Rejected Informal Challenge Multiple PCNs Options

[MHJMU]

Hello everyone,

I have just returned to my car after a few days of not using to find 4 PCN's (Dated 28/08 - 01/09) only to realise that my parking permit has expired. My car has been parked in the same location for the past 5 days and has not been removed between.

Is there any option to appeal the 4 parking PCN's on the basis that it is a continued offence and not multiple offences?

I have attached the copies of the PCNs to this post

Any help would be very much appreciated.

[Advertisement]

[Incandescent]

Is it permits only 24x7 or only part of week and/or day ? Best if you provide a GSV link to where you parked and tell us your exact location. Any reason for not renewing your permit ? As you're a resident, how long have you lived there and do they normally send out reminders.

[MHJMU]

It is permit holders Mon-Sun 8am-6pm. Excuse my ignorance but what is a GSV link and how can I obtain this?

Honestly, I have only lived there 12 months and did not even realise permits need to be renewed every day (stupid I know!) which also means I am unsure whether they usually send out reminders or not.

Thanks for all your help so far

https://goo.gl/maps/ScCJ7TZSa972

Here is the location I was parked

[Mad Mick V]

I would suggest the one for 1st September is not enforceable under the 10 minute rule. Permit parking comes into force at 08.00 and the PCN was served at 08.06. Anyhow, forget about that for the time being, go with a continuous contravention appeal/reps in that the car was not moved between the date the 1st PCN was served and the last PCN.
I would lay it on thick that the aggregate penalty is excessive, that you admit being in error through not renewing your permit (although the Council sent no reminders) and that your argument is that the contravention should be regarded as continuous for which only a single penalty charge can legitimately be sought since the car was in situ throughout.
BTW a sight of the back of a PCN would be useful.

Mick

[hcandersen]

As I understand it, a discontinuous restriction does not automatically debar a claim of continuous contravention.

[Mad Mick V]

As I understand it, a discontinuous restriction does not automatically debar a claim of continuous contravention.

Depends on the adjudicator ----this one for instance pi$$e$ me off every time I read it:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1336811
That's why I inevitably advise that the excessive penalty card be played--admit the error and say it's too much to pay in the circumstances of the case.
Mick

[hcandersen]

Probably the best approach.

But given that adjudicators have to apply the law and that different adjudicators reach diametrically opposite views on the same facts must mean that we have different law! Maybe one does Mon-Fri, the other weekends.

When adjudication becomes a lottery(sorry, even worse than a lottery, at least with this you choose your own numbers, unlike being allocated an adjudicator) it becomes a joke.

Rant over.

[PASTMYBEST]

If not continuous then it must surely be continuing. In a high court the first would carry a sanction the others taken into consideration or least left on file and only one fine. You should not be worse of at tribunal than you would be a court

[MHJMU]

Thanks for all your help guys! I have attached a copy of the back of the PCN for reference.

It looks like my best option is to argue the contravention should be regarded as continuous and should result in a single penalty charge. I will submit my appeal within the next few days and keep you updated with progress

Thanks again!

[cp8759]

The 0845 number on the back of the PCN makes it unlawful, see ground 4 here for an explanation of the legalities: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1404571

[Longtime Lurker]

GSV means Google Street View... which you actually gave us in the same post :-)

[MHJMU]

The 0845 number on the back of the PCN makes it unlawful, see ground 4 here for an explanation of the legalities: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1404571

Would this be enough to appeal all 4 tickets on these grounds?

[PASTMYBEST]

The 0845 number on the back of the PCN makes it unlawful, see ground 4 here for an explanation of the legalities: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1404571

Would this be enough to appeal all 4 tickets on these grounds?

If it wins it wins 1. 4 .or 24

IMO correctly worded it should win

[stamfordman]

When did the permit expire.

Liverpool is a hardline council on PCNs sadly.

[MHJMU]

When did the permit expire.

Liverpool is a hardline council on PCNs sadly.

It expired the day prior to the first PCN

[stamfordman]

Some councils have a grace period of at least a week for lapsed permits. Liverpool of course does not. From its policy:

Lapsed Parking Permits
In situations where a parking permit has lapsed beyond its expiry date, a Penalty Charge Notice will be issued to a vehicle parked in contravention whilst displaying such a permit. It is the holders’ responsibility to ensure renewal of a permit. The excuse that the City Council does not send out renewal reminders will not, of itself and without additional relevant factors, be accepted as valid reason for an out of date permit.



