PCN 52M, PCN 52M - Failing to comply with a prohibition...wrong way down one wa Options

[oodlydoodly]

Hello

My husband apparently went the wrong way down a one way street. He didn't see any signs.

Is anyone able to identify any technicalities we could use to avoid paying the PCN?

Also, the PCN arrived yesterday, 21 June 2018, (with first class postage) but I note that the notice is dated 13 June 2018. This means there is a very short time before the 14 days expire. Does this give us anything to argue?

Thank you so much





This post has been edited by southpaw82: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 - 11:24

[Advertisement]

[Mad Mick V]

Post up the envelope please.

Mick

[oodlydoodly]

Post up the envelope please.

Mick

Thanks for your reply. Just the front of the envelope or both sides?

[PASTMYBEST]

there is IMO a very big flaw in the PCN. The last paragraph, the emboldened one is all wrong. They cannot issue a CC until 28 days beginning with date of service, and you are also allowed until then to make reps In this case they foreshorten the time you are allowed by 2 days. Also a pretty nasty paragraph re what will happen if after a NoR is received and no payment made But i would be arguing against the adequacy of the signage first off

[Mad Mick V]

Post up the envelope please.

Mick

Thanks for your reply. Just the front of the envelope or both sides?

Postmark or code. Unless the reverse has something relevant.

Mick

[oodlydoodly]

there is IMO a very big flaw in the PCN. The last paragraph, the emboldened one is all wrong. They cannot issue a CC until 28 days beginning with date of service, and you are also allowed until then to make reps In this case they foreshorten the time you are allowed by 2 days. Also a pretty nasty paragraph re what will happen if after a NoR is received and no payment made But i would be arguing against the adequacy of the signage first off

Thanks for your reply. Sounds promising! Do you know which sections of which act are relevant? Is inadequacy of signage a valid ground of appeal?

Post up the envelope please.

Mick

Thanks for your reply. Just the front of the envelope or both sides?

Postmark or code. Unless the reverse has something relevant.

Mick

Here it is! Thanks




This post has been edited by oodlydoodly: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 18:44

[PASTMYBEST]

The signage would come under

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/24...ulation/18/made reg 18(1)(a)

The flaw in the PCN

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

Schedule 1(3) for the timing of representations

schedule 1 5(2)(a) for the service of a CC

The other paragraph i would leave for now, it is more an argument that it confuses rather than wrong

[oodlydoodly]

The signage would come under

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/24...ulation/18/made reg 18(1)(a)

The flaw in the PCN

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

Schedule 1(3) for the timing of representations

schedule 1 5(2)(a) for the service of a CC

The other paragraph i would leave for now, it is more an argument that it confuses rather than wrong

Ah, that's amazing, thank you! I'll have to put something together. Can anyone else spot anything else that I can add?!

[stamfordman]

You have to turn right at this junction. The reason the left turn is not a no entry is because cyclists are allowed.

it is confusing, no doubt more so in the dark.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4463337,-0....3312!8i6656

[oodly]

Thanks! How do I edit my post as some details are on one of the photos? Why does it matter about details being on photos? Thanks

[oodly]

Turns out that our brake hose pipe was cut last night...is it possible that someone could have removed the redaction to see the address?!!!

[stamfordman]

Turns out that our brake hose pipe was cut last night...is it possible that someone could have removed the redaction to see the address?!!!

No. It is also vanishingly unlikely anyone would pursue such an action against someone they'd didn't know via this forum.

Are you sure someone cut it? If so that's a matter for the police. More likely is a spilt in the hose - how old is the car and when was it's last MOT.

[oodlydoodly]

Below is a photo of the brake hose pipe. The mechanic told me that it looks like it has been deliberately cut. The car's last MOT was in April, so only a couple of months ago. The brake hose pipe on the other side does not show any signs of wear and tear. The car is 11 years old. Hopefully it wasn't due to a human's deliberate cut (and especially hopefully not from this site) but it's hard to come up with any alternative explanation

[stamfordman]

It's very unlikely someone went to the trouble of cutting it unless someone has a grudge against you.

Brake hoses do split. Make sure you replace them all.

