Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ Bus Lane / Gate PCN Romney Avenue Bristol

Posted by: Morrowitz Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 09:59
Post #1302003

Hi all

Hoping someone will be able to help with this PCN case

My wife went through a bus gate on 12/7/2017 at midday at this location in Bristol
https://goo.gl/maps/DgZjj4LDZLK2
Notice was posted on 18/7/2017
Date of Service is taken as 20/7/2017
Deadline for reduced charge is 3/8/2017
Deadline for Reps is 17/8/2017

It’s a new lane so the street view only has a 20mph sign and the road ends at a dead end. This is how it looks on 19/7/2017
http://i65.tinypic.com/jqkg9c.jpg
There is a warning sign further back the road at this location
https://goo.gl/maps/pHwJDLNscSQ2
http://i67.tinypic.com/1670ak2.jpg

This is the PCN




http://i67.tinypic.com/24lv66r.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/2cpxojd.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/2ynld7a.jpg

Here’s what happened
On the morning of 12/7/2017 my wife took our pre-schooler and young baby to a forest school on Romney Avenue, Bristol.
https://goo.gl/maps/HeEfApueioM2
It was the first time she had ever been along this road and was approaching from the south. The warning sign is situated just prior to the school on the right. My wife does not recall seeing this sign, probably as she had seen the school and was scanning for parking.
Parking was limited so she drove on and parked here https://goo.gl/maps/DgZjj4LDZLK2
She parked at around 10 am, approximately 20 yds from the bus gate.

At 12:00 she returned to the car, loaded the children into and set off for home. She knew she had to take a left after the school to bring her back towards home but had already driven past the turning while looking for a parking space and not realised it. She set off down the road and almost immediately crossed the red painted section of road. She registered the sign but the lack of red painted road ahead and the lack of Bus Lane markings fooled her in to thinking the lane was either not in force yet (it’s a new development) or further ahead.

There was absolutely nothing for her to gain in using this bus lane and it turned a 1 mile journey in to 4 mile journey.

So my question is probably the same as many others: Are there grounds for a challenge?

  1. The initial warning is ~ 220ft from the bus gate (not sure if this has any bearing)
  2. According to the TSRGD table 36 item 13 “The road marking “BUS GATE” means a road or part of a road indicated by the sign shown in Table 6 item 10, 11, 12 or 18 when varied to include at least an exception for buses.” These are all red circle signs and not the blue sign used.
  3. Referencing the blue signage the Traffic Signs Manual - 15.29 states “Where either a one-way or two-way road is reserved for buses and cycles, the entry points should be indicated by signs to diagram 953. The other end of a one-way road must have “no entry” signs to diagram 616 in accordance with paras 4.39 to 4.41. Where the order permits taxis to use the road or excludes cycles, the sign to diagram 953 shall be varied accordingly. As with contra-flow bus lanes, this sign must be used in combination with the “Only” plate to diagram 953.2. Where the road is for the exclusive use of buses, the sign to diagram 953 is varied to show only the bus symbol.” The “Only” sign is missing from both signs and is required. I understand there may be an exception if the council has secured DfT authorisation to allow them to use a variant sign.
  4. Also referencing the blue signage (953) figure 15-8 of the traffic signs manual states “Direction 20(1) does not permit diagram 953 to be used without the “Only” plate to diagram 953.2”. I’m not sure what Direction 20 is though.
  5. The PCN is for Code: 34J Being in a bus lane but she was never in a bus lane and there were no markings to suggest there was a bus lane. This was an argument suggested in this thread (among others) http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=97756



Sorry for the long initial post but I thought I’d get as much down as possible.

Is anyone able to suggest the best way to take this forward?

Many thanks in hope

Posted by: Incandescent Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 12:50
Post #1302057

Sorry to be thick, but are you saying the advance warning signs and blue 'Buses Only' signs are there now, as there are none on the June 2015 GSV view ?

Posted by: Morrowitz Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 14:14
Post #1302089

QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 13:50) *
Sorry to be thick, but are you saying the advance warning signs and blue 'Buses Only' signs are there now, as there are none on the June 2015 GSV view ?

Hi
Yes they are there now.
Advance warning http://i67.tinypic.com/1670ak2.jpg
Buses only (without the "Only") http://i65.tinypic.com/jqkg9c.jpg

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 14:56
Post #1302100

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 10:59) *
Notice was posted on 18/7/2017
Date of Service is taken as 20/7/2017
Deadline for reduced charge is 3/8/2017
Deadline for Reps is 17/8/2017

Can't trawl through a long list of links.

Does it actually say this on the PCN?
Cos both wrong.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 15:08
Post #1302104

QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 15:56) *
QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 10:59) *
Notice was posted on 18/7/2017
Date of Service is taken as 20/7/2017
Deadline for reduced charge is 3/8/2017
Deadline for Reps is 17/8/2017

Can't trawl through a long list of links.

Does it actually say this on the PCN?
Cos both wrong.



Nope the Op has just calculated wrong just quotes 28 days beginning with

Posted by: Morrowitz Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 15:17
Post #1302108

QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 15:56) *
QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 10:59) *
Notice was posted on 18/7/2017
Date of Service is taken as 20/7/2017
Deadline for reduced charge is 3/8/2017
Deadline for Reps is 17/8/2017

Can't trawl through a long list of links.

Does it actually say this on the PCN?
Cos both wrong.


Apologies for the links, I thought I was being helpful in not clogging up the page with images. smile.gif

No it doesn't say those second two dates on the PCN. It was my attempt at trying to calculate the correct date at 1:30 this morning.

2 working days from 18/07 is 20/07. 14 days on is 03/08 and 28 days on is 17/08.

Have I miscalculated?

These are the first two pages
http://i67.tinypic.com/2mht25h.jpg



http://i63.tinypic.com/rl9u1y.jpg

Posted by: Mad Mick V Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 17:21
Post #1302154

That 953 sign must be incorrect because taxis have access to all bus lanes in Bristol.

The PCN payment terms sets bells ringing----an 0870 premium number with a 2p per minute surcharge. Had this before I am sure in relation to the Credit Card case analogy.

Mick

Posted by: Incandescent Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 21:28
Post #1302227

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 18:21) *
That 953 sign must be incorrect because taxis have access to all bus lanes in Bristol.

The PCN payment terms sets bells ringing----an 0870 premium number with a 2p per minute surcharge. Had this before I am sure in relation to the Credit Card case analogy.

Mick

In other words, an unlawful demand for money over and beyond the amount defined in law. Statutory grounds of "the penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case". Bus lane regulations have no grounds of procedural impropriety (one has to ask why !), so this is the one that applies.

Posted by: Morrowitz Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 08:32
Post #1302314

Thanks all for your replies. This sounds very interesting.

The phone call charge can be argued as being a demand for money?

@Incandescent are you saying that the sign is OK? I had read that it had to be accompanied by an "Only" sign underneath.

I'm still a bit confused about the dates that were being questioned previously. Have I got the deadlines wrong?

Posted by: Incandescent Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 09:22
Post #1302333

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 09:32) *
Thanks all for your replies. This sounds very interesting.

The phone call charge can be argued as being a demand for money?

