Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: runninghorse on February 14, 2025, 09:12:32 pm
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uix2aiVweP9NdUs76ITdrJsSJ0YbVZSA/view).
-
Thank you both very much for your sharing your knowledge on the process, I would never been able to see this myself.
-
This thread raises interesting issues of propriety because the driver made reps so promptly and the authority responded similarly.
OP, at no point in these proceedings could you, as driver,ever be liable.
Whether you are the registered keeper is legally irrelevant prior to an NTO being issued.
A PCN of this type is NOT a demand for payment, it's information contained in a notice. This info notifies the driver that the OWNER is liable but that if the penalty is paid - by anyone, not just you - then the matter would be closed, otherwise the authority would demand payment of the regular penalty from the OWNER. Very similar to, but the upside down version of, private parking cases where a Notice to Keeper is sent to the keeper to tell them that the driver is liable!
Anyway, the website is totally misleading when it refers to penalties owed by the keeper who cannot be assumed at this stage i.e. prior to a NTO, to know anything about matters. It's total c**p.
It is totally at variance with propriety for the council to pass info to the person who is NOT liable threatening them with higher penalties than permitted which would in any case be owed by the OWNER. Until a NTO is served then the OWNER could not access the site for want of the magic formula: the PCN number.
The authority really need to get someone in to take a look at their procedures and the assumptions which they make regarding the status of who might be viewing.
How could the actions or inaction of the recipient of a PCN give rise to any action or threat of action by the authority against the liable party who prior to a NTO being issued could have no knowledge and has even less liability?
It's procedural nonsense IMO.
-
@runninghorse I replied to your PM asking you to email me, but I've not seen an email from you?
-
That sounds like something we can use as mitigating evidence, as per the strategy of last resort (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/ealing-cumberland-road-w7-code-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehic/msg56444/#msg56444). If we can get a failure to consider on top of the previously make unlawful threat of increasing the penalty to £195 before the permitted time, you'll have a pretty solid appeal to pursue at the tribunal.
It might be easier if I submit the representations on your behalf, if you'd like me to do that please send me a PM (https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=pm) and we can arrange this.
-
Yes, the appointment was confirmed by whatsapp
-
Do you have any evidence of your viewing appointment? Not that that will win you the case, but if we can use it to get a failure to consider that could be enough on its own.
-
I would like to provide an update, as I just received the Notice to Owner in today's mail. Could someone advise what angle we could try in order to make a case?
My apologies for the rather large pictures...I didn't manage to shrink the format!
(https://www.ftla.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bimg%5Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fi.ibb.co%2FmCnBG6MB%2F2.jpg&hash=c7c4513d30dce597253d5a89b6b62bffc7f0beb9) (https://i.ibb.co/99Nyjv8C/1.jpg) (https://i.ibb.co/G4gySV76/3.jpg) (https://i.ibb.co/PZJ5kkC6/4.jpg) (https://i.ibb.co/tMwt9bkB/5.jpg)[/img]
-
Thanks a lot. I will check again in a week from now. Will I not risk that the fine goes up to £130 and even higher if I don’t pay before the date mentioned?
The penalty must go up to £130 in order for you to be able to make formal representations, that was always going to be the case.
It can't go higher than that without you first having the opportunity to make representations, and representations put the penalty on hold. Even if the Notice to Owner is lost in the post you'll still be able to make representations online, so as long as you check the website once a week or so there isn't any real risk in pursuing this.
-
Thanks a lot. I will check again in a week from now. Will I not risk that the fine goes up to £130 and even higher if I don’t pay before the date mentioned?
-
I think this amounts to an unlawful threat:
(https://i.imgur.com/IF2rvtI.png)
The website is basically saying "pay now or else" and "You cannot challenge twice", while the truth of the matter is that if you don't challenge the notice to owner then you would end up with a charge certificate.
I believe once the NTO goes out the amount will change to £130 and the challenge button should re-appear, check the council website again at the end of next week.
Unfortunately the law gives them six months to serve an NTO, so it's a bit of a waiting game.
-
thank you very much...I have tried but don't see such a section on the Westminster parking page. I can see in the reponse to my challenge that I should received the notice to owner within 14 days of this letter (14 February), which takes me to 28 February. The Westminster page still says "The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Sat, 19 Apr 2025. Please pay £65.00 now."
Option 2 - Make a Formal Representation
If you do not pay within 14 days from the date of this letter, the full charge of £130 will fall due. If you have not paid before
the end of this 14 day period or the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, whichever is the later,
then we will issue a Notice to Owner (NtO) to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The NtO will allow the registered keeper
to make full payment or a formal Representation, appealing against the issue of the PCN; the procedure for doing so will be
explained on the NtO. Any new evidence can be presented with the formal Representation.
-
I still have not receive the notice to owner yet...should I just wait for this document to arrive?
Have you tried checking online to see if Westminster have a status/history page for your PCN (often lurking under Pay/Challenge my PCN or somesuch)?
-
I still have not receive the notice to owner yet...should I just wait for this document to arrive?
-
The Notice to Owner will go to the address of the registered keeper as held by DVLA.
-
Thank you very much @cp8759 for your response on Wednesday this week. The notice to owner should be delivered by post at my home address right?
I definitely have evidence of the viewing appointment, but only via the exchange of whatsapp messages.
-
@runninghorse not necessarily, it just means you'll have to wait for the notice to owner. In the meantime do you have any evidence to confirm your viewing appointment?
-
The Westminster website says now “The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Sat, 19 Apr 2025. Please pay £65.00 now.” Does this mean that the approach we had envisaged doesn’t work?