Focus on the PCN here. If you want to talk about the brake hose post in the flame pit section.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 - 11:44

[Mad Mick V]

Can anyone scan the franking mark on the envelope at post 6 please?

If the envelope is dated incorrectly or the OP did not get the document 2 working days from it being posted then that should win this case.

Mick

[Mr Meldrew]

I’m sorry to see the damage. Your images hosted on TinyPic appear to be JPEGs. Google searches relating to your concerns suggests that the JPEG format does not support ‘layers’, meaning that your black rectangles have replaced part of the image and there is simply nothing underneath.

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 - 13:03

[oodly]

Thanks everyone for your comments. I didn't know you could scan a franking mark...is anyone able to do that please?

Also, is the date of service the date on which I received the PCN?

Thanks

[oodly]

Hello all

Please could you let me know what you think of the draft informal representations below. I am hoping to submit them tonight. Many thanks in advance.


I wish to make the following informal representations against the PCN that I received on 21 June 2018.

1) There was no contravention of a prescribed order.

The PCN states as follows:

If neither payment nor representations have been received before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice, a Charge Certificate may be sent to the keeper which increases the amount of the full penalty charge by a further 50% to £195.00. If the Charge Certificate is not paid, the increased amount will be registered as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement (Bulk) Centre and a warrant may be issued for Civil Enforcement Agents to recover.

However, the above is legally incorrect. I believe that a charge certificate cannot be sent to me before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN (rather than from the date of the notice). The relevant law is under Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the “2003 Act”), including more specifically paragraph 5(1) and 5(2) which state that a charge certificate can be served if the PCN is not paid and no representations have been made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with “the date on which the penalty charge notice is served” (para 5(2)(a)).

Your legally incorrect wording means that you might send out a charge certificate to me after 10 July 2018 (this is 28 days from the date of the notice) whereas you are not allowed to send out a charge certificate to me until after 18 July 2018 (this is 28 days from the date of service of the notice – I received it on 21 June 2018). This is crucial because I am legally allowed to make representations until the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice (paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act). However, I would be at risk of receiving a charge certificate before I had had the chance to submit my representations – for example, if I was going to submit my formal representations on 17 July 2018 (which would be within the 28 day period from the date of service which was 21 June 2018), by this time I might well have received a charge certificate as according to you, you can serve it after 10 July 2018 (which is wrong as mentioned above).
In addition, your legally incorrect wording means that I am losing out on 8 days in which I could have spent writing and submitting my formal representations as, in light of the illegal wording, I would have to submit my representations by 10 July instead of 18 July to avoid the possible charge certificate being incorrectly (prematurely) sent out to me.

Given that I am dyslexic, this policy puts me at a particular disadvantage compared with those who are non-dyslexic as I require additional time to read and digest what I am reading. Therefore, the council is also in breach of section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 (indirect disability discrimination) in applying this illegal policy of sending out a charge certificate too early and thereby shortening the time within which I can make representations.
Furthermore, given that I only received the PCN on 21 June 2018, but I still only have 14 days from the date of the notice within which to submit informal representations, this has only left me with 6 days in which to read and compile my informal grounds of appeal rather than closer to 14 days had the PCN been sent out after it had been produced. Again, the policy of delaying the sending out of the PCN is indirectly discriminatory under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 for the same reasons as stated above. Please could you confirm the date on which the notice was sent out and why you waited potentially 7 days before sending the notice first class (assuming it was sent on 20 June 2018).

2) Other compelling reasons

I would add that this is the first PCN I have received in this council’s area and, at the time, I was dropping a colleague home from work, which I was doing as a favour.

In light of the above, I trust that the PCN will be cancelled.

I look forward to hearing from you.

[PASTMYBEST]

date of service is defined in law as being two working days after posting, unless you can prove otherwise. But you are not to know that, so i like your reps as is

[oodly]

Hello

So the Council has replied and rejected the informal grounds of appeal. I'm no expert but the Council seems to have jumped straight to the notice of rejection even though our representations were informal. Is that right?

Also, is anyone able to spot any more technicalities? I have attached the photos below (hopefully they work and are clear).

Shouldn't the Council have included a bit more of a reply to our representations?

Thanks so much in advance.

oodly







This post has been edited by oodly: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 15:01