Rejected Informal Challenge Multiple PCNs |
Rejected Informal Challenge Multiple PCNs |
Sat, 1 Sep 2018 - 15:40
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 1 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,679 |
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 |
Sat, 1 Sep 2018 - 15:40
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 12 Sep 2018 - 18:33
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Here's my suggestion. This is not an appeal, it's just an informal representation to the council.
Ground 1: Multiple PCNs are excessive as only one continuous contravention occurred, and it is a basic principle of English law that one should be only punished once for one wrongdoing: 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 James George Gibson v London Borough of Haringey (Case reference: 2110189461) where the tribunal 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: 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 issued at 08:06, no penalty charge is payable given that the bay is restricted to residents only between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00. It follows that the vehicle was lawfully parked prior to 8 am and had therefore not left beyond the permitted parking period for a period exceeding 10 minutes at the time this PCN was issued. I refer you to regulation 4(2) to (4) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007: "(2) Paragraph (3) applies in relation to a contravention ... where a vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period. (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. (4) In this regulation— (a)“designated parking place” means a parking place established by virtue of an order made under section 1, 6, 9, 32(1)(b), 35 or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(3); (b)“permitted parking period” means— (i)a period of parking that has been paid for as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place; or (ii)a period of parking for which no charge is payable as authorised by or under any order made relating to the designated parking place." Ground 3: The penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The telephone payment option includes a 2p 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”. The council's 0845 number includes a 2p per minute service charge. 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 2p 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 grounds 1 and 2 above above lack all merit, the PCNs must be cancelled. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 12:42
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 1 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,679 |
Hello everyone,
A few months ago I received 4X PCNs (Dated 28/08 - 01/09) for parking with an expired permit outside my apartment (I honestly forgot it was set to expire and only noticed the 4 PCNs together as I hadn't used my car for a few days. As such, my car had been parked in the same location for the past 5 days and has not been removed between (Copies attached) Where I parked states it is permit holders Mon-Sun 8am-6pm (GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/ScCJ7TZSa972) If anyone would be able to help it would be much appreciated! There seems to be a lot of inaccuracies within their reply 1) At one point they state there are no indications of day on the signage however at the top of the letter it clearly states restrictions are in place Mon - Sun 2) It states that I would not be charged for ringing the provided number however I have evidence from my phone provider that the call did cost me despite being redirected to the freephone number LINK TO APPEAL https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MHxo47i6go...iew?usp=sharing LINK TO 4X RESPONSES https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I7cAmSRfDv...iew?usp=sharing Thanks in advance. Please let me know if you require further info |
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 15:00
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I've asked for this to be merged with the original thread, please do not start new threads for the same case. For the PCN issued at 8:06 they don't have a leg to stand on, the 10 minute rule applies to any parking bay, whether it's a pay & display bay is irrelevant. So count that one as being in the bag.
For PCNs 2, 3 & 4, they have basically ignored the fact that you made representations to the effect that there is no rule or law that allows a council to issue a PCN every 24 hours, or every day or anything of the sort. If the council had considered this, they should at the very least have stated that they can issue a PCN every day, or every 24 hours or whatever. This is a failure to consider which adds to your ammunition for the later stages. However, given the response they have given in relation to the 0845 number (which I know to be correct), I would suggest you pay the 1st PCN at the discounted rate. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 17:30
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
OP, you were asked earlier when your permit expired.
You replied: 'It expired the day prior to the first PCN' The first PCN is dated 28 Aug. Therefore your permit expired on 27th. The authority state in their response and reasoning: 'The CEO further noted...the permit ceased to be valid on 24th' Who is right and who is wrong? |
|
|
Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 01:12
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Well the Council has said it has exercised its discretion ---to extend the discount!
It implies it cannot consider any further discretion in the absence of mitigating circumstances which I suppose relates back to Stamf's post:- "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." My view is that it has fettered its discretion by its refusal to give this case proper consideration and by ring -fencing each PCN as a separate contravention. From Wikipedia on fettering discretion:- "An authority will be acting unreasonably where it refuses to hear applications or makes certain decisions without taking individual circumstances into account by reference to a certain policy. When an authority is given discretion, it cannot bind itself as to the way in which this discretion will be exercised either by internal policies or obligations to others. Even though an authority may establish internal guidelines, it should be prepared to make exceptions on the basis of every individual case." Mick |
|
|
Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 09:12
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 1 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,679 |
I've asked for this to be merged with the original thread, please do not start new threads for the same case. For the PCN issued at 8:06 they don't have a leg to stand on, the 10 minute rule applies to any parking bay, whether it's a pay & display bay is irrelevant. So count that one as being in the bag. For PCNs 2, 3 & 4, they have basically ignored the fact that you made representations to the effect that there is no rule or law that allows a council to issue a PCN every 24 hours, or every day or anything of the sort. If the council had considered this, they should at the very least have stated that they can issue a PCN every day, or every 24 hours or whatever. This is a failure to consider which adds to your ammunition for the later stages. However, given the response they have given in relation to the 0845 number (which I know to be correct), I would suggest you pay the 1st PCN at the discounted rate. Thanks the advice I will ensure this case remains in the one thread. As the council have stated they will not accept any further correspondence is there any option to challenge these PCNs? Furthermore, in reference to the 0845 number my phone bill statement shows that the call actually cost me around £0.40 despite being redirected to the freephone number they mention. Surely this is sufficient evidence for an appeal? OP, you were asked earlier when your permit expired. You replied: 'It expired the day prior to the first PCN' The first PCN is dated 28 Aug. Therefore your permit expired on 27th. The authority state in their response and reasoning: 'The CEO further noted...the permit ceased to be valid on 24th' Who is right and who is wrong? Apologies, at the time I assumed it expired the day prior to the first PCN but having double checked it looked like it did expire on the 24th. The problem is that I don't use my vehicle very often (usually only at the weekends) which means it was left there for a while without checking |