@Incandescent are you saying that the sign is OK? I had read that it had to be accompanied by an "Only" sign underneath.

I'm still a bit confused about the dates that were being questioned previously. Have I got the deadlines wrong?

Needs checking about the word 'only', but an adjudicator will no doubt say the signage is "substantially compliant", and does not mislead the motorist.

Posted by: Morrowitz Sun, 30 Jul 2017 - 15:27
Post #1304682

Thanks for the input so far. I think the reps are due in by 3/8/2017 but I'm not sure if I have anything grounds that are worth fighting.

Suggested issues with the PCN so far have been:

Automated phone charges
Signage missing a mandatory "Only" sign
Bus gate should be accompanied by red circle sign, not a blue sign.

Any more help with possible a possible reps case would be really appreciated.

or if you think I should just stump up for the fine...

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 20:47
Post #1305290

So it's taken me this long to realise the reps or payment are due tomorrow.
This is what I'm going with (just shy of the 3000 character limit on the website) so any last minute suggestions would be fab.

Dear Sir or Madam,
I write to appeal against the PCN on the following grounds:

1 - The 2p service charge for the telephone payment is an unlawful demand for money over and beyond the amount defined in law. Statutory grounds of "the penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case".

There are further grounds on which I wish to appeal:

2 - The only warning sign before the bus gate is 220m before the bus gate (https://goo.gl/maps/pHwJDLNscSQ2 & http://i67.tinypic.com/1670ak2.jpg). It should be approximately 30m from the start according to the Traffic Signs Manual and TSGRD

3 - According to the TSRGD table 36 item 13 “The road marking “BUS GATE” means a road or part of a road indicated by the sign shown in Table 6 item 10, 11, 12 or 18 when varied to include at least an exception for buses.” These are all red circle signs and not the blue sign used.

4 - Referencing the blue signage the Traffic Signs Manual - 15.29 states “Where either a one-way or two-way road is reserved for buses and cycles, the entry points should be indicated by signs to diagram 953. The other end of a one-way road must have “no entry” signs to diagram 616 in accordance with paras 4.39 to 4.41. Where the order permits taxis to use the road or excludes cycles, the sign to diagram 953 shall be varied accordingly. As with contra-flow bus lanes, this sign must be used in combination with the “Only” plate to diagram 953.2. Where the road is for the exclusive use of buses, the sign to diagram 953 is varied to show only the bus symbol.” The “Only” sign is missing from both signs and is required http://i65.tinypic.com/jqkg9c.jpg (No "Only" sign)

5 - Also referencing the blue signage (953) figure 15-8 of the traffic signs manual states “Direction 20(1) does not permit diagram 953 to be used without the “Only” plate to diagram 953.2”.

6 - The PCN is for Code: 34J Being in a bus lane but I was never in a bus lane. There is nothing in the supplied images to suggest I was.

7 - Mitigation. On the morning of 12/7/2017 I took our two young children to a forest school on Romney Avenue, Bristol.
https://goo.gl/maps/HeEfApueioM2
It was the first time I had ever been along this road and was approaching from the south.
I parked at around 10 am, approximately 20 yds from the bus gate.
At 12:00 I returned to the car, loaded the children into and set off for home. I knew I had to take a left after the school to bring me back towards home but had already driven past the turning while looking for a parking space and not realised it. I set off down the road and almost immediately crossed the red painted section of road. I registered the sign but the lack of red painted road ahead and the lack of Bus Lane markings fooled me in to thinking the lane was either not in force yet (it’s a new development) or further ahead.
There was absolutely nothing for me to gain in using this bus lane and it turned a 1 mile journey in to 4 mile journey.


Posted by: Neil B Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 21:46
Post #1305304

Not sure what others think but I'd open with 7.

--
Only just looked back.

The period stated for reps is wrong: wording.
"within 28 days of ---" equates to your original calculation, adding a day.

This is compounded by the statement -
"Representations which are made after the end of this 28 day period may be disregarded"

The operative word 'made' is highly misleading.

The law says -
'the authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the 28 day period.'

Distinct and important difference.



--
and lo, we only have part of a PCN.

Where is the rest?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 21:47
Post #1305306

QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 22:42) *
Not sure what others think but I'd open with 7.

--
Only just looked back.

The period stated for reps is wrong: wording.
"within 28 days of ---" equates to your original calculation, adding a day.

This is compounded by the statement -
"Representations which are made after the end of this 28 day period may be disregarded"

The operative word 'made' is highly misleading.

The law says -
'the authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the 28 day period.'

Distinct and important difference.


I too would open with 7, Neil I would save your points for adjudication, where Jackson in the Barnet case can be quoted

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 21:50
Post #1305308

QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 22:46) *
and lo, we only have part of a PCN.

Where is the rest?


All four pages should be at the top of the post.

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 22:06
Post #1305312

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 22:50) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 22:46) *
and lo, we only have part of a PCN.

Where is the rest?


All four pages should be at the top of the post.

Ok, sorry; didn't look that far.

Nothing more I can see.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 22:47) *
Neil I would save your points for adjudication, where Jackson in the Barnet case can be quoted

Maybe.
I'm constantly bemused by people worrying about the discount.


Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 22:15
Post #1305313

Thanks so much for your help.
Will open with point 7.
I'll guess the most fitting option is "Other" as you can only tick one box online (seems to can select several on the PCN form)

QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 23:06) *
Maybe.
I'm constantly bemused by people worrying about the discount.


I took it that the reps had to be in by 14 days in order to get a reset on the discount period. Having read again (for the nth time it feels) it mentions nothing about getting reps in by 14 days to get a reset.
Does this mean I have until 28 days and they will usually reset the clock?

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 22:20
Post #1305316

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 23:15) *
I took it that the reps had to be in by 14 days in order to get a reset on the discount period.

If they do then yes.
It's discretionary. Some PCNs state a commitment to it.
For those that don't then frequent practice, i.e. other cases, count imo.

But the point is that, to fight, you have to go against full amount later.

I suppose it gives you thinking time.

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 22:31
Post #1305318

Ah I see it now

Paragraph 5 of page 2 of the PCN states:

"If your representations are rejected the Council will generally extend the period within which the reduced penalty charge may be paid."

That is all under the 28 days and nothing to do with the 14 days.

More thinking time... smile.gif

Posted by: Neil B Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 22:38
Post #1305320

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Tue, 1 Aug 2017 - 23:31) *
Ah I see it now

Paragraph 5 of page 2 of the PCN states:

"If your representations are rejected the Council will generally extend the period within which the reduced penalty charge may be paid."

That is all under the 28 days and nothing to do with the 14 days.

More thinking time... smile.gif

I think that still refers to reps received by 14th day. Be careful.

But not mentioning the 14 days there is very odd/unusual.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Wed, 2 Aug 2017 - 09:51
Post #1305382

OP--Let's see what they come back with.

This is the HC case on surcharges:-

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/R%20%28on%20application%20of%20L.B.%20Camden%29%20%20v%20The%20Parking%20Adjudicator.pdf

In essence the Council acted ultra vires (outside the law) in imposing a surcharge. That case sets a precedent in England and Wales and, even though we are dealing with a bus lane case, I doubt an adjudicator would or could set it aside. The other aspect of the Camden case worth noting is that the payment route, like yours, was optional.

