Haringey council PCN Options

[boo13]

Hi all, I was wondering if you could help and direct me to any previous cases that may be relevant.

Haringey council has not enforced certain parking restrictions, double yellow lines, double parking in a particular area etc. Are there any successful cases that have shown that it is reasonable to assume the council is not enforcing parking restrictions and therefore the issuance of a ticket should be considered unreasonable/ unenforceable?

Furthermore, the Notice to rejection letter was received on 14th December, despite the letter being dated 3rd December, 11 days beforehand. I appreciate the post maybe busy because of Christmas, but is that acceptable?

[Advertisement]

[Neil B]

4) Not sure I understand this. Delay in receiving the NOR matters (11 days after the date on the letter) as no-one can understand what the date of service of the NOR is and hence which timelines apply e.g. to appeal to the tribunal. Council acknowledged we received the NOR on 14th December, so surely we then had 28 days from this date to appeal to the tribunal?

It was explained in post #7, in plenty of time for you to have registered an appeal.

That explanation made it clear that this wasn't a matter for you to decide but one to be proven.

So this is the pertinent question right now >

if the adj accepts your late appeal request..you have explained why it is late, haven't you???

----
That said, the wording of the timescale given in the rejection is itself flawed. We'll cross that bridge if we
get the opportunity.

[cp8759]

3) Google street view is not the best source of information here. We live here and know that violations happen on a daily basis and enforcement does not happen. This is particularly true around school drop off and pick up times. We have also shared photos of violations occurring with the council, but due to privacy I have not posted that link here - there are people and car registrations in the images. People would not park on the double yellow lines on this road regularly if parking restrictions were being enforced.

The burden of proving a legitimate expectation that restrictions will not be enforced is extremely high. If there happen to be cars on the DYLs every time the google car happens to pass by (and considering google is a wholly independent witness that can hardly be accused of being in cahoots with you), this can be very strong evidence. However we've recently had a footway parking case rejected where at every single sweep the google car filmed cars parked on the pavement with impunity and the adjudicator said that still wasn't good enough. The burden on DYLs is higher than on pavement parking as it's a more commonly known, understood and enforced restriction.

4) Not sure I understand this. Delay in receiving the NOR matters (11 days after the date on the letter) as no-one can understand what the date of service of the NOR is and hence which timelines apply e.g. to appeal to the tribunal. Council acknowledged we received the NOR on 14th December, so surely we then had 28 days from this date to appeal to the tribunal?

Re: the formal representation: this was done via their online system after we received NTO on 10th October. Unfortunately, the council system does not appear to have emailed confirmation so I do not have the exact date/ time, but think it was around 3rd November.

The council is not responsible for postal delays. If you made reps around 3rd November, the response was served in time so (providing the tribunal agrees to register your appeal) this is a non-issue.

Re FOI: in relation to some specific dates where we took photos of multiple (and daily) double yellow line violations on the road, the council did not issue any PCNs. Again supporting evidence that we had legitimate expectation that parking enforcement does not occur on our road.

So write to FoI@Haringey.gov.uk requesting an internal review, obviously attach copies of all the relevant correspondence, also keep all italics text exactly as I've used it below:

Dear London Borough of Haringey,

I hereby request an internal review of the handling of the FOI request first made on 30th July 2019 in the following terms:

Should my request to cancel this PCN be rejected then please take this as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following documents:
a) A copy of the engineer’s scale diagrams showing the layout of this parking bay, the road markings and the signage (including warnings of camera enforcement).
b) Copies of any approvals of deviations of signage from TSRGD.
c) Logs of maintenance visits verifying existence and condition of the signs.
d) Certification of type approval of the CCTV device or evidence of alleged contravention.
e) A copy of the Camera Enforcement logbook recording the alleged contravention.
f) The number of PCNs issued by Haringey Council in respect of this location.
g) The number of PCNs issued by Haringey Council in respect of this location and cancelled by you following informal challenges.
h) The number of PCNs issued by Haringey Council in respect of this location and cancelled by you following formal appeal to you.
i) The number of PCNs issued by Haringey Council in respect of this location and cancelled following appeal to a PATAS adjudicator.
j) The number of PCNs issued by Haringey Council in respect of this location and not pursued by you for any other reason.
k) The number of complaints received with respect to this location from Motorists, both formal and informal and all records of action taken if any.

