Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ PCN 48 Stopped in a Restricted Area

Posted by: materaz Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 20:37
Post #1340251

Seasons Greetings Everyone!

Got PCN 48 Stopped in a Restricted Area but not sure, whether I have grounds to appeal.
Please see attached images and share your opinion please:

My observations are:
Stopped on single yellow lane outside controlled time for 8 seconds (picked up a person)
Stopped just before (or in line) with post “No Stopping on entrance markings” signed.
Did not stop on zigzag markings visible after “No Stopping on entrance” signed post.
In a safe manner made a 3 point turn reversing into “Keep Clear” drive way (the entrance itself)

I re-visted that place to make photos and discovered newly painted zigzag markings before “No Stopping on entrance” signed post. Also, I saw barely visible older zigzag markings which were not noticed on the day of contravention.

Was it illegal 3point turn? (see video in the link below)

VIDEO:
https://youtu.be/RNSoooFoRUw

Thanks for your time!


New markings:



 

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 20:47
Post #1340256

Can we see the PCN and the video please

Posted by: materaz Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 21:04
Post #1340266

https://youtu.be/RNSoooFoRUw

PCN to follow. Thanks!


Posted by: stamfordman Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:14
Post #1340289

You've blanked the dates on the PCN. What are they?

Also, I see no time of contravention - have you blanked this too?

Doing a turn there is obviously silly but the PCN looks to be for the pick up and it seems you were on zig-zags but you say they are faded - on what date? They have since been repainted?

Posted by: materaz Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:27
Post #1340295

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:14) *
You've blanked the dates on the PCN. What are they?

Also, I see no time of contravention - have you blanked this too?

Doing a turn there is obviously silly but the PCN looks to be for the pick up and it seems you were on zig-zags but you say they are faded - on what date? They have since been repainted?


Date of contravention 8/12/2017
Time of contravention - afternoon.

Thanks.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:34
Post #1340297

Re instate the date of notice and the location, adding a GSV would help. I personally see no contravention and the PCN is error strewn with enough errors to give a good chance of winning on it's own

Posted by: hcandersen Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:39
Post #1340300

You stopped to pick up a passenger. What happened later e.g. 3-point turn, is not relevant, subject to......

Time of contravention - afternoon. As my grandchildren might say: helpful, not.

The time of contravention in hours and minutes please.

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:04
Post #1340306

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:34) *
.......... I personally see no contravention and the PCN is error strewn with enough errors to give a good chance of winning on it's own


??
Stopped on school crossing ZZ's during hours of operation (video time 14.17 +seconds) with ZZs just about visible in video and no doubt will be clear and pristine in the historical evidence photos that the council will provide to adjudication.
Presumably at a location that OP is familiar with so would be expected to know where the ZZs were even if worn.
About the only thing against the contravention I see is the claim that the ZZs were faded. But whether or not to the point of being non compliant or inadequate?
Without some hard evidence like photos on the day, it is difficult to judge.

To me it is the PCN errors that could win, not the contravention.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:09
Post #1340308

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:04) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:34) *
.......... I personally see no contravention and the PCN is error strewn with enough errors to give a good chance of winning on it's own


??
Stopped on school crossing ZZ's during hours of operation (video time 14.17 +seconds) with ZZs just about visible in video and no doubt will be clear and pristine in the historical evidence photos that the council will provide to adjudication.
Presumably at a location that OP is familiar with so would be expected to know where the ZZs were even if worn.
About the only thing against the contravention I see is the claim that the ZZs were faded. But whether or not to the point of being non compliant or inadequate?
Without some hard evidence like photos on the day, it is difficult to judge.

To me it is the PCN errors that could win, not the contravention.


I stand corrected, but would like to see a GSV before a comment on the condition, the photos appear to show they have been re painted

Posted by: Bogsy Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:20
Post #1340311

Is that not a single yellow line running adjacent to the school keep clear zig zag? You can stop on a yellow line to pick up passengers. Although the video to me looks as if you picked up a few cm's before the school keep clear zig zag started. I'd argue at pick up you were not stopped on or adjacent to the zig zag and the during the u turn you were not stopped either unless the brief period while changing gear is considered stopping and if so, the princilple of "de minimis" should be applied.

Posted by: materaz Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:43
Post #1340320

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:09) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:04) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:34) *
.......... I personally see no contravention and the PCN is error strewn with enough errors to give a good chance of winning on it's own


??
Stopped on school crossing ZZ's during hours of operation (video time 14.17 +seconds) with ZZs just about visible in video and no doubt will be clear and pristine in the historical evidence photos that the council will provide to adjudication.
Presumably at a location that OP is familiar with so would be expected to know where the ZZs were even if worn.
About the only thing against the contravention I see is the claim that the ZZs were faded. But whether or not to the point of being non compliant or inadequate?
Without some hard evidence like photos on the day, it is difficult to judge.

