PCN 52M, PCN 52M - Failing to comply with a prohibition...wrong way down one wa |
PCN 52M, PCN 52M - Failing to comply with a prohibition...wrong way down one wa |
Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 16:03
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 25 Oct 2015 Member No.: 80,207 |
Hello
My husband apparently went the wrong way down a one way street. He didn't see any signs. Is anyone able to identify any technicalities we could use to avoid paying the PCN? Also, the PCN arrived yesterday, 21 June 2018, (with first class postage) but I note that the notice is dated 13 June 2018. This means there is a very short time before the 14 days expire. Does this give us anything to argue? Thank you so much This post has been edited by southpaw82: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 - 11:24 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 16:03
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 15:10
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
There is no informal stage for moving traffic PCNs. Only for windscreen parking PCNs and in London for bus lanes.
See https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...rcement-process |
|
|
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 21:30
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You can use this:
---------------------------- Ground 1: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The stuff you said in post 18 Ground 2: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The representations made against the PCN included the substance of ground 1 above, but the Notice of Rejection is silent on the issue. While previous adjudications are not binding, they can be persuasive and I submit that the decision of adjudicator Edward Houghton in Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432) as persuasive authority: “The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed”. In this case the Notice of Rejection should have included words to the effect that the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice was correct, or that if it was wrong this did not affect the validity of the PCN, but the issue is not even mentioned in the Notice of Rejection. It follows that the council could not have properly considered the representations made, and where the council utterly fails to show any consideration of a motorists's representations, the only penalty that may be properly demanded is nil. It follows that even if ground 1 above is rejected by the tribunal, the Penalty Charge Notice must nonetheless be cancelled. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 03:01
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 7 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,288 |
Ah that looks amazing, thank you so much!
|
|
|
Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 17:48
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 7 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,288 |
You can use this: ---------------------------- Ground 1: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The stuff you said in post 18 Ground 2: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The representations made against the PCN included the substance of ground 1 above, but the Notice of Rejection is silent on the issue. While previous adjudications are not binding, they can be persuasive and I submit that the decision of adjudicator Edward Houghton in Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432) as persuasive authority: “The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed”. In this case the Notice of Rejection should have included words to the effect that the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice was correct, or that if it was wrong this did not affect the validity of the PCN, but the issue is not even mentioned in the Notice of Rejection. It follows that the council could not have properly considered the representations made, and where the council utterly fails to show any consideration of a motorists's representations, the only penalty that may be properly demanded is nil. It follows that even if ground 1 above is rejected by the tribunal, the Penalty Charge Notice must nonetheless be cancelled. Hello I'm just about to submit the appeal online. I just wanted to clarify - are both grounds (1 and 2) meant to be the same (i.e. amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances). Thanks oodly |
|
|
Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 17:58
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Yes, that is the statutory ground for both points.
-------------------- 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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:41 |