PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bus Lane PCN 34j in Portsmouth, Errors in PCN?
Chaseman
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 18:56
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,577
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
From: People's Republic of Lambeth
Member No.: 39,819



Oh dear, wasn't paying attention and got nicked in a bus lane in Portsmouth. The signage does show bicycles, buses, taxis allowed but NOT motorbikes.

The blue sign as you can see from the PCN is partially obscured behind a direction sign. There is also no advance warning sign for this length of bus lane, only the sign about 20-30m into it. There is an earlier length of bus lane that stops prior to the turning on the left as can be seen from GSV.

Other thoughts: the PCN uses "will" rather than "may" in regard to the possible issue of a CC. Is this necessarily fatal to the PCN? Timings look OK to me i.e. date of notice is 5 days after offence and deemed date of service two business days thereafter. In fact PCN arrived on 22 Feb. The PCN says that the images were "captured by either a manned or unmanned roadside camera" without stating which. Is this an error?





Sorry - still haven't found a way of ensuring that pictures come out right way up. They were fine when I transferred from phone to PC!

https://www.instantstreetview.com/@50.80467...11.43h,0.79p,1z

If anyone wants to PM me I will send details to log into the "view my PCN" on-line which allows you to see the video. It does indeed show me going straight up the bus lane, I don't just clip it. I was also going at a reasonable speed so am quite impressed with their video capture of my reg. no. I think it must have been an automated camera. I was in a bit of a hurry to catch a ferry and I think subconsciously must have thought it was a bus lane allowing motorbikes, as most of those in London now are. Frankly this chopping and changing as between whether bus lanes allow motorbikes or not is a pain in the a**e.

This post has been edited by Chaseman: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 18:58


--------------------
Chaseman
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 18:56
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 19:45
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Appealing means the discount option is lost. Your argument essentially comes down to inadequate signage, but it's clear from your post you are not aware of the bus lane restrictions on types of vehicles. Only Transport for London bus lanes in London allow motorcycles, and one must assume all bus lanes other than TfL's bar motorcycles. Better not to venture into them at all using a motorised vehicle !

If you're going to appeal on inadequate signage you need to do your homework and prove the signs are not in accordance with the legal requirements.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 23:40
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,270
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Chaseman @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 18:56) *
Timings look OK to me i.e. date of notice is 5 days after offence and deemed date of service two business days thereafter.

But the descriptions of timescales to pay, etc. are rubbish.

and yes, 'will' has won as well.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chaseman
post Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 23:28
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,577
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
From: People's Republic of Lambeth
Member No.: 39,819



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 19:45) *
Appealing means the discount option is lost. Your argument essentially comes down to inadequate signage, but it's clear from your post you are not aware of the bus lane restrictions on types of vehicles. Only Transport for London bus lanes in London allow motorcycles, and one must assume all bus lanes other than TfL's bar motorcycles. Better not to venture into them at all using a motorised vehicle !

If you're going to appeal on inadequate signage you need to do your homework and prove the signs are not in accordance with the legal requirements.


Understand re the discount. I am aware of the differences in bus lane restrictions and the signage is I think clear. It's just that in London I am used to motorbikes being allowed in bus lanes. My strongest argument appears to be procedural impropriety on may/will re the CC. I have a TPT decision from 2015 that hinges on precisely this point where the appeal was allowed.


QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 23:40) *
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 18:56) *
Timings look OK to me i.e. date of notice is 5 days after offence and deemed date of service two business days thereafter.

But the descriptions of timescales to pay, etc. are rubbish.

and yes, 'will' has won as well.


Can you elucidate on "rubbish" please Neil and do these amount to grounds for challenge?


--------------------
Chaseman
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 23:30
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Some London cases for support.

216022028A

Belinda pearce

. The second contention concerns wording in the Notice of Rejection letter which Mr Dishman maintains is not compliant with the governing legislation by dint of its employment (again) of the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the Notice of Rejection contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate.
The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion.
I do not accept the theory that the word will reflects a greater warning element, since its meaning is distinctly at variance to that of the word may.
Mr Dishman cites previous PATAS/ETA Cases in support.
The Enforcement Authority quote from PATAS/ETA Case Decisions.
Each Case is determined upon its individual evidential merit and an Adjudicator's interpretation of the governing law; my finding in this Case is that the Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non-compliant since I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics. Therefore I find the Notice of Rejection to be invalid, thus this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, In light of my findings, I allow this Appeal.
2160211959

