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! |
|
|
|
Sat, 4 May 2019 - 07:36
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
OP, make life easy for the adjudicator please.
I do not like legalistic appeals devoid of any apparent context. There are 4 PCNs and their circumstances are NOT identical. But by way of clarification first, and to save me trawling through! You have acknowledged that: You were parked continuously, BUT You have not stated when you parked for the first time? Is this correct? If so, then your summary is that as regards the first PCN you cannot recall exactly when you parked but accept that you were in contravention because your permit was invalid. Similarly, the authority have adduced no evidence of when you parked, and were therefore in contravention, beyond the first observation time on the PCN. You respectfully submit that although in contravention the authority were prevented from demanding a penalty by virtue of the 2015 amendment to regulations which, as the Explanatory Note to the regs states: 'introduce a ten minute grace period before a penalty charge is payable and a penalty charge notice can be served in relation to a parking contravention where a vehicle is stationary in an off street or on street permitted parking place and the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period.' In the case of PCN **** (the first PCN) the authority's observation period commenced at *** and the PCN was issued at ***, only **** minutes later. You submit that this PCN is invalid notwithstanding the authority's assertion to the contrary in their responses..and this is where you can quote their (mis)understanding! As regards PCNs **,**,*** the authority have not challenged your assertion that the vehicle was parked continuously and therefore notwithstanding that the vehicle was in contravention the authority were prevented from demanding more penalties on the basis of continuing contravention. In summary, you accept that you were liable for the first contravention but that because the authority acted prematurely in issuing this PCN within the first 10 minutes of them being aware that a penalty was payable, this PCN is invalid. As regards all subsequent PCNs you submit that these are similarly invalid because it was a continuous contravention. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 4 May 2019 - 08:08 |
|
|
Sat, 4 May 2019 - 08:56
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
@hca
The PCN subject to the 10 minute rule is the 4th one issued not the 1st (unfortunately). Mick |
|
|
Sat, 4 May 2019 - 09:14
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Trying to get the basics from this thread is almost impossible.
The PCNs have disappeared. OP, what were the observation times given for the FIRST PCN? I can see that it was issued at 15.22 and I've got unnecessarily lengthy adjudication decisions coming out of my ears and clogging the thread, but these don't help. All I want are the basic facts. |
|
|
Sat, 4 May 2019 - 16:32
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 1 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,679 |
Draft appeal: ----------------- I rely on my formal representations in the first instance, as the council has not provided anything in the Notice of Rejection to refute the grounds put forward. I put forward the following additional grounds of appeal: Procedural impropriety 1: The council asserts that: The 10 minute grace period is only given when an expired pay and display ticket is displayed the City Council will allow a 10 minute grace period from when the pay and display ticket expires to when a PCN will be issued, displaying an expired permit is not the same as displaying an expired pay and display ticket. The 10 minute period isn't "given" by the council, rather it is a period of time prescribed by regulations made by Parliament. The council appear to be acting under some sort of misapprehension that it is within the gift of the council to decide if, how and when the 10 minute grace period applies: Regulation 4 of the general regulations gives the council no discretion in this regard. As parking is unrestricted before 8 am, a vehicle could have been lawfully parked in the relevant parking place prior to 8 am even if no permit had ever been issued and even if, for example, the vehicle concerned had not been eligible for a permit at all. The driver of such a vehicle would plainly be entitled to the benefit of the statutory 10 minute period during which, although a contravention has occurred, no penalty charge is payable. The council's contention that the 10 minute grace period could be disapplied where the vehicle is displaying an expired permit is at odds with the plain wording of the regulations. Procedural impropriety 2: In relation to my original ground 3(b), the council answers that: "If further evidence or mitigation would have been provided which would warrant the cancellation of the PCN then the council would consider this and would if needed cancel a PCN which can be done at any stage." This may well be true, but it does give the impression of the council moving the goalposts. The issue here is whether the council is entitled to assert in the rejection letter that no further informal representations will be considered, I submit that this is the meaning conveyed by the wording used in the informal rejection letter. If it is true that the council, contrary to what is asserted in the informal rejection notice, would in fact consider further mitigation, the natural conclusion is that the wording used is misleading: A motorist might receive the rejection letter but then come into possession of information or evidence which amounts to further, compelling mitigation. Acting on the information provided in the letter, a motorist would be mislead into believing that no such mitigation would be taken into account prior to the Notice to Owner being served, this is contrary to the clear words of regulation 3(2) of the appeals regulations. I submit that for the council to modify its position in this way is also a breach of its duty at common law to act fairly, see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Doody [1993] UKHL 8. In light of this the appeal should be allowed, and the council should modify its informal rejection notices accordingly. Wow thank you so much for help and quick response it is hugely appreciated. |
|
|
Sat, 4 May 2019 - 16:57
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Any chance of a response to this?
OP, what were the observation times given for the FIRST PCN?. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Sat, 4 May 2019 - 16:57 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:33 |