Very late PCN for a lease car, 10 months from contravention to notice! Options

[whodoesntlikeavo...]

4th PCN received for same offence. First 3 issued summer/autumn last year. 3rd one was issued a few months after the contravention but this 4th one has been issued 10 months after the contravention! (first 3 have been paid off after rejections by council of continuing contravention).

Its a contract hire/lease car so I understand there can be a delay for them to find out who the driver was but 10 months seems excessive and must surely be outside of the limits but I can't seem to find any definitive timelines...

[Advertisement]

[Mr Mustard]

If this was my PCN I would be going to the tribunal. There is a lot of bluffing by councils. They may not even have a copy of the lease as if it isn't provided they still just transfer liability in Barnet, no questions asked.

[whodoesntlikeavo...]

So the best way to confirm this is to check with my leasing company whether or not they gave Barnet a copy of the lease documents? Also do Barnet have a maximum time allowed from the incident to request details from the DVLA - because either they have done this very late, or the DVLA have taken a very long time to get back to them!?

[cp8759]

Personally I would just register an appeal with London Tribunals and see how the council react. The most likely outcome is that they won't contest. At the end of the day, either they've done something in breach of the statutory deadlines, or at worse they received representations from the lease company but didn't consider them for several months, which is a breach of the common law duty to act fairly (see Jose Luis Aguilar v London Borough of Newham (217042413A, 26 October 2017) http://bit.ly/2QvGj2O). Either way, I don't see the council being able to put an arguable case forward at the tribunal.

[whodoesntlikeavo...]

Under which grounds am I appealing?

At the time of the alleged contravention the vehicle was in the control of someone without your consent
I was not the owner at the material time
Statutory Declaration\Witness Statement
The contravention alleged by the authority on the penalty charge notice did not occur
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case
You are a hire firm and have supplied a valid hire agreement

[Mr Mustard]

I would choose, the charge exceeded that applicable in all the circumstances.

Your chances of the council not contesting are probably increased if you put me down as the representative. There is no cost to you. I am a volunteer fighting, currently, about 150 PCNs a year.

I will private message you with my name and address.

[Mr Mustard]

Decision - case 2190304888

At this scheduled personal hearing the appellant was represented by Mr Dishman in person but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to perform a prohibited turn.

There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.

The vehicle is seen to turn left when the Enforcement Authority’s case is that the sign clearly indicates no left turn.

Mr Dishman submits that there has been undue delay by the Enforcement Authority in this case.

The event occurred on 20 August 2018 and yet this Penalty Charge Notice is dated 20 June 2019. The original Penalty Charge Notice was issued on the date of event, 20 August 2018 to the registered keeper, apparently a vehicle leasing company. No response was received by them so a Charge Certificate was issued on 2 October 2018. However, no Order for Recovery was issued until 9 April 2019, more than six months later. A Revoking Order was issued on 10 May 2019 and a new Penalty Charge Notice was issued 13 May 2019.

It appears that on 7 June 2018 the recipient indicated that the vehicle was “on hire” at the time and liability was transferred.

The Enforcement Authority have given no explanation of the more than six months delay on their part before the Order for Recovery.

The Enforcement Authority has a duty to act with reasonable expedition and fairness. Whilst this present Penalty Charge Notice may have been issued with reasonable promptness. However, that is not the case as between the original Charge Certificate and the Order for Recovery. After so long a delay, particularly being unexplained, I cannot find that, in the process taken as a whole, the Enforcement Authority have acted with due expedition in this matter now to be able to enforce this penalty charge.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

I had a good day yesterday, won 4 out of 4 at the tribunal.