Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: T.kukadia on March 29, 2025, 08:33:57 pm
-
Email mrmustard@zoho.com with a complete copy of the notice to owner and i will do it for you
-
What should I write, anyone?
They seem to think that the penalty is contravention is still enforceable despite stating the wrong road.
-
HI folks
So today I got the notice to owner, not sure what to do, I guess I just appeal and see what happens
Any advice would be appreciated!
I would have thought they would have thrown this one out, but sadly, it doesnt look like it.
To summarise
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Pl post the full letter, including the 4 corners!
I want to see which moron signed the letter. It's as outrageous as it is legally inept. You might want to just play this through to its inevitable conclusion - you* win at adjudication and IMO make a successful claim for costs- or adopt a parallel channels approach.
*- are you the registered keeper.
-
Happy to be the free tribunal representative if we get that far.
-
Essentially they are upping the odds, forcing you to either pay the discount, or wait for the Notice to Owner, and accept the discount option is lost. Ultimately, if you wait for the NtO, you'll end up at London Tribunals if Redbridge prove to be obdurate. Their PCN says you contravened parking law at a location stated on the PCN, but the location is wrong. As this is a fundamental error, the PCN should be declared void at the adjudicators.
It would be interesting to see what location they put on the NtO.
The alternative is to cough-up now.
-
Folks, I have bad news, Redbridge rejected my representation, they say they note my comments about the wrong street, but that I still have to pay because the car was still parked on the footway. Dunno what to do.
It is as if they are saying, you are probably right, but you still committed a contravention.
I have attached an image of the scanned letter reply. Any input would be great.
Thanks so much
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Of course I agree wrong (or missing) location invalidates a PCN and there are numerous adjudicated examples, especially in moving traffic PCNs which may include traffic orders that specify a different location.
The London Tribunals register is constructed with location as a search field.
It is a fault with the legislation that it is not specified as mandatory and it is has to a large extent been adopted as mandatory in the enforcement and appeal system.
Yesterday there was a funny case (for two PCNs) where one of the more friendly adjudicators took the location at its exact wording.
Would be good though to see the reasoning for "if a precise location is identified, it must be the correct one".
-------
2240331128
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit holder only parking place in Stanhope Gardens outside No.111. The photographs from the CEO show that Mr Livingstone's car was not parked outside No.111 Stanhope Gardens. Mr Livingstone's car was, in fact, parked at the far end of a bay which he has confirmed is outside his own property, No.115 Stanhope Gardens. This is the white painted property in the images. There clearly was no contravention at the location cited on the PCN and I allow the appeal for that reason. The identification of the precise location of an alleged contravention can often be critical and, if a precise location is identified, it must be the correct one.
-
See para. 31 of one of the reference High Court decisions on PCN compliance:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Barnet%20Judicial%20Review%20Judgment%20-%202%20August%202006.pdf
IMO, Wrong location = invalid PCN and we should avoid conducting excessive exegesis in the matter.
-
I pointed it out because we need to be accurate in what we say.
Indeed - I just wanted to be sure the OP wasn't getting the wrong message about their (very, very high) chances of winning because the regulars were having a technical discussion.
On the subject o helping the OP... as Incandescent says, all you need to do is prove this particular PCN isn't valid. There's a pretty rigid legal process for PCNs, Councils have to be precise when issuing them, in the same way you have to be precise about responding in time. If both sides carry with the process (you not paying and them not accepting your argument), eventually the case goes to an independent adjudicator who will make a ruling, and they won't let councils get away with any sloppiness like getting the location wrong or reissuing a ticket because they messed up.
It doesn't really matter how you write the representation as long as you get the key point across, which is that their own photos prove you were not parked in Warehead Road at the time stated on the PCN. It's unlikely the council will reject this (I wouldn't be surprised if the warden gets a bit of a telling off actually, as their mistake cost the council a few quid!). If they do reject you'll just have to stick with the process until either they fold or an adjudicator tells them off on your behalf.
-
Thank you everyone. Justa couple of questions
If there is no mandatory requirement for location of the tickey, then can they say therefore that you still have wheels on the kerb anyhow, and you still need to pay?
Also, How should I write the representation?
They have said on the PCN that you committed a parking contravention on a named street, but their own photos and you knowing where you parked prove that the contravention cannot possibly have occurred on that street. So the PCN is invalid, and they cannot issue another one.
-
Thank you everyone. Justa couple of questions
If there is no mandatory requirement for location of the tickey, then can they say therefore that you still have wheels on the kerb anyhow, and you still need to pay?