This request was never dealt with at all. The council responded on 19 September 2019 by providing a link to the council website. I responded on 23 September requesting that the FOI request be forwarded to the relevant department, as the request was compliant with the requirements of the Act and it should have been treated as a valid request.

In the Notice of Rejection dated 3rd December the council re-stated its refusal to consider my information request under the Act and it stated that this is the procedure for FOI requests. If this is the procedure followed by the council, then this procedure must be changed immediately. I refer you to the ICO guidance at ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/receiving-a-request/ which explains that:

For a request to be valid under the Freedom of Information Act it must be in writing, but requesters do not have to mention the Act or direct their request to a designated member of staff. It is good practice to provide the contact details of your freedom of information officer or team, if you have one, but you cannot ignore or refuse a request simply because it is addressed to a different member of staff. Any letter or email to a public authority asking for information is a request for recorded information under the Act.

In this instance my request made explicit reference to the Act and the council has no excuse for failing to handle it correctly, the council is therefore in clear breach of section 1 of the Act. Given the significant delays incurred, I trust this internal review will now be prioritised. I also trust that appropriate words of advice will be given to the members of staff who failed to handle this information request correctly in the first place.

You never know, given it's an almighty cock-up the council might get its skates on and respond promptly in the hope that you don't complain to the Information Commissioner. But failure to handle the FOI request correctly has no direct impact on the PCN (though it might yield useful evidence), so don't get too distracted by this.

[boo13]

We have an email from the Environmental & Traffic Adjudicators today confirming receipt of our appeal which was received on 5th January 2020 and confirming the hearing date of 3rd February. They state "This will be your opportunity to explain your appeal to the Adjudicator." I assume this means that they have accepted to hear the case.

Does anyone know what happens with the Charge Certificate? Do we need to have confirmation from the council that it has been cancelled?

Many thanks

[PASTMYBEST]

Start drafting your appeal. pay particular attention to the posts of HCA re detail. Post here before sending and we will tidy it up and add references is relevant

[hcandersen]

Post #12 deals with the issue of the CC.

[boo13]

Thank you very much every one.

I wasn't sure if I would be notified that the charge certificate would be cancelled re post no. 12.

Re the procedural impropriety, and wording on the notices being incorrect, can anyone help me with what I need to state?

I am also still confused re the Notice of Rejection and implications of receiving it much later than the date on the letter. While I appreciate that the council is not responsible for postal delays, I do not see why a shorter timeframe to make an appeal/ pay at the discounted rate etc should be a consequence for me - I am also not responsible for any postal delay. In fact, I suspect that the council messed up with the date on the NOR letter. The Notice to Owner was dated 9th October and we received it on 10th October. The Charge certificate was dated 3rd January and we received it on 4th January. Could it be the case that the NOR should have been dated 13th December (rather than 3rd December) as we received it on the 14th December? All three letters used exactly the same envelopes and 1st class postage. How can I prove that this may have been the case?

Re written witness statements - is there guidance on what to include/ how to format it? I have plenty of residents who can confirm the non enforcement of parking on double yellow lines on this road.

Does the council not have a duty to consistently apply parking restrictions? How can it be the case that people park on double yellow lines on multiple occasions on a daily basis when it is arguably more unsafe (children present), but a ticket is issued to someone in the evening when the road is pretty much empty?

Re unloading activity - what time frame can unloading activity occur over? Is 6 minutes observation time sufficient?

I am working on the wording of the appeal and appreciate all of your help to date. I will post once drafted. Thank you all

[cp8759]

I am also still confused re the Notice of Rejection and implications of receiving it much later than the date on the letter. While I appreciate that the council is not responsible for postal delays, I do not see why a shorter timeframe to make an appeal/ pay at the discounted rate etc should be a consequence for me - I am also not responsible for any postal delay. In fact, I suspect that the council messed up with the date on the NOR letter. The Notice to Owner was dated 9th October and we received it on 10th October. The Charge certificate was dated 3rd January and we received it on 4th January. Could it be the case that the NOR should have been dated 13th December (rather than 3rd December) as we received it on the 14th December? All three letters used exactly the same envelopes and 1st class postage. How can I prove that this may have been the case?

