Serving a PCN, Is affixing to window same as giving to driver |
Serving a PCN, Is affixing to window same as giving to driver |
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 14:25
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 659 Joined: 22 Mar 2016 Member No.: 83,162 |
Just want to triple check something. Didn't want to go into too much detail.
Going to tribunal. Centres around whether CEO served the PCN. Lots of photos but none with PCN on windscreen. Part of the council's evidence pack is CEO notes which say "PCN was handed to the driver". The next line is How Issued which says "affixed to Vehicle". Is Affixed to Vehicle considered the same as handing to driver or is there a separate option of "Handed to driver"? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 14:25
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 14:35
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 22 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,085 |
Surely thats 2 separate things? Unless they are claiming you are the car?
|
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 14:37
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 594 Joined: 7 Sep 2016 From: Glasgow Member No.: 86,985 |
Sticking a PCN to the windscreen and handing it to the person appearing to be in control of the vehicle are considered the same thing - they're both leaving the PCN at the scene at the time.
The opposite would be a postal PCN, either because the driver stopped the CEO issuing the PCN at the scene (by driving away or being aggressive), or because it's a camera PCN. |
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 14:42
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,656 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
They are the allowed methods of service for a regulation 9 PCN, but are different actions. If the CEO notes say one thing and NoR another that would cast a cloud on the proper service.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/9/made -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 14:46
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 21,009 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
"Handed to driver" and "Affixed to windscreen" both mean the PCN was served, but it has to be one or the other; having both records concerning the same PCN indicates possible shenanigans on the CEO's part. Service of a parking PCN has to occur before a Notice to Owner can be issued. Where a CEO starts to prepare, (or even completes the PCN), but the driver drives off before it can be served as above, doesn't mean the driver has "escaped", as the Traffic Management Act 2004 allows a PCN to be served by post instead. We have seen quite a few where the OP says he has received an NtO, but no PCN was handed to him, or affixed to the car. Of course PCNs do get removed by persons unknown, that is why most authorities now at least insist on photos of the PCN on the car. Where a CEO says the PCN was handed to the driver there are invariably no photos, so it is the driver's word against the CEO's if it gets to adjudication.
This post has been edited by Incandescent: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 14:47 |
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 15:07
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,148 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
But surely the issue is not whether A or B are acceptable means of service, we know they are. It's that they are not synonymous.
But who cares unless the OP has consistently throughout their reps contended that they were not served with a PCN by any of the permitted methods and is asserting this at appeal. In which case the authority were required to respond to this in their responses. Or is this just the OP examining evidence word by word looking for inconsistencies which may or may not be material to their grounds of appeal? Who knows? |
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 16:35
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 659 Joined: 22 Mar 2016 Member No.: 83,162 |
The Council (using the CEO notes) contend that the PCN was served by handing the paperwork to the driver.
Looking at the details on-line and on the paperwork submitted for the Tribunal, the council contend that the PCN was served by affixing to the vehicle. All I wanted to know is if these are the same things. (Logic says they are two different things but when did logic ever get in the way). Does "affixing to the vehicle" include handing to the driver? Should the PCN state "handed to the driver"? Both the driver and his assistant have submitted written statement affirming they were not handed any paperwork by the CEO. So it is one party's word against the other but it would help if the CEO contradicts himself. |
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 17:50
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Both actions can be taken as "service" of the PCN.
But they are different and separate actions and cannot mean the same thing. If driver has consistently said they were not given a PCN and there wasn't one on the vehicle, council has to show something that would cast doubt on that statement. I assume no photos of the PCN on the vehicle so that only leaves the CEO notes and a council officer who should be considering challenges (which includes Appeals) and obviously hasn't. If council are saying in their evidence pack that the PCN was fixed but have no photos, though not required in evidence, lack of photos needs explaining in this day and age. |
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 18:02
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,148 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Both the driver and his assistant have submitted written statement
?? Only the owner can make reps, is one of the above the registered keeper? If not, what's going on? We seem to be skirting hard evidence in the form of letters and photos. |
|
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 18:28
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Both the driver and his assistant have submitted written statement ?? Only the owner can make reps, is one of the above the registered keeper? If not, what's going on? We seem to be skirting hard evidence in the form of letters and photos. Jo is presumably the owner or the owner's representative. Transport company IIRC. Nowt wrong with submitting statements from driver etc, as long as statement is in support and not challenge or appeal in driver's name. Agreed that Jo has a habit of picking brains without sharing the PCNs of disclosing full information. Which can mean that important bits are missed. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Tuesday, 16th April 2024 - 04:30 |