCN events
Date
Description
22/05/2025 16:42 Representation submitted Under review
22/05/2025 16:42 Discount Period Reset
22/05/2025 16:42 Rejected Representation - Discount Period Reset
06/02/2025 06:00 PCN Issued
So it seems they reset the discount period but did not inform us as we have not received any letter.
One thing to note it that the car was motability and has since been returned back at the end of March. So not sure if that has any impact.
Not sure what to do now as we have nor received a letter, do not know if it is with motability or the car manufacturer. What do you advise as a next step? Thanks.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
From post Reply#16
Thank you for the response @cp8759. Well the answer is both yes and no. The vehicle is a motability vehicle and the registered keeper is my disabled sibling (who is unable to make decisions). The notice came in their name, and I am responsible for driving them to where they need to go. My sibling will not be able to give a consent but our mother who is the guardian, can.
But also
We also have the hire agreement which states that the hirer is our mother with the disabled person being my sibling.
Yes, it is contradictory, we are even confused why it's happening that way as we received another PCN back in 2019 in similar fashion. The contract is exactly how I explained however they always send NTOs to my sibling so I assume they are the owner in the eyes of the council.
-
@Bergy10 it is important to avoid conflating the terms "appeal" and "representation", they are not the same. At this stage there is no appeal, the only option is to make a representation to the council. If that representation is rejected, the next step would be an appeal to London Tribunals.
At the tribunal stage I'm far less concerned because an adjudicator would in all likelihood be willing to make a finding of fact that your sibling does not have mental capacity and that would enable your mother to act as their litigation friend.
However the council officers will be rather more robotic in following a tick-box exercise which basically just says that unless there's a signed authorisation from the person named on the PCN, then the representations are invalid and that's the end of that. For the purpose of making representations to the council I would just word the representation as coming from your sibling.
However I'm now confused by the hire agreement, if your mother is the hirer why wouldn't the PCN be issued to her? Is this a motability vehicle?
I agree, I have conflated things but yes, I did mean representations rather than appeal at this stage.
I also agree and think making the representations as coming from my sibling without mentioning anything else would be best, if that is allowable. If it is, then I think that is what I will do if you think it will be more straightforward.
With regard to the hire agreement, it is a motability vehicle. The contract itself says the hirer is our mother, with the disabled person being my sibling. However every NTL we have ever received has always been in my siblings name in the past despite this. Maybe motability vehicles are addressed in that way by council PCNs.
-
From post Reply#16
Thank you for the response @cp8759. Well the answer is both yes and no. The vehicle is a motability vehicle and the registered keeper is my disabled sibling (who is unable to make decisions). The notice came in their name, and I am responsible for driving them to where they need to go. My sibling will not be able to give a consent but our mother who is the guardian, can.
But also
We also have the hire agreement which states that the hirer is our mother with the disabled person being my sibling.
-
@Bergy10 it is important to avoid conflating the terms "appeal" and "representation", they are not the same. At this stage there is no appeal, the only option is to make a representation to the council. If that representation is rejected, the next step would be an appeal to London Tribunals.
At the tribunal stage I'm far less concerned because an adjudicator would in all likelihood be willing to make a finding of fact that your sibling does not have mental capacity and that would enable your mother to act as their litigation friend.
However the council officers will be rather more robotic in following a tick-box exercise which basically just says that unless there's a signed authorisation from the person named on the PCN, then the representations are invalid and that's the end of that. For the purpose of making representations to the council I would just word the representation as coming from your sibling.
However I'm now confused by the hire agreement, if your mother is the hirer why wouldn't the PCN be issued to her? Is this a motability vehicle?
-
What if we response with representations using the "I am the registered keeper" option with the representation text stating I (my sibling) am not the driver, and to address the driver who is so and so.
Then your sibling will get a Notice of Rejection saying that they are legally responsible for the penalty charge regardless of who was driving, and liability cannot be transferred to the driver. The starting point is that your sibling is legally responsible for the PCN and as far as the law is concerned, that is also the end of the matter.
Unfortunately this is a legal process and without an order from the Court of Protection, you will really struggle to get the council to accept that anyone can act on behalf of your sibling. What sort of medical evidence do you have, could you get a letter from the GP confirming that your sibling lacks mental capacity?
@cp8759, thank you for thw response. I have a letter from the GP from some years ago stating my siblings condition and the fact that our mother is communicating with the GP on their behalf as they can not communicate themselves due to the condition.
We also have the hire agreement which states that the hirer is our mother with the disabled person being my sibling.
Can we use those? If not we have no problem proceeding as if the appeal is coming from my sibling directly. The only stumbling block will be if they will need to physically or virtually be in attendance at any appeals or hearings or if they will need to speak during the process as they do not have the capacity to answer questions.
-
What if we response with representations using the "I am the registered keeper" option with the representation text stating I (my sibling) am not the driver, and to address the driver who is so and so.
