PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Contravention 27 - Whitstable Reeves Way Canterbury
Phaeton55
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 13:06
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 25 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,095



Hi there, great forum you got going here. I am glad to have found and hopefully, I can get some help with a PCN regarding a contravention 27.

This has PCN has been going on for a while now it was initially issued on 17/04/2018 at Reeves Way - Whitstable - Canterbury Council Kent Observation period 09:41 to 09:42

PCN copy here :
https://ibb.co/jLg6fK9

Parked here for about 15 minutes to collect goods from the office NHS region office. Within this short period of time, the PCN was issued.

Reeves Way is a dead end road leading to an industrial area at Harvey Drive with offices. There are loads of car parked on the street and the nearby car park.
Yellow lines are in place all over this area apart from the dropped footway where the car was parked during the alleged contravention. (although there is a second one further down with double yellow lines)

Location : https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3563434,1.0...3312!8i6656
(By toggling the years in the top left hand corner you can change see the dropped kerb)

I haven't got the original PCN and didn't receive a NTO. Once the Charge Certificate arrived on 22.06.2018, I enquired about evidence and CEO Notes.
Received a reply on 18.07.2018 with evidence and notes.
Photo evidence: https://ibb.co/frDSWnR

Reply and CEO notes: https://ibb.co/L6c9GmG

As there was no opportunity to appeal I have left it unchallenged and decided to wait to get it to go to make Witness state statement this took a couple of months I finally received it and submitted this on 19.02.2019.

On 27.02.19 I received the new Notice to Owner with cover letter including a reference to a recent Adjudication.

Copy NTO front and back
Front: https://ibb.co/CVMSTRM
Back: https://ibb.co/4VhtZYm

Cover Letter
https://ibb.co/dLg4Rpf

I took some time to get the information of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal but here is the copy of the recent adjudication case that the Council is referring too:
https://ibb.co/S0dPDSC

Hopefully, this will help to get the paper trail and events so far smile.gif

In the CEO notes the is a remark that the car was blocking a wheelchair user doe this require for a CEO to record more evidence or should I request more ( telephone call records etc). It is very unlikely there was a wheelchair user present let alone any pedestrians in this road.
Should the CEO have waited longer than the 1-minute observation? I noticed there is a 20 minute period for loading and unloading. Also, the note states the car was fully parked on the dropped kerb. However, this was not the case.

A little further down the road there is also a dropped kerb with double yellow lines along it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3560534,1.0...3312!8i6656

For some reason these yellow lines have not been put in place at the location of the contravention : https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3563408,1.0...3312!8i6656

Any grounds to appeal based on the documents provided? Or appeal and hope the council won't reply in time and try and get it cancelled that way?


Your help in this matter will be much appreciated.

This post has been edited by Phaeton55: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 13:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 13:06
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 13:27
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



It's clearly a crossing so this is bang to rights surely - here's the one opposite:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3563408,1.0...3312!8i6656

I would have thought your best hope is to see if they'll accept the discount or as you say they may time out. Did you originally challenge within 14 days?

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 13:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phaeton55
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 13:39
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 25 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,095



hi there @stamfordman thanks for taking time to reply.

This will be the first time I can make a formal appeal to this PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 13:41
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



No I meant did you make an informal challenge to the PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zwekk
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 14:04
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 10 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,869



You should not appeal on the same ground and it would be fair if costs were awarded against you if you did.

You could appeal on the basis that you were not offered the same discount, especially if you're male as it would appear to be unfavourable treatment to discount her and not you for what is admitted to be the same contravention at the same location.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 14:25
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of the appeals regulations is missing

(2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information—

(a) that a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and

(b) that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served—

(i)those representations will be considered;

(ii) but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.


The letter you recieved with the CEO notes is disingenuous at best. tells you that you can pay the reduced amount of £105 within 14 days or the penalty will increase to £113.

£105 is not the reduced amount it is the surcharged amount. and the penalty does not increase beyond that the additional is the court registration fee. But the omit to tell you the OfR would allow you to make a witness statement. I contend this is prejudicial and a breach of the councils duty to act fairly


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phaeton55
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 14:26
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 25 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,095



@stamfordman No informal challenge yet only a request for evidence

@zwekk thank you for your reply seems a valid point you are making there
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 14:39
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Phaeton55 @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 13:06) *
On 27.02.19 I received the new Notice to Owner with cover letter including a reference to a recent Adjudication.

Cover Letter
https://ibb.co/dLg4Rpf

I believe that's unlawful, being out of process, prejudicial, a failure to abide by the requirement
to consider exercising discretion, etc.

I'm sure someone will come up with a more apt legal term.

They can't serve an NtO and simultaneously tell you they'll be rejecting any future reps.

They don't know what you're going to say yet!


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zwekk
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 14:48
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 10 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,869



QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 14:39) *
They can't serve an NtO and simultaneously tell you they'll be rejecting any future reps.


I don't see that in the letter covering the new NtO. To me, it is just putting the OP on notice that an argument similar to the previous case is unlikely to succeed.