My view is that the surcharge would mean the penalty charge level, agreed by the Secretary of State is exceeded and therefore the statutory ground "that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case" applies.

I would also suggest the PCN is a nullity if the Council seeks to importune in such a manner.

Mick

Posted by: Ripples28 Sat, 5 Aug 2017 - 11:14
Post #1306277

I was wondering if you had a resolution to your challenge? We have just recieved an almost identical notice except doubled up as I'm assuming my husband realised his error, turned round and came back - the notices are within 30 seconds of each other. I will at the very least be challenging the second notice, but was wondering if you had any success with your challenge around it not being clear that it was for buses only and if I had a case for challenging both.

Thanks in advance

Posted by: Neil B Sat, 5 Aug 2017 - 21:49
Post #1306372

QUOTE (Ripples28 @ Sat, 5 Aug 2017 - 12:14) *
I was wondering if you had a resolution to your challenge?

You need to start your own topic.

QUOTE (Ripples28 @ Sat, 5 Aug 2017 - 12:14) *
and if I had a case for challenging both.

Have you read the points raised?

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 18:37
Post #1320665

Edited: Removed a comment about paying this within the 14 days. I want to go to appeal unless others think it's a waste of time.

Hi all

Update is that the reps were rejected.

So much going on with the house at the moment I've left it two weeks to post on here.

If anyone has any advice please let me know if it's worth pursuing to appeal?

The thing that has really got my back up with the response from the council is that it addresses very little of the reps. The majority of the photos of the signage they supplied were either temporary (only there as a warning back in May that there would be a bus link) or approaching from a different direction.

Picture 1(page 1 of the response) is the same signage as I sent them but with an additional temporary red sign.
Picture 2 (page 2 of the response) is a temporary sign that was not present on the day and the accompanying sign is not relevant to bus lanes
Picture 3 (page 2 of the response) is a permanent sign that is before Picture 4. I've actually never heard of Chiswick village and there are no signs to say where chiswick village is (apart from "Ahead").
Picture 4 (page 2 of the response) is the same signage I sent them which I contended was too far from the actual bus gate
Picture 5 (page 2 of the response) is a permanent sign on a different road which would not have been seen from the direction of approach. It's a road coming in from the left of picture 2 (you can see the same yellow sign in both).

Page 1


Page 2


Page 3


Page 4


Covering letter
This was sent because my wife made the reps and not the owner of the vehicle.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 20:43
Post #1320705

Your choice as to pay or fight, I would fight the NoR is filled with errors

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 20:47
Post #1320706

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:43) *
Your choice as to pay or fight, I would fight the NoR is filled with errors


Thanks PMB.
I was in the middle of editing the post to remove the thought about paying as I think the irritation will eat me if I pay.
I guess I have circa 14 days to lodge.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 20:57
Post #1320708

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:47) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:43) *
Your choice as to pay or fight, I would fight the NoR is filled with errors


Thanks PMB.
I was in the middle of editing the post to remove the thought about paying as I think the irritation will eat me if I pay.
I guess I have circa 14 days to lodge.


Yep til the 17thI will outline all the errors but got a lot on this week so bump me this time next week

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:00
Post #1320709

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:57) *
QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:47) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 3 Oct 2017 - 21:43) *
Your choice as to pay or fight, I would fight the NoR is filled with errors


Thanks PMB.
I was in the middle of editing the post to remove the thought about paying as I think the irritation will eat me if I pay.
I guess I have circa 14 days to lodge.


Yep til the 17thI will outline all the errors but got a lot on this week so bump me this time next week

Amazing, thank you and will do.

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:14
Post #1322390

Bumping for @PASTMYBEST

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:53
Post #1322401

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 20:14) *
Bumping for @PASTMYBEST


got it will do tomorrow afternoon

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 20:18
Post #1322407

Fantastic, thank you.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 17:27
Post #1322608

Just a start, posting now coz got to leave it for a bit, Might finish tonite but if not in the morning

Finished. I have added some links at the bottom. Print them off and take them with you. or if you can attach them as appendices to the text. They are the cases I've quoted. it's a good idea to make it easy for the adjudicator

Use this verbatim edit to suit or throw it away. There can be no guarantees but it should give a good shot, as some of the rulings are binding

I have conceded the signage, because TBH there is not much hope so no need to start with a bad point. You may think different


Appeal against the imposition and enforcement of PCN number xxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark AB 23 CDE
Your name

QUOTE
I make this appeal having made representations to the authority and received an unsatisfactory response that failed to deal with all but one of the points raised. This being the case, I undertook some fairly extensive research, Having done so I would concede that the signage is adequate, and I understand that the adjudicator cannot consider the mitigating factors. I have however discovered that the authority has failed in the duty imposed on it by The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 and would submit that for a number of reasons I will outline below, appeal under regulation 9(2)(f) That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

First and foremost, I make a submission that the enforcement of the PCN must fail because the statutory ground has been met. The authority demand by way of surcharge a penalty that exceeds that allowed by statute.

Both the PCN and NOR in the how to pay section give the option to make payment by telephone. Both of these legally mandated documents include a statement that calls cost 2p per minute plus your phone companies access charge.

The imposition of surcharges to cover cost incurred by the authority or for any other reason has been the subject of judicial review. Neutral citation Number [2011] EWHC 295 (admin) case No CO/13317/2009



B e f o r e : THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT Between: LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN and THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR claimant and (1) BFS GROUP 03568 t/a FIRST FOR FOOD SERVICE defendant (2) LEE SUGDEN (3) AIDAN BRADY interested parties

paragrapgh 18 line 7 “'the substance of what [the notice] is saying is that to discharge the penalty the motorist will have to pay a sum greater than the penalty prescribed by law.'

Paragraphs 27 and 28 set ouy arguments for and against and paragraph 29 gives the ruling

I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.
That the amount is relatively small does not detract from the fact that it is a surcharge indeed a person would not know at the time of making the payment exactly what this surcharge would be.

It is my contention that this ruling at JR leaves no doubt that the authority are demanding a payment in excess of that proscribed thus invalidating the enforcement of the PCN

I further submit by way of collateral challenge, under the same statutory ground . That the authority fail at 10(1)(b) of the regulations. This being a failure of a statutory duty, I made the claim in my representations that the PCN was invalid as it demanded a penalty higher than that set by statute. The reason for not accepting this was not given, as required by the above regulation.

Again I submit that this invalidates the PCN and enforcement.

A further collateral challenge under this ground.
Registration 8(5)(e)(f)and(g) deal with the relevant periods for making payment. The 14 day and 28 day periods for payment at the relevant amount, and the period for making representations. The 14 day period is described at (f) The 28 day period and the period in which representations can be made are set out in registration 7 the periods all are periods beginning with the date of service of the PCN.

In the case of this PCN these would be. the 14 day period would be PCN posted on the 18th July, deemed served on the 20th July last day of 14 day period would be the second of August. For the 28 day period for payment and to file representations it would be the 16th of August.