To me it is the PCN errors that could win, not the contravention.


I stand corrected, but would like to see a GSV before a comment on the condition, the photos appear to show they have been re painted


Sat view:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/The+Green,+Welling+DA16+2PB/@51.4580939,0.086743,92m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47d8a9347eda4729:0x9d1e0879559aa33a!8m2!3d51.4571293!4d0.0903796
Street view:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580822,0.0866668,3a,60y,293.02h,56.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spgMpMHoqbDxlYpWc4mHMCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Thanks!

Posted by: materaz Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:00
Post #1340323

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:04) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:34) *
.......... I personally see no contravention and the PCN is error strewn with enough errors to give a good chance of winning on it's own


??
Stopped on school crossing ZZ's during hours of operation (video time 14.17 +seconds) with ZZs just about visible in video and no doubt will be clear and pristine in the historical evidence photos that the council will provide to adjudication.
Presumably at a location that OP is familiar with so would be expected to know where the ZZs were even if worn.
About the only thing against the contravention I see is the claim that the ZZs were faded. But whether or not to the point of being non compliant or inadequate?
Without some hard evidence like photos on the day, it is difficult to judge.

To me it is the PCN errors that could win, not the contravention.


"Without some hard evidence like photos on the day, it is difficult to judge." - Sure. But images and video received from council - can't be considered as the hard evidence to my view. They show stopping on a yellow line and 3-point turn within ZZ (though car was not stationary on ZZ as seen on video)

Thanks!

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:39) *
You stopped to pick up a passenger. What happened later e.g. 3-point turn, is not relevant, subject to......

Time of contravention - afternoon. As my grandchildren might say: helpful, not.

The time of contravention in hours and minutes please.


"The time of contravention in hours and minutes please." - the details are shown on images and video. Thanks!

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:34) *
Re instate the date of notice and the location, adding a GSV would help. I personally see no contravention and the PCN is error strewn with enough errors to give a good chance of winning on it's own


Sat view:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/The+Green,+Welling+DA16+2PB/@51.4580939,0.086743,92m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47d8a9347eda4729:0x9d1e0879559aa33a!8m2!3d51.4571293!4d0.0903796

Street view:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580822,0.0866668,3a,60y,293.02h,56.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spgMpMHoqbDxlYpWc4mHMCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Thanks!

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:01
Post #1340327

QUOTE (materaz @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:58) *
....."Without some hard evidence like photos on the day, it is difficult to judge." - Sure. But images and video received from council - can't be considered as the hard evidence to my view. They show stopping on a yellow line and 3-point turn within ZZ (though car was not stationary on ZZ as seen on video)

Thanks!

..............."The time of contravention in hours and minutes please." - the details are shown on images and video. Thanks!


If I can make out the ZZs in the video at the point you stopped, so can an adjudicator.

Time ON the PCN please, we can all read what is in the video.

We don't ask questions for fun, there is a reason.

Posted by: materaz Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:10
Post #1340329

QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:20) *
Is that not a single yellow line running adjacent to the school keep clear zig zag? You can stop on a yellow line to pick up passengers. Although the video to me looks as if you picked up a few cm's before the school keep clear zig zag started. I'd argue at pick up you were not stopped on or adjacent to the zig zag and the during the u turn you were not stopped either unless the brief period while changing gear is considered stopping and if so, the princilple of "de minimis" should be applied.


That is exactly my point too. Images and video received from council can't be considered as the hard evidence to my view. They show stopping on a yellow line (I stopped on a single yellow line outside of controlled time) and 3-point turn within ZZ (though car was not stationary on ZZ as seen on video)

Thanks!

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:01) *
QUOTE (materaz @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:58) *
....."Without some hard evidence like photos on the day, it is difficult to judge." - Sure. But images and video received from council - can't be considered as the hard evidence to my view. They show stopping on a yellow line and 3-point turn within ZZ (though car was not stationary on ZZ as seen on video)

Thanks!

..............."The time of contravention in hours and minutes please." - the details are shown on images and video. Thanks!


If I can make out the ZZs in the video at the point you stopped, so can an adjudicator.

Time ON the PCN please, we can all read what is in the video.

We don't ask questions for fun, there is a reason.


