Bus lane contravention 34 - Lancashire County Council, Bus lane contravention 34 - Lancashire County Council Options

[Mikail]

Hi Guys,
This is another Bus lane Contravention Lancashire which my friend got a ticket.

Looking from the ticket, it has gone over 28 Days.

13/11/2018 date of contravention = day 1
22/12/2018 date of posting = day 40. This is a Saturday
23/12/2018 = day 41 being Sunday does not count as a day for service
24/12/2018 = day 42 being a Monday does not count as a day for service
25/12/2017 = day 43 being a Tuesday does not count as a day for service
26 /12/2017 = day 44 Wednesday The second working day after posting and the date of service. Fifteen days late as per regulation 8(2)



Service was effected Fifteen days late on day 43



https://i.imgur.com/QzQggpx.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/4SWFEzH.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/pS06h6w.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/pkO19TX.jpg

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

Was the vehicle a hire car?

There's a known flaw on LCC PCNs, they use an 0844 number for payments which includes a surcharge, this makes the PCN unlawful.

[Mikail]

Hi
It was a lease car.

[Mikail]

On thier website it has the 0344 number.

Parking - pay or challenge your penalty notice
Pay a penalty notice
If you pay the Penalty Charge Notice within 14 days you will only be liable to pay 50% of the total charge.

Pay your penalty notice online

If you would rather pay over the phone you can use our phone payment line 0344 826 6593. We accept the following credit / debit cards: Visa (including Electron), MasterCard, Delta, Maestro and Solo. We do not accept American Express.

We can accept payments for penalty charge notices issued under the former ParkWise parking enforcement scheme.

Pay a bus lane penalty charge notice

[cp8759]

It's the number on the PCN that counts, the website is irrelevant.

[Mikail]

first date of posting by LCC 21/11/2018

Received by the Audi leasing company on 27/11/2018

Reply sent by the Audi leasing company on 07/12/2018

Lcc posted out again on 22/12/2018

[cp8759]

So the PCN appears to be in time as it's within six months and also within 28 days of the cancellation of the previous PCN. At this point I suggest you do three things:

1) Get hold of the video and post it up
2) Tell us if there's an 084 payment telephone number on the PCN
3) Post a link to the location on google street view.

[Mikail-1]

Hi Guys,
I have received a letter from Lancashire county council Notice of rejection.

Shall I appeal or shall I just pay the £30.00, if I don't have a chance.

The letter of the Notice of rejection on the below link and also the video.

I don't think they even bothered replying about 0844 Number.

https://imgur.com/a/Bn1NSt7

https://imgur.com/a/dxoRReB

https://onlineservices.itsvc.co.uk/LancsOCM...mp;fixminsize=1

https://onlineservices.itsvc.co.uk/LancsOCM...mp;fixminsize=1

https://onlineservices.itsvc.co.uk/LancsOCM...mp;fixminsize=1

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8023287,-...6384!8i8192


The Below I email in December 2018 to the Authority and the reply I got is on the above link for the Notice of rejection.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to add on 2 more points to my below mail:

1. The PCN is over 28 days so therefore PCN should be void.
2. There's a known flaw on LCC PCNs, they use an 0844 number for payments which includes a surcharge, this makes the PCN unlawful.

It would be much appreciated if can acknowledge the above points together with my below mail.

Thank You.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I hope you are well.

I have received the above PCN dated 22/12/2018 on the 07/01/2019 being in a bus lane on 13/11/2018 21.40 on Garstang Road at the junction with James Towers Way.

The reason for my representations is that i was travelling on this road for the first time and vaguely i could remember there was roadwork’s going on and it was quiet dark, the road was so narrow and confusing as i believe the road was being made for the cycle & Bus lane on the opposite side.

As i was approaching to the junction or the roundabout i wanted to head towards the City Centre and i don’t know how i managed to come on the bus Gate in first place, it was too late to come out of the bus gate and dangerous for other road users if i tried to reverse back on the main road.

I honestly think and hands on my heart this is just a genuine error as you can see from the time that it happened was 21.40pm where there was no traffic at all and for me to go on bus gate it would be stupid!

It would be much appreciated on this occasion if you can waive the penalty charge based on my above reasons.

Thank You.