Page two however confuses this period. It uses the term within 28 days of the date the notice was served. The term beginning with is clear and unambiguous, it allows for easy calculation of the date by which action is required. The term within does not by legal convention mean the same, the calculation must start the next day, adding one day to the period.

Although it could be said that the correct period is shown. Ambiguity is created by showing two conflicting periods by which an action should be taken, and secondly.

Any ambiguity must by legal convention be found in favour of the disadvantaged party. In this case the appellant, from whom a penalty is demanded.

I respectfully refer the adjudicator to the finding of Mr Justice Jackson in the high court neutral citation number [2006] EWHC 2357(admin) The queen on the application of London borough of Barnet council v the parking adjudicator

paragraph 39 (last sentence) “there must always be certainty of the date when the notice was issued and the dates when the various periods for payment expire.”

It was argued in this case that no prejudice was caused . Mr justice Jackson dealt with this as follows

paragraph 41 he says.

“Me Lewis submits that even if there was non compliance in this respect nevertheless no prejudice was caused, PCN's should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise.


The Notice of rejection contains an error so similar it's effect is the same.

At page two paragraph 3 the statement “ This notice of rejection will be taken to have been served on the second day after the day of posting (as shown above) unless you can show it was not. The correct term should be Second working day.

Finally under the same ground.

The Notice of rejection in the final paragraph states. To paraphrase. If an appeal or payment is not made whithin the correct period then the authority WILL serve a charge certificate.

The regulations at10(4)(g) allow only that they MAY serve.

The words WILL and MAY have entirely different meanings, The word MAY being chosen by the draftsman to allow for the authorities absolute discretion not to continue on to this next stage in the enforcement process..

Common law dictates that the authority must not fetter this discretion.

In giving consideration to this head I would ask that the finding of adjudicator Mr Mackenzie Robinson in case number UW05060M And also the views of the adjudicators list in both that decision and the decisions below

216022028A

Belinda pearce

. The second contention concerns wording in the Notice of Rejection letter which Mr Dishman maintains is not compliant with the governing legislation by dint of its employment (again) of the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the Notice of Rejection contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate.
The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again 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.
Mr Dishman cites previous PATAS/ETA Cases in support.
The Enforcement Authority quote from PATAS/ETA Case Decisions.
Each Case is determined upon its individual evidential merit and an Adjudicator's interpretation of the governing law; my finding in this Case is that the Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non-compliant since I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics. Therefore I find the Notice of Rejection to be invalid, thus this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, In light of my findings, I allow this Appeal.
2160211959

John Lane


Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection 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;
(b) indicate the nature of an Adjudicator’s power to award costs; and
© describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an Adjudicator must be made.
A notice of rejection duly served may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate.
The local authority's notice of rejection states that they "Will" issue a charge certificate.
I accept that this is a fundamental error.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
2160210490

Sean stanton-Dunn

Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection served by an enforcement authority shall state that a charge certificate may be served unless the penalty charge has been paid or an appeal to an adjudicator made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection.
The notice of rejection served on Lexbow Limited stated that a charge certificate will be served and not that a charge certificate may be served. The use of the wording is mandatory and not optional. This means that the notice of rejection does not comply with the requirements of Regulation 6 so that there has been a procedural impropriety. The word will conveys an entirely different meaning to the motorist than the use of the word may.
2160211926

Christopher Rayner


Mrs Goldmeier’s car was unlawfully parked. The burden is therefore on her to establish an exemption. She submits that there is an error on Barnet’s notice to owner forms such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety, so that any penalty that reaches that stage of enforcement is unenforceable. Regulation 6(1) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that the notice to owner shall state that a charge certificate “may be served” if certain conditions are fulfilled. It is not disputed that Barnet’s notice to owner form states that “will serve” a charge certificate if those conditions are fulfilled.
Mrs Goldmeier references appeals before this Tribunal where adjudicators have found a procedural impropriety in these circumstances, and Barnet refer to another case where an adjudicator refused an appeal. The situation is unsatisfactory, particularly where there is no obvious prejudice to a motorist. However, enforcement authorities require full compliance with parking restrictions from motorists, and it is reasonable to expect the same of them. The wording on the notice to owner form does not comply with statutory requirements, and it would presumably be a relatively straightforward matter for Barnet to remedy that. On balance I follow what appears to be the majority view of adjudicators in this Tribunal and find that Barnet’s notice to owner form is not compliant with the Regulations, such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety and allow the appeal on that basis
2160422149

Michael Lawrence

The Appellant attended this hearing.
One of points raised by the Appellant concerned the wording of the Notice of Rejection letter (NOR) which he said was not compliant with the relevant legislation in that it used the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the NOR contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate. This NOR states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate if the recipient does not appeal or pay. Clearly there is a difference between may and will that is not just semantics, but substantial. The latter excludes the possibility that the Enforcement Authority have a discretion whether or not to proceed to the next stage of a charge certificate and an increased penalty charge.
The Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non compliant and invalid and therefore this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
2150379790

Joanne Oxlade


The Appellant has raised a number of points in this appeal.
I allow the appeal on the basis that the notice of rejection does not substantially comply with Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, in that it says that if the Appellant neither appeals nor pays the PCN, the EA "will" serve a charge certificate, whereas the legislation requires that the NOR contains certain information, which is that the Notice of rejection "may" be served. "Will" and "may" are entirely different, and fails to recognise that the EA have discretion as to whether (and if so at what rate) they enforce the PCN subject to upper limits. There is something of a body of case law within the Tribunal, which the EA have not successfully challenged. The applicable case law is R (Hackney Drivers Association) v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire CC [2012] EWHC 3394, which provides that the question is whether or not a document is substantially compliant. For the above reasons, I find that it does not
2150479729

Neeti haria

In addition Mr Dishman contends that the Notice of Rejection misrepresents the position as it states that if the penalty charge is not paid or an appeal made the Authority will serve a Charge Certificate. Mr Dishman correctly points out that Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that under the circumstances specified a Charge Certificate may be served. The relevant parts of Regulation 6 provides:
“ Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a Notice of Rejection …..that notice shall
(a) state that a Charge Certificate may be served unless…..”
Having considered the matter I agree with Mr Dishman that the Notice of Rejection fails to comply with a mandatory requirement of the legislation. I find that this amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.
Accordingly I allow the appeal.

I contend that this failing to follow the statutory wording, thus importing a different meaning is a failure To comply with the registrations and a further reason for cancelation of this PCN



Mr Justice Burnett on surcharge

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html&query=(camden)+AND+(v)+AND+(the)+AND+(parking)

Mr justice Jackson on the extra day

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Barnet%20Judicial%20Review%20Judgment%20-%202%20August%202006.pdf

And Adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson on the WILL vs MAY You will need to screenshot this and print it's at post 57

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=100003&st=40

Posted by: Morrowitz Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 20:38
Post #1322959

Wow. Thank you so much PMB. This is brilliant.

I have a just a few questions on this:

1 - Do you recommend I attend the appeal?

In the lead up to the WILL vs MAY contention you say:
"In giving consideration to this head I would ask that the finding of adjudicator Mr Mackenzie Robinson in case number UW05060M And also the views of the adjudicators list in both that decision and the decisions below"
2 - Could you clarify what "head" means in this context?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 22:02
Post #1322988

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 21:38) *
Wow. Thank you so much PMB. This is brilliant.

