Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: mitaab on May 02, 2025, 06:14:30 pm
-
The FTLA team!
You must be the most "love to hate" people by the local authorities as you continue to make holes in their revenue purse.
The Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal that it will not contest my appeal against the
Penalty Charge Notice, and I am no longer liable for it.
@Pastmybest & @Hippocrates, much obliged! You turned what initially appeared to be a lost cause into a winner.
-
Just picking up this thread. If you want me to represent you, I would rather file the appeal and would need an unredacted NOR please.
I PMed you. PLease check your inbox.
By the way, I was on the London Tribunal website. There is no option for the "procedural impropriety" ground. All the arguments mentioned in the post, would come under what ground?
Don,t try to teach granny how to suck eggs if hippo is doing this then let him
-
Just picking up this thread. If you want me to represent you, I would rather file the appeal and would need an unredacted NOR please.
I PMed you. PLease check your inbox.
By the way, I was on the London Tribunal website. There is no option for the "procedural impropriety" ground. All the arguments mentioned in the post, would come under what ground?
-
Just picking up this thread. If you want me to represent you, I would rather file the appeal and would need an unredacted NOR please.
-
Hi
I am about to submit my appeal. Please can I have a draft for the grounds of appeal.
Many thanks.
-
send a PM to hippocrates from his post he has it in mind to represent you. I sadly cannot as I am unwell and not going to commit to something I may not be able to do on the day. I will however draft your skeleton arguments if Hippo is unable to help
Wishing you a speedy recovery.
-
send a PM to hippocrates from his post he has it in mind to represent you. I sadly cannot as I am unwell and not going to commit to something I may not be able to do on the day. I will however draft your skeleton arguments if Hippo is unable to help
-
Second, and more importantly the vehicle is still moving out of the box junction when the CCTV footage stops. The Adjudicator must see the entire driving of the vehicle in and out of the box junction. I find this to be a serious omission.
Thanks for that @Chaseman.
I am afraid my car was stationary inside the YBJ for about 14 seconds before the CCTV footage stops.
I wonder if the argument presented by @The Slithy Tove can also be used:
It could also be argued that the exit was clear (i.e. no offence) when the car entered the box junction. It could easily have slotted in the left hand side of the lane, partially alongside the black vehicle. (Why don't people take the obvious "escape routes" rather than stopping in the box junction?)
-
Take your pick as to your representative. ;D
Tough decision to make. ;D
I have made a formal complaint under The Nolan Principles.
Please enlighten me. What are the Nolan Principles, and what was the formal complaint about?
-
It may be slightly late in the day to introduce this point but see this PATAS case that I won n a YBJ because the CCTV footage cut out before it recorded the car leaving the YBJ - as in your case. The adjudicator - Carl Teper - made quite a point of it but admittedly I was in the YBJ for a rather shorter time than you (as recorded on the footage). See what Hippocrates thinks.
PCN GT55538498
Contravention date 14 Jun 2013
Contravention time 16:50:00
Contravention location Purley Way/Croydon Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 30 Nov 2013
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant has attended his appeal.
The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Purley Way/Croydon Road on 14 June 2013 at 16.50.
The Appellant denies the contravention advancing a number of points.
However, I have allowed this appeal for the following reasons:
First, I find that the stopping, if it be that, is hardly perceptible.
Second, and more importantly the vehicle is still moving out of the box junction when the CCTV footage stops. The Adjudicator must see the entire driving of the vehicle in and out of the box junction. I find this to be a serious omission.
Third, in any event have considering the driving of the Appellant I do not find that this contravention is proved because I am not satisfied that there was any sufficient stopping that justified the issuing and prosecution of this contravention.
Taking these matters together I find that it would be unjust and inequitable to uphold this Penalty Charge Notice, which I find, is not proved.
The appeal is allowed.
-
Take your pick as to your representative. ;D I have made a formal complaint under The Nolan Principles.