Also, How should I write the representation?
-
We may be splitting hairs a bit here. The OP will win because the allegation is that a specific vehicle was at a specific location at a specific time, and the OP can prove it was not. I can't see that it matters if the location, VRM or time are legally required to be part of the allegation or not, they are present and and the OP can therefore win by disproving them.
I pointed it out because we need to be accurate in what we say.
-
We may be splitting hairs a bit here. The OP will win because the allegation is that a specific vehicle was at a specific location at a specific time, and the OP can prove it was not. I can't see that it matters if the location, VRM or time are legally required to be part of the allegation or not, they are present and and the OP can therefore win by disproving them.
-
As you will be aware, a PCN served by your parking officers is legally obliged to state the location of the contravention.
Actually unless the regulation has changed, location is not mandatory on a reg 9 PCN. In practice it is intrinsic to enforcement to convey to a registered keeper the full grounds on which a contravention is alleged.
As the OP hasn't given the VRM we can't check this - the two roads adjoin so this may be a close call.
As you say, it has to be part of the grounds on which a contravention is alleged. So if location was not given at all, is the allegation complete ? I think not.
-
The OP's posted their photos and VRM. The location is as stated i.e. o/s 56 Gant's Hill Crescent.
Ah yes - not near the other road.
The yellow lines there have inadequate signage - I think it also may be in a CPZ which as I recall is large and has no permit bays and so is not on Redbridge's CPZ map.
-
The OP's posted their photos and VRM. The location is as stated i.e. o/s 56 Gant's Hill Crescent.
-
As you will be aware, a PCN served by your parking officers is legally obliged to state the location of the contravention.
Actually unless the regulation has changed, location is not mandatory on a reg 9 PCN. In practice it is intrinsic to enforcement to convey to a registered keeper the full grounds on which a contravention is alleged.
As the OP hasn't given the VRM we can't check this - the two roads adjoin so this may be a close call.
-
IMO, suitably modify Incandescent's draft(substitute 56 Gant's Hill Crescent for Crescent and, I would suggest, refer them to their photos) then you're good to go.
-
You are very lucky!
Councils only have one go at getting PCNs right, so on the rare occasion that they mess up, they lose and you get away with whatever you were doing wrong - in this case parking on the pavement in London, which has been banned for years.
Your defence is that you can prove you were not in Waremead Road as alleged, because the CE's pictures show you were parked outside 56 Crescent Road at the time.
They can't have a second go at getting the PCN right, you'll get away with no penalty. You might have to go through a few more stages of the appeal, but if you follow the process promptly you've been handed a win.
Here's the GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5806709,0.0704103,3a,75y,44.18h,88.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDiNrG9tdus2qoVpIaZyKjQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.9611132608908406%26panoid%3DDiNrG9tdus2qoVpIaZyKjQ%26yaw%3D44.18381414998487!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMyNS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) for other readers.
-
Here you go. The image taken by the CEO states waremead road but it isn't. I was parked on Gants hill crescent.
Link
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QJpE1GGhvAMMn4ja7
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If you don't want us to run the rule over exactly where you were parked then go with the suggested reps.
Otherwise, the VRM and a GSV link pl.
-
Thanks, I see what you mean about the footway parking, but will they still fine me if they have the wrong address?
-
Can we hold fire until the OP's claim can be verified..just in case!
OP, we cannot access the authority's photos without your VRM. Alternatively, pl post a GSV link to exactly where you were parked.
Unless local circumstances (see 15(4) in the link) permit a degree of footway parking then don't do it, it's been prohibited since 1974 and any defence based in assisted boarding won't succeed(see 15(5)).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/section/15
-
Wrong location is fatal to the PCN.
You should submit representations on the following lines: -
Dear Sirs
Re PCN <number> served on <date> at Crescent Road
Today I received the above PCN which alleges I committed a parking violation in Warehead Road. However, at the time on the PCN, I was parked on Crescent Road. As you will be aware, a PCN served by your parking officers is legally obliged to state the location of the contravention. As the location is incorrect, I request that the PCN be cancelled forthwith.
Yours faithfully
-
Hi Folks
Need some advise from your goodselves
So i was picking my chid up from school, i was gone less then 1 minute walking to the gate. When i returned to the car i goy a PCN on the windscreen.
So the traffic warden put on there "parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway". The thing is on the ticket he has put the wrong road name. The road that I was on was crescent road and he has put that I was on Waremead Road. Is there any way I can appeal this?
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]