John Lane


Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection shall:
(a) state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an Adjudicator against the penalty charge;
(b) indicate the nature of an Adjudicator’s power to award costs; and
© describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an Adjudicator must be made.
A notice of rejection duly served may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate.
The local authority's notice of rejection states that they "Will" issue a charge certificate.
I accept that this is a fundamental error.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
2160210490

Sean stanton-Dunn

Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection served by an enforcement authority shall state that a charge certificate may be served unless the penalty charge has been paid or an appeal to an adjudicator made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection.
The notice of rejection served on Lexbow Limited stated that a charge certificate will be served and not that a charge certificate may be served. The use of the wording is mandatory and not optional. This means that the notice of rejection does not comply with the requirements of Regulation 6 so that there has been a procedural impropriety. The word will conveys an entirely different meaning to the motorist than the use of the word may.
2160211926

Christopher Rayner


Mrs Goldmeier’s car was unlawfully parked. The burden is therefore on her to establish an exemption. She submits that there is an error on Barnet’s notice to owner forms such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety, so that any penalty that reaches that stage of enforcement is unenforceable. Regulation 6(1) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that the notice to owner shall state that a charge certificate “may be served” if certain conditions are fulfilled. It is not disputed that Barnet’s notice to owner form states that “will serve” a charge certificate if those conditions are fulfilled.
Mrs Goldmeier references appeals before this Tribunal where adjudicators have found a procedural impropriety in these circumstances, and Barnet refer to another case where an adjudicator refused an appeal. The situation is unsatisfactory, particularly where there is no obvious prejudice to a motorist. However, enforcement authorities require full compliance with parking restrictions from motorists, and it is reasonable to expect the same of them. The wording on the notice to owner form does not comply with statutory requirements, and it would presumably be a relatively straightforward matter for Barnet to remedy that. On balance I follow what appears to be the majority view of adjudicators in this Tribunal and find that Barnet’s notice to owner form is not compliant with the Regulations, such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety and allow the appeal on that basis
2160422149

Michael Lawrence

The Appellant attended this hearing.
One of points raised by the Appellant concerned the wording of the Notice of Rejection letter (NOR) which he said was not compliant with the relevant legislation in that it used the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the NOR contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate. This NOR states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate if the recipient does not appeal or pay. Clearly there is a difference between may and will that is not just semantics, but substantial. The latter excludes the possibility that the Enforcement Authority have a discretion whether or not to proceed to the next stage of a charge certificate and an increased penalty charge.
The Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non compliant and invalid and therefore this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
2150379790

Joanne Oxlade


The Appellant has raised a number of points in this appeal.
I allow the appeal on the basis that the notice of rejection does not substantially comply with Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, in that it says that if the Appellant neither appeals nor pays the PCN, the EA "will" serve a charge certificate, whereas the legislation requires that the NOR contains certain information, which is that the Notice of rejection "may" be served. "Will" and "may" are entirely different, and fails to recognise that the EA have discretion as to whether (and if so at what rate) they enforce the PCN subject to upper limits. There is something of a body of case law within the Tribunal, which the EA have not successfully challenged. The applicable case law is R (Hackney Drivers Association) v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire CC [2012] EWHC 3394, which provides that the question is whether or not a document is substantially compliant. For the above reasons, I find that it does not
2150479729

Neeti haria

In addition Mr Dishman contends that the Notice of Rejection misrepresents the position as it states that if the penalty charge is not paid or an appeal made the Authority will serve a Charge Certificate. Mr Dishman correctly points out that Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that under the circumstances specified a Charge Certificate may be served. The relevant parts of Regulation 6 provides:
“ Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a Notice of Rejection …..that notice shall
(a) state that a Charge Certificate may be served unless…..”
Having considered the matter I agree with Mr Dishman that the Notice of Rejection fails to comply with a mandatory requirement of the legislation. I find that this amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.
Accordingly I allow the appeal.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chaseman
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 17:58
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,577
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
From: People's Republic of Lambeth
Member No.: 39,819



Thanks for all your help, especially PMB who has sent me a Worthing TPT case (UW 05060M 16 Sep 2015) by PM. All of these cases uphold the appeal i.e. "will" in place of "may" represents a PI. I am aware that there are some other cases that have gone the other way.

I now have to weigh up whether to appeal and risk a double or quits on £30. Frankly £30 isn't as bad as £65 in London and I have lots of other things to do with my time! However, I don't like paying PCNs on principle.

Does anyone want to give me odds of a successful appeal at TPT (because Portsmouth clearly won't accept an appeal on will/may) if these are my only grounds? To state the bl**ding obvious there is no informal appeal/discount on hold process for a Bus Lane PCN is there?