Then your sibling will get a Notice of Rejection saying that they are legally responsible for the penalty charge regardless of who was driving, and liability cannot be transferred to the driver. The starting point is that your sibling is legally responsible for the PCN and as far as the law is concerned, that is also the end of the matter.
Unfortunately this is a legal process and without an order from the Court of Protection, you will really struggle to get the council to accept that anyone can act on behalf of your sibling. What sort of medical evidence do you have, could you get a letter from the GP confirming that your sibling lacks mental capacity?
-
Should I not click the option that says I am "not the registered keeper but was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention"?
If you do that two things will likely happen:
1) You will get a letter saying you're an unauthorised third party with no right to make representations, and
2) You sibling will be sent a letter saying representations have been received by an unauthorised third party and the council cannot consider them without their consent.
You say your mother is your sibling's guardian, has this been formalised, for example with an order from the Court of Protection? Or is there any other official document to show that your sibling does not have mental capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005?
Ok I understand, thanks for that information @cp8759. Would have made things very difficult had I done that, indeed.
However there is nothing official from a solicitor or a court to state our mother is the official guardian, but our mother makes the appointments, speaks with the doctors and medical equipment providers etc. I think brcause the condition is cerebral palsy, the hospitals, GP and our local council (Barnet) understand this and accept all communications from our mother regarding my siblings care and wellbeing.
What if we response with representations using the "I am the registered keeper" option with the representation text stating I (my sibling) am not the driver, and to address the driver who is so and so.
Otherwise if it is simpler, I can choose not to mention any of this and just respond as if I am my sibling like in your suggestion 2 in your earlier post.
-
Should I not click the option that says I am "not the registered keeper but was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention"?
If you do that two things will likely happen:
1) You will get a letter saying you're an unauthorised third party with no right to make representations, and
2) You sibling will be sent a letter saying representations have been received by an unauthorised third party and the council cannot consider them without their consent.
You say your mother is your sibling's guardian, has this been formalised, for example with an order from the Court of Protection? Or is there any other official document to show that your sibling does not have mental capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005?
-
Btw @cp8759 does it matter that the notice was sent to the person who the cat is registered to (who is not the driver) rather than myself?
Well yes it does matter, that's why the PCN has this bold text:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZowcMvF.png)
So what you're saying is that the recipient of the notice ignored that and passed it to you because you were the driver?
In that case you have two options:
1) Make representations in your own name but on their behalf, supported by a written letter authorising you to act on their behalf, or
2) Make representations (with their agreement) in their name, if you do this via the council website they could never know the difference and as long as this is done with the registered keeper's knowledge and consent I don't see any issue with it.
If this goes to the tribunal however, the registered keeper will need to provide a signed letter of authority.
Your draft is fine but personally I'd remove "I do not believe that", otherwise you're almost inviting them to respond that your belief is irrelevant / incorrect.
Thank you for the response @cp8759. Well the answer is both yes and no. The vehicle is a motability vehicle and the registered keeper is my disabled sibling (who is unable to make decisions). The notice came in their name, and I am responsible for driving them to where they need to go. My sibling will not be able to give a consent but our mother who is the guardian, can.
By the way on the representations page it gives the following options (attached as an image).
Should I not click the option that says I am "not the registered keeper but was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention"?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Btw @cp8759 does it matter that the notice was sent to the person who the cat is registered to (who is not the driver) rather than myself?
Well yes it does matter, that's why the PCN has this bold text:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZowcMvF.png)
So what you're saying is that the recipient of the notice ignored that and passed it to you because you were the driver?
In that case you have two options:
1) Make representations in your own name but on their behalf, supported by a written letter authorising you to act on their behalf, or
2) Make representations (with their agreement) in their name, if you do this via the council website they could never know the difference and as long as this is done with the registered keeper's knowledge and consent I don't see any issue with it.
If this goes to the tribunal however, the registered keeper will need to provide a signed letter of authority.
Your draft is fine but personally I'd remove "I do not believe that", otherwise you're almost inviting them to respond that your belief is irrelevant / incorrect.
-
That's a completely different sign to the one we dealt with previously, but it is undoubtedly obscured by the pole. For now I would just make a one line representation saying that the alleged contravention did not occur.
So something along the lines of
Dear Brent Council,
I am making representations to this PCN as I do not believe that the alleged contravention occurred.
Kind regards
Bergy10
Btw @cp8759 does it matter that the notice was sent to the person who the cat is registered to (who is not the driver) rather than myself?
-
That's a completely different sign to the one we dealt with previously, but it is undoubtedly obscured by the pole. For now I would just make a one line representation saying that the alleged contravention did not occur.
-
@cp8759 it is still there. Just took these this morning. I never even noticed that sign being there. It's placed weirdly behind that pole.