I have a just a few questions on this:

1 - Do you recommend I attend the appeal?

In the lead up to the WILL vs MAY contention you say:
"In giving consideration to this head I would ask that the finding of adjudicator Mr Mackenzie Robinson in case number UW05060M And also the views of the adjudicators list in both that decision and the decisions below"
2 - Could you clarify what "head" means in this context?



Normally I would recommend you attend but I think unless you feel confident that you can answer questions on the points raised it might be better to opt for a postal hearing

it's a legal term, in the context I 've used it. It means that particular argument

But make sure you send the appendices

Posted by: Neil B Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 23:16
Post #1323003

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 23:02) *
Normally I would recommend you attend but I think unless you feel confident that you can answer questions on the points raised it might be better to opt for a postal hearing

Are TPT still doing telephone hearings?
Slight downside is that Council are more likely to take part over the phone.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 23:30
Post #1323004

QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 00:16) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 23:02) *
Normally I would recommend you attend but I think unless you feel confident that you can answer questions on the points raised it might be better to opt for a postal hearing

Are TPT still doing telephone hearings?
Slight downside is that Council are more likely to take part over the phone.



think they are, but would stick with postal, if you don't feel confident. I think the points are sound, and clearly constructed and should be able to speak for themselves. But as always welcome imput

Posted by: Morrowitz Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 08:58
Post #1323028

I feel comfortable with the points made and the reasoning behind them. It is more the legal terminology (E.G. prejudice and how it relates to dates) that I might fall down on.

Having never been to one of these before I am both curious and apprehensive about attending. I have no idea what sort of questions might be raised.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 10:08
Post #1323052

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 09:58) *
I feel comfortable with the points made and the reasoning behind them. It is more the legal terminology (E.G. prejudice and how it relates to dates) that I might fall down on.

Having never been to one of these before I am both curious and apprehensive about attending. I have no idea what sort of questions might be raised.



Just made a couple of edits to remove typos.

The major issues are pretty well covered, the adjudicator is likely to ask questions relating to other parts of the judgements so a read up on them would help. You have a bit of time, once filed a case will not be listed for hearing for at least 28 days.


The first part re the surcharge should win on it's own. The ruling by the high court is binding,

That they failed to consider the point when you made it in your reps is a failing to comply with the bus lane regs here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made

I've quoted the regulation and sub paragraphs in the appeal.

same with the dates the regulations set down what they are. The calculation is legal principal so when the say you must pay" within" the calculation starts the next day
Effectively telling you you have one day more than the regs allow. So if you want to pay on what you believe is day 28 but as regards the regs is day 29 you could find the penalty has increased Jackson covers this in the barnet judgement

The WILL/MAY issue has never been tested at the high court The cases linked explain it well.

Have a good read up see how you feel. You can opt for a personal hearing but change your mind later

There is another issue re the having to phone to get a paper form to appeal in that manner, but it might over gild the Lilly as the TPT are complicit in this

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 19:39
Post #1324310

Thank you.
Sorry for the delay in responding. Things have been somewhat manic here.

I have just submitted the appeal online. It was word for word apart from adding in a link to the legislation and quoting the relevant passage from your last post. I attached pdfs of the relevant cases to the online appeal.

I had to choose an option for why I was appealing and the only one that covered any of the points was "The penalty charge exceeded the relevant amount". Since this is the first point I guess it will be OK.

There was no option to attend a hearing. This was the message I got at the end of the process.

By submitting my appeal online through this website, I agree to receive the adjudicator’s decision and all communications, from the Tribunal and authority, through this website. I also agree that I am either:
a) The person named on the authority’s Notice of Rejection or the person who made the Witness Statement
b) Authorised by this person to complete this appeal on their behalf


No option other than to do it all online so I continued and these are the next steps

What happens next:
The details of your appeal will be checked and confirmed. The Authority will then get an opportunity to upload their evidence for this appeal.
The Traffic Penalty Tribunal will contact you via email with updates, or when we need you to do something.

What you need to do:
Keep an eye out for any emails relating to your appeal and follow the instructions given.
You can access your appeal at any time by logging into this portal. Here you can see the current status of your appeal and check any actions required by you. You can also add more evidence to support your claim if you wish by selecting the Evidence tab at the top of the page.
If you don’t hear from us within 48 hours, please email help@trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk or call us on 0800 160 1999.


So I guess that answers whether or not I will be attending in person!

Posted by: John U.K. Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 19:55
Post #1324315

QUOTE
There was no option to attend a hearing


???
There should have been

Options for TPT (unlike LT, which has no telephone hearings) are postal, telephone or personal.

Even if you want a postal, I would telephone TPT tomorrow for guidance.

It may be that they want apostal submission for a personal hearing??? but seems unlikely.




Posted by: Morrowitz Wed, 18 Oct 2017 - 08:41
Post #1324414

Got this email this morning.
Seems the hearing option will come later in the process.

Your appeal has been registered and the authority has confirmed the details.

They will now decide whether to contest your appeal. We have asked them to do this within 14 days.

If they contest your appeal they will upload their evidence into your case file. We will send you an email when this happens and you will be able to log on, view their evidence and comment on it.

You will also be able to ask for a hearing at that stage.

If the authority decides not to contest your appeal you will be notified.


Guess I just wait to hear.

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 22:06
Post #1328089

The council have uploaded their evidence and I now have 7 days t decide if I want a hearing.

Evidence consists of 6 items:

  1. Video evidence
  2. PCN, Reps, Rejection, Photos (endless photos)
  3. TSRGD 2016
  4. TSRGD section on bus lane road markings
  5. TSRGD section on blue bus and cycle signs
  6. Screen shot of the council payment website showing the 2p per minute charge


1 - 5 were not appealed so they don't seem particularly relevant. Interestingly though there are two photos of a car in Cheltenham completely unrelated to my case (a car parked on zigzag lines by a crossing). There's also a list of hand written car registrations that went through the bus gate on the same day (looks like a log).

6 is the only point that addresses the appeal in any way
This is the picture attached as evidence


And this is their summary on the main page.
Bristol City Council considers that correct signage and markings are in place as they comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (current legislation). The Council would also like to add it is the Owner of the vehicle and not the driver who is liable for the penalty charge notice. The Council also issue rejection notices to both the owner and driver. The Council will also like to state that the Council does inform driver that there is a cost of £2 on payment over the telephone but there are other alternative way to pay without the charge. Theere is no charge on the penalty charge notice.


The case in the appeal (Neutral citation Number [2011] EWHC 295 (admin) case No CO/13317/2009) covers the point about there being other options and dismisses it.It seems they have uploaded very little in the way of evidence to counter the appeal.

I can't attach the pdf they supplied as it's 4.8MB. I can get pics of each page if required (though it does run to 32 pages). Or this is a link to the file on OneDrive https://1drv.ms/b/s!AjnFsqtmkQjVhd149DwpKT4dH9l6mA

Am I missing something important here?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 22:16
Post #1328094

IMO the council have handed you a silver bullet. The state clearly that there is a surcharge of £2.00 and that there are other ways to pay.