"We don't ask questions for fun, there is a reason." - Appreciate your time and advices, but I honestly don't understand the reason? Could you explain why you insist on Time ON the PCN to be typed? Thanks.
smile.gif

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:15
Post #1340331

QUOTE (materaz @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:04) *
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:20) *
Is that not a single yellow line running adjacent to the school keep clear zig zag? You can stop on a yellow line to pick up passengers. Although the video to me looks as if you picked up a few cm's before the school keep clear zig zag started. I'd argue at pick up you were not stopped on or adjacent to the zig zag and the during the u turn you were not stopped either unless the brief period while changing gear is considered stopping and if so, the princilple of "de minimis" should be applied.


That is exactly my point too. Images and video received from council can't be considered as the hard evidence to my view. They show stopping on a yellow line (I stopped on a single yellow line outside of controlled time) and 3-point turn within ZZ (though car was not stationary on ZZ as seen on video)

Thanks!


At the moment, we have historical evidence that the ZZs stop at the hump, from July 17 via streetview.
That comes in your favour that you stopped before the ZZs.
Then there seems to be re-painted or new ZZs that extend beyond the speed bump.
If new after the event, you were not on them, if repainted, my earlier comment stands.
Then the video fails to show any ZZs except those close to the vehicle consistently, which means that the light lines across the road where you stopped could/can be interpreted as ZZs, I certainly did so.

If I am mistaken and there were no ZZ's, apologies but it has to be brought over to the council and possibly an adjudicator that this is the case.
If I can misinterpret, it can be done.

Because the video shows you stopped at 14.17 and some seconds.
If the PCN says 15.30 you win.
Even if it says 14.18, you win.

Posted by: Bogsy Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:17
Post #1340332

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:01) *
If I can make out the ZZs in the video at the point you stopped, so can an adjudicator.


The car stopped to pick up the passenger before the zig zag commenced


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/images/uksi_20023113_en_133


The straight line beginning/end marking is the widest part and touches the kerb and is clearly visible in the CCTV photos and video which can only mean it was not stopped on during passenger pick up. The U turn gear change stop must surely be de minimis.

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:34
Post #1340334

QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:17) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:01) *
If I can make out the ZZs in the video at the point you stopped, so can an adjudicator.


The car stopped to pick up the passenger before the zig zag commenced


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/images/uksi_20023113_en_133


The straight line beginning/end marking is the widest part and touches the kerb and is clearly visible in the CCTV photos and video which can only mean it was not stopped on during passenger pick up. The U turn gear change stop must surely be de minimis.


I've been ignoring the three pointer, any stop in that is part of the manoeuvre, adjudicators accept that.
PCN time would also show if that is an issue to the council.
I reckon it's when the operator zooms in that counts.

But I am still not clear exactly where the ZZs stopped on the day and how to prove that they did.
I keep looking at the video and seem to see the ZZs over the hump and beyond, as the white van goes past is one point where there are flashes of what seems like lines??




Posted by: materaz Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:39
Post #1340336

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:15) *
QUOTE (materaz @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:04) *
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 23:20) *
Is that not a single yellow line running adjacent to the school keep clear zig zag? You can stop on a yellow line to pick up passengers. Although the video to me looks as if you picked up a few cm's before the school keep clear zig zag started. I'd argue at pick up you were not stopped on or adjacent to the zig zag and the during the u turn you were not stopped either unless the brief period while changing gear is considered stopping and if so, the princilple of "de minimis" should be applied.


That is exactly my point too. Images and video received from council can't be considered as the hard evidence to my view. They show stopping on a yellow line (I stopped on a single yellow line outside of controlled time) and 3-point turn within ZZ (though car was not stationary on ZZ as seen on video)

Thanks!


At the moment, we have historical evidence that the ZZs stop at the hump, from July 17 via streetview.
That comes in your favour that you stopped before the ZZs.
Then there seems to be re-painted or new ZZs that extend beyond the speed bump.
If new after the event, you were not on them, if repainted, my earlier comment stands.
Then the video fails to show any ZZs except those close to the vehicle consistently, which means that the light lines across the road where you stopped could/can be interpreted as ZZs, I certainly did so.

If I am mistaken and there were no ZZ's, apologies but it has to be brought over to the council and possibly an adjudicator that this is the case.
If I can misinterpret, it can be done.

Because the video shows you stopped at 14.17 and some seconds.
If the PCN says 15.30 you win.
Even if it says 14.18, you win.


"If the PCN says 15.30 you win. Even if it says 14.18, you win." Thanks! Now I understand smile.gif PCN says 14:17 on 08/12/2017
"That comes in your favour that you stopped before the ZZs." I'm afraid not. I stopped at the end of the hump - exactly in line with post signed "No waiting Mon-Fri" on my left (when stopped) On video that post isn't quite visible, but it is there - where my sun jumps into car.
Correct Street view link: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580948,0.0865166,3a,75y,89.66h,70.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1setYPKc5L_MFv3hDLyiuoFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Thanks!