This is devoid of merit or relevance and you really should drop it. I only say it because it's distracting you from arguments that could be successful and is nothing more than a distraction.

Re written witness statements - is there guidance on what to include/ how to format it? I have plenty of residents who can confirm the non enforcement of parking on double yellow lines on this road.

The only important issues are that the witness must obviously be identified, and the statement should only contain evidence of facts that the witness has first hand knowledge of. No speculation, no hearsay. Statements will have greater weight if they make explicit reference to things residents have seen on specific occasions (my aunt gertrude visits me every Wednesday and parks on the DYLs all day and has never got a PCN in 10 years) will have far more weight than generic and unsubstantiated assertions (Nobody ever gets a ticket on this road).

Does the council not have a duty to consistently apply parking restrictions? How can it be the case that people park on double yellow lines on multiple occasions on a daily basis when it is arguably more unsafe (children present), but a ticket is issued to someone in the evening when the road is pretty much empty?

There is no requirement for consistent enforcement, otherwise everybody could complaint that they got caught and someone else they know about got away with it. If, and only if, the absence of enforcement has been very consistent, then a legitimate expectation defence might arise.

Re unloading activity - what time frame can unloading activity occur over? Is 6 minutes observation time sufficient?

There is no time limit, but loading / unloading can only carry on for as long as is necessary, so it's up to you to justify why it was necessary to take as long as you took.

Have you asked for the FOI review? A recent legitimate expectation case was won based on an FOI answer.

[boo13]

3) Google street view is not the best source of information here. We live here and know that violations happen on a daily basis and enforcement does not happen. This is particularly true around school drop off and pick up times. We have also shared photos of violations occurring with the council, but due to privacy I have not posted that link here - there are people and car registrations in the images. People would not park on the double yellow lines on this road regularly if parking restrictions were being enforced.

The burden of proving a legitimate expectation that restrictions will not be enforced is extremely high. If there happen to be cars on the DYLs every time the google car happens to pass by (and considering google is a wholly independent witness that can hardly be accused of being in cahoots with you), this can be very strong evidence. However we've recently had a footway parking case rejected where at every single sweep the google car filmed cars parked on the pavement with impunity and the adjudicator said that still wasn't good enough. The burden on DYLs is higher than on pavement parking as it's a more commonly known, understood and enforced restriction.

Thank you - looking at the most recent google street view from 2019 you can see the practice of parking on double yellow lines, and so does the historical street view evidence in May 2012. I appreciate that google may be seen to be wholly independent, but living here we do witness this practice every day and hopefully these google street view sweeps add to our evidence. We have photos that show that cars park there for hours with impunity.

[boo13]

That said, the wording of the timescale given in the rejection is itself flawed. We'll cross that bridge if we get the opportunity.

Would you be able to help me explain this for the appeal please? At present I have just stated that "the wording of the timescale given in the NOR is itself flawed."

Thank you very much

[cp8759]

boo13 for the reasons explained in my PM, you have no valid loading exemption. If you forward me the FOI data I'll see if there's anything we can work with.

How are you getting on with witness statements from neighbours?

Has the council uploaded any evidence to the tribunal yet?

[hcandersen]

OP, as per cp your claim that you were entitled to rely on the unloading exemption must fail as I think you know because your car was parked on DYL for at least 14 minutes whereas the unloading took no more that 3, involved two adults and occurred within the first 5 minutes.

Whatever your frustration on this point it will not avail you at adjudication.

Legitimate expectation
You will not succeed on this point because you do not have proof. At best you have anecdotal info. But see below.

The NOR
Is grossly flawed.