I will not be doing any cases at tribunal whilst i continue my recuperation so take it Hippo, use the quote if yu want or the case is on cp's file also the high court ruling
-
Take your pick as to your representative. ;D I have made a formal complaint under The Nolan Principles.
-
I made this argument to the TPT with regards to a fail to concider It won the day as the adjudicator did not find on the other arguments
Extract from the appeal decision by the adjudicator
3. When Mr Yousef made both informal and formal representations to the council in respect of the PCN he referred to the grounds of appeal as detailed above but in rejecting those challenges the council did not address the limb of his appeal that was concerned with the method of payment using a premium rate telephone number. It was therefore Mr Allen’s submission that in failing to respond to this ground of appeal there had been a procedural impropriety on the part of the council, a further ground of appeal and that the PCN should not then be enforced. Mr Allen provided case law in support of his submission, specifically The King (On the application of Halton Borough Council) and Road User Charging Adjudicators and Damian Curzon [2023] EWHC 303 Admin, provided at evidence tab 23 and it was his view I should determine the appeal without adjourning to enable the council to respond to his submissions in these respects.
4. In considering Mr Allen’s submissions it was my view that the council should have a further opportunity to address the issues relating to the use of a premium phone line to pay the PCN and the issue of procedural impropriety and I adjourned the hearing to enable the council to respond by January 8th 2024. To date the council has not responded and so I have considered the appeal on the basis of the evidence that is available to me.
5. In The King (On the application of Halton Borough Council) and Road User Charging Adjudicators and Damian Curzon [2023] Mr Justice Fordham considered the extent to which there had been procedural impropriety on the part of the council and or their agents in the consideration of representations made to them following the issue of PCNs and he said, “The "procedural impropriety" enquiry is straightforward and clear-cut. It would ask: has there been consideration at all?” and whilst the council did deal with the other limbs of Mr Yousef’s appeal, I cannot find there has been any consideration of the submissions in respect of the premium phone line and for this reason alone I would find there has been a procedural impropriety and I would allow the appeal.
Much obliged, @Pastmybest.
Prior to receiving your post, I was hesitating between paying the £80 and going to the Tribunal. Now I have decided to take it all the way to the Tribunal.
-
I made this argument to the TPT with regards to a fail to concider It won the day as the adjudicator did not find on the other arguments
Extract from the appeal decision by the adjudicator
3. When Mr Yousef made both informal and formal representations to the council in respect of the PCN he referred to the grounds of appeal as detailed above but in rejecting those challenges the council did not address the limb of his appeal that was concerned with the method of payment using a premium rate telephone number. It was therefore Mr Allen’s submission that in failing to respond to this ground of appeal there had been a procedural impropriety on the part of the council, a further ground of appeal and that the PCN should not then be enforced. Mr Allen provided case law in support of his submission, specifically The King (On the application of Halton Borough Council) and Road User Charging Adjudicators and Damian Curzon [2023] EWHC 303 Admin, provided at evidence tab 23 and it was his view I should determine the appeal without adjourning to enable the council to respond to his submissions in these respects.
4. In considering Mr Allen’s submissions it was my view that the council should have a further opportunity to address the issues relating to the use of a premium phone line to pay the PCN and the issue of procedural impropriety and I adjourned the hearing to enable the council to respond by January 8th 2024. To date the council has not responded and so I have considered the appeal on the basis of the evidence that is available to me.
5. In The King (On the application of Halton Borough Council) and Road User Charging Adjudicators and Damian Curzon [2023] Mr Justice Fordham considered the extent to which there had been procedural impropriety on the part of the council and or their agents in the consideration of representations made to them following the issue of PCNs and he said, “The "procedural impropriety" enquiry is straightforward and clear-cut. It would ask: has there been consideration at all?” and whilst the council did deal with the other limbs of Mr Yousef’s appeal, I cannot find there has been any consideration of the submissions in respect of the premium phone line and for this reason alone I would find there has been a procedural impropriety and I would allow the appeal.
-
Notice of Rejection!