Both ruled on by a high court judge

Cant remember if I linked but give it a read particularly the conclusions

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html&query=(camden)+AND+(v)+AND+(the)+AND+(parking)

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 23:20
Post #1328124

Thanks PMB

Yes you did send me that link. I used it in the appeal and have just been through it in greater detail.

The cases referred to are for parking (and one box junction I think) but I assume the PCN and NoR fall under the same regulations as far as the content goes.

The £2 charge for paying by phone that they mention in their comment is the first time I have heard of such an amount. All other correspondence refers to a 2p/min charge (including the screenshot they attached).

I can now add comments to their evidence and have options to:

  1. Let an adjudicator decide based on the evidence
  2. Request a telephone hearing
  3. Request face to face hearing


This seems relatively cut and dry to me but I'm aware I may be suffering from confirmation bias.

Based on what you see would you still recommend a face to face?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 23:41
Post #1328130

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Tue, 31 Oct 2017 - 23:20) *
Thanks PMB

Yes you did send me that link. I used it in the appeal and have just been through it in greater detail.

The cases referred to are for parking (and one box junction I think) but I assume the PCN and NoR fall under the same regulations as far as the content goes.

The £2 charge for paying by phone that they mention in their comment is the first time I have heard of such an amount. All other correspondence refers to a 2p/min charge (including the screenshot they attached).

I can now add comments to their evidence and have options to:
  1. Let an adjudicator decide based on the evidence
  2. Request a telephone hearing
  3. Request face to face hearing


This seems relatively cut and dry to me but I'm aware I may be suffering from confirmation bias.

Based on what you see would you still recommend a face to face?


Always if your confident. Read up and understand para 29 and 30. they make it plain as day the council can only demand the statutory penalty not a penny more.


Can I see exactly what you sent or intend to send by way of appeal.

Posted by: Morrowitz Wed, 1 Nov 2017 - 09:36
Post #1328180

This was the text I sent in the appeal. It’s pretty much word for word from your post.


Appeal against the imposition and enforcement of PCN number OB
Vehicle registration mark
My name

I make this appeal having made representations to the authority and received an unsatisfactory response that failed to deal with all but one of the points raised. This being the case, I undertook some fairly extensive research. Having done so I would concede that the signage is adequate and I understand that the adjudicator cannot consider the mitigating factors. However, I have discovered that the authority has failed in the duty imposed on it by The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 and would submit that for a number of reasons I will outline below, appeal under regulation 9(2)(f) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

First and foremost, I make a submission that the enforcement of the PCN must fail because the statutory ground has been met. The authority demand by way of surcharge a penalty that exceeds that allowed by statute.

Both the PCN and NOR in the “How to pay” section give the option to make payment by telephone. Both of these legally mandated documents include a statement that calls cost 2p per minute plus your phone companies access charge.

The imposition of surcharges to cover cost incurred by the authority (or for any other reason) has been the subject of judicial review. Neutral citation Number [2011] EWHC 295 (admin) case No CO/13317/2009

Please see appendix 1

B e f o r e :
THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT
____________________
Between:
LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN - Claimant
- and -
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR - Defendant
-and-
(1) BFS GROUP 03568 t/a FIRST FOR FOOD SERVICE
(2) LEE SUGDEN
(3) AIDAN BRADY - Interested Parties

Paragraph 18 line 7
The substance of what [the notice] is saying is that to discharge the penalty the motorist will have to pay a sum greater than the penalty prescribed by law.'

Paragraphs 27 and 288
These set out arguments for and against

Paragraph 29 gives the ruling
“I am unable to accept Mr Coppel's argument that for the purposes of regulation 4(4)(e) the 1.3% fee can be separated from the penalty charge. As is common ground, an enforcing authority is not at liberty to set its own penalty charges but is limited to the sums set under the statutory scheme. The substance of what the Council did was to increase their penalty charge if payment were to be made by credit card to 101.3% of the sum authorised under that scheme. On Mr Coppel's argument the Council might just as well have introduced other administrative charges and added those too. It is clear, in my judgment, that a Parking Adjudicator is obliged to allow an appeal if the sum required to be paid to an enforcing authority by the motorist exceeds the amount set by the statutory scheme, however the enforcing authority seeks to characterise the additional charge. It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.”

That the amount is relatively small does not detract from the fact that it is a surcharge. Indeed a person would not know at the time of making the payment exactly what this surcharge would be.

It is my contention that this ruling at JR leaves no doubt that the authority is demanding a payment in excess of that proscribed thus invalidating the enforcement of the PCN.

I further submit by way of collateral challenge, under the same statutory ground, that the authority fail at 10(1)(b) of the regulations. This being a failure of a statutory duty, I made the claim in my representations that the PCN was invalid as it demanded a penalty higher than that set by statute. The reason for not accepting this was not given, as required by the above regulation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made
“in relation to each ground on which representations are made, to serve on the person by whom the representations are made notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground has been established.”

Again I submit that this invalidates the PCN and enforcement.

A further collateral challenge under this ground.
Registration 8(5)(e)(f) and (g) deal with the relevant periods for making payment. The 14 day and 28 day periods for payment at the relevant amount and the period for making representations. The 14 day period is described at (f) The 28 day period and the period in which representations can be made are set out in registration 7. The periods all are periods beginning with the date of service of the PCN.

In the case of this PCN:
The 14 day period would be the PCN posted on the 18th July, deemed served on the 20th July. The last day of 14 day period would be 2nd August.
For the 28 day period for payment and to file representations it would be the 16th of August.

Page two, however, confuses this period. It uses the term within 28 days of the date the notice was served. The term “beginning with” is clear, unambiguous and it allows for easy calculation of the date by which action is required. The term “within” does not, by legal convention, mean the same; the calculation must start the next day, adding one day to the period.

Although it could be said that the correct period is shown, this is not so as two things occur. 1 - Ambiguity is created by showing two conflicting periods by which an action should be taken, and secondly.
2 - Any ambiguity must by legal convention be found in favour of the disadvantaged party. In this case the appellant, from whom a penalty is demanded.

I respectfully refer the adjudicator to the finding of Mr Justice Jackson in the high court neutral citation number [2006] EWHC 2357(admin) The queen on the application of London borough of Barnet council v the parking adjudicator.

Please see Appendix 2

Paragraph 39 (last sentence) “there must always be certainty of the date when the notice was issued and the dates when the various periods for payment expire.”

It was argued in this case that no prejudice was caused. Mr justice Jackson dealt with this as follows:

Paragraph 41 he says.
“Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non-compliance in this respect nevertheless no prejudice was caused, PCN's should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise.”

The Notice of rejection contains an error so similar its effect is the same.

At page two paragraph 3 the statement “This notice of rejection will be taken to have been served on the second day after the day of posting (as shown above) unless you can show it was not.” The correct term should be Second working day.

Finally under the same ground.

The Notice of rejection in the final paragraph states. To paraphrase. If an appeal or payment is not made within the correct period then the authority WILL serve a charge certificate.

The regulations at10(4)(g) allow only that they MAY serve.