1. There is prima facie evidence that it could not have been posted on its day of issue which is a procedural impropriety.
2. It does not comply with the requirements of the Appeals Regs in that:
It fails to advise you of the adjudicator's power to register appeals submitted after the expiry of the '28-day period'; PI 2
It misstates that 28-day period. PI no. 3;
It fails to address all of the substantive points in your reps i.e. that you had a legitimate expectation. PI no. 4.

You must get your appeal in pronto. Do not wait for theirs. You must make them see that you have raised the PI points in your appeal, points which arise solely out of their NOR. This means that they MUST address these in their evidence to the adj. and if they don't, then get a postponement, give this as the reason and only select a new date when you're certain they would respond.

Do not risk just arguing in front of the adj if you have not put these grounds to the authority in advance. Bad form and IMO self-defeating.

[cp8759]

@boo13 based on the FOI data you've sent, your chances of claiming legitimate expectation are between zero and nil. The council only patrols this road once in a while, but that is not the same as a policy of non-enforcement and the volume of PCNs has been very consistent over a period of six years. The adjudicator would look at any such claim as nothing more than a complaint about getting caught.

Your only hope are the procedural issues identified by hcandersen. Has the tribunal confirmed a deadline by which you must submit your full appeal wording?

[boo13]

Ok thank you both.

I have got 5 witness statements and have spoken to the school re legitimate expectation - residents have not seen enforcement occurring on the road despite the volume of people parking on double yellow lines, double parking, blocking drives etc and the school believe some PCNs were only issued because they called up the council to do so.

Can we submit our appeal wording in stages? i.e post the procedural impropriety reasons first to give the council the chance to respond and then later-on add the arguments (that you think will not win) with witness statements (other residents are very surprised with the PCN because plenty of people park on double yellow lines etc for prolonged periods (hours) and are not ticketed)?

We called up as we needed to change date of hearing to 10th February, and the letter states the deadline to submit appeal evidence was 6th February.

Many thanks

[boo13]

Here is the draft text re the procedural impropriety. I would appreciate any comments on it. Thank you all in advance for your help.

I believe that there are 2 key issues in regards to this PCN:
1. Procedural issues.
2. Matters relating directly to the contravention;

In relation to the first key area - Procedural issues

The Notice of Rejection (NOR) is grossly flawed for the following reasons:
1. There is prima facie evidence that it could not have been posted on its day of issue which is a procedural impropriety. The NOR was received on 14th December 2019, yet the letter was dated 3rd December 2019. The lapse in time from the date of the letter to when it was actually served flags procedural impropriety on the part of the council as they did not ensure the NOR was posted on its issue date. Given the Notice to Owner was dated the 9th October and received on the 10th October, and the Charge Certificate was dated 3rd January and received the next day on 4th January, and given we received the NOR on the 14th December, it follows that the NOR should have been dated 13th December, rather than 3rd December or the council failed to post the NOR on its issue date. All of the above-mentioned letters have been posted using the same envelopes and 1st class postage. Please see nest video footage showing the royal mail post women delivering the NOR on 14th December. [nest link] (Procedural Impropriety 1)

2. The NOR does not comply with the requirements of the Appeals Regulations in that it fails to advise you of the adjudicator's power to register appeals submitted after the expiry of the '28-day period'; (Procedural Impropriety 2)
3. The NOR misstates the ’28-day period”. (Procedural Impropriety 3)
4. The NOR fails to address all of the substantive points in my representations i.e. that I had a legitimate expectation. Further, it is not clear that the Council had watched the video footage or looked at the photos provided. Instead, the NOR simply stated “We have carefully considered what you say…” and then appeared to use standardised text. There was no mention or acknowledgement of the video or photos provided nor any explanation for why they rejected our legitimate expectation argument. (Procedural Impropriety 4)

