PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

LCC PCN - Dropped Footway
MHU
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 19:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



Hi

The Driver has a PCN for parking adjacent to a dropped foot way.

The PCN is from Lancashire County Council
Contravention Code: 27

There is no signs anywhere, or single/double yellow lines anywhere in the area.

Can this be appealed?

Thanks

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 19:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 17:29
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,548
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 17:16) *
QUOTE (MHU @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 17:08) *
well for now, i guess i wait and report back once the Notice appears!

Do these tend to go to court? or dropped way before then?

There is no court, it's a rather informal tribunal process, you can read all about it here: https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/t...appeal-process/

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 17:06) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 16:50) *
Well we made them aware and they ignored it, so we've got them on the procedural impropriety in any event. I plan on beefing up the money spinning character of these premium rate numbers in the tribunal submissions, as the last adjudicator didn't seem to be persuaded.


I thought you might so didn't want to be presumptuous and do something myself. I think it needs stressing that the service charge allays part of the cost of the business of collection the penalty

Yes that's my thoughts exactly, I'm thinking of using some of the wording from http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1429835 such as "a great new range of revenue generating business numbers", the same company has a page for 0844 numbers and I'm sure I can find more advertising the money spinning features of these number ranges.


This site might be worth a bit of investigation

https://eagledial.com/how-to-make-money-fro...um-rate-numbers



--------------------
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
MHU
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 09:12
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



Hello

just wanted to know, are these worth taking action against? and is the appeal winnable? As (i guess like many other people) i was thinking will it be easier for the £35 to paid?

I was just wondering yesterday evening as to what steps should be taken with this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 16:28
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,173
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (MHU @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 09:12) *
Hello

just wanted to know, are these worth taking action against? and is the appeal winnable? As (i guess like many other people) i was thinking will it be easier for the £35 to paid?

I was just wondering yesterday evening as to what steps should be taken with this

At the moment the advice is to wait for the Notice to Owner, even if they reject your representations again, they usually re-offer the discount so there's nothing to be gained in paying now.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 10:17
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



Thanks again

i will just wait it out then
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 15:05
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



Hello

received the NTO today ...
i will upload pics later ..
but how should i proceed with this now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 19:27
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,173
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Submit a formal representation.
-----------
On the rear of the PCN it is stated that payment can be made by telephone by calling the payment line 0844 826 6593. The Office of Communications confirms on its website at www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/costs-and-billing/how-much-does-a-phone-call-really-cost that:

"The cost of calling 0843, 0844 and 0845 numbers is made up of two parts: an access charge going to your phone company, and a service charge set by the organisation you are calling.

The service charge for calls to 084 numbers is between 0p and 7p per minute
"

A quick internet search confirms numerous telecoms providers offer 0844 and 0845 numbers to businesses and the public sector alike, as a means of generating additional revenue, for example the website www.08direct.co.uk/numbers/earn-rebate/ proudly claims that "Creating a new revenue stream for your business through your inbound calls could not be easier. You can make money every time somebody picks up the phone and contacts your business.", just above a pricing table confirming an 0845 number obtained through this particular company can generate an income of between 1.5 and 4p per minute, depending on the volume of calls.

My research on the topic has even revealed an entertaining story from BBC News published at www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23869462 where one individual, annoyed by a high number of marketing calls, set up his own number and netted £300 in profit simply by keeping cold callers on the phone for as long as possible.

When calling the council's 0844 number, the caller is charged a 7p per minute service charge, which is set by the organisation being called, in this case the enforcement authority. In London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) at paragraphs 28 and 29 the High Court ruled as follows:

"28. Mr Coppel submits that the only form of payment that the Council are obliged to accept as a matter of law is cash in legal tender, unless they agree otherwise. As a matter of strict theory that may be right, although I venture to suggest that a Council which required parking contraveners to pay cash in notes, or coins of £1 or higher value (current legal tender) would be vulnerable to a challenge on grounds of rationality. Nobody is forced to pay by credit card. The Council suggest that it is not increasing the penalty charge but rather recovering an external cost associated with making a convenient method of payment available to those guilty of parking contraventions. Mr Coppel accepts that if this argument were right (and subject always to the vires to make any charge), then so far as the parking enforcement regime was concerned, the Council could recover by way of administrative fee the cost of dealing with any mechanism of payment except cash presented in denominations which were legal tender. There was no evidence before me of any external costs to a merchant associated with payment by debit card or cheque but such facilities are rarely free. There is clearly a significant cost in staff time and systems administration involved in accepting any form of payment. Cheques are especially labour intensive and costly. No doubt any enforcing authority could easily identify the global costs of collecting penalty charges by category and then attempt to divide those costs by the number of penalty charges they expect to recover to determine an administration fee appropriate to each. Yet that is far from the limit of the administrative charges that an inventive enforcing authority might seek to add to the penalty charge authorised by law. Civil enforcement officers must be employed, paid and equipped. There will, in addition, be an administrative superstructure which costs money. It is, submits Mr Coppel, only because the Parking Adjudicators failed to understand that there is a critical difference between the penalty charge and the costs of recovering that charge that they fell into the error of concluding that the penalty charge exceeded the amount prescribed by the statutory scheme. Mr Rogers, who appears for the Parking Adjudicators, submits that whatever label the Council attempt to attach to the 1.3% fee, it is in substance a surcharge that results in a demand for payment of a sum which exceeds that authorised under the statutory scheme.

29. I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.
"

In this instance, by imposing a 7p per minute service charge for telephone payments, the council is offering a payment method which exposes the motorist to having to pay a total amount to the enforcement authority which exceeds the statutory penalty prescribed by law. The High Court has already ruled that where one payment method attracts a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods that do not attract the surcharge makes does not change the fact that an excessive amount is being demanded.