The words WILL and MAY have entirely different meanings, The word MAY being chosen by the draftsman to allow for the authorities absolute discretion not to continue on to this next stage in the enforcement process..

Common law dictates that the authority must not fetter this discretion.

In giving consideration to this head I would ask that the finding of adjudicator Mr Mackenzie Robinson in case number UW05060M (please see appendix 3) and also the views of the adjudicators listed in both that decision and the decisions below.

216022028A
Belinda Pearce
The second contention concerns wording in the Notice of Rejection letter which Mr Dishman maintains is not compliant with the governing legislation by dint of its employment (again) of the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the Notice of Rejection contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate.
The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again 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.
Mr Dishman cites previous PATAS/ETA Cases in support.
The Enforcement Authority quote from PATAS/ETA Case Decisions.
Each Case is determined upon its individual evidential merit and an Adjudicator's interpretation of the governing law; my finding in this Case is that the Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non-compliant since I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics. Therefore I find the Notice of Rejection to be invalid, thus this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, in light of my findings, I allow this Appeal.

2160211959
John Lane
Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection 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;
(b) indicate the nature of an Adjudicator’s power to award costs; and
© describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an Adjudicator must be made.
A notice of rejection duly served may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate.
The local authority's notice of rejection states that they "Will" issue a charge certificate.
I accept that this is a fundamental error.
I will therefore allow the appeal.

2160210490
Sean Stanton-Dunn
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection served by an enforcement authority shall state that a charge certificate may be served unless the penalty charge has been paid or an appeal to an adjudicator made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection.
The notice of rejection served on Lexbow Limited stated that a charge certificate will be served and not that a charge certificate may be served. The use of the wording is mandatory and not optional. This means that the notice of rejection does not comply with the requirements of Regulation 6 so that there has been a procedural impropriety. The word will conveys an entirely different meaning to the motorist than the use of the word may.

2160211926
Christopher Rayner
Mrs Goldmeier’s car was unlawfully parked. The burden is therefore on her to establish an exemption. She submits that there is an error on Barnet’s notice to owner forms such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety, so that any penalty that reaches that stage of enforcement is unenforceable. Regulation 6(1) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that the notice to owner shall state that a charge certificate “may be served” if certain conditions are fulfilled. It is not disputed that Barnet’s notice to owner form states that “will serve” a charge certificate if those conditions are fulfilled.
Mrs Goldmeier references appeals before this Tribunal where adjudicators have found a procedural impropriety in these circumstances, and Barnet refer to another case where an adjudicator refused an appeal. The situation is unsatisfactory, particularly where there is no obvious prejudice to a motorist. However, enforcement authorities require full compliance with parking restrictions from motorists, and it is reasonable to expect the same of them. The wording on the notice to owner form does not comply with statutory requirements, and it would presumably be a relatively straightforward matter for Barnet to remedy that. On balance I follow what appears to be the majority view of adjudicators in this Tribunal and find that Barnet’s notice to owner form is not compliant with the Regulations, such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety and allow the appeal on that basis

2160422149
Michael Lawrence
The Appellant attended this hearing.
One of points raised by the Appellant concerned the wording of the Notice of Rejection letter (NOR) which he said was not compliant with the relevant legislation in that it used the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the NOR contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate. This NOR states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate if the recipient does not appeal or pay. Clearly there is a difference between may and will that is not just semantics, but substantial. The latter excludes the possibility that the Enforcement Authority have a discretion whether or not to proceed to the next stage of a charge certificate and an increased penalty charge.
The Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non compliant and invalid and therefore this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.

2150379790
Joanne Oxlade
The Appellant has raised a number of points in this appeal.
I allow the appeal on the basis that the notice of rejection does not substantially comply with Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, in that it says that if the Appellant neither appeals nor pays the PCN, the EA "will" serve a charge certificate, whereas the legislation requires that the NOR contains certain information, which is that the Notice of rejection "may" be served. "Will" and "may" are entirely different, and fails to recognise that the EA have discretion as to whether (and if so at what rate) they enforce the PCN subject to upper limits. There is something of a body of case law within the Tribunal, which the EA have not successfully challenged. The applicable case law is R (Hackney Drivers Association) v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire CC [2012] EWHC 3394, which provides that the question is whether or not a document is substantially compliant. For the above reasons, I find that it does not

2150479729
Neeti haria
In addition Mr Dishman contends that the Notice of Rejection misrepresents the position as it states that if the penalty charge is not paid or an appeal made the Authority will serve a Charge Certificate. Mr Dishman correctly points out that Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that under the circumstances specified a Charge Certificate may be served. The relevant parts of Regulation 6 provides:
“ Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a Notice of Rejection …..that notice shall
(a) state that a Charge Certificate may be served unless…..”
Having considered the matter I agree with Mr Dishman that the Notice of Rejection fails to comply with a mandatory requirement of the legislation. I find that this amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.
Accordingly I allow the appeal.


I contend that this failing to follow the statutory wording, thus importing a different meaning is a failure to comply with the registrations and a further reason for cancelation of this PCN



Posted by: Morrowitz Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 13:40
Post #1346163

SUCCESS

Thank you all so much for your help with this.

I had the hearing today and the appeal was allowed. This was the only section that the adjudicator upheld the appeal on (all others were rejected).

I further submit by way of collateral challenge, under the same statutory ground, that the authority fail at 10(1)(b) of the regulations. This being a failure of a statutory duty, I made the claim in my representations that the PCN was invalid as it demanded a penalty higher than that set by statute. The reason for not accepting this was not given, as required by the above regulation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/contents/made
“in relation to each ground on which representations are made, to serve on the person by whom the representations are made notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground has been established.”


The adjudicator agreed with this on the basis that common law dictates that the authority deals with each case fairly and that includes responding to all representations. She did say that there was not regulation covering procedural impropriety for bus lanes where there was for parking but that the common law was enough to allow the appeal.


FYI below is a summary of the other points raised and the reasons for not allowing them (apologies I did not make comprehensive notes)

2p/m telephone charge
Rejected on the grounds that this was a charge levied by the telephone company and not the council. She saw it as no different to having to pay for a stamp if you used the post. I argued that the charge would be paid to the council and amounts to the same thing as the credit card charge but she asked if I knew it would be paid to the council. Since I assumed it would be and did not know for sure it was rejected.
I think it came down to the fact that the credit card charge would be on the statement as part of the PCN charge in a single transaction and therefore could not be separated from the PCN charge.

Dates ("beginning" with and "within")
Rejected on the grounds that the regs state that the dates for each action (payment and reps) must be clear but not necessarily the same. The PCN uses the "beginning" term for the payment and the "within" term for the reps. Her contention was that these dates do not have to be the same so this point was rejected.
The additional point around "working days" on the NOR was also rejected on the basis that there are no regs around whether the NOR should use working days or just days. I argued that this meant a notice could be deemed to be served on a Sunday when there is no post which she thought was OK.

"WILL" versus "MAY" in the NOR
Cannot remember the exact wording she used but it was along the lines of "I'm not convinced by this". She noted that the cases provided as evidence were all adjudicator decisions which, she argued, did not set a precedent like a court case would (I think that was what was said).