5. It has also confused matters in relation to timeframes to appeal:

a. The NOR is dated 3rd December, but was received on 14th December. The NOR stated “within the next 28 days (from the date this letter was delivered to you) you must either pay the penalty charge or appeal to the independent adjudicator at the London Tribunals". As the letter was delivered to us on 14th December, we would have until 11th January to appeal to the independent adjudicator.
b. We emailed Haringey Council to flag our surprise at the lapse in time from the date on the NOR letter to the date the letter was received. They stated on 16th December that "whilst I acknowledge the letter was dated 3rd December 2019 and you received the letter on 14th December 2019, this does not invalidate the response as it was still sent within the statutory response time." The council therefore acknowledged the date of service was 14th December 2019 and it therefore follows that we had until 11th January to appeal. However, the council failed to follow this timeline and unlawfully issued a Charge Certificate dated 3rd January 2020 and delivered on 4th January 2020.
c. It is clear that Haringey council do not know which statutory timeframes apply.
d. Haringey council made me think that the timeframe to appeal to the adjudicator or pay at the reduced rate was still open but then ran down the time I had to appeal to London Tribunals or pay at the reduced rate and issued a charge certificate. (Procedural Impropriety 5)

Hence, I believe that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. Motorists must comply to the letter of the law while paying careful attention to ours and others' safety. However, the local authorities believe that it is their right to request payment for alleged offences using incorrect procedures rather than the ones clearly outlined in the legislation.

[boo13]

Has the council uploaded any evidence to the tribunal yet?

No evidence uploaded yet

[hcandersen]

I have PM'd you regarding the contravention.

In essence, shorten it by 90%; delete all references to other people parking with impunity because this can only serve to undermine your assertion that you parked to unload only for as long as it took but that events inside the house i.e. the children, diverted your attention. You moved once this situation was resolved.

And I'd link the contravention and PIs ...In the NOR the authority have in what resemble standard phrases set out in detail what they consider to be motorists' obligations, such as:

Parking rules apply even if only part of your vehicle is on the line;
Parking rules are there to ensure that traffic flows freely and safely.

I would therefore have expected that the attention to detail which is expected of a motorist would have been shown by the authority itself when composing its NOR. However, as the string of potential procedural improprieties set out below shows, the authority do not appear to hold themselves to the same standard as they expect of others. I therefore hope and rely on the adjudicator to disabuse them of this approach by allowing my appeal.

And then the PIs.....

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 - 10:08

[cp8759]

We called up as we needed to change date of hearing to 10th February, and the letter states the deadline to submit appeal evidence was 6th February.

Ok we have a bit of time so don't rush. PIs 2 & 3 need expanding, I'm not sure you understand them yourself and if you've asked for a personal hearing, it's imperative that you have an understanding (if not a mastery) of any technical arguments you plan on using. The essence of these arguments is that the concept of service is distinct from the concept of delivery, and the NoR should tell you that the tribunal can consider an appeal received after 28 days, this is explained fully in Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham (218033612A, 26 September 2018) here http://bit.ly/2IcQBnd

For PI 4, you want to quote Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2170256432, 03 July 2017) http://bit.ly/2U7F27s in relation to the council's duty to explain why it has rejected your representations.

PI 5 is explained a bit better, but it could be clearer. For example, you do not state when the CC was issued or how this impacted you.

Once you've read those cases have another go and post up a revised draft.

[boo13]

Thank you both. Redrafted text as follows:

I believe that there are 2 key issues in regards to this PCN:
1. Procedural issues.
2. Matters relating directly to the contravention;

In the NOR, the authority have, in what resemble standard phrases, set out in detail what they consider to be motorists' obligations, such as:

Parking rules apply even if only part of your vehicle is on the line;
Parking rules are there to ensure that traffic flows freely and safely.

I would therefore have expected that the attention to detail which is expected of a motorist would have been shown by the authority itself when composing its NOR. However, as the string of potential procedural improprieties set out below shows, the authority does not appear to hold themselves to the same standard as they expect of others. I therefore hope and rely on the adjudicator to disabuse them of this approach by allowing my appeal.

