PCN (multiple) Southwark, Dear diary, a week ago I ****ed up |
PCN (multiple) Southwark, Dear diary, a week ago I ****ed up |
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 17:07
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,042 |
So I "temporarily" parked on what (hypothetically of course ) could be described as double yellow lines. Then I forgot about it for a week (because it was not outside my house and I don't use my car very much at all when I'm in London.
When I had my "oh ****!" moment and went to move my car, I had multiple PCNs stuck under the wipers. They all looked the same as this but with different dates/times: I would be very grateful of any ways I might be able to fight these as they really add up with there being more than one! Ideas that I have come up with (ranging from "I'm not an expert on this" to "clutching at straws"!): 1) Something similar to: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...php?t=3164984#8 PCN says "Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours" but there were no prescribed hours as such (no signage, just DYL) and the street as a whole wasn't restricted, just this bit because of the DYL. Any way the wording might be arguable in this manner? The link relates to Harrogate instead of Southwark so not just a copy & paste job as I presume the legal wording I would be arguing against will be different for Southwark. 2) So there were DYLs there, and I can see why (because I was almost blocking a dropped kerb). However beyond the dropped kerb was no entryway to property, just a fence. Obviously the owner at somepoint has changed the layout that originally necessitated the dropped kerb. Is there any way to argue there should no longer be DYLs here? 3) (Definitely clutching at straws!) The officers did not remove the tape marked "OFFICER PLEASE REMOVE THIS TAPE" (obviously not doing their job properly haha) and did not stick the PCN(s) to the vehicle and instead stuck them under the wipers. Of course if anyone has any advice on these or hopefully some better ideas, it would be muchly appreciated thanks! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 17:07
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 17:10
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 288 Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,810 |
If you didn't move the car between PCNs and were unaware of them being issued then all but the first one should be cancelled as a 'continuous contravention'.
This post has been edited by ohnoes: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 17:12 -------------------- PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1 Enfield 1/1 Hackney 3/4 Ealing 0/1 LCC 1/1 CoL 1/1 PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum: UKPC 1/1 TPS 1/1 ECP 0/1 Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75% |
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 17:19
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
CEO photos?
-------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 17:52
Post
#4
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,042 |
If you didn't move the car between PCNs and were unaware of them being issued then all but the first one should be cancelled as a 'continuous contravention'. Great shout! So challenge text would be something along the lines of: "This is a continuous contravention of PCN# ******** and so should not incur a further PCN. See case reference 2110166557 as an example. This can be confirmed by comparing the vehicle's tyre valves at the time of infringement." Found that case ref (and the tyre valve thing) via http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t108096.html but not sure whether it's worth specifying the reference number...? CEO photos? I haven't looked through all of them but if they are even halfway decent then it's obvious by my not-so-great not-quite-parallel parking that the car hasn't moved. Plus see the tyre valve point within the link I posted above. I can still post CEO photos but I'd rather not unless they will provide value. |
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 18:00
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 25 Jul 2010 Member No.: 39,245 |
Send an informal challenge but you will probably want to pay the first one at the discounted rate as you are unlikely to win that one on appeal.
If they won't cancel the others then challenge all of those up to the adjudication stage, but you will need a proof of the one you actually paid. |
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 18:03
Post
#6
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,042 |
Send an informal challenge but you will probably want to pay the first one at the discounted rate as you are unlikely to win that one on appeal. If they won't cancel the others then challenge all of those up to the adjudication stage, but you will need a proof of the one you actually paid. Paying the first one is perfectly ok with me (at the end of the day I did park there!). Are there any likely costs (e.g. legal) with taking it that far with the others? Just checking I'm not going to end up more out of pocket by paying a solicitor etc. |
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 18:11
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 120 Joined: 10 Nov 2018 Member No.: 100,869 |
Note the kindly stated information by the council:
Find out about call charges here https://www.gov.uk/call-charges This is related to the issue discussed here. |
|
|
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 20:43
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Send an informal challenge but you will probably want to pay the first one at the discounted rate as you are unlikely to win that one on appeal. If they won't cancel the others then challenge all of those up to the adjudication stage, but you will need a proof of the one you actually paid. Paying the first one is perfectly ok with me (at the end of the day I did park there!). Are there any likely costs (e.g. legal) with taking it that far with the others? Just checking I'm not going to end up more out of pocket by paying a solicitor etc. You don't need a solicitor and there are no legal costs. Appealing to the tribunal is free, an explanation of the process is available here: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/appe...ocess-explained The only downside is that if you appeal you lose the discount option, but to be honest I can't see you losing this one. I would also challenge the first one on the basis of the 0845 number on the PCN, have a read of this: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1432909 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 13:41