This post has been edited by Mikail-1: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 18:15

[PASTMYBEST]

They repeat the 0844 number on the NoR, I would go for it This is a draft I did for a Bristol case


IN THE TRAFFIC PENALTY TRIBUNAL Case number


In the matter of an appeal under regulation 14
of The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges,
Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005

BETWEEN:

Mr xxxxxxxxxxxx

Appellant
and


Lancashire county council

Respondent



Grounds of appeal


Appeal against the imposition of penalty charge note number xxxxxxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark AA23 BCD

The grounds for appeal are set out at regulation 9 of the Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005

I made representations to the council under the ground 9(2)(f) and although I will be adding further grounds start with the same.


1:- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

Lancashire county council allow payment of a penalty charge to be made by debit or credit card, either by telephone, online or in person, you may also pay by post using cheque or postal order.

The statutory ground for appeal is actuated by the telephone payment method. Lancashire county council use for this service a premium rate 0844 telephone number that requires a user to pay an access charge to their service provider and a service charge that is set and for the benefit of Lancashire county council. The rate set by the council being 7p per minute This is revenue raised by the council in addition to the penalty that a user must pay in order to discharge the penalty. Thus the total to be paid is 100%+ of the amount set by statute.

The council notice of rejection is silent on this point

The issue of a council requiring payment of a surcharge came before parking adjudicators at PATAS in 2009 the London borough of Camden for a period in 2008 and 2009 required that in order to make payment by credit card a surcharge of 1.3% would need also to be paid. Four cases were taken before the parking adjudicators who found that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. Because more than 100% of the penalty set by statute was required to be paid in order to satisfy the debt.

Camden applied for judicial review and this was heard by THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin)

The judge in his ruling summarises Camden's case thus

Did the Penalty Amount Exceed the Amount Applicable?
27. Mr Coppel's argument on behalf of the Council embarks from the legal nature of a credit card transaction. That involves the credit card company having separate contracts with the cardholder and the supplier of goods or services. Under the arrangement the supplier of goods or services agrees to accept payment by credit card in discharge of the cardholder's liability to him. The credit card holder agrees to pay the full price of the goods to the card company, albeit at a later date and subject to interest if not paid promptly. The supplier of goods or services agrees to pay to the card provider a percentage of the total cost of the goods or services provided. In this instance the percentage agreed was 1.3% so that for every £100 paid by motorists via credit card, the Council received £98.70.[1] The Council point out that the motorist in these circumstances secures a valuable benefit, namely the delay in having to pay the credit card company albeit that there are substantial benefits to the Council in addition. The general convenience (and thus reduction in administrative overheads) is obvious and importantly the credit card company assumes the risk of non-payment. That is not altogether altruistic, since very high interest is generally charged in the event that a credit card bill is not settled in full at the first opportunity. However, the Council is freed of the problem of chasing bad debts or dealing with bouncing cheques.
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.

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT did not accept this argument he said

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.
30. It follows that the challenges in all four cases fail. Those Parking Adjudicators who allowed the appeals by reference to regulation 4(4)(e) were right to do so. The Adjudicators who allowed the appeals on a different basis were, as a matter of law, right to allow the appeals, even if this basis did not form part of the reasoning.

I submit that in making this ruling and specifically the findings at paragraph 29” 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” That a council cannot add any charge that would be to their benefit. This service charge being just such a charge, set by the council and paid to the council raising the penalty demanded to more than 100% of that allowed by statute.
The argument could be made that as other methods of payment that do not incur a service charge are available then it is allowed for them to make this charge for the one method.
The last 3 sentences in the ruling, disabuse this belief “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.”
I respectfully submit that this service charge falls within the scope of additional sums to be paid ruled upon by THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT as being a charge the council are not permitted to make

[Mikail-1]

Hi Pastmybest,

Thank you for your reply.

If I submit this draft letter for 0844 number will this be a winner and I will the change the name, PCN number. the reason I asked this my friend is thinking about it to either go ahead with the draft letter or pay discount rate.

I told you got up to 05/02/2019 , so you can decide to go wit the draft letter or pay up.

Thank you again for the draft letter

[PASTMYBEST]

There can be no guarantee of a win. The Bristol case I took this draft from the adjudicator gave a direction to the council to make a full submission. they did not and the adjudication was allowed on the basis of signage.