In relation to the first key area - Procedural issues - the Notice of Rejection (NOR) is grossly flawed for the following reasons:

1. There is prima facie evidence that it could not have been posted on its day of issue, or it was incorrectly dated, which is a procedural impropriety. The NOR was received on 14th December 2019, yet the letter was dated 3rd December 2019. The lapse in time from the date of the letter to when it was actually delivered flags procedural impropriety on the part of the council as they either did not ensure the NOR was posted on its issue date or they have incorrectly dated it.
(a) Given the Notice to Owner was dated the 9th October and received on the 10th October (one day later), and the Charge Certificate was dated 3rd January and received on 4th January (one day later), and given we received the NOR on the 14th December, it follows that the NOR should have been dated 13th December, rather than 3rd December. Please note that all of the above-mentioned letters have been posted using the same envelopes and 1st class postage. or
(b) the council failed to post the NOR on its issue date of 3rd December (given the Charge Certificate was issued on the 3rd January), this would be consistent with the authority’s internal processes which then gave rise to a Charge Certificate being issued on 3rd January.
© Please see nest video footage showing the royal mail post women delivering the NOR on 14th December. https://video.nest.com/clip/[link] (Procedural Impropriety 1)

In order to explain procedural impropriety 2 and 3 below, I highlight that the Notice of Rejection, in this case, dated 3rd December 2019, reads, as far as is relevant for this appeal, and with my underlining, as follows:

“Within the next 28 days (from the date this letter was delivered to you) you must either pay the penalty charge or appeal to the independent adjudicator at the London Tribunals.
…
I have decided to re-offer you the chance to pay the PCN at the reduced charge of £65.00 as long we receive payment before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of this letter.

If you do not pay by then, the charge will increase to £130.00. If you do not pay the penalty charge or appeal to an adjudicator before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this letter, we may then send a Charge Certificate asking for payment of an increased amount of £195.00. At that stage, you may have missed the opportunity to appeal.”

2. The NOR does not comply with the requirements of the Appeals Regulations in that it fails to advise you of the adjudicator's power to register appeals submitted after the expiry of the '28-day period'; i.e. the Notice of Rejection does not expressly state that an adjudicator may extend the period of 28 days provided for lodging an appeal, as provided by Regulation 7(1)(b). In the case of Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham (218033612A, 26 September 2018) the adjudicator states that while Regulation 6 does not stipulate that the NOR should state that an adjudicator may extend the period of 28 days provided for lodging an appeal, and while “It is also right to say that the Notice of Rejection alludes to the power to extend the period, in that it states that a person who does not appeal within the period ‘may’ have missed the opportunity to appeal.” The adjudicator concludes “that a reasonable reader of the Notice of Rejection would be unlikely to conclude that an adjudicator had the power to extend the 28 day period. That discretionary power is, in my view, an important component of the appellate process and a power of which a potential appellant should be made aware. In the case of Miller v. London Borough of Barnet (2170241413, 21 June 2017), cited by Mrs Sinclair, my fellow adjudicator Mr. Chan held that it was essential that a Notice of Rejection describes the power of potential extension to the 28 day limit. He held that a Notice of Rejection that does not contains this detail does not describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made, in accordance with Regulation 6(1)©. For the reasons I have given I agree with that decision which I consider highly persuasive.” In this case, the NOR fails to make us aware that we are also able to appeal after the 28-day window. (Procedural Impropriety 2)

3. The NOR misstates the ‘28-day period”. The 28-day period is confused by the terminology used in the NOR. The concept of delivery is distinct from the concept of service. While there do not seem to be any provisions within the two sets of Regulations specifying when such a notice i.e. the NOR, is deemed served, as per the case of “Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham (218033612A, 26 September 2018)” the adjudicator ruled that section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies. The adjudicator also stated that the general point made in the Kent County Council case that was referred to in that case ( vs Kent County Council, KP05045K, 17 August 2010) remained; “The recipient of a Notice of Rejection must be able to work out precisely when payment must be made or an appeal made, by reference to the concept of ‘service’ and when service is deemed to have been effected. The use of the term ‘delivered’, even if intended to be helpful, muddles the issue and is inconsistent with the strict requirements of Regulation 6(1)(a).” It was not clear when payment needed to be made, given the date the NOR was delivered was 14th December, but the date of service was arguably 2 days after the date of issue (3rd December 2019) of the NOR, 5th December. We were shocked to receive a Charge Certificate on 4th January 2020 (issued on 3rd January 2020), as we believed we had until 11th January 2020 to either pay the penalty charge or appeal to the independent adjudicator as this was 28 days from the date the NOR was delivered to us (as per the wording in the NOR). The charge certificate was issued on 3rd January 2020, only 21 days after the date the NOR was delivered to me. (Procedural Impropriety 3).