The council has to be admired for its inventiveness in using an 0844 number, no doubt to help offset the cost of processing payments, but nonetheless I submit this means the amount being demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. It follows that the penalty charge notice and the notice to owner must be cancelled.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 00:06
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



so do i just make the representation on the number charging me?
i can do it online via the website...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 11:44
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,173
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Yes just make a formal representation on that basis.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 11:57
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



This is the NTO received



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 15:28
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,173
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Can't see any additional flaws on the NtO.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 09:45
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



Is the below ok?



On the rear of the PCN it is stated that payment can be made by telephone by calling the payment line 0844 826 6593. The Office of Communications confirms on its website at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-an...all-really-cost that:

"The cost of calling 0843, 0844 and 0845 numbers is made up of two parts: an access charge going to your phone company, and a service charge set by the organisation you are calling.

The service charge for calls to 084 numbers is between 0p and 7p per minute"

When calling the council's 0844 number, the caller is charged a 7p per minute service charge, which is set by the organisation being called, in this case Lancashire County Council. In London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) at paragraphs 28 and 29 the High Court ruled as follows:

"28. Mr Coppel submits that the only form of payment that the Council are obliged to accept as a matter of law is cash in legal tender, unless they agree otherwise. As a matter of strict theory that may be right, although I venture to suggest that a Council which required parking contraveners to pay cash in notes, or coins of £1 or higher value (current legal tender) would be vulnerable to a challenge on grounds of rationality. Nobody is forced to pay by credit card. The Council suggest that it is not increasing the penalty charge but rather recovering an external cost associated with making a convenient method of payment available to those guilty of parking contraventions. Mr Coppel accepts that if this argument were right (and subject always to the vires to make any charge), then so far as the parking enforcement regime was concerned, the Council could recover by way of administrative fee the cost of dealing with any mechanism of payment except cash presented in denominations which were legal tender. There was no evidence before me of any external costs to a merchant associated with payment by debit card or cheque but such facilities are rarely free. There is clearly a significant cost in staff time and systems administration involved in accepting any form of payment. Cheques are especially labour intensive and costly. No doubt any enforcing authority could easily identify the global costs of collecting penalty charges by category and then attempt to divide those costs by the number of penalty charges they expect to recover to determine an administration fee appropriate to each. Yet that is far from the limit of the administrative charges that an inventive enforcing authority might seek to add to the penalty charge authorised by law. Civil enforcement officers must be employed, paid and equipped. There will, in addition, be an administrative superstructure which costs money. It is, submits Mr Coppel, only because the Parking Adjudicators failed to understand that there is a critical difference between the penalty charge and the costs of recovering that charge that they fell into the error of concluding that the penalty charge exceeded the amount prescribed by the statutory scheme. Mr Rogers, who appears for the Parking Adjudicators, submits that whatever label the Council attempt to attach to the 1.3% fee, it is in substance a surcharge that results in a demand for payment of a sum which exceeds that authorised under the statutory scheme.

29. I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law."

In this instance, by imposing a 7p per minute service charge for telephone payments, the council is offering a payment method which exposes the motorist to having to pay a total amount which exceeds the statutory penalty prescribed by law. The High Court has already ruled that where one payment method attracts a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods that do not attract the surcharge is not relevant and an appeal must be allowed on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the penalty due under the statutory scheme. It follows that regardless of whether the alleged contravention occurred, the PCN must be cancelled
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 10:17
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,207
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I think we need to go beyond the NTO and suggest the OP tries the 0844 number.

This is the LCC website:

https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking...penalty-notice/

The published number is 0344, which is at normal rates.

It's either a typo on the notices, old stock or at variance with the website.

I suspect, but the OP should establish before submitting reps, that no charge is made. They would therefore fail with reps based wholly on this point if in practice no charge is made.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 10:58
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,173
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I suggest you use the text I put in post 26 above, some of the text you've cut out is actually aimed at the adjudicator who will ultimately end up reviewing your submissions. The fact that the PCN might be old stock can't save the council IMO.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 10:58


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 11:38
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



ok i will just use the post 26 text then

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 13:04
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,207
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



That's not the point.

If the 0844 number and charge do not exist i.e. the actual call charge does not carry a surcharge, then the argument fails.

You cannot win on I know the actual call did not carry a surcharge but if it had then...

The website makes it clear that calls are charged at normal rates using the 0344 number. The OP needs to find out whether 2 numbers are in use and whether a surcharge is actually made for using the 0844 number. And do this before committing themselves wholly to their intended reps.

In fact, I've dialled the number which immediately tells you that it has been changed to a low cost number. It also gives you the option of 'continuing with this call', without it being clear whether it is charged or not or even whether phoning in the first place was charged.

The situation is not as cut and dried and you might want.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 13:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 15:44
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,173
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The number was switched from 0844 to 0344 at the end of November, i.e. months after the PCN was served. If the OP had tried to pay the PCN by phone as soon as he was served, the surcharge would have been levied so he was exposed to the risk of having to pay an excessive charge.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:39
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



The number on the PCN is the 0844 number ...

so does the argument not stand?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:59
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,173
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (MHU @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:39) *
The number on the PCN is the 0844 number ...

so does the argument not stand?

It does, because the 0844 number was in use at the time when you were served the PCN.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 12:30
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 22:30
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,207
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



You do not know this at all.

As I posted, the website shows 0344 and if you dial 0844 you are referred to the 0344 number. Not opinion, fact.

You cannot win with an argument based just on a number in a PCN when you do not know as a fact that ringing that number does attracts a charge.

But you go your way.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 22:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: Monday, 24th June 2019 - 14:29
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.