PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN was not visible from the driver side, I only noticed the PCN after driving for about 20 mins
Bashboush
post Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 00:32
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



I was in London on the 12th May 2019. I parked in Coverdale Road, W12, Shepherds Bush London after 9 pm, which is according to the signs is free.
To my surprise when I got back to my car around 11-ish, i noticed a PCN under the passenger side wiper. Opening it and reading the reason that I have parked without displaying an valid permit, pay and display ticket, and the time was 21:05.
So I started taking pictures and videos of the signs, the street name and the marked parking area in order to challenge the PCN.
I had a friend with me who upon reading the PCN pointed that there is a mistake in the PCN as it read Noel Street (G1) not Coverdale Road!!
I was puzzled!
But back tracking where I was before I arrived at Coverdale Road, I did park at Noel Street, and The PCN must have been issued then.
I had other passengers with me from Noel street to Coverdale Road, I was the driver and someone was sitting at the passenger side and two other people at the back. NONE of us noticed the PCN as we drove and it only was noticeable when we got back to the car at Coverdale Road.
The PCN was tucked under the passenger side wiper( It must've been so low that we did not notice it) and it was not fixed (the adhesive part still intact and not used).
I drive a Citroen Grand Picasso and the wind screen is large and cover a large area from the front, goes low too.
If I did use the wipers I am sure that the PCN would've blown with the wind while driving and I would never knew about it at all.
I took pics of the PCN and it shows that it is very low that you can not see it from inside.
I am planning to challenge it on the bases that the PCN could have been blown/lost without the driver and even the passengers noticing, and I am pretty sure where I parked at Noel Strret (where the PCN issued) it was a free parking after 9pm.
Please advice of the suitable wording to use in my representation.
I do not live in London so I couldn't go back to Noel street to check the signs again and take photos, as it was already late and I still have a long journey home (about 3 hours drive), and going back to Noel street means another 40-50 mins extra time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 00:32
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 06:47
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,442
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Obvious question..it's now 10 Jun and the PCN was issued on 12 May.

The 14-day discount and 28-day periods have passed therefore enforcement has probably moved on to a NTO and full penalty.

Clearly the PCN was affixed, which is all that's required, so you have no defence on this point. We need to move on and not get sidetracked.

Are you the registered keeper of the car?
Are your DVLA details up to date?
Have you got on to the council's website and looked for the PCN's current status and photos?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 00:16
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



Thank you for your reply.
I am the driver not the registered keeper( it is my spouse car)

Yes everything is update with the DVLA
I have looked at the photos, they are a bad quality ( blurry and dark) and the amount showing the £130

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 07:13
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,442
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Please advice of the suitable wording to use in my representation.

I'm still baffled as to why you did not challenge the PCN earlier.

We know nothing of the circumstances, no photos, no Google Street View, no contravention and no PCN. So we can hardly advise!

We need far more detail pl.

And reps should be submitted in your wife's name as she will be the addressee on the NTO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 13:25
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,010
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 01:16) *
I have looked at the photos, they are a bad quality ( blurry and dark) and the amount showing the £130

You need to show us the PCN, the council evidence and you need to give us a link to the location on google street view (not a screenshot of google street view), otherwise we can't give you any meaningful advice.


--------------------
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
Bashboush
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 23:54
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



























Google maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/YdzrqcfppBevh2uw6

This post has been edited by Bashboush: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 00:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ford poplar
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 00:43
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,798
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Member No.: 24,962



We still cannot advise as you have not provided a GSV of where you parked, which you allege was cloverdale rd.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 02:12
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



QUOTE (ford poplar @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 01:43) *
We still cannot advise as you have not provided a GSV of where you parked, which you allege was cloverdale rd.


No, Cloverdale rd is where I first became aware of the PCN.
Noel Street is where the PCN issued and it is where I have provided the google map link to. (I drove from Noel street, without noticing the PCN, to Cloverdale rd, parked there, went for a meal and only when I came back I discovered the PCN, still I was puzzled to why it was issued, and after a while it has been noticed that Noel street was the location on the PCN).

I hope this clarify the matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:35
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,010
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



So from looking at street view it looks like you parked in a residents only bay and to that extent you're banged-to-rights on the contravention. The basic mistake I imagine you made is that you looked at the signs opposite, or further down the road, rather than the sign that was for the specific bay you had parked in. For future reference, you need to check the sign for the bay you're parking in as the restrictions in other bays may be different, as is the case here.

That being said, the only realistic ground of appeal I can see is that the wording of the PCN is duplicitous, an explanation of this is available in this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=128374

This is untested at tribunal level (The new wording was only recently published by London Councils), but IMO should be successful. You could use the draft I put in the other thread, though of course you'd need to tweak it as you're making a challenge against a PCN, rather than against a Notice to Owner.


--------------------
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
Bashboush
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 23:14
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 11:35) *
So from looking at street view it looks like you parked in a residents only bay and to that extent you're banged-to-rights on the contravention. The basic mistake I imagine you made is that you looked at the signs opposite, or further down the road, rather than the sign that was for the specific bay you had parked in. For future reference, you need to check the sign for the bay you're parking in as the restrictions in other bays may be different, as is the case here.

That being said, the only realistic ground of appeal I can see is that the wording of the PCN is duplicitous, an explanation of this is available in this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=128374

This is untested at tribunal level (The new wording was only recently published by London Councils), but IMO should be successful. You could use the draft I put in the other thread, though of course you'd need to tweak it as you're making a challenge against a PCN, rather than against a Notice to Owner.