This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 12:23

[cp8759]

The 0845 number on the back of the PCN makes it unlawful, see ground 4 here for an explanation of the legalities: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1404571

Would this be enough to appeal all 4 tickets on these grounds?

It can win if it's argued properly. It's not the sort of thing where you should submit a DIY appeal, we'll have to draft the appeal wording for you as it's a rather technical argument.

[MHJMU]

Thanks for all of your help so far everyone! The 14 day period to challenge the appeal for the first PCN appears to expire tomorrow.

As there are 4 separate PCN cases/numbers I am stuck whether to appeal against them all on the basis of the penalty demanded is excessive (due to the 0845 number) or whether to appeal that it is a continuous offence and offer to pay the first PCN. Finally, I could appeal the PCN on the 01/09 due to the timing it is served being within 10 minute ruling?

Any advice would be much appreciated

EDIT: Having rang the 0845 number there is an automated message that redirects you to a freephone 0800 number. Any advice?

[cp8759]

Thanks for all of your help so far everyone! The 14 day period to challenge the appeal for the first PCN appears to expire tomorrow.

As there are 4 separate PCN cases/numbers I am stuck whether to appeal against them all on the basis of the penalty demanded is excessive (due to the 0845 number) or whether to appeal that it is a continuous offence and offer to pay the first PCN. Finally, I could appeal the PCN on the 01/09 due to the timing it is served being within 10 minute ruling?

Any advice would be much appreciated

EDIT: Having rang the 0845 number there is an automated message that redirects you to a freephone 0800 number. Any advice?

You can challenge a PCN on more than 1 ground. So:

Challenge PCN 1 on the basis of the 10 minute rule, and the 0845 number.
Challenge PCNs 2, 3 and 4 on the basis of continuous contravention, and the 0845 number.

What happens once you've called the 0845 number is irrelevant, by the time you've been given the 0800 number you've already paid for the call to the 0845 number including the service charge, so the penalty exceeds the amount due by law.

[MHJMU]

OK guys I need to submit my appeal by tonight. Here is the current draft. Any advice would be much appreciated

Ground 1: Multiple PCN’s are excessive as only one continuous contravention occurred

During the period between 29.08.2018 and 01.09.2018, during which time PCN’s XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXX were issued, the vehicle in question was not moved at any time and remained in exactly the same location throughout this period, which can be clearly seen from the photographic evidence submitted with the aforementioned PCN’s. As such, only one continuous contravention occurred and, as there is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue PCN every 24 hours, multiple PCN’s should not be permitted.

To support my claim, I refer you to the case of London Borough of Haringey (2011) (Case reference: 2110189461) which ruled as follows:

“The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' parking place or zone displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011 at 09.00. The Appellant's case is that the permit had not been renewed because they had not received a renewal notice from the authority. The Appellant and his wife were on holiday from 31 December 2010 until 23 January 2011 during which period the Penalty Charge Notices were incurred. I have considered the evidence and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents parking place displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4 January 2011. It is the Appellant's responsibility to renew their permit and they are not entitled to rely on the courtesy renewal letter, which may not have been received. However, I find that the Appellant's vehicle committed one contravention of parking in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011. I find that one continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remains at the same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. Further, I have taken into account that the residents' bay is operational from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday and I find that the situation would be the same if the residents' bay was operational 24 hours a day 7 days a week. There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a continuous contravention, such as removal. For the reasons given this appeal is allowed”.

Ground 2: The penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The telephone payment option includes a 5p per minute surcharge:

On the rear of the PCN it is stated that payment can be made by telephone by calling the payment line 0845 075 8583. 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”. Having called the council's 0845 number, I was charged 55p for a 7 second phone call, which is set by the organisation being called. As such, the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. To support my claim, I refer you to 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 5p 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 even if the grounds above lack all merit, the appeal must be allowed.

Ground 3: No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

In reference to PCN XXXXXX, which was administered at 08:06, no penalty charge is payable given that the residents bay is operational between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 and thus, the vehicle was not left beyond the permitted parking period for a period exceeding 10 minutes.

To support my claim I refer you to the TMA 2004: The Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance to the Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions 2015. Section 8.11 states:

The law requires that a penalty charge must not be issued to a vehicle which has stayed parked in a parking place on a road or in a local authority's car park beyond the permitted parking period for a period of time not exceeding 10 minutes. The grace period applies to on-street and off-street parking places provided under traffic orders, whether the period of parking is paid for or free. Any penalty charge during the 10-minute grace period would be illegal, unless the vehicle itself is parked unlawfully