Council parking PCN - no ticket on windscreen, Is the PCN valid / legal |
Council parking PCN - no ticket on windscreen, Is the PCN valid / legal |
Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 21:41
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 14 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,890 |
Have received a PCN from Derby CIty Council for parking on double yellows.
It was issued during a football match. I was no where near the car at the time it was issued. I had NO ticket on windscreen or car at the time. Of this I am 100% certain. The first letter was either not sent or not opened. I'm assumed it was not opened (sent to alternative address) Original PCN was issued on 11th August. Today is 14 Sep. Advice? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 21:41
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 21:47
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
You have a notice to owner I think - this is the first letter you would have got after a windscreen PCN.
You can appeal saying there was no PCN on the windscreen and ask if you can pay the discount. But look on council site and see if there are pics taken by the CEO (traffic warden). |
|
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 22:09
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 14 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,890 |
You have a notice to owner I think - this is the first letter you would have got after a windscreen PCN. You can appeal saying there was no PCN on the windscreen and ask if you can pay the discount. But look on council site and see if there are pics taken by the CEO (traffic warden). No pics on they're basic website, so will have to get a pic from them? thanks |
|
|
Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 10:22
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
The first letter was either not sent or not opened. I'm assumed it was not opened (sent to alternative address)
What in heaven’s name does this mean??? Post what you have rather than speculate about what you don’t, we’ll do the rest. Anyway, on the day in question you parked on a DYL which, unless you fall into one of the exempt categories, is a no-no. Let’s assume you do not. So what were you doing parked on DYL for some time ‘I was nowhere near the car when the PCN was issued’? If you’re bang to rights on the contravention, then what are your preferred outcomes, escape on a technicality (which would probably only occur at adjudication with full penalty in play), get the discount re-offered? |
|
|
Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 11:50
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
The first letter was either not sent or not opened. I'm assumed it was not opened (sent to alternative address) Are you saying that you live at a different address to the one on the V5? Do you often not bother opening letters? IMO, the best result you can hope for is to pay at the discount. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 14:36
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 14 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,890 |
The first letter was either not sent or not opened. I'm assumed it was not opened (sent to alternative address) What in heaven’s name does this mean??? Post what you have rather than speculate about what you don’t, we’ll do the rest. Anyway, on the day in question you parked on a DYL which, unless you fall into one of the exempt categories, is a no-no. Let’s assume you do not. So what were you doing parked on DYL for some time ‘I was nowhere near the car when the PCN was issued’? If you’re bang to rights on the contravention, then what are your preferred outcomes, escape on a technicality (which would probably only occur at adjudication with full penalty in play), get the discount re-offered? The initial letter sent informing of the PCN was not seen by me. The car is registered at another address. The owners of that address either didn't see the letter, or the letter was not sent. I cant believe the letter was missed, out of character, so i'm assuming it was not sent. So the first time I was made aware of the PCN was when a 2nd letter was sent, chasing payment. I would have paid at a discount if i'd know I was caught. The car was parked, next to 100's of others, at a football match. it was 18:50 on a Saturday away from residential area. There was no passing traffic. So preferred outcome is pay at a discount, given a PCN was not fixed to the screen at the time, which I understood to be a requirement. The first letter was either not sent or not opened. I'm assumed it was not opened (sent to alternative address) Are you saying that you live at a different address to the one on the V5? Do you often not bother opening letters? IMO, the best result you can hope for is to pay at the discount. I live at a different address to V5. Letters are always opened at the other address, which is why it's odd that the 2nd letter was the first time I heard of this. I would have paid the day after if i'd known about it. I took a chance, I knew there was a risk. Making a driver aware of a PCN seems an important part of the process. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 15:11
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
If you don't post what you have we can't do anything.