Thank you very much.
I will use that. ( but what is IMO?)
Shall I wait until we receive the NTO?

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 11:35) *
So from looking at street view it looks like you parked in a residents only bay and to that extent you're banged-to-rights on the contravention. The basic mistake I imagine you made is that you looked at the signs opposite, or further down the road, rather than the sign that was for the specific bay you had parked in. For future reference, you need to check the sign for the bay you're parking in as the restrictions in other bays may be different, as is the case here.

That being said, the only realistic ground of appeal I can see is that the wording of the PCN is duplicitous, an explanation of this is available in this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=128374

This is untested at tribunal level (The new wording was only recently published by London Councils), but IMO should be successful. You could use the draft I put in the other thread, though of course you'd need to tweak it as you're making a challenge against a PCN, rather than against a Notice to Owner.


Thank you very much.
I will use that. ( but what is IMO?)
Shall I wait until we receive the NTO?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 07:34
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,882
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



IMO = in my opinion

So you haven't got the NTO yet? Seems a bit daft throwing away £65 but they may reoffer discount if you ask nicely.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 07:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 17:19
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,010
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



You might as well try an informal challenge first, and let's see what they come back with.


--------------------
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
Bashboush
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 05:04
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 18:19) *
You might as well try an informal challenge first, and let's see what they come back with.

I received the NTO in the post.

Can you help me drafting an informal challenge please.







Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 07:58
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,442
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



It is too late for your spouse to submit an informal (pre-NTO) challenge, that horse has bolted.

The penalty is now £130.

She needs to submit her representations no later than 17 July.

You've had the NTO for a fortnight already before posting here and if she wants to meet the 17th deadline then she needs to post here more promptly.

I cannot see anything other than to ask for discretion. Cp has an idea for a more legalistic argument but this is untested at adjudication, where the penalty would be £130, and is guaranteed to be rejected by the authority at this stage.

Terribly sorry, cannot recall the details because I did not notice the PCN at the time, although the photos shows this as having been placed on my windscreen, and would not knowingly have parked where not permitted. I can only think that I was misled by the signs - which I cannot review because I cannot recall exactly where I parked. If the authority are not able to cancel the penalty using their discretion then I would hope they would at least re-offer the discount. In any event it would be useful to see the signs concerned because I don't want to make the same mistake.

Would be my take at this stage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 09:50
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,010
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I would suggest a combined approach, ask them for discretion, but also (as a secondary point) challenge the penalty on the basis outlined here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1492862

Try writing a draft based on what hcandersen has said and post it on here for review.


--------------------
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
Bashboush
post Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 03:23
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 10:50) *
I would suggest a combined approach, ask them for discretion, but also (as a secondary point) challenge the penalty on the basis outlined here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1492862

Try writing a draft based on what hcandersen has said and post it on here for review.

Thank you.
What do you think of this.


Dear Sir or Madam,

I challenge liability for the penalty charge on the basis of a procedural impropriety. While I did not find the PCN on my vehicle, I accept it was validly served and the fact that I did not find it does not impact its validity.

Terribly sorry, cannot recall the details because I did not notice the PCN at the time, although the photos shows this as having been placed on my windscreen, and would not knowingly have parked where not permitted. I can only think that I was misled by the signs - which I cannot review because I cannot recall exactly where I parked. If the authority are not able to cancel the penalty using their discretion then I would hope they would at least re-offer the discount. In any event it would be useful to see the signs concerned because I don't want to make the same mistake again.

However I note the contravention wording is clearly duplicitous. The wording of the alleged contravention states:

Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without a
valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or
voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required,
or without payment of the parking charge

The allegation is therefore parking in one of several types of bays or spaces, either without displaying any one of a number of things or without payment. The allegation could be any of the following:

Parked in a residents' parking place without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher
Parked in a shared use parking zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued
Parked in a residents' parking zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher
Parked in a shared use parking zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued
Parked in a shared use parking place without without payment of the parking charge

There are at least five possible allegations and it is not at all clear what it is that is alleged. The schedule to the general regulations requires under regulation 19(2)(g) that a Notice to Owner specify "the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer who served the penalty charge notice under regulation 9 or 9A believed that a penalty charge was payable with respect to the vehicle".

It is a basic principle of English law that anyone accused of wrongdoing must be presented with exact, precise and particularised details of what it is that he is alleged to have done. An information laid before magistrates in the terms provided in the NtO would be bad for duplicity, there is not reason to believe that in enacting the civil enforcement scheme, Parliament intended to relax the requirements for precision.

Indeed, from looking into the PCN codes as drafted by London Councils, I have established the following suffix wording is available for contravention code 12:

residents’ bay
shared use bay
voucher/P&D ticket used in permit bay
electronic payment
wrong parking zone
obscured / illegible permit
virtual permit

It is self-evident that an appropriate combination of these suffixes would allow the council to specify the exact nature of the alleged contravention, and thus to specify the grounds on which it is believed the penalty charge is payable. There might be a learning opportunity here for the council.

However in this particular instance, because the Notice to Owner does not specify the grounds on which the council believe a penalty is payable, there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority as the requirements of regulation 19(2)(g) have not been complied with. It follows that even if the alleged contravention occurred (and regardless of which contravention is alleged out of the whole menu of options provided by the council), the penalty charge must be cancelled.

Is it a good idea to ask for a discount then cancellation in the same challenge?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 10:28
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,010
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Yes you need to submit a single representation dealing both with discretion and the statutory grounds of appeal. In the third paragraph, I would change the opening to

However I also note...

This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 10:29


--------------------
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

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: Wednesday, 24th July 2019 - 03:23
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.