Post
#9
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,042 |
Send an informal challenge but you will probably want to pay the first one at the discounted rate as you are unlikely to win that one on appeal. If they won't cancel the others then challenge all of those up to the adjudication stage, but you will need a proof of the one you actually paid. Paying the first one is perfectly ok with me (at the end of the day I did park there!). Are there any likely costs (e.g. legal) with taking it that far with the others? Just checking I'm not going to end up more out of pocket by paying a solicitor etc. You don't need a solicitor and there are no legal costs. Appealing to the tribunal is free, an explanation of the process is available here: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/appe...ocess-explained The only downside is that if you appeal you lose the discount option, but to be honest I can't see you losing this one. I would also challenge the first one on the basis of the 0845 number on the PCN, have a read of this: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1432909 I will absolutely challenge the others on "continuous contravention" but I'm not sure it's worth the risk of losing on the first one as if my challenge failed I would be paying the full price of £130 which doesn't seem as much of a win as paying £65 discounted rate. There are no details available of the actual surcharge of the 0845 number (they only link to https://www.gov.uk/call-charges which says "up to 7p") and it is possible, albeit unlikely, that Southwark are charging 0p surcharge which would then render my challenge meaningless. I presume I lose the discount if I challenge as the 14 day limit would expire? Feel free to point out any incorrect assumptions I may have made, thanks. |
|
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 14:46
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,042 |
Quick update: when challenging the others I opened up the first PCN in another tab and thanks to Southwark's website it logged a challenge for the original instead of one of the others (i.e. the other PCN I "logged in" as took over from the one I thought I was accessing). So that meant I unintentionally made a nonsense challenge of the first PCN where I said it should be a continuous contravention of itself haha!
So in order to cut the amount of mess I just went and paid that first PCN at the discount as my accidental challenge was sure to fail anyway. I have challenged the other later PCNs though so thank you for all your help folks, I will try to keep you informed as to the turn-out. |
|
|
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 17:24
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The Southwark service charge is known to be 5p per minute but never mind, getting the other ones cancelled should not be an issue.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 12:40
Post
#12
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,042 |
So they refused all of the informal challenges. I have a decision to make. Call it quits, and pay the reduced rate for all of them or go all in and wait for my Notice(s) to Owner to come through the post and launch a formal challenge from that. Is that correct? Notice they said: "The vehicle was correctly issued a PCN for parking in contravention" - technically correct as the first PCN was correctly issued (but not these following ones) "Please be advised that a PCN can be issued for the same contravention on the following calendar day" - this seems like it could be wordplay too as in certain circumstances the statement could be correct, I just don't think it is in this circumstance. Cast your votes folks! |
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 12:50
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
"Please be advised that a PCN can be issued for the same contravention on the following calendar day" is utter BS, there is no such law, they've just made it up.
On top of this, the rejection notice says they cannot cancel the PCN in these circumstances. This is wrong in law, the council always has a power to cancel a PCN in any circumstances, including where the PCN has been correctly issued, the decision maker has therefore fettered his discretion. The correct decision making process for the council is: 1) Determine if PCN is correctly issued, if no, cancel PCN, if yes, go to step 2 2) Determine whether, despite the fact that the PCN was correctly issued, the PCN should nonetheless be cancelled. The answer to point 1 should be no, the PCN was not correctly issued as the vehicle was in continuous contravention, but regardless, they've skipped point 2. This is a procedural impropriety which means the PCN must be cancelled. This should be raised in the formal challenge. They will likely fail to consider this in the Notice of Rejection, which is a further procedural impropriety which can be taken up at the tribunal stage. We also know that in practice if they reject formal representations they will re-offer the discount in most cases, so there is little to be lost in taking it further. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 13:09
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 288 Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,810 |
Fight this all the way.
Council person is making up rules from thin air. -------------------- PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1 Enfield 1/1 Hackney 3/4 Ealing 0/1 LCC 1/1 CoL 1/1 PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum: UKPC 1/1 TPS 1/1 ECP 0/1 Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75% |
|
|
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 18:19
Post
#15
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,042 |
So which box do I tick for this continuous contravention argument? I'm guessing "There has been a prodecural impropriety on behalf of the authority" but I don't want to get caught out by a triviality like this. Unfortunately I go on holiday tomorrow so this is terrible timing! This post has been edited by Juan Belushi: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 18:20 |
|
|
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 11:39
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
We need to get a few things straight. Did you pay the first PCN? How many PCNs / Notices to Owner do you have?
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:52 |