PCN from council for contravention of code 27 Options

[mitina1990]

Hi everyone.

I'm new in here, so I do sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused by my incorrect posting If there's any, Also English is my second language, so please be understanding.

Can anyone help me, please?

I have only found out that I have received 5 PCN, ranging in time period from 11/2/2019- to 15/2/2019. They were issued between 8 am-9 am by 2 different officers (4 of which were issued by the same officer and the last one was issued by different one). The car wasn't used for these days, so I'm really gutted to discover only today I was fined .
The tickets have been issued by Watford borough council for contravention of code 27. The ticket explains that I parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway or raised carriageway.
I don't believe I wasn't in any way obstructing the pathway for pedestrians/wheelchairs/buggies. There was enough space to get through. I went slightly over the raised part of carriageway but it didn't affect the drooped part of footway. (photos are provided by Watford borough council)
Is there anything I can do about it, please?
Should I appeal or it is a lost case?

THANK YOU

This post has been edited by mitina1990: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 - 18:51

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[PASTMYBEST]

post the PCN as well redact only reg and pcn number and a GSV link

[mitina1990]

post the PCN as well redact only reg and pcn number and a GSV link

ALL 5 OF THEM ??

[DancingDad]

post the PCN as well redact only reg and pcn number and a GSV link

ALL 5 OF THEM ??

One at least.

Judging by those pictures, no contravention but would like to have a look on streetview.

[PASTMYBEST]

I reckon here

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6757015,-...6384!8i8192

if so the first thinner kerbstone is sloping so no contravention. That is what the law says though councils like to say otherwise, post the back of one PCN

The situation may differ for each PCN so we need council photos for each

[mitina1990]

I reckon here

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6757015,-...6384!8i8192

if so the first thinner kerbstone is sloping so no contravention. That is what the law says though councils like to say otherwise, post the back of one PCN

The situation may differ for each PCN so we need council photos for each

I updated my photos, including PCN from the rest of the days as well as the back of PCN

post the PCN as well redact only reg and pcn number and a GSV link

ALL 5 OF THEM ??

One at least.

Judging by those pictures, no contravention but would like to have a look on streetview.

PASTMYBEST already added the link from the street view where I parked. It is actually spot on!

This post has been edited by mitina1990: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 - 18:59

[DancingDad]

Was the vehicle moved between PCNs ??

[mitina1990]

Was the vehicle moved between PCNs ??

No. It remained stationary for the whole time. I only moved it today when I was going to use it again.

[DancingDad]

I reckon three grounds to challenge on.

Contravention did not Occur.
The vehicle was not parked adjacent to the part of the kerb lowered to meet the carriageway.
Your CEO photos clearly show this, especially the one looking past the car to the dropped kerb on the opposite footway, it can be clearly seen that all the lowered portion is clear.
While it is partly adjacent to the sloping bit, this has been found many times by adjudicators to not be the relevant part of the dropped kerb.
The overlap onto the sloping bit is minor anyway and should be considered de minimis even if the council do not agree with the above.

Continuous Contravention.
The vehicle was not moved from its position after first being parked. Your CEO photos confirm this.
It is a basic tenet of English law that no person can be punished more then once for the same offence.
The offence cited in this case occurs when the vehicle is first parked, it only happens once. There is no magic reset at midnight to allow a second PCN to be served, it is one contravention and only one. All PCNs after the first must be cancelled due to this.

The Penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.
By serving more then one PCN for the same offence, the CEO seeks to impose a greater penalty then that allowed.
In doing so, they satisfy the ground that is embodied within the Appeals Regulations and required to be on every Notice to Owner.
This ground being satisfied, all PCNs must be cancelled.


Send the same for each PCN
List all PCN numbers on the top.

[cp8759]

I agree with DancingDad's draft, we can be pretty much sure you'll beat all 5 PCNs in the long run. Don't worry if they reject initially, the law is very much on your side.

[DancingDad]

I'm not sure if the last has ever been tested but it ought to be.

If a PCN is on a vehicle and there is no change to position etc, serving a second, third ad infinitum is simply adding to the prescribed penalty each and every time. This impacts the first even though it was lawfully served initially, exactly as if they doubled the penalty with a written demand without this being sanctioned by law.
It is not as though they have no option either, they have the option of removal, that they choose not to use that does not mean they can be creative in serving PCNs willy nilly.

[cp8759]

It's been ruled on before in Suki Ashley Fraser v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 2170557869).

Where the restriction is part time some adjudicators say that a new contravention occurs every time the restriction comes into force, but as a DK applies 24/7, that exception is irrelevant here so the council can only serve 1 PCN, even on the interpretation of the law most favourable to the council.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 - 21:05

[DancingDad]

It's been ruled on before in Suki Ashley Fraser v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 2170557869).

Where the restriction is part time some adjudicators say that a new contravention occurs every time the restriction comes into force, but as a DK applies 24/7, that exception is irrelevant here so the council can only serve 1 PCN, even on the interpretation of the law most favourable to the council.

The third argument goes further then cancelling subsequent, it seeks to get the first cancelled as well.

[cp8759]

I see your point. It won't get tested here either as it'll be cancelled on the sloping kerb issue.

[DancingDad]

I see your point. It won't get tested here either as it'll be cancelled on the sloping kerb issue.

I suspect you are right but IMO should be added to any continuous contravention challenge.

[mitina1990]

Hi all. Just an update about the situation with PCN's I was issued with. I challenged it, using dancingDad's response as what should I write in appeal but the council have sent me a letter today saying they don't cancel it Can anyone give me an insight as what should I do next, please?

I attached the copy of the letter and the evidence council sent me.


Many thanks

This post has been edited by mitina1990: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 15:10

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[PASTMYBEST]

There is no contravention the sloping kerb does not count. This is the regulation

86
Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

(1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—

(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway

This is a very recent view of a London adjudicator ( I have edited all but the key paragraph)

2190042883

The second part of the Appellant's case is that there had been a procedural impropriety in that the rejection of her representations was based on an incorrect understanding of the law.
The key sentence in the Notice of Rejection said: " You were given a Penalty Charge Notice for parking where the pavement slopes down to meet the road." In other words, the Authority appears to be saying that the sloping kerb is part of the dropped kerb so that parking adjacent to the sloping kerb is a contravention. If this is what the Authority is saying, it was clearly wrong in law.


And this is an adjudicators view of continuous contravention (again edited )

2160206267

The final issue is whether all three PCNs are valid and enforceable. The Authority said that it is because the vehicle had been moved. I have examined the details in the CEO's photographs. I am not satisfied that it was moved between the issue of the first and third PCNs. The second and third PCNs are not valid.
The appeal against PCN no. LJ04792712 is refused. The appeals against PCN nos. LJ4792803 and LJ04882189 are allowed.

[cp8759]

My eyes also popped out of my head when I saw this:



That is grossly improper and could win on its own. It must be challenged at the next stage, that will likely result in a failure to consider which again, could win on its own.

At this point wait for the Notice to Owner, the only thing you should do in the meantime is get the V5C and check the name and address is 100% correct.