This post has been edited by Chaseman: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 18:02


--------------------
Chaseman
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 18:46
Post #7


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The difficulty you have is that the cases quoted relate to the parking legislation and there is no legislative appeal for a PI with a bus lane contravention.

Nevertheless the will/may issue should be raised as a collateral challenge because it does not comply with the 2005 Bus Lanes legislation which states "may" and their PCN statement is prejudicial and unfair in common law terms. Ergo the PCN is a nullity.

Here's the relevant Order:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...mouth/PO63B.pdf

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 18:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chaseman
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 20:35
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,577
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
From: People's Republic of Lambeth
Member No.: 39,819



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 18:46) *
The difficulty you have is that the cases quoted relate to the parking legislation and there is no legislative appeal for a PI with a bus lane contravention.

Nevertheless the will/may issue should be raised as a collateral challenge because it does not comply with the 2005 Bus Lanes legislation which states "may" and their PCN statement is prejudicial and unfair in common law terms. Ergo the PCN is a nullity.

Here's the relevant Order:-

https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/T...mouth/PO63B.pdf

Mick


So you are saying that only PCNs relating to parking and not to bus lanes can suffer from a Procedural Impropriety. Yes this rings a bell. However, you go on to say that the 2005 Bus Lanes legislation also requires "may" rather than "will". Would you be able to give me a link to the relevant legislation?

If that is indeed the case, then am I not on ground as strong i.e. I am saying this is not a PI, it's a breach of the legislation? And as you say this renders the PCN a nullity? You refer to "collateral challenge" but the will/may issue would be my only grounds for challenge. $64k question - do you think this is strong enough to prevail in absence of any other grounds?

Thanks for the TRO. I was a little bit misled because the web address started with "traffic penalty tribunal" and so I thought it was a case that Portsmouth had lost. This seems to me to say that the Bus Lane in Commercial Road has been properly "enacted" so does it help my appeal in any way?

And just finally, am I right in thinking there is no informal challenge stage available here, it's just appeal and if rejected you are in for £60 or a trip to TPT?

Edit:

OK I have found the relevant legislation and at both paras 32 and 33 it uses the word "may".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/part/6/made

So do I appeal to say "you have not followed the provisions of the relevant legislation and therefore the PCN must be invalid/a nullity" and then draw parallels with the parking PCN appeals decided on the same point but without claiming the current circumstance amounts to a PI?

This post has been edited by Chaseman: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 20:47


--------------------
Chaseman
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 20:43
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,270
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



It isn't your only ground.
All of the timescales are wrongly described, as I said.

I don't have time right now -- but maybe next day or so.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chaseman
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 20:59
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,577
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
From: People's Republic of Lambeth
Member No.: 39,819



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 20:43) *
It isn't your only ground.
All of the timescales are wrongly described, as I said.

I don't have time right now -- but maybe next day or so.


My only difficulty is that I am off on holiday on Sunday and IF I wanted to pay at a discount I would have to do so before I leave. If I decide grounds are strong enough for appeal then it can wait till I return. Does anyone else want to have a go at explaining what is wrong with the description of timescales? I think I spot that the 14 day discount period should run from date of PCN, counting that as Day 1, rather than from date of service (ironically they are being a bit more generous to the motorist). Is there anything else?


--------------------
Chaseman
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 21:44
Post #11


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



You could quote this too from 8(5):-

(k)that if at the end of the 28 day period—

(i)no representations have been made; and

(ii)the penalty charge has not been paid,

the authority may increase the penalty charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;

The issue is --- have they made an error of fact or law which is prejudicial to you? If so an adjudicator must consider whether there was unfairness arising from that error.

Whoever dreamt up that PCN statement has committed a procedural impropriety (forget the bus lane legislation) since the procedures prescribed by statute have not been followed. The intention of this error is to frighten people into paying up and second, in forgoing the discretionary element the Council has exacerbated the situation. You, on the other hand, have a legitimate expectation that the Council would treat you fairly--they haven't.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 22:30
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 21:44) *
You could quote this too from 8(5):-

(k)that if at the end of the 28 day period—

(i)no representations have been made; and

(ii)the penalty charge has not been paid,

the authority may increase the penalty charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;

The issue is --- have they made an error of fact or law which is prejudicial to you? If so an adjudicator must consider whether there was unfairness arising from that error.

