05 CITY OF LONDON, OUT OF TIME BY 18 MINS Options

[captaincove]

Hi, forgive my sideways pics i cannot find a way to rotate. This is a stab in the dark basically. Paid £30 for 4 hours parking in london, made it back to van 18 mins late. Well, 10 mins grace period and 8 mins on top of that. I just find it so painful that i paid £30 and have to pay another £80, fair enough i was late but if theres anything anyone could spot to help??

Thank you.

gavin

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

Images are too small to read, upload to imgur.com in higher resolution and post a link.

[captaincove]

ok thanks

[Earl Purple]

Is it £80 reduced to £40 if paid in 2 weeks?

I think overstaying in pay and display is a lower-rate offence.
(In London that is a lower-rate, higher rates are usually £130 reduced to £65)

[captaincove]

it is 80 reduced to 40 yes, considering i had already paid 30 plus 11.50 congestion charge i just feel aggrieved to have missed it by a few minutes and I'm sure they could exercise their discretion seeing as id paid, no?

[captaincove]

hope this works. thanks for anyones help

gav

[hcandersen]

The missing page(s) of the NOR Pl. Yours ends '..by 50% and a Charge' ....what, card, of the Light Brigade, certificate?

And your representations - you did keep a copy, didn't you?

[cp8759]

There's a potential flaw on the Notice of Rejection but as hcandersen says, we need the missing page.

[captaincove]

https://imgur.com/NkSc35a

Im so sorry guys i didn't even expect reply. My representations were sent via their website so have no record.

Thank you for taking your time to reply to me.

gav

[cp8759]

So they're saying they will increase the charge and may serve a charge certificate. Ergo after the end of the 28 day period, the council will no longer accept £80, so the will/may logic applies.

[cp8759]

To answer your PM, there's an error in the Notice of Rejection: they state if you don't pay the charge or appeal, the penalty will increase by 50%.

This is a procedural impropriety, because the Notice of Rejection must say that the penalty charge may increase by 50%, it cannot say the charge will increase. IMO it's no answer that the next stage say the council may serve a charge certificate, because even if they don't serve a charge certificate, if you try and pay the penalty online you'll still be faced with the higher liability.

Therefore stating that the charge will be increased is a procedural impropriety which means you have a ground of appeal to take this to the tribunal, should you wish to do so.

[captaincove]

Thank you, ill follow this up and see what happens.

[cp8759]

I suggest you post a draft of what you plan on saying first, this is a complex technical argument that has to be put together very carefully in order to be successful.

Also bear in mind no council ever accepts their PCN template is wrong, it's only at the tribunal stage that this can get the PCN overturned.

[captaincove]

Do you think you could help me out? Ive no idea about writing technically complex argumets whatsoever..

[cp8759]

Keep all bold and italics exactly as I've used them below:

------------
While I concede the alleged contravention occurred, I dispute liability because there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provide under regulation 6 that:

Rejection of representations against notice to owner
6.—(1) Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b), that notice shall—

(a) state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge;

The Notice of Rejection served by the City of London asserts that if the charge is not paid and an appeal is not made, the charge will increase by 50%. It is no answer for the council to state that it may increase the charge but chose not to serve a charge certificate, because a motorist attempting to pay online or by phone would still be faced with an increased charge.

Parliament's clearly stated intention is that an enforcement authority has a discretion to increase the penalty charge, there is no duty on the City of London to increase the penalty charge in all circumstances. Therefore the fact that a penalty charge may be increased cannot be a foregone conclusion, the tribunal has repeatedly ruled that the difference between the words will and may is substantive and not a matter of semantics, for example in David Greenberg v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 216022028A) where the tribunal held that:

"...the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion.
I do not accept the theory that the word will reflects a greater warning element, since its meaning is distinctly at variance to that of the word may".

It is worth adding that it is not at all clear that a charge may be lawfully increased without a charge certificate being served, so if the council were to increase the penalty by 50% (which appears to be a foregone conclusion) on its online payment system, but also decide not to serve a charge certificate, that conduct in itself may well be unlawful.

It should finally be noted that councils throughout London indicate on their Notices of Rejection that the penalty charge may be increased if no payment or appeal is made within the required time period, and there appears to be no good reason why the City of London cannot adopt the same wording.

[captaincove]

Thank you cp8759!!

I took a while to reply, apologies. Success. should i post the success letter?

Again, thank you for taking the time to help me.

[John U.K.]

Success. should i post the success letter?

Always good to see chapter and verse of a good result

[cp8759]

Thank you cp8759!!

I took a while to reply, apologies. Success. should i post the success letter?

Again, thank you for taking the time to help me.

I am surprised they conceded but London authorities have to pay £32 tribunal fees if you appeal, so maybe they're wising up. I'd be interested to see the acceptance letter.

[captaincove]

CP8759 can you help me please if you have the time? recently, i made the grave mistake of assisting my mother with a parking ticket of hers. I used the notice of rejection, will/may logic answer you provided me with previously to argue her case - but her case was a moving traffic offence. The answer you had given me regarding the will/may was for a parking offence.

either way..

would you be able to look through the notice of rejection i have received from southwark and let me know if the same applies?

thanks a lot

[stamfordman]

You need to start a new thread for a new case.