PCN from council Options

[John Bravo]

Hi All,
I hope you are well.
Some time ago I have received a PCN. I have done online representation to it. They have sent a letter asking to provide an invoice of car repair as a proof or accept the fine and pay £65 within 14 days.
After that I have scanned, uploaded and submitted a scanned document via their online system. Used exactly the same PCN number and car reg number to login to online appeal facility.
After 2 weeks I have received a Notice To Owner instead asking to pay £130, so no Notice of Rejection or Acceptance, so far.
What should I do now. I can only do a formal representation at the moment. I assume that the previous online representation was kind of informal.

I have these options on the list:
A - The alleged Contravention did not occur
B I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of contravention
- I have sold the vehicle before that date
- I had brought the vehicle after that date
- I have never owned that vehicle
C - The vehicle was taken without my consent
D - We are a hire firm and have supplied details
E - The Penalty Charge exceeds the relevant amount
F - There has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority
G - The traffic order contravened is invalid
H - The Notice should not have been served because the Penalty Charge had already been paid
I - Other

I was going to go for Other, but not sure how they treat Other in comparison to variant F - procedural impropriety.
Please advise.
Thank you

[Advertisement]

[John Bravo]

This is the representation I have sent to the Tribunal:

This is in response to your letter dated 11/04/2018.
There is no more evidence to supply from my side, however I would like to state the following.

Since the PCN TT25241696 has been issued there was a combination of written and online communication with Tower Hamlets Council.
Apart from the evidence pack dated 20/02/2018
there were only 3 more letters I have received from the council prior to the evidence pack:

1. pre-NTO rejection letter dated 11/08/2017
2. NTO dated 7/09/2017
3. a letter dated 23/11/2017 informing me that the penalty has been increased by 50%

After a careful examination of the evidence pack I have noticed that one of the evidences they have included is a Notice of Rejection letter dated 18/10/2017.
This is something I have not received by post.
I was at the address during that period and the place I live in is not a shared accommodation so this letter could not be picked up by anyone else.
I assume that this letter was lost in the post or Tower Hamlets Council has submitted it as the evidence, but this letter has not been posted.
The first time I became aware of NOR was from Council’s evidence pack.

Looking at the letter dated 23/11/2017 my assumption was that for some reason - a software failure - they have not acknowledged my Online Post-NTO representation (option 1).
I have not received any emails from them confirming their receipt, but I have taken a screenshot of the reference number after my online submission, so I was confident this is going to be ruled in my favour, but instead it turned out a crucial piece of communication gone missing placing me at disadvantage.
I understand that the council is claiming option 4 that they have sent Notice of Rejection that was ignored by me.
Moreover two documents labelled as “Incoming Correspondence”: Online Pre-NTO Challenge (ref. 5098018) and Online Post-NTO Representation (ref. 5177560) is something I first saw in the evidence pack.

This post has been edited by John Bravo: Thu, 10 May 2018 - 23:18

[PASTMYBEST]

IMO you need to submit a bit more but I cannot be sure without.

All of your representations post MTO

ALL of the notice of rejection

It looks from what can be seen that they have failed in their duty to consider your reps that is a PI and ground for cancellation

[cp8759]

I really think you need to submit that the alleged contravention did not occur, PMB quoted the relevant adjudication in post 17:

2150447278

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued when the appellant’s car was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb outside Mr Schafer’s home in Chatsworth Way. The local authority states that the dropped kerb is outside a house in multi-occupation and that the purpose of the dropped kerb is to allow access to bins.

Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 defines the contravention of parking adjacent to a dropped footway.

It states that in a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of assisting pedestrians to cross the carriageway, and cyclists or motorists to enter of leave the carriageway

The restriction does not need to be signed or marked. The restriction is enforceable at all times.

Mr Schafer states that he has parked at this location outside his home for several years. His neighbours have also parked at the location. Mr Schafer had his left foot amputated when he was a very young child. He states that at the time that he parked his car he was in considerable pain and could not park further from his home.