Whoever dreamt up that PCN statement has committed a procedural impropriety (forget the bus lane legislation) since the procedures prescribed by statute have not been followed. The intention of this error is to frighten people into paying up and second, in forgoing the discretionary element the Council has exacerbated the situation. You, on the other hand, have a legitimate expectation that the Council would treat you fairly--they haven't.

Mick


All councils are under an over riding duty to act fairly. The regulations give them a discretion as to whether to issue a CC or not. They cannot fetter that discretion.

Any challenge falls under the penalty exceeds ground. if the PCN does not comply with the regs it is not a valid document and a penalty cannot be demanded on the strength of it.

Quote from here

http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/m...arking-tickets/

paras 38 to 43 could be useful


This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 22:47


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chaseman
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 23:44
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,577
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
From: People's Republic of Lambeth
Member No.: 39,819



Here's a draft representation:

QUOTE
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane (34j). I am appealing against the PCN on the grounds that it is not in accordance with relevant legislation being The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005. As such it is invalid and unenforceable.

Specifically the regulations state at para 8.5:

(k) that if at the end of the 28 day period—
(I) no representations have been made; and
(ii) the penalty charge has not been paid,
the authority may [my emphasis] increase the penalty charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;

Further, at para 32 it states:

32.—(1) Where—
(a) a penalty charge notice is served on any person; and
(b) 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 (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

And finally at para 33:

33. Where, in relation to a penalty charge notice—
(a) the relevant period for the purposes of regulation 32(1) has expired; and
(b) the increased penalty charge for which the charge certificate provides is not paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the certificate is served,
the authority concerned may, if the county court so orders, recover the charge as if it were payable under a county court order.

The wording on the PCN states:

If you do neither of these things [pay or make representations] within 28 days from the date of service of this notice, the council will [my emphasis] serve a charge certificate increasing the penalty by 50% to £90 and take steps to enforce payment of this sum.

Thus the Council has stated that it will do something that the regulations only say it may do. The intended effect is clearly to frighten people into paying up at risk of having the fine increased when the regulations only provide that it is a possibility. All councils are under an over-riding duty to act fairly. The regulations give them a discretion as to whether to issue a Charge Certificate or not. They cannot fetter that discretion and if they do so they are not treating the motorist fairly.
In the context of parking legislation, with which a parallel may fairly be drawn given that this also provides for the issue of PCNs and Charge Certificates, such action is described as a Procedural Impropriety which, if upheld, must lead to the cancellation of a PCN. There are many appeal cases at PATAS (as was, relating to London) where appeals on these grounds were upheld and I attach a list of summaries. I also attach a relevant case in full from the Traffic and Parking Tribunal deciding a case in Worthing in 2015 on precisely the will/may point.
Accordingly I request that the PCN be cancelled.


Both the written form included with the PCN and the on-line form provide for "other grounds" alongside the statutory grounds so I am thinking that my reps would fall into that category, rather than "exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances".

This post has been edited by Chaseman: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 23:46


--------------------
Chaseman
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 23:54
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Chaseman @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 23:44) *
Here's a draft representation:

QUOTE
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane (34j). I am appealing against the PCN on the grounds that it is not in accordance with relevant legislation being The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005. As such it is invalid and unenforceable.

Specifically the regulations state at para 8.5:

(k) that if at the end of the 28 day period—
(I) no representations have been made; and
(ii) the penalty charge has not been paid,
the authority may [my emphasis] increase the penalty charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;

Further, at para 32 it states:

32.—(1) Where—
(a) a penalty charge notice is served on any person; and
(b) 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 (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

And finally at para 33:

33. Where, in relation to a penalty charge notice—
(a) the relevant period for the purposes of regulation 32(1) has expired; and
(b) the increased penalty charge for which the charge certificate provides is not paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the certificate is served,
the authority concerned may, if the county court so orders, recover the charge as if it were payable under a county court order.

The wording on the PCN states:

If you do neither of these things [pay or make representations] within 28 days from the date of service of this notice, the council will [my emphasis] serve a charge certificate increasing the penalty by 50% to £90 and take steps to enforce payment of this sum.

Thus the Council has stated that it will do something that the regulations only say it may do. The intended effect is clearly to frighten people into paying up at risk of having the fine increased when the regulations only provide that it is a possibility. All councils are under an over-riding duty to act fairly. The regulations give them a discretion as to whether to issue a Charge Certificate or not. They cannot fetter that discretion and if they do so they are not treating the motorist fairly.
In the context of parking legislation, with which a parallel may fairly be drawn given that this also provides for the issue of PCNs and Charge Certificates, such action is described as a Procedural Impropriety which, if upheld, must lead to the cancellation of a PCN. There are many appeal cases at PATAS (as was, relating to London) where appeals on these grounds were upheld and I attach a list of summaries. I also attach a relevant case in full from the Traffic and Parking Tribunal deciding a case in Worthing in 2015 on precisely the will/may point.
Accordingly I request that the PCN be cancelled.