Posted by: Bogsy Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:42
Post #1340338

Ask yourself, is the ZZ line in front of the car placed at 90 degrees to the kerb or 45? If it's 90 then it denotes the beginning/end of the ZZ.

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:48
Post #1340339

QUOTE (materaz @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:39) *
............ I'm afraid not. I stopped at the end of the hump - exactly in line with post signed "No waiting Mon-Fri" on my left (when stopped) On video that post isn't quite visible, but it is there - where my sun jumps into car.
Correct Street view link: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580948,0.0865166,3a,75y,89.66h,70.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1setYPKc5L_MFv3hDLyiuoFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Thanks!


So looking at it from the camera viewpoint
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580822,0.0866668,3a,75y,301.89h,69.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spgMpMHoqbDxlYpWc4mHMCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And you stopped by that post ?

Posted by: Bogsy Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:52
Post #1340340

It is also worth pointing out that Bexley cannot serve a notice on you that claims to be both a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and a Notice to Owner. A Notice to Owner (NtO) can only be served if a civil enforcement officer has served a PCN and it is not paid within 28 days of being served. In your case no CEO served a PCN and so Bexley cannot serve a NtO on you and the law does not allow for the hybrid notice Bexley has seved.

Posted by: materaz Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:56
Post #1340341

QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:42) *
Ask yourself, is the ZZ line in front of the car placed at 90 degrees to the kerb or 45? If it's 90 then it denotes the beginning/end of the ZZ.

It's 45. The beginning of the ZZ was not visible due to old faded marking on the day of contravention (also, as seen on council's photos and images). Now, it's been repainted.
Thanks!

Posted by: Bogsy Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 01:05
Post #1340342

QUOTE (materaz @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:56) *
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:42) *
Ask yourself, is the ZZ line in front of the car placed at 90 degrees to the kerb or 45? If it's 90 then it denotes the beginning/end of the ZZ.

It's 45. The beginning of the ZZ was not visible due to old faded marking on the day of contravention (also, as seen on council's photos and images). Now, it's been repainted.
Thanks!


Then it fooled me. Picture 3 that you posted clearly shows 45 degree lines and the line in front of your stopped car in picture 4 that you posted clearly looks like a 90 degree line to me.

Posted by: materaz Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 01:14
Post #1340343

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:48) *
QUOTE (materaz @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:39) *
............ I'm afraid not. I stopped at the end of the hump - exactly in line with post signed "No waiting Mon-Fri" on my left (when stopped) On video that post isn't quite visible, but it is there - where my sun jumps into car.
Correct Street view link: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580948,0.0865166,3a,75y,89.66h,70.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1setYPKc5L_MFv3hDLyiuoFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Thanks!


So looking at it from the camera viewpoint
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580822,0.0866668,3a,75y,301.89h,69.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spgMpMHoqbDxlYpWc4mHMCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And you stopped by that post ?


I stopped facing this direction:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4580822,0.0866668,3a,75y,113.97h,67.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spgMpMHoqbDxlYpWc4mHMCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

but exactly in line with the post on my left. I decided to stop in line with the post since only after it I could clearly see ZZ line. And assumed ZZ begins from the post smile.gif
Thanks!

Posted by: Bogsy Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 01:19
Post #1340344

Is the ZZ longer than 43. 6 metres in length on that side of road?

Posted by: Neil B Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 01:43
Post #1340345

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:34) *
But I am still not clear exactly where the ZZs stopped on the day and how to prove that they did.

If it helps, Google images are 2017 and the sat view resolved it for me.

Front wheels stop ON the hump; no zigs.

QUOTE (materaz @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 20:37) *
I re-visted that place to make photos and discovered newly painted zigzag markings before “No Stopping on entrance” signed post. Also, I saw barely visible older zigzag markings which were not noticed on the day of contravention.

New markings:

I think you confused people with those two comments.
There doesn't seem to be any relevance to them repainting markings that you were never on.

As DD says, the PCN is a mess too.

Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 09:28
Post #1340353

OP, you came to us for help.

You must accept that there are strands to our analysis which you will not understand.

We need to test their evidence - video regarding contravention and PCN regarding procedure - against the regs.

If we tell OPs in advance why certain info is required then they might be tempted to 'prune' the info to show only what they think plays to their interests, only for matters to unravel later. We need to see full info.

So, pl post all pages of the PCN.

Posted by: materaz Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 11:22
Post #1340362

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 09:28) *
OP, you came to us for help.