|
|
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 12:25
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I've asked for this to be merged with the original thread, please do not start new threads for the same case. For the PCN issued at 8:06 they don't have a leg to stand on, the 10 minute rule applies to any parking bay, whether it's a pay & display bay is irrelevant. So count that one as being in the bag. For PCNs 2, 3 & 4, they have basically ignored the fact that you made representations to the effect that there is no rule or law that allows a council to issue a PCN every 24 hours, or every day or anything of the sort. If the council had considered this, they should at the very least have stated that they can issue a PCN every day, or every 24 hours or whatever. This is a failure to consider which adds to your ammunition for the later stages. However, given the response they have given in relation to the 0845 number (which I know to be correct), I would suggest you pay the 1st PCN at the discounted rate. Thanks the advice I will ensure this case remains in the one thread. As the council have stated they will not accept any further correspondence is there any option to challenge these PCNs? Furthermore, in reference to the 0845 number my phone bill statement shows that the call actually cost me around £0.40 despite being redirected to the freephone number they mention. Surely this is sufficient evidence for an appeal? Only if you can get something from the phone company to confirm part of that 40p was the service charge. If all of the 40p was all for the access charge, that's considered the same as having to pay for the stamp when you're sending them a letter. In the past we have heard people have been able to get a breakdown from their phone company so it's worth asking. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 21:02
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 1 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,679 |
What would be the appeal process given that they have stated they will accept no further correspondence? Would you advise that I appeal again certain cases or all of them combined?
Whilst I appreciate it was my fault not renewing the permit I feel that 4 PCNs worth £100 is extremely excessive As always any advice is much appreciated |
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 21:41
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
To challenge further just do nothing, the council have six months from the date of the contravention to issue a Notice to Owner. In the meantime, try and get a breakdown from the phone company to confirm whether the 40p included a service charge, or whether it was all just access charge.
When you get the Notice to Owner, upload one of them on here and we'll advise further. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 20:13
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 1 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,679 |
To challenge further just do nothing, the council have six months from the date of the contravention to issue a Notice to Owner. In the meantime, try and get a breakdown from the phone company to confirm whether the 40p included a service charge, or whether it was all just access charge. When you get the Notice to Owner, upload one of them on here and we'll advise further. Thanks for all the advice so far! Do you think this is the best course of action in the specific circumstances? My only worry is having to pay more further down the line. |
|
|
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 22:20
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Once you get the Notice to Owner, providing you follow the process the penalty cannot increase furthers. In practice, if you make formal representations and they reject them, they almost always re-offer the discount as well.
Have you been in touch with the phone company? -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 22:25
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Once the discount period has gone, and it is not re-offered, the full PCN penalty applies right up to adjudication, there are no extra penalties.
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 13:44
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 1 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,679 |
Once the discount period has gone, and it is not re-offered, the full PCN penalty applies right up to adjudication, there are no extra penalties. Thanks guys. My phone company have confirmed that the call charge contains a service charge of 80p per minute. |
|
|
Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 19:11
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Once the discount period has gone, and it is not re-offered, the full PCN penalty applies right up to adjudication, there are no extra penalties. Thanks guys. My phone company have confirmed that the call charge contains a service charge of 80p per minute. Given ofcom caps the service charge at 7p per minute this appears unlikely. Post a copy of their response. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 08:50
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 1 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,679 |
Once the discount period has gone, and it is not re-offered, the full PCN penalty applies right up to adjudication, there are no extra penalties. Thanks guys. My phone company have confirmed that the call charge contains a service charge of 80p per minute. Given ofcom caps the service charge at 7p per minute this appears unlikely. Post a copy of their response. Ah right ok, copy of chat is attached. They also said the access charge was 45p per minute and that the total cost of the call was 55p for 7s. |
|
|
Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 11:53
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Ideally you want something in writing from Vodafone confirming how much you were charged for the service charge. Down the line it will be a lot easier if you have something in black and white saying the service charge is X, rather than having to infer or work out how much it is.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 18:26
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 1 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,679 |
Ideally you want something in writing from Vodafone confirming how much you were charged for the service charge. Down the line it will be a lot easier if you have something in black and white saying the service charge is X, rather than having to infer or work out how much it is. Unfortunately, it turns out that there was no service charge for this call after double checking with Vodafone. Do you believe its still worth holding out and not paying up? My main argument is simply that only 1 fine should have been given which I would have been happy paying! |
|
|
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 18:49
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Wait for the Notices to Owner, then challenge PCN 1 on the basis of the 10 minute rule, and challenge PCNs 2, 3 and 4 on the basis of continuous contravention. Even if they reject they'll usually re-offer the discount.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 18:08
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 1 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,679 |
Hi everyone,
So I have received the notice to keeper (NTC) for all 4 of the PCNs listed earlier in the post with an example of one letter attached via the link below. What is the next steps in the appeal process? From reading the letter it appears that the first step is to respond directly to the city council? Should this be similar to my initial appeal that is listed earlier in the post? As always, your help is much appreciated. Thanks in advance!! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WEi2EeoQqG...iew?usp=sharing |
|
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:46
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
We can add a few bits for failure to consider / procedural impropriety. Bump tomorrow and I'll write something up.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 18:40 |