Both the written form included with the PCN and the on-line form provide for "other grounds" alongside the statutory grounds so I am thinking that my reps would fall into that category, rather than "exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances".


The adjudicator cannot find on these other grounds. only recommend. The usual thing with them is the council failing to consider, the penalty exceeds because no penalty can be due against an invalid PCN. It is for the adjudicator to find as to that validity


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 08:02
Post #15


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



That's why the phrase "collateral challenge" must be inserted into the appeal. This gives an adjudicator the justification to look beyond a simple bus lane case. For instance, procedural impropriety is an issue which pops up in judicial review cases, whatever the legislation, in that the exercise of power has been unlawful.

Likewise, in keeping with JR theme, the term "legitimate expectation" must be used because the OP expected to be treated within the law and treated fairly as in:-.

"The court may uphold not only a legitimate expectation that a certain procedure would be followed by a public body ("procedural" expectations), but also an expectation of some substantive benefit."

The substantive benefit being that the Council would use its discretion (may not will).

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chaseman
post Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 17:57
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,577
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
From: People's Republic of Lambeth
Member No.: 39,819



Thanks Mick. I have bolstered the last couple of paras following your advice. Any amendments/suggestions before I send it off would be welcome. I am not saying anything about timing because I so far can't see where the errors are. On checking the legislation, the period for payment at a discount is indeed 14 days from the date of service (para 8.5(f))

QUOTE
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane (34j). I am appealing against the PCN on the grounds that it is not in accordance with relevant legislation being The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005. As such it is invalid and unenforceable.

Specifically the regulations state at para 8.5:

(k) that if at the end of the 28 day period—

(I) no representations have been made; and
(ii) the penalty charge has not been paid,
the authority may [my emphasis] increase the penalty charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;

Further, at para 32 it states:

32.—(1) Where—
(a) a penalty charge notice is served on any person; and
(b) 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 (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

And finally at para 33:

33. Where, in relation to a penalty charge notice—
(a) the relevant period for the purposes of regulation 32(1) has expired; and
(b) the increased penalty charge for which the charge certificate provides is not paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the certificate is served,
the authority concerned may, if the county court so orders, recover the charge as if it were payable under a county court order.

The wording on the PCN states:

If you do neither of these things [pay or make representations] within 28 days from the date of service of this notice, the council will [my emphasis] serve a charge certificate increasing the penalty by 50% to £90 and take steps to enforce payment of this sum.
Thus the Council has stated that it will do something that the regulations only say it may do. The intended effect is clearly to frighten people into paying up at risk of having the fine increased when the regulations only provide that it is a possibility. All councils are under an over-riding duty to act fairly. The regulations give them a discretion as to whether to issue a Charge Certificate or not. The motorist has a legitimate expectation that the Council will exercise its discretion. If the Council fetters that discretion by determining in advance that it will not exercise it, it follows that they are not treating the motorist fairly.

In the context of parking legislation, with which a parallel may fairly be drawn given that this also provides for the issue of PCNs and Charge Certificates, such action is described as a Procedural Impropriety which, if upheld, must lead to the cancellation of a PCN. There are many appeal cases at PATAS (now the London Tribunals, relating to London) where appeals on these grounds were upheld and I attach a list of summaries. I also attach a relevant case in full from the Traffic and Parking Tribunal deciding a case in Worthing in 2015 on precisely the will/may point. I am therefore entering a collateral challenge to the effect that the failure to follow the wording of the legislation in this case amounts to a Procedural Impropriety.

Accordingly I request that the PCN be cancelled.


This post has been edited by Chaseman: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 18:00


--------------------
Chaseman
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 20:05
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,270
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



It's a pity neither you nor I has time available.

But a couple of things of note if you have a mo -
The 28 for payment: They haven't described a period at all. In English, it says to pay on a specific day and, coincidentally,
would be a day later than the legislation prescribes.

and
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 17:57) *
I am not saying anything about timing because I so far can't see where the errors are. On checking the legislation, the period for payment at a discount is indeed 14 days from the date of service (para 8.5(f))

8 (5)(f) doesn't say that at all.
The PCN does. You are making the same mistake as Portsmouth.

What would be the resultant date?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:16
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here