The contravention occurs if a vehicle is parked adjacent to a kerb that has been lowered to assist pedestrians to cross the carriageway and cyclists or motorists to enter of leave the carriageway. The local authority does not state that the dropped herb was for any of these purposes. It states that it was to allow access to bins.

I allow this appeal as I find that the appellant’s car was not parked adjacent to a dropped kerb as defined in section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

[John Bravo]

Hi again,

@cp8759
I think the choice was between:
1. contravention did not occur
2. there was procedural impropriety

In my 1st appeal I have used the version proposed by hcandersen: post 51 and eventually the council has given up

For the last year's ticket my Pre-NTO rep was: contravention did not occur, but for the Post-NTO I have used the one from post 51 procedural impropriety, you can see their report here:
https://ibb.co/dMzg2c

This post has been edited by John Bravo: Fri, 11 May 2018 - 13:23

[cp8759]

It's not a matter of choice, you are entitled to appeal on multiple grounds. The format I usually go for is along the lines of

1) The council has not proven that a contravention occurred because bla bla bla...the contravention did not occur therefore the PCN must be cancelled.

2) Even if ground 1 above has no merit, there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the council, namely that bla bla bla... Therefore even if the alleged contravention did occur, the PCN must nonetheless be cancelled.

You don't want to put all your eggs in one basked, as long as you don't use any frivolous grounds it won't be held against you, and you only need the adjudicator to accept one of your grounds and you win.

[John Bravo]

I understand now I have to write another letter covering both arguments. I can see there is no more hearings but procedure is happening by post.

[PASTMYBEST]

I understand now I have to write another letter covering both arguments. I can see there is no more hearings but procedure is happening by post.

no that's up to you , if you want a hearing then tell them

[cp8759]

I understand now I have to write another letter covering both arguments. I can see there is no more hearings but procedure is happening by post.

You are entitled by law to a hearing, if you ask them they have to provide it.

[John Bravo]

Ok, so if this is up to me, what do you suggest?

Few years back I was called to a hearing and I don't remember asking for it.

[PASTMYBEST]

Ok, so if this is up to me, what do you suggest?

Few years back I was called to a hearing and I don't remember asking for it.

refer to post 142 when we know what you have already put to the council then we can understand what to add for tribunal We also need to see the council case summary and their notice of rejection in order to rebut their points where we can

[hcandersen]

OP, you have two potential grounds:
1. Contravention did not occur;
2. Procedural impropriety.

The first is straighforward. The second is made more difficult because we only have a partial NOR, you must post all pages so that we can check for mandatory references.

And as regards the contravention, just set out the facts first:
I parked at the location where there was a lowered kerb.
There is no corresponding lowered kerb on the opposite side of the carriageway nor in the local area;
The footway at this point has been modified and leads to a pair of exterior doors in the adjacent building.

And then your argument regarding the possible purpose of the lowered kerb, but that it clearly does not meet any of the specified criteria for a 'dropped footway' in the Act. That signs are not required is accepted, but by the same token authorities should take care to enforce only those locations which are there for the prescribed purposes and not act as if every place where the kerb is lowered is for the specified reason when regularly this is not the case, most often where they have been installed only to facilitate the emptying of large waste containers which have to be manoeuvred from the footway to vehicles on the carriageway. This interpretation of the purpose of the lowered footway is given further support by the presence of a single yellow line waiting restriction which would be in effect when bins were emptied but is not 24/7. On this point, if the authority claim that the location is a dropped footway subject to a 24/7 prohibition, then they must explain why they have chosen to mark this with a single yellow line, thereby misleading motorists.

Unless you can establish on the balance of probabilities that their NOR was not issued, then leave it as it's a distraction.

edit: did they actually include a TMO ( evidence B)?

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Mon, 14 May 2018 - 10:23

[John Bravo]

These are first six pages from the evidence pack:


NOR:



Please let me know what else do you need.

