PCN Parking in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway |
PCN Parking in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway |
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 20:17
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Hi everyone
Today I received a PCN for Parking in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway. The space I parked in has been used for many years by motorists to park without PCN being applied so the PCN has come as a bit of a surprise. Any help with whether I should challenge this PCN is much appreciated. Adjacent to where I parked there is a gate to allotments. Directly across the road is a dropped kerb leading to a tarmac footbath that crosses the edge of a grassed area. I've posted images below. Many thanks https://ibb.co/nju8n9 https://ibb.co/cSoCEp https://ibb.co/mOzV0U https://ibb.co/n5Ron9 https://ibb.co/btaQZp https://ibb.co/kLdZS9 https://ibb.co/kHLg79 This post has been edited by britishguy4: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 20:22 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 20:17
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 20:21
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
Directly across the road is a dropped kerb leading to a tarmac footbath So a pair of DKs opposite each other? -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 20:24
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Directly across the road is a dropped kerb leading to a tarmac footbath So a pair of DKs opposite each other? Yes, they're opposite each other (if the kerb in the photo counts as a dropped kerb). Thanks This post has been edited by britishguy4: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 20:30 |
|
|
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 20:31
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Hmmm well there's a tactile ped kerb opposite so this may be tough to challenge.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.9492684,-1....3312!8i6656 |
|
|
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 20:44
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Hmmm well there's a tactile ped kerb opposite so this may be tough to challenge. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.9492684,-1....3312!8i6656 Ah, oh dear. Thanks for the advice anyway guys. Interesting to see on the Google map that a car is parked there as usual. Maybe a change in how the council is issuing PCN in the area. |
|
|
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 21:16
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Unfortunately you look to be bang-to-rights, but could argue "legitimate expectation" if you've parked right there for years on end. Also one could argue that the dropped kerb on your side is not placed for pedestrians and others being an old entrance to fields and unused. However you'd have to convince an adjudicator as all councils are desperate for money no matter how they get it these days. Discount is lost at adjudication stage.
|
|
|
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 21:34
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
It looks to me like a half finished job by the council as maybe a footpath opposite was not commissioned. You'd expect a matching pair of tactile dropped kerbs. Council could still argue it's a crossing point though.
|
|
|
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 21:50
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Thanks guys. Do you think it's worth an appeal then or should I just pay up?
The legitimate expectation sounds interesting given PCN haven't been issued in this position as long as I've been parking in the area. |
|
|
Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 21:57
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
You can makea risk free informal challenge as they will reoffer the discount. If you have any local knowledge/contacts you could maybe find out if it is a half finished crossing and serves no purpose.
|
|
|
Wed, 12 Sep 2018 - 08:32
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Just want to say a huge thank you to you guys. I stumbled across the forum and have to say the support and knowledge you offer is outstanding.
Huge thanks 👍 |
|
|
Wed, 12 Sep 2018 - 14:12
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Is someone able to point me towards some suggested wording for an informal challenge. I'm not holding much hope but think it's worth a try.
Thanks |
|
|
Wed, 12 Sep 2018 - 22:26
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Don't pay! The PCN is flawed, it doesn't include the mandatory information required by regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of the appeals regulations.
To expand on the point, the regulations say a PCN must state 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 essence of this is that, if you make informal representations, but the council serves a NtO, the informal reps are confined to the dustbin of history and the recipient of the NtO must either pay or make formal representations. Parliament has mandated that this warning must be included in the PCN and the council cannot ignore this requirement. Doing so is not only unlawful, it is also prejudicial. Imagine this scenario: You make informal reps which you think are compelling and justify the cancellation of the PCN. You receive the NtO. You have nothing to add to what you said in the informal reps, so because you don't have anything to add, i.e. you don't wish to make further representations, you mistakenly sit back and relax and wait for the council to answer your original representations. The next thing you know, the 28 days are up and the charge goes up by 50% because you didn't make formal reps against the NtO. Therefore because the PCN does not convey the meaning of the regulations, the council has committed a procedural impropriety and the PCN must be cancelled. If you have a look on the forum for appeals based on regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 you'll find plenty of examples. Of course, you should still make a plea for discretion as the council will be loathe to admit their PCN is flawed. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 08:20
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,068 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Good spot.