-
However, the City of Westminster website says:
"The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Mon, 3 Mar 2025. Please pay £65.00 now."
May this be a ground to challenge the case?
Well, what would make the case open and shut is if the penalty actually increases to £130 on the website before 10 March, so it's worth checking the amount due on the council website this time next week. If it's gone up to £130 then you have an easy appeal on the ground that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case:
(https://i.imgur.com/ExQOaPf.png)
The assertion that you cannot challenge the penalty twice is also incorrect, but more on that later.
-
hi all,
I just got a response from Westminster with a rejection notice. The letter says that I have a further 14 days from the 28/02/2024 to pay the fine of £65
https://ibb.co/5h3vSyyp (https://ibb.co/5h3vSyyp)
However, the City of Westminster website says:
"The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Mon, 3 Mar 2025. Please pay £65.00 now."
May this be a ground to challenge the case?
-
Thank you very much. That's done and I took a screenshot. I will provide an update once I hear back from the council.
-
Personally I would select an unrelated ground, because the tick-box you pick does not appear in the tribunal evidence pack but it does sometimes determine which letter template the system generates for the rejection. If for instance you pick the tickbox to say the car was stolen or that you're a hire company, but you when write in the text box that the contravention did not occur, the adjudicator will see a representation saying that the contravention did not occur but a rejection letter that says there's no evidence the car was stolen or that you're a hire company, and that will look like a complete failure to consider.
-
If I use the reason 'the alleged contravention did not occur' at the Westminster appeals website, I'm asked to select further details by picking one of the below reasons:
At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, I was loading and unloading
The restriction that I am supposed to have ignored was not signed
At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, the restriction did not apply
At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, I was elsewhere
I was instructed by a police officer to do this
Pleese can anyone advice which one to pick?
-
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Mon, 3 Mar 2025. Please pay £65.00 now.
That date is clearly wrong. I make it 27th February.
That's not the point, at the moment the website is in the recipient's favour and the authority is entitled to use its discretion to allow a longer time period for payment of the discount.
The key issue rather is that once an informal rejection is issued, the website will likely indicate that the penalty will go up to £195 after 28 days from the date of service of the informal rejection, which would obviously be before 28 days from the date of service of the Notice to Owner. It's that threat to increase the penalty before the council is entitled to demand £195 that is unlawful.
-
@runninghorse
@cp8759
Just looked:
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Mon, 3 Mar 2025. Please pay £65.00 now.
That date is clearly wrong. I make it 27th February. Although we are now losing cases on the served/occurred argument, in this context it might fly?
Serendipity: 2240362722. There is also the multiple choice issue; but I tried that some months ago too.
-
Shall I just state “the alleged contravention did not occur”?
Yes, don't forget to take a times / dated screenshot of the confirmation page.
-
Thanks a lot cp…unfortunately we didn’t discuss that. Shall I just state “the alleged contravention did not occur”?
-
And was the issue of parking or parking permits not discussed?
Anyway my suggestion is to make a one-line representation saying that the alleged contravention did not occur. This will hopefully allow you to go down the same route as this case (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/westminster-council-parked-in-restricted-street-during-prescribed-hours/).
-
In fact I was going for a quick viewing of a flat that may be up for rent
-
Were you visiting a local resident, or doing something else?
-
Thank you very much cp8759. I simply parked just a few minutes before 6pm thinking it should be fine at that time of the day for 15 to 20 minutes or so, which is as naive clearly.
-
@runninghorse observation times only exist to reduce the risk of PCNs being issued in error, they are not a defence. So for instance if a CEO issued a PCN with no observation time and you were walking back to the car with a visitor permit, the council would incur the cost in issuing the PCN and you would have the inconvenience of having to challenge it, but that's not the defence, the defence would be that you had gone to get a visitor permit and were returning with the permit without delay.
The same applied to loading and unloading, assisted boarding or alighting of passengers and so on.
However if the contravention did occur, the fact that the CEO didn't follow the observation time is irrelevant.
Looking at the council photos, the contravention does appear to be made out and the sign appears to be not far behind your car:
(https://i.imgur.com/rXGLVsm.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ryb514Z.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/V2ofxpN.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uz3H3hz.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/b46K3og.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/emnQTC3.jpeg)
GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/7Bispk4xs4BvuSwf6
The traffic order is The City of Westminster (Parking Places) (F Zone) (Consolidation No.1) Order 2011 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tXCBtT2QUoW_msw-4JXxBt3WJ2th2g67/view) and the relevant entry is item 147 on page 45, I can't see any obvious issues with the order but someone else might spot something.
In a case like this it would be best to get the background: why were you parked there, how long were you parked for, did you look for signs, and did you see any signs?
You obviously parked in a bay and while it is possible we might find a technical way out, it's much easier for us to help you if you can tell us whether there was an issue with the signage, whether you simply didn't look or whether you assumed that given the time of day it would be OK to park there.
-
I think there may be a ground to appeal as the observation time was clearly not respected, when looking at the Westminster website:
https://appeals.westminster.gov.uk/ (https://appeals.westminster.gov.uk/)
First seen at
Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:01
Issued at
Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:01
-
Why do you think there may be grounds to challenge it?
-
Dear FTLA team,
Please can you advise if there may be any ground for me to appeal a code 12r as I parked my car on a permit holders spot?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TqPhsWx1ozaWndg97 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/TqPhsWx1ozaWndg97)
@cp8759 much appreciated if you can help.
Many thanks!
(https://i.imgur.com/VWLrqOE.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FpTKftI.jpeg)