This post has been edited by John Bravo: Wed, 16 May 2018 - 22:11

[hcandersen]

Is this the complete page 1, less your name and address?

I cannot see any date on the letter which they claim was issued and posted on 18th October.

[John Bravo]

1st photo is a complete one page Evidence checklist then the next page is Evidence Form.

The date on that letter is 18/10/2017 on the top right, but yes outside the picture.

[hcandersen]

OK.

Next question: have they included any photos or a site plan in their evidence, or is the adjudicator faced with just the authority's reliance on the CEO's claim that the location is a 'dropped footway'?

See page 2 of their summary where they state that you made reasoned reps on the grounds that the location was not a 'dropped footway'.

And then they did what? According to their evidence, s*d all, other than to re-state what the CEO noted. There is nothing to suggest that anyone got off their a**e to look, or consulted GSV. They just sat in the office.

If that's consideration........!

So, what is the total of the evidence in front of the adjudicator? Without photos or a plan, nothing except the view of a CEO strongly challenged by you on the basis of evidence which you will provide.

And while we're on the subject, look at the copy of the PCN in their pack. Is it an exact copy?

[John Bravo]

OK.

Next question: have they included any photos or a site plan in their evidence, or is the adjudicator faced with just the authority's reliance on the CEO's claim that the location is a 'dropped footway'?

See page 2 of their summary where they state that you made reasoned reps on the grounds that the location was not a 'dropped footway'.

And then they did what? According to their evidence, s*d all, other than to re-state what the CEO noted. There is nothing to suggest that anyone got off their a**e to look, or consulted GSV. They just sat in the office.

If that's consideration........!

So, what is the total of the evidence in front of the adjudicator? Without photos or a plan, nothing except the view of a CEO strongly challenged by you on the basis of evidence which you will provide.

And while we're on the subject, look at the copy of the PCN in their pack. Is it an exact copy?

Hi again,
They have provided 4 pictures
these look exactly the same like my previous PCN in 2016 but it was taken at night. Location and kerbs are exactly the same.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/96624c504018264

In terms of the ticket itself it looks like the front page they have it in a Word document, they edit it and print it so it resembles kind of a scan of the ticket.
the reverse looks like a real scan of the ticket (HOW TO PAY, HOW TO CHALLENGE default info).

Where is it that I state it was not a dropped footway? It is definitely a dropped kerb, but there is none on the opposite side of the road so it cannot be a footway.
Of course their pictures are not pointing in that direction. I would have to provide my pictures or ask for a hearing in person.

Years back I remember the adjudicator has ruled out a different parking contravention in my favour by looking at Google Street Maps on his computer. He only by himself came up with this justification - there was insufficient sign posts - one of them had a plate removed so he invalided PCN on these grounds.

[John U.K.]

In terms of the ticket itself it looks like the front page they have it in a Word document, they edit it and print it so it resembles kind of a scan of the ticket.
the reverse looks like a real scan of the ticket (HOW TO PAY, HOW TO CHALLENGE default info).

We still have not seen the original PCN as held by you. Please post so we can compare (both sides). The date on the 'copy' in the evidence pack looks suspicious.

Also no indication of issuing authority.

This post has been edited by John U.K.: Thu, 17 May 2018 - 17:14

[John Bravo]

I am afraid I don't have my PCN any more. This piece of paper was misplaced long time ago.

But the one they have attached is from a template.

[John U.K.]

Must emphasise that I am NOT an experts - see what the experts here have to say - but

IF they are certifying that this is a true copy ofthe PCN served on your vehicle, it is lacking

Any detail of the issuing authority

Any detail of the legislative authority giving cause to issue

The signature of the issuing CEO

[cp8759]

IF they are certifying that this is a true copy ofthe PCN served on your vehicle, it is lacking

...

Any detail of the legislative authority giving cause to issue

The signature of the issuing CEO

Neither of those are legal requirements. The name of the enforcement authority is probably pre-printed on the paper, but if it's missing from the original PCN, that should be fatal. So, show us the original PCN.