|
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 13:35
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
As stamfordman says, unless you upload the documents we can't help you.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 16:31
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 14 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,890 |
The first letter was either not sent or not opened. I'm assumed it was not opened (sent to alternative address) What in heaven’s name does this mean??? Post what you have rather than speculate about what you don’t, we’ll do the rest. Anyway, on the day in question you parked on a DYL which, unless you fall into one of the exempt categories, is a no-no. Let’s assume you do not. So what were you doing parked on DYL for some time ‘I was nowhere near the car when the PCN was issued’? If you’re bang to rights on the contravention, then what are your preferred outcomes, escape on a technicality (which would probably only occur at adjudication with full penalty in play), get the discount re-offered? The initial letter sent informing of the PCN was not seen by me. The car is registered at another address. The owners of that address either didn't see the letter, or the letter was not sent. I cant believe the letter was missed, out of character, so i'm assuming it was not sent. So the first time I was made aware of the PCN was when a 2nd letter was sent, chasing payment. I would have paid at a discount if i'd know I was caught. The car was parked, next to 100's of others, at a football match. it was 18:50 on a Saturday away from residential area. There was no passing traffic. So preferred outcome is pay at a discount, given a PCN was not fixed to the screen at the time, which I understood to be a requirement. The first letter was either not sent or not opened. I'm assumed it was not opened (sent to alternative address) Are you saying that you live at a different address to the one on the V5? Do you often not bother opening letters? IMO, the best result you can hope for is to pay at the discount. I live at a different address to V5. Letters are always opened at the other address, which is why it's odd that the 2nd letter was the first time I heard of this. I would have paid the day after if i'd known about it. I took a chance, I knew there was a risk. Making a driver aware of a PCN seems an important part of the process. pic attached photo of PCN This post has been edited by buzzlight: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 16:33 |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 16:44
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
It's a notice to owner. There was no first letter - this is the first letter.
You can appeal saying there was no PCN on the windscreen and ask if you can pay the discount. Did you ask council for pics? |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 16:45
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You have a Notice to Owner, that tells you quite clearly the PCN was served on the person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle at the time. Therefore there are no missing letters as this is the first letter that would be sent in the post. Presumably no representations or payment were made on the back of the PCN, so now the council has served a Notice to Owner. There are three possible explanations:
1) The council has made some sort of mistake. 2) A person unknown who happened to be near the vehicle purported to be the person in charge of the vehicle, and the CEO handed the PCN to that person. 3) The CEO served a PCN on you. You tell us 3 doesn't apply, and 2, while not impossible, is very unlikely. So we need to establish what evidence there is that a PCN was served on a person purporting to be in charge of the vehicle, in the first instance I'd contact the council and ask for the photos and the CEO notes, if they spoke to someone or handed them a PCN, they normally have photos and notes to back it up. Don't word it as a challenge, make it very clear it is just a request for information. But the bottom line is if they can't show a PCN was served, they have no authority to issue the Notice to Owner. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 20:46
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 14 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,890 |
It's a notice to owner. There was no first letter - this is the first letter. You can appeal saying there was no PCN on the windscreen and ask if you can pay the discount. Did you ask council for pics? going to phone them tomorrow to get more information You have a Notice to Owner, that tells you quite clearly the PCN was served on the person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle at the time. Therefore there are no missing letters as this is the first letter that would be sent in the post. Presumably no representations or payment were made on the back of the PCN, so now the council has served a Notice to Owner. There are three possible explanations: 1) The council has made some sort of mistake. 2) A person unknown who happened to be near the vehicle purported to be the person in charge of the vehicle, and the CEO handed the PCN to that person. 3) The CEO served a PCN on you. You tell us 3 doesn't apply, and 2, while not impossible, is very unlikely. So we need to establish what evidence there is that a PCN was served on a person purporting to be in charge of the vehicle, in the first instance I'd contact the council and ask for the photos and the CEO notes, if they spoke to someone or handed them a PCN, they normally have photos and notes to back it up. Don't word it as a challenge, make it very clear it is just a request for information. But the bottom line is if they can't show a PCN was served, they have no authority to issue the Notice to Owner. thank you, great info. Yes 3 doesn't apply. 2 would be just weird, but as you say any notes would document that. There was nothing on the car (I checked carefully because I was expecting a ticket, I was on double yellows but comfortable given the circumstances - time of day, location etc ), and certainly didn't speak to a CEO myself. I was at a football match (my team got thumped 1-4 at home) I shall be requesting more information (via phone of should a web form be used) tomorrow. |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 21:01
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
How can you be so sure a PCN wasn't attached to the car? CCTV of car whilst parked, or simply assuming?
