PCN issued 28 days after alleged contravention, Is this lateness a valid grounds for appeal? |
PCN issued 28 days after alleged contravention, Is this lateness a valid grounds for appeal? |
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 21:28
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 25 Jul 2018 Member No.: 99,077 |
Hello,
A friend of mine received a PCN on 15/06 for performing a prohibited turn and asked me for advice. I noticed that the PCN was issued 28 days after the alleged contravention. Searching through the forums, am I to understand that he now needs to contact the DVLA to find out when the council requested his details? I've uploaded the PCN here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xmGySA_JsmJM-YYfC This post has been edited by elucidate: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 16:57 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 21:28
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 22:12
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Not yet, Who is the registered keeper of the vehicle, by that I mean whose name is on the v5c
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 22:15
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
We're seeing a few now at this location and may be other reasons to appeal
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121710 Yes, is the car leased. Are you the driver - no need to hide. |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 11:10
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 25 Jul 2018 Member No.: 99,077 |
It really is my friend - he doesn't know English that well so I'm helping him out.
The car's registered keeper is not the driver. This post has been edited by elucidate: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 11:13 |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 11:23
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/6/enacted, ss6(1) and 6(2):
As you will see, subject to exceptions- none of which applies in this case- a PCN may not be served later than 28 days. Date of alleged contravention: 15 June 2018; Latest date for service: 12 July; Date if issue of PCN: 13 July; Date of service: 17 July. |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 11:45
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
The car's registered keeper is not the driver. What does that mean? -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 12:47
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 25 Jul 2018 Member No.: 99,077 |
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/6/enacted, ss6(1) and 6(2): As you will see, subject to exceptions- none of which applies in this case- a PCN may not be served later than 28 days. Date of alleged contravention: 15 June 2018; Latest date for service: 12 July; Date if issue of PCN: 13 July; Date of service: 17 July. The 28th day after 15th June is 13th July, is it not? The car's registered keeper is not the driver. What does that mean? His wife is the registered keeper, he is the driver. |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 13:04
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
|
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 13:44
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
The 28th day after 15th June is 13th July, is it not? Yes but that isn't the relevant 28 period, as HCA described for you. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 13:50
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 25 Jul 2018 Member No.: 99,077 |
.........His wife is the registered keeper, he is the driver. That's fine assuming address is correct on the V5c Please check and confirm, no missing or incorrect house number, wrong post code or anything like that ? All fine on that front. |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 17:15
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 25 Jul 2018 Member No.: 99,077 |
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/6/enacted, ss6(1) and 6(2): As you will see, subject to exceptions- none of which applies in this case- a PCN may not be served later than 28 days. Date of alleged contravention: 15 June 2018; Latest date for service: 12 July; Date if issue of PCN: 13 July; Date of service: 17 July. Does "service" mean the day it was received in the post? |
|
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 17:19
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,308 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,515 |
QUOTE Does "service" mean the day it was received in the post? Unless the contrary can be proved, an item posted first class is deemed served 2 days after posting. (Sundays and Bank holidays not counted.) |
|
|
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 12:31
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 25 Jul 2018 Member No.: 99,077 |
got a negative response from the council:
Page 1: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xmH4E6Woatqhfu13O Page 2: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AhJd2Q4uph3xmH8-cAkDZF5RY6Gu |
|
|
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 21:01
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Get your friend to send this appeal to the tribunal, keepint all bold and italics exactly as I've used it below:
---------------------------- Ground 1: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN was served out of time: The Penalty Charge Notice is dated 13 July 2018 and it alleges that a contravention took place on 15 June 2018. As service is deemed to occur two working days after the date of the notice, and 13 July 2018 was a Friday, service is deemed to have taken place on Tuesday 17 July 2018, i.e. 33 days after the date of the alleged contravention. Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides, is so far as is relevant, that: "6 Limitation on service of penalty charge notice (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no penalty charge notice may be served under this Act after the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply occurred. ... (3) Subsection (6) below applies where the following conditions are met. (4) The first condition is that where a borough council or Transport for London, as the case may be, has before the expiry of 14 days from— (a)the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply occurred … made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars. (5) The second condition is that those particulars have not been supplied to the borough council or Transport for London, as the case may be, before the date after which that council or body would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice or a fresh penalty charge notice by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above. (6) Where this subsection applies, the borough council or Transport for London, as the case may be, shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice or a fresh penalty charge notice for a further period of 6 months beginning with the date mentioned in subsection (5) above. (7) In this section, “relevant particulars” are particulars relating to the identity of the owner of the vehicle contained in the register of mechanically propelled vehicles maintained by the Secretary of State under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22)." As the Penalty Charge Notice was served outside of the time limit imposed by section 6(1), and subsection 6 is not applicable to the circumstances of the case, the Penalty Charge Notice was served out of time and the amount payable is nil. Ground 2: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN does not state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believe a penalty charge is payable: Although these proceedings are civil in nature, it is a long established principle of law that anyone accused of wrongdoing must be given unambiguous particulars of the nature of the accusation he faces. The penalty charge served by the enforcement authority does not specify whether the prohibited turn is a left turn, a right turn or a u-turn, it simply states “50 Performing a prohibited turn” While previous decisions are not binding they can be persuasive and I submit Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent (case reference 2130412623) as persuasive authority in this instance. In that case the tribunal held that: “The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') in this case describes the alleged traffic contravention as Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn. However, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited, left or right. Also, whilst the Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') includes superimposed pictures, it is impossible to see in the copy filed any actual traffic sign(s) that the appellant is alleged to have failed to comply with and there is no copy of the sign(s) themselves superimposed on the PCN. In the circumstances, I find that the PCN is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('LLA & TFL Act 2003'), which states that the PCN "must (a) state (i) the grounds on which the council...believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle". In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.” In this case, as in Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited and the signs which are alleged to have been contravened are not visible on the PCN. It follows that the PCN in this case also fails to comply with section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and the appeal must be allowed. Ground 3: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN does not particularise the location of the alleged contravention: The Ordinence Survey website shows that Mare street extends for approximately 1.1 miles from the junction with Dalston Lane in the north to the junction with Andrews Road in the south, along its length it intersects approximately 30 junctions and the PCN does not specify where on Mare street the contravention is said to have occurred. I submit Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A) as persuasive authority: “Mr Kelly has appeared in person with his son, Mr Sean Kelly. This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane in Northolt Road Northbound at 12.49pm on 12 March 2016. Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention. His evidence shows that there are 5 camera enforcement locations in Northolt Road. Although the Council says in its case summary that the location is Northolt Road at the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue, this is not clear from the PCN. The PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred. I agree with Mr Kelly that this PCN did not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention and I allow the appeal for this reason.” I aver that the PCN does not allow the recipient to understand where on Mare Street the allegation is said to have occurred and the appeal must therefore be allowed. -------------------- 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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:28 |