4. The NOR fails to address all of the substantive points in my representations e.g. that I had a legitimate expectation, that the Council had watched the video footage or looked at the photos provided and why these were not sufficient. Instead the NOR simply stated “We have carefully considered what you say…” and then appeared to use standardised text. There was no mention or acknowledgement of the video or photos provided nor any explanation for why they rejected our legitimate expectation argument. As per Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2170256432, 03 July 2017), the adjudicator allowed the appeal on the basis that the Council failed to perform its statutory duty to consider representations which amounted to procedural impropriety. The adjudicator stated “The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a proforma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed.” The NOR failed to address all of the substantive points raised in my representations, so I believe that this amounts to procedural impropriety. (Procedural Impropriety 4)

5. The authority has also confused matters in relation to timeframes to appeal:

a. The NOR is dated 3rd December, but was delivered on 14th December. The NOR stated “within the next 28 days (from the date this letter was delivered to you) you must either pay the penalty charge or appeal to the independent adjudicator at the London Tribunals". As the letter was delivered to us on 14th December, we would therefore have until 11th January to appeal to the independent adjudicator. Instead the Charge certificate was issued (3rd January 2020) after only 21 days after the NOR was delivered (14th December).
b. We emailed Haringey Council to flag our surprise at the lapse in time from the date on the NOR letter to the date the letter was received. They stated on 16th December that "whilst I acknowledge the letter was dated 3rd December 2019 and you received the letter on 14th December 2019, this does not invalidate the response as it was still sent within the statutory response time." The council therefore acknowledged the date of delivery was 14th December 2019 and it therefore followed that we had until 11th January to appeal.
c. However, the council then failed to follow this timeline themselves and unlawfully issued a Charge Certificate dated 3rd January 2020 and delivered on 4th January 2020 (i.e. before the 28 days from the date this letter was delivered to us). We were shocked to receive the Charge Certificate given what the NOR clearly stated.
d. It is clear that Haringey council do not know which statutory timeframes apply.
e. Haringey council made me think that the timeframe to appeal to the adjudicator or pay at the reduced rate was still open (until 11th January 2020) but then ran down the time I had to appeal to London Tribunals or pay at the reduced rate and issued a charge certificate. (Procedural Impropriety 5).

Hence, I believe that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. Motorists must comply to the letter of the law while paying careful attention to ours and others' safety. However, the local authority believe that it is their right to request payment for alleged offences using incorrect procedures rather than the ones clearly outlined in the legislation.

In relation to the second, i.e. did the contravention occur.

I can see from my own evidence that I was parked on double yellow line for around 15 minutes. This was not my intention when stopping as I planned that my wife and I would unload our children, their things (including 2 micro scooters) and luggage and then move the car off the double yellow line and onto the road - I can park the car on the drive but at present the driveway has not yet been renovated and the wall of the flowerbed is broken and damaged, the pathway tiles uneven, so is not particularly safe to park and unload (especially given I am conscious that I had a bad fall in the driveway in January 2019 [evidence A]. However, like the best laid plans this one did not quite go as I intended. After getting everyone inside the house both the children started to play up – it was our wedding anniversary and we had been celebrating since the morning as a family on this hot summers’ day with temperatures over 30 degrees Celsius. Our youngest daughter, aged 4 years old, who I carried into the house asleep, woke up unexpectedly, alongside my other daughter aged 6 years old who was still awake and being settled by my wife. Our daughters took up all our attention which caused me to let the issue of immediately moving my car slip. I did go to move the car immediately after I settled my youngest daughter and to my surprise, I was greeted by a parking ticket. Hence I believe that the contravention did not occur.

[cp8759]

Are you planning a personal herring or a decision on the papers?

[stamfordman]

A personal herring could be a bit fishy. And red.