Whilst not common, we see cases of PCN being removed by person unkown. This post has been edited by peterguk: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 21:02 -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 21:07
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Well as CP picked up the NTO does say that the PCN was served to a person. But it may be boilerplate that's slipped into the NTO by mistake.
Council pics may shed light on this. |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 21:09
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 14 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,890 |
How can you be so sure a PCN wasn't attached to the car? CCTV of car whilst parked, or simply assuming? Whilst not common, we see cases of PCN being removed by person unkown. Guess I'll find out soon enough if I get hold of a photo that shows a PCN attached. I should clarify - I didn't see or remove a PCN that day, and I was looking for one (and I wasn't drunk or high i.e memory impaired - worth mentioning as fair to assume some people would be after a football match). If a pic exists, then guess its a hunt for CCTV in the area, of which I think there will be. |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 21:33
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Well as CP picked up the NTO does say that the PCN was served to a person. But it may be boilerplate that's slipped into the NTO by mistake. I'm finding that odd as I've never seen that on an NtO before that I recall; only as an either/or. No pics on they're basic website, so will have to get a pic from them? As Councils go the website looks fairly comprehensive. Have you looked for pics vis 'pay' or 'challenge' portals? -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 21:53
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 14 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,890 |
Well as CP picked up the NTO does say that the PCN was served to a person. But it may be boilerplate that's slipped into the NTO by mistake. I'm finding that odd as I've never seen that on an NtO before that I recall; only as an either/or. No pics on they're basic website, so will have to get a pic from them? As Councils go the website looks fairly comprehensive. Have you looked for pics vis 'pay' or 'challenge' portals? OK Ive looked at the website. There is a photo with the PCN on the windscreen. 100% wasn't there when i got to the car. It looks like its not stuck on well, and it was raining. Clutching at straws? Well as CP picked up the NTO does say that the PCN was served to a person. But it may be boilerplate that's slipped into the NTO by mistake. I'm finding that odd as I've never seen that on an NtO before that I recall; only as an either/or. No pics on they're basic website, so will have to get a pic from them? As Councils go the website looks fairly comprehensive. Have you looked for pics vis 'pay' or 'challenge' portals? OK Ive looked at the website. There is a photo with the PCN on the windscreen. 100% wasn't there when i got to the car. It looks like its not stuck on well, and it was raining. Clutching at straws? image attached |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 21:55
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
OK Ive looked at the website. There is a photo with the PCN on the windscreen. 100% wasn't there when i got to the car. It looks like its not stuck on well, and it was raining. Clutching at straws? Councils are't all totally bad - an appeal saying the PCN wasn't there when you returned and referencing the pic that looks dodgy should result in an offer just to pay the discount. |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 21:57
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
So:
You knowingly parked on DYL; There is a photo of a PCN on the car; You have a NTO; The NTO is not required to state how the PCN was served - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...ulation/19/made The odds are not in your favour. Apologetic reps, didn’t find PCN, would the authority consider re-offering the discount. |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 22:31
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
The NTO is not required to state how the PCN was served - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...ulation/19/made Agreed, they don't. but it does? Well as CP picked up the NTO does say that the PCN was served to a person. But it may be boilerplate that's slipped into the NTO by mistake. I'm finding that odd as I've never seen that on an NtO before that I recall; only as an either/or. and, apparently, their own evidence suggests it wasn't. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:52 |