Received the NoR, in which the LA completely turned a blind eye to my ground of representations, as recommended by @Hippocrates, and didn't mention a single word about it. Is this act not considered 'frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable'?
NoR_1:
https://ibb.co/MxvXh3Mn
NoR_2:
https://ibb.co/TDgQzvCZ
-
Dear Council
I make these two collateral challenges:
The PCN
The PCN wrongly states which action triggers the period in which the council may serve a charge certificate: “If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240.00 (less money paid) may be payable and a Charge Certificate may be sent on you seeking this amount.” The law states at Schedule 1 5:
1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.
(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;
Further, the PCN does not inform me with regard to the service of a Charge Certificate if representations are not made by the end of the said period. Please refer to Case No: 224038612A.
The website
The date regarding the increase to £160 is clearly wrong. It is essential that appellants are correctly informed of the statutory dates of what and when to pay.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN
***
Keep a screenshot of the website and adduce it as evidence. I cannot access as do not have the PCN and VRM details!
-
That date is wrong. It increases on day 15 from the date of the PCN.
-
I am snowed under with cases but will do a draft later today. Best to get it right first time.
Fully agree. I look forward to receiving the draft, many thanks!
Take your time. On the LA website, it says "The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 on Wed, 14 May 2025. Please pay £80.00 now." Plenty of time.
-
I am snowed under with cases but will do a draft later today. Best to get it right first time.
-
Nope. I will draft later as this is slightly more complicated than the case won.
Much obliged!
-
Nope. I will draft later as this is slightly more complicated than the case won.
-
PM received. Re this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mq9MAnLdByhCxR5IzpKhvDT7LKlTOHUJ/view
and your PCN
https://ibb.co/xqpN9qrZ
does the latter tell you you must make representations before 28 days from the date of service or t you will be liable for a charge certificate? I think not therefore it is ambiguous.
Indeed, it does not!
As I understand it, it should have said "if you fail to pay the PCN or make representation before 28 days ..... then an increased charge of £240 maybe payable", correct?
I am going ahead with the challenge. I need your help in phrasing it.
Shall I copy and paste the adjudicator's reasoning from the ETA case you referenced?
-
PM received. Re this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mq9MAnLdByhCxR5IzpKhvDT7LKlTOHUJ/view
and your PCN
https://ibb.co/xqpN9qrZ
does the latter tell you you must make representations before 28 days from the date of service or t you will be liable for a charge certificate? I think not therefore it is ambiguous.
-
I would like to make use of the 14 days period to challenge the PCN. I think I have two days left before it expires.
-
The PCN is invalid.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/haringey-52(m)-pcn-nor-help-(downhills-park-rd-n17)/msg54378/#msg54378
ff.
Hi Hippocrates
Thank you for your response.
Pardon my ignorance, I have read the case that you supplied and won (congratulation by the way). But I am unable to identify the non-compliance part that renders my PCN invalid.
-
Please read the case supplied in my post above.
-
It could also be argued that the exit was clear (i.e. no offence) when the car entered the box junction. It could easily have slotted in the left hand side of the lane, partially alongside the black vehicle. (Why don't people take the obvious "escape routes" rather than stopping in the box junction?)
-
The PCN is invalid.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/haringey-52(m)-pcn-nor-help-(downhills-park-rd-n17)/msg54378/#msg54378
ff.
-
I can't see much concrete to go on here I'm afraid.
You might be able to argue that the markings extend well past the natural junction, as evidenced by the ease with which the large van behind you was able to exit. But I think most adjudicators give the authority a lot of leeway under the TSRGD2016
-
Hi All
I am seeking your good selves help, again!
The PCN pages:
https://ibb.co/xqpN9qrZ
https://ibb.co/tPDvq3M8
https://ibb.co/JjNnZTSK
The CCTV video footage:
https://vimeo.com/1080895166?share=copy#t=0
The vehicle is the blue Nissan Micra.
Thank you in anticipation.