As posted, the council would rather not reprint their entire stock of PCNs so it’s going to be fight or flight for them. You want the latter so you need to give them a reason to cancel. So, admit that you can now see you were in the wrong. In your defence, although you visit the area regularly, you’ve never parked there before (probably because other vehicles always seem to be there anyway - see enclosed screenshot of the random day the GSV vehicle drove past!) and now that you’re on notice, you won’t do it again. In respect of the contravention, you would therefore ask that the authority exercise discretion. However, there is another aspect to this challenge, that of procedural impropriety. You have read the PCN fully, in particular that part headed ‘Privacy Notice’. You’ve taken the opportunity to look into the references given and in particular the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions which then referred you to the equivalent Representations and Appeals Regulations. And you are glad you did because you came across a regulation which is required to be included in the PCN but which is in fact missing. This is a serious defect and a procedural impropriety. You don’t know whether this has been brought to the authority’s notice before, but it is a serious flaw which they should address as it is so serious as to render all similar PCNs issued by the authority invalid. You are referring to that part of the Appeals regulations which requires a PCN to inform the motorist that if they challenge before a NTO is issued, the owner must act in accordance with the NTO and not, as might otherwise be the case, wait for a response to the challenge. Regulation ***** refers. The regulations do not state where this information is to be placed in a PCN (although logically it would fall within the section headed If The Penalty Charge is Not Paid), but I have looked through the PCN in detail and it is not included. A lighter approach than some of mine... |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 09:58
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Wow! Just wow!
Thank you so much. I'll draft the appeal response to include the missed regulations too. I'll let you know how I get on. Thanks |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 12:53
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Quick question. The car is registered to my wife as owner but it was me who parked and drove the car that day. Am I still ok to be the one appealing?
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 12:56
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
Quick question. The car is registered to my wife as owner but it was me who parked and drove the car that day. Am I still ok to be the one appealing? No. Your wife appeals as the RK. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 13:00
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,068 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
peteruk, wrong I’m afraid.
The recipient of the PCN may challenge a PCN as indeed the recipient of a NTO may make formal reps. OP, yes, go ahead and challenge in your name. |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 13:18
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Thanks guys. I'll draft something tonight and post here prior to sending.
|
|
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 16:01
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Thanks for the advice. I have drafted this based on the above, could someone let me know if this is good to send?:
REF: PCN Number YC90537171 Vehicle Reg: Address: Dear Please find below my challenge to PCN number YC90537171, received on 11/09/2018 at Albermarle Road, York. Overall, I would invite the council to show discretion in applying the PCN. I was surprised to find the PCN when I returned to my car as I visit the area regularly but have never parked in the exact spot as it is common to find another vehicle parked in the spot already (evidenced by the Google Street View photo below taken on a random day the Google Street View vehicle drove past). This does give a level of legitimate expectation to park at the spot. The dropped kerb described in the PCN is widely regarded locally as not in use and confusing to motorists due to not being of the tactile pedestrian dropped kerb type. [INSERT GSV PHOTO] If the local authority is now viewing the kerb as a formal dropped kerb then obviously I accept that view and won’t park in the spot again, taking the PCN as notice. Therefore in respect of the contravention, I ask that the authority exercise discretion in this case. However, there is another aspect to this challenge, that of procedural impropriety. I have read the PCN fully, in particular that part headed “Penalty Charge Notice - Privacy Notice”. I’ve taken the opportunity to look into the references given and in particular the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions which then referred me to the equivalent Representations and Appeals Regulations. I’m glad I did because I came across a regulation which is required to be included in the PCN but which is in fact missing. This is a serious defect and a procedural impropriety. I don’t know whether this has been brought to the authority’s notice before, but it is a serious flaw which they should address as it is so serious as to render all similar PCNs issued by the authority invalid. I am referring to that part of the Appeals Regulations which requires a PCN to inform the motorist that if they challenge before a NtO is issued, the owner must act in accordance with the NtO and not, as might otherwise be the case, wait for a response to the challenge. Regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of the appeals regulations refers. The PCN doesn't include the mandatory information required by regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of the Appeals Regulations. To expand, the regulations say a PCN must state 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 essence of this is that, if I as the recipient of the PCN make informal representations, but the authority serves a NtO, the informal representations are confined to the dustbin of history and the recipient of the NtO must either pay or make formal representations. Parliament has mandated that this warning must be included in the PCN and the council cannot ignore this requirement. Doing so is not only unlawful, it is also prejudicial. The regulations do not state where this information is to be placed in a PCN (although logically it would fall within the section headed “If the Penalty Charge is not paid or challenged”), but I have looked through the PCN in detail and it is not included. Therefore because the PCN does not convey the meaning of the regulations, namely regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 the council has committed a procedural impropriety and the PCN must be cancelled. Yours sincerely xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This post has been edited by britishguy4: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 16:02 |
|
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 10:16
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 11 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,832 |
Bumpity bump 🙂
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:14 |