(https://i.imgur.com/w9gEqH7.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/KgK7xjR.jpeg)
-
@Bergy10 I recommend you go back and check, and get us a photo.
-
@cp8759,
It may be. I didn't notice it last time but maybe I just didn't look as it came halfway down the road. I usually expwct theee signs on bot sides of the road at the entry of where they are referring to (which to be fair they are further down, only facing the other direction).
-
@Bergy10 is this sign still there? https://maps.app.goo.gl/FZodkYyVGP6VLHcU7
-
Thanks @cp8759,
I think I understand. So what would be the grounds for making the initial representations? The fact the signs are not visible when coming down the road I came from as they are pointed at a 90 degree angle to the road I was on? Anything else you think I should mention?
Thanks
-
In short the argument is that the ground of appeal should be listed on the website as well as on the PCN, otherwise when you make representations online you're not properly on notice as to what the statutory ground are. However as hinted above, this is definitely an argument you want to keep in reserve for the tribunal stage.
For now I recommend you post a draft representation so that we can check it for you before you submit it.
-
@cp8759, thank you for the response.
I have gone through both of those cases as well as the one linked in my first post that was in the same location and was supported by this forum.
I note the following but do not understand what it is trying to say:
"I find that the argument advanced in relation to the lack of consistency
between the grounds of appeal on the Authority's PCN and those on the
website, is well founded"
I believe it is referring to the following but even then I am not sure what the argument is:
"When entering the Authority's website a motorist is faced with a general
representation invitation, and then as you progress it provides a box for the
representation, I find, as the vast majority of other Adjudicator have decided,
that this is not sufficient, fair or acceptable."
Is it possible to view the evidence and arguments that were submitted on the website if I try searching for it? That would help me understand what it is the judge was agreeing with.
Thanks again for your help by the way.
-
@Bergy10 have a look at these cases:
Muhammadmaisam Datoo v London Borough of Brent (2240196951, 29 July 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X8WGsVS-DSfY_ndf6VsbOTKUYO880bQG/view)
Timur Tagirov v London Borough of Brent (224040544A, 25 November 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OR0w4cuAvqycftgpJFcYAokK_iPRAJdU/view)
You want to keep this argument in reserve for the tribunal stage, where the following screenshots might come in handy:
(https://i.imgur.com/gEtUozy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/2lc1pcG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/hJHIxaC.png)
-
Does anyone else have any ideas or views on this? @cp8759 maybe?
-
Hi Hippocrates, hope all is well.
I had unredacted the PCN and Reg soon after your post requesting it the other day and just wanted to check in to see if you had seen it.
-
1. Previous case.
https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1mReKzYmILiGkaUI6d6_Rj3AqRY8zBWkm&export=inline
2. Video: if this is their primary evidence, Specsavers time?:
https://i.imgur.com/OIPYVCK.mp4
3. Wording issue with the PCN re date of service: why is this included after date of PCN?
4. AFAIR, their website is none too famous re grounds? BUT, we need the PCN and VRM details to check please.
Hey Hippocrates, thanks for the response. I have updated my post with the unredacted PCN.
I left it redacted at first because I attached all the images but maybe wasn't required.
-
1. Previous case.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mReKzYmILiGkaUI6d6_Rj3AqRY8zBWkm/view
2. Video: if this is their primary evidence, Specsavers time?:
https://i.imgur.com/OIPYVCK.mp4
3. Wording issue with the PCN re date of service: why is this included after date of PCN?
4. AFAIR, their website is none too famous re grounds? BUT, we need the PCN and VRM details to check please.
-
Hey all, great job on the new forum. Shame we have lost the content on the old site but great to see that the fight continues.
Back on topic, so I received a PCN recently, pretty much identical to the one on this post below.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/brent-cc53-st-michaels-jw-mora-road/msg233/#msg233
The images of the PCN are atta hed below:
(https://i.imgur.com/ALi83ys.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MqEDZr3.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Ll16HKi.jpeg)
The video from the camera is below:
https://i.imgur.com/OIPYVCK.mp4
The images of the camera are below:
(https://i.imgur.com/E2LoxAy.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RMxn2Wu.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/UXah9SR.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/CjC42R9.jpeg)
I read through the thread and it was cancelled at the tribunal. However can not see the arguments that were made or the actual reps that were submitted. Just the reasoning from the person who ruled in favour of cabcelling.
I have returned to the scene tonight to take some pictures because google maps' latest images are from 2022.
(https://i.imgur.com/O8cfFIA.jpeg)
When turning from St Michael's Road it is almost impossible to see that sign (to the right of the last image) as it is only directly visible for those coming from the road to the left in the image above.
Is this a straightfoward case with the precedent in the link I shared earlier or will it need to go to the tribunal?
Thanks for all your help everyone and continuing to provide your knowledge to the public.