The reply with the CEO notes is careless and and I think that that is the strongest appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 14:49
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



So you got a PCN and then did nothing - just waited for NTO that never came?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phaeton55
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 15:00
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 25 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,095



@stamfordman despite the fact the PCN is on the car in the evidence it wasn't present when returning to the car and therefore didn't make any appeals as wasn't aware of this outstanding PCN until the charge certificate arrived on 22.06.2018.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 15:01
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The strongest point must be that 3(2)(b)(ii) is missing from the PCN as that is a PI a statutory ground and if found the appeal must be allowed followed by the letter with CEO notes and Neils point re the pre-empting of any representations




--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 15:05
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Phaeton55 @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 15:00) *
@stamfordman despite the fact the PCN is on the car in the evidence it wasn't present when returning to the car and therefore didn't make any appeals as wasn't aware of this outstanding PCN until the charge certificate arrived on 22.06.2018.



Ok then the most you should be looking at paying is the discount owing to not having the opportunity to challenge and we may well get you off that too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phaeton55
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 15:51
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 25 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,095



Thank you all for your replies and input( @PASTMYBEST @stamfordman @zwekk @Neil B)

But where to start with this appeal as you have supplied quite a few points to look at.

- Discount as per adjudication
- regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of the appeals regulations is missing
- Disingenuous letter with CEO notes, pay a reduced amount when it's actually surcharged amount. Contend this is prejudicial and a breach of the council's duty to act fairly.
- Serve NTO included adjudication for a similar case to deter an appeal.

Many thanks

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 19:13
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Phaeton55 @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 15:00) *
until the charge certificate arrived on 22.06.2018.

Dated when?

and, since there's been an unacceptable delay in progressing enforcement, the date of
the Order for Recovery?

This post has been edited by Neil B: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 19:54


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phaeton55
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 20:58
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 25 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,095



@Neil B

Unable to find the original Charge Certificate atm based on the communication so far it would have been dated 22.06.2018

Order for Recovery consists out of two forms Te3 and Te9 stabled together.

Only on form Te3 it states a date [20/02/19] either pay or file a statement before this date.
No date of posting on both forms.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 22:02
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Phaeton55 @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 20:58) *
Only on form Te3 it states a date [20/02/19] either pay or file a statement before this date.

Is enough to show there was an unwarranted delay of 5 months.


QUOTE (Phaeton55 @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 20:58) *
Unable to find the original Charge Certificate atm based on the communication so far it would have been dated 22.06.2018

You earlier said "received 22/6".

Give me clue, what correspondence?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phaeton55
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 22:23
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 25 Mar 2019
Member No.: 103,095



QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 22:02) *
QUOTE (Phaeton55 @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 20:58) *
Only on form Te3 it states a date [20/02/19] either pay or file a statement before this date.

Is enough to show there was an unwarranted delay of 5 months.


QUOTE (Phaeton55 @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 20:58) *
Unable to find the original Charge Certificate atm based on the communication so far it would have been dated 22.06.2018

You earlier said "received 22/6".

Give me clue, what correspondence?


That date is from this correspondence https://ibb.co/L6c9GmG in response to my initial enquiry about the PCN, after receiving the Charge Certificate.

This post has been edited by Phaeton55: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 22:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 23:01
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Phaeton55 @ Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 22:23) *
That date is from this correspondence https://ibb.co/L6c9GmG in response to my initial enquiry about the PCN, after receiving the Charge Certificate.

You have a lot of links, hard to keep up with compared to direct images.

So 'issued' not "received" 22/6, making a huge difference as it's legal, being the first day they
could issue.

So, forget that potential.

--- other than it's possibly a useful comparison; one notice issued at first opportunity, the next after
an inexplicable five month delay.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 08:47
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,060
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, can we focus on the NTO and your reps pl. These must be submitted no later than 28th March


As I understand it:
A PCN was issued and placed on your car on 17 April 2018.

You say it was not in situ when you returned.

You also did not receive the subsequent NTO.

A CC was issued.

On receipt of an OfR you submitted an in-time witness statement on the grounds that you did not receive the NTO (pl confirm) and were then served with a NTO dated 27 Feb.

Prior to receiving the OfR, you corresponded with the authority requesting various parts of their evidence. Among other items they supplied what they claim is a true copy of the PCN.

Self evidently this does not comply with the requirements of the General And Appeals Regulations as pointed out earlier in that it fails to advise the recipient of the action which the recipieint of a NTO must take if payment of the penalty charge has not been made within the specified period and a reply has not been received to submitted reps.

This is a procedural impropriety.

A £ to a pinch of RHS that this would not be accepted by the authority.

So you also include that you did not receive the original PCN and were therefore unable to pay the penalty at the discount. I see no point in debating the contravention, it's clear in the photos and frankly at adjudication would only undermine your credibility. You could however ask them to explain why at other locations in the road, including opposite - and provide photos - the council have marked dropped footways with DYL. In the vicinity of the location the council have contrived to have the most misleading combination of road markings because at the location their absence acts like a magnet to motorists while opposite their presence similarly misleads because they only represent a waiting restriction and therefore a motorist could stop to unload, except where they're marked next to the dropped footway.

The delay between the authority issuing the CC and the OfR is substantial and unexplained. Perhaps you were still bombarding them with queries, who knows? I suggest you put this point to the authority in your reps. But NOT in an in-your-face way, just make the point that you received the CC on **** and the OfR on ****. This is a period of *** weeks and you require them to explain the reason for this inordinate delay given that memories do not improve with time.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:16
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here