Thanks once again for your help smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 14:03
Post #1346175

Well good that you won. She was totally wrong re the surcharge and would have had her bottie spanked at review. The high court judge. Who does set precedent that she is bound to follow ruled on the comparison to a CC charge and made it clear that the cost of doing business in effect is one that must be absorbed by the council

Still well done

Posted by: Neil B Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:37
Post #1346439

QUOTE (Morrowitz @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 13:40) *
Dates ("beginning" with and "within")
Rejected on the grounds that the regs state that the dates for each action (payment and reps) must be clear but not necessarily the same. The PCN uses the "beginning" term for the payment and the "within" term for the reps. Her contention was that these dates do not have to be the same so this point was rejected.

So if you have a dentist appointment on Monday, it's ok to turn up Monday or Tuesday? WTF.

Posted by: Morrowitz Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 09:54
Post #1349630

Just one last update. The decision has been confirmed on the case log with the following from the adjudicator

  1. This is a personal hearing. Mr Wilson was present. The Council was not represented.
  2. Mr Wilson raised a number of issues in his appeal. These are detailed in his statement in Evidence 1.
  3. One of the issues he raises is that the Council failed to consider his representations.
  4. In his original representations Mr Wilson appealed on the basis that the penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case. He said that the two pence service charge for the telephone payment was an unlawful demand for money over and beyond the amount defined in law.
  5. The Council failed to address this representation in its notice of rejection.
  6. The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 provide at Regulation 10 (1) (b) that it is the duty of the Authority ‘in relation to each ground on which representations are made, to serve on the person by whom the representations are made notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground has been established. Clearly in this case, the Council did not inform Mr Wilson whether they accepted that the ground of appeal on which he relied had been accepted.
  7. The Bus Lane regulations do not identify ‘procedural impropriety’ as a ground of appeal. However in addition to the duties set out in the regulations, the Council have a public duty to act fairly in the exercise of its statutory powers. See R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 Lord Mustill, ‘Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances’ .
  8. In my view the failure to respond to Mr Wilson’s representations in accordance with its duty under the Regulations was a breach of this common law duty to act fairly. I allow the appeal on this ground.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 13:18
Post #1349721

Thanks for the update. If you could post the full letter it would be great. We get very few from the TPT as the do not publish on line. and a failing to consider win will help many others

Posted by: Poweranger Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 19:19
Post #1349884

Hi

I made the same mistake as Morrowitz's wife did last Friday and I went back to the area this Friday to take photographs of the signage and road markings. I still think both of these are unclear and should have the words only underneath the blue signs and a clear indication and road markings to direct you left into the side road Hogarth Walk if approaching from Muller Road end. There is a priority over oncoming vehicles sign prior to the bus gate and right on the corner of the road you need to turn down to avoid driving into the bus gate. This sigh is confusing as it suggests you can continue along the road, but only to park and them you would have to make a three point turn in a traffic flow controlled area to avoid entering the bus gate. All of the side roads joining Romney Avenue have the words buses and cyclists only with an arrow I wish to appeal the PCN but if the council reject the appeal and it drags on for 6 months like this one did, I assume I will loose the chance to pay the reduced fine of £30 and I will have to take it to an adjudicator.
Did Morritz win on the Council not responding to the 2p service charge? Is there a way of determining if the Council actually charge this extra charge as the adjudicator said this was a charge levied by the phone company? Please can you advise if a similar appeal would be the best approach, including examples of cases?
I have been trying to find if the length of road does not fall within the definition of a bus lane contained in section 144(5) of the Traffic Act as mentioned in this report http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/4351853.Oxford_s_bus_gate_fines_are_ruled_illegal/

The actual photographs taken were off a vehicle travelling along a road with a bus stop, no evidence of contravention of a bus gate or bus lane, but I guess video footage will show me crossing the gate leaving. I was going to mention all of the points you raised about signage, road markings, legislation and the 2p per minute levy for paying over the phone.

Thank you for any advice you can offer.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 19:26
Post #1349886

QUOTE (Poweranger @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 19:19) *
Hi

I made the same mistake as Morrowitz's wife did last Friday and I went back to the area this Friday to take photographs of the signage and road markings. I still think both of these are unclear and should have the words only underneath the blue signs and a clear indication and road markings to direct you left into the side road Hogarth Walk if approaching from Muller Road end. There is a priority over oncoming vehicles sign prior to the bus gate and right on the corner of the road you need to turn down to avoid driving into the bus gate. This sigh is confusing as it suggests you can continue along the road, but only to park and them you would have to make a three point turn in a traffic flow controlled area to avoid entering the bus gate. All of the side roads joining Romney Avenue have the words buses and cyclists only with an arrow I wish to appeal the PCN but if the council reject the appeal and it drags on for 6 months like this one did, I assume I will loose the chance to pay the reduced fine of £30 and I will have to take it to an adjudicator.
Did Morritz win on the Council not responding to the 2p service charge? Is there a way of determining if the Council actually charge this extra charge as the adjudicator said this was a charge levied by the phone company? Please can you advise if a similar appeal would be the best approach, including examples of cases?
I have been trying to find if the length of road does not fall within the definition of a bus lane contained in section 144(5) of the Traffic Act as mentioned in this report http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/4351853.Oxford_s_bus_gate_fines_are_ruled_illegal/

The actual photographs taken were off a vehicle travelling along a road with a bus stop, no evidence of contravention of a bus gate or bus lane, but I guess video footage will show me crossing the gate leaving. I was going to mention all of the points you raised about signage, road markings, legislation and the 2p per minute levy for paying over the phone.

Thank you for any advice you can offer.


You need to start your own thread and post the PCN

read this particularly paragraph 28

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html&query=(camden)+AND+(v)+AND+(the)+AND+(parking)

Posted by: denizente Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 21:06
Post #1397289

I fell for this. Had never encountered a bus gate before in my life, never heard of such a thing. Saw the sign sending me into Hogarth Walk, found Hogarth Walk entrance and decided that wasn't where I was meant to go (or there would be additional signage). Also I could see another left turn up ahead right before the bus gate and assumed that must be it (it's not - it's the entrance to a council building). Very easy mistake to make, by the time you reach the bus gate you simply don't know what you're meant to do. I argued this one in front of the tribunal, who agreed that I didn't wilfully disobey the law but that the signage was adequate so I still had to pay. Obviously you can't get angry with them or they slap way more on you than the £60, so they've got you. When I suggested that this was little more than a nasty money-making scheme I was told that "all the bus lane money is ring-fenced, to be spent on traffic calming & road safety only". That could mean anything: They could be sending council employees on "fact-finding missions" to every holiday destination on the planet to "study" other countries' road safety & traffic calming schemes for all I know.

At the very least it needs to be made clear that you are meant to go down Hogarth Walk. A big sign there saying "private vehicles turn left here - buses only ahead" would be about right. Bristol City Council waste no time pulling stunts like this and spending our hard-earned cash on restaurants, flights, hotels and Lord knows what else - and all we get in return is a crappy guided bus system that's not even a tram.

Posted by: Longtime Lurker Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 22:49
Post #1397319

You need to start your own thread and post the PCN

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)