The adjudicator stretched his interpretation to the limit in order to do so .

As regards the 0844 number he indicated that if it is a said then the council would have no ground to resist the appeal.


In your case there is a further risk to be taken into account. If the council come back and say they do not charge the service charge the argument would need to be different in that thePCN and the NoR do not contain information required by statute.

They must tell you how to pay, and the info must be accurate

you could try calling the number then getting a statement from your network provider as to what you were charged (dont pay obviously)

[Mikail-1]

Hi Pastmybest,
Just telephone the Lancashire county council on their customer service number on 03001236713 and spoke to the advisor at the parking services and they said they have changed the number, but I told them the NOR I received the number is still 0844.

He said he will let his manager know about it, as far he was concerned it should of been 03 number and it was changed a while ago. Looks they have not changed it, as the NOR was dated 31/01/2019.

My Colleague will decide to pay or appeal by Monday.



This post has been edited by Mikail-1: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 - 16:23

[PASTMYBEST]

Hi Pastmybest,
Just telephone the Lancashire county council on their customer service number on 03001236713 and spoke to the advisor at the parking services and they said they have changed the number, but I told them the NOR I received the number is still 0844.

He said he will let his manager know about it, as far he was concerned it should of been 03 number and it was changed a while ago. Looks they have not changed it, as the NOR was dated 31/01/2019.

My Colleague will decide to pay or appeal by Monday.

if they have changed the number it becomes a different argument

[Mikail-1]

Well they haven't change the number on both the PCN letter and the NOR my colleague received.

so this is what counts ,what it says on the letter I received. If they have changed it, that will be on the future letters.

He also confirmed the 0844 number does charge network and service charge. He said you have to appeal if you want to argue your case for the 0844 number.

[PASTMYBEST]

Well they haven't change the number on both the PCN letter and the NOR my colleague received.

so this is what counts ,what it says on the letter I received. If they have changed it, that will be on the future letters.

He also confirmed the 0844 number does charge network and service charge. He said you have to appeal if you want to argue your case for the 0844 number.

You send the appeal as in my draft. The adjudicator looks at it and says Ahh you cant do that to the council. The council say yes we know so we stopped we now use a non chargeable number. Good says the adjudicator appeal refused.


on the other hand you say this PCN is Wrong and so is the NoR it tells me I must use an 0870 number if I want to pay by phone, this is wrong and the regulations say they must tell me how to pay. This one can go either way, Your right says the adjudicator appeal allowed, maybe or perhaps more likely Ah but if you call it it re directs you that's OK appeal refused.



You need to call the 0870 number and then check with your provider as to what you have been charged for doing so. Get them to break it down network connection charge and service charge if there is a service charge you have the original ground

[Mikail-1]

Hi PASTMYBEST,
I have just dialled the number 08448266593 and it says please dial the number NFL LIMITED HAS ADDED LOW RATE NUMBER FOR THIS PAYMENT SERVICE 0344 8266 593 OR CONTIUNE ON THIS CALL.

Then it says you need your Penalty charge number and so on to carry on.

What do you think, shall I not bother appealing, as it is letting me know at the beginning of the call to use low rate number.

This post has been edited by Mikail-1: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 12:06

[John U.K.]

When the call was answered, you were paying the higher amount.

[PASTMYBEST]

Check with your network provider, see if you incurred a charge and its breakdown

[cp8759]

Hi PASTMYBEST,
I have just dialled the number 08448266593 and it says please dial the number NFL LIMITED HAS ADDED LOW RATE NUMBER FOR THIS PAYMENT SERVICE 0344 8266 593 OR CONTIUNE ON THIS CALL.

Then it says you need your Penalty charge number and so on to carry on.

What do you think, shall I not bother appealing, as it is letting me know at the beginning of the call to use low rate number.

If you can continue on the current call, you're exposed to the risk of paying the service charge, so the penalty exceeds the amount due. The High Court has said that the availability of other payments options which do not include a surcharge makes no difference.

[Mikail-1]

My colleague has dialled the number and he has been charged Network Charge and Service charge £0.02 and £0.46.

I told him to take it to appeal , as the Penalty has exceeded the amount due.

See below link of the image of the call charges

https://imgur.com/wCtLJ5g

https://imgur.com/a/ow3ujeB