You must accept that there are strands to our analysis which you will not understand.

We need to test their evidence - video regarding contravention and PCN regarding procedure - against the regs.

If we tell OPs in advance why certain info is required then they might be tempted to 'prune' the info to show only what they think plays to their interests, only for matters to unravel later. We need to see full info.

So, pl post all pages of the PCN.


Apology for the inconvenience caused. Sure, please find all pages of the PCN attached. Thanks smile.gif

 

Posted by: Mad Mick V Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 11:24
Post #1340364

Whilst lines and signs are important the "will/may" issue in the PCN will win this case on its own.

Mick

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 13:44
Post #1340398

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 11:24) *
Whilst lines and signs are important the "will/may" issue in the PCN will win this case on its own.

Mick


I found the photos ambiguous at best and gave took what was said at face value. The last GSV shows the lines had been re painted in July and are clear. I doubt a win of signs and lines.

But the PCN is so error ridden i cannot see a loss based on it.

As per MMV, what we call the will/may issue is prevalent These excerpts from LT cases explain it and why adjudicators find PCNs containing it invalid


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.


Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:44
Post #1340412

Add in the date of service being the date delivered.
In adding that the authority removes the certainty that the 2004 act provides and replaces this with a tenuous date that the authority cannot know.

And failing to have regard to Sec of States statutory guidance in that they refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.
The reasoning that this is a formal document ignores that a regulation 9 PCN is also a formal notice and that both are the first opportunity for the owner or driver to question why the PCN has been served.

And Bogsy's that there is no such animal as a PCN and Notice to Owner.

And failing to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether they have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.

None of which are clear winners on their own but together show the pigs ear that has been made of imparting mandatory information.

I don't see the need to ignore the signs and lines either, just to phrase it properly
Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped on the ZZs.
On the day, I pulled up to what seemed like the end of them, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present.
I note that historical shots from streetview show lines present but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day.
This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the alleged contravention.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:49
Post #1340413

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:44) *
Add in the date of service being the date delivered.
In adding that the authority removes the certainty that the 2004 act provides and replaces this with a tenuous date that the authority cannot know.

And failing to have regard to Sec of States statutory guidance in that they refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.
The reasoning that this is a formal document ignores that a regulation 9 PCN is also a formal notice and that both are the first opportunity for the owner or driver to question why the PCN has been served.

And Bogsy's that there is no such animal as a PCN and Notice to Owner.

And failing to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether they have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.

None of which are clear winners on their own but together show the pigs ear that has been made of imparting mandatory information.

I don't see the need to ignore the signs and lines either, just to phrase it properly
Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped on the ZZs.
On the day, I pulled up to what seemed like the end of them, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present.
I note that historical shots from streetview show lines present but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day.
This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the alleged contravention.


Agree with the lines, always best to start with the contravention, just can't see it winning on that. there is also the within/ beginning with. This PCN could have been drafted by my granddaughter

Posted by: materaz Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 20:26
Post #1340485

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:49) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:44) *
Add in the date of service being the date delivered.
In adding that the authority removes the certainty that the 2004 act provides and replaces this with a tenuous date that the authority cannot know.

And failing to have regard to Sec of States statutory guidance in that they refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.
The reasoning that this is a formal document ignores that a regulation 9 PCN is also a formal notice and that both are the first opportunity for the owner or driver to question why the PCN has been served.

And Bogsy's that there is no such animal as a PCN and Notice to Owner.

And failing to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether they have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.

None of which are clear winners on their own but together show the pigs ear that has been made of imparting mandatory information.

I don't see the need to ignore the signs and lines either, just to phrase it properly
Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped on the ZZs.
On the day, I pulled up to what seemed like the end of them, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present.
I note that historical shots from streetview show lines present but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day.
This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the alleged contravention.


Agree with the lines, always best to start with the contravention, just can't see it winning on that. there is also the within/ beginning with. This PCN could have been drafted by my granddaughter


Wow! Impressed with your professionalism, really smile.gif
Thank you gentlemen.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 20:29
Post #1340486

QUOTE (materaz @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 20:26) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:49) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:44) *
Add in the date of service being the date delivered.
In adding that the authority removes the certainty that the 2004 act provides and replaces this with a tenuous date that the authority cannot know.

And failing to have regard to Sec of States statutory guidance in that they refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.
The reasoning that this is a formal document ignores that a regulation 9 PCN is also a formal notice and that both are the first opportunity for the owner or driver to question why the PCN has been served.

And Bogsy's that there is no such animal as a PCN and Notice to Owner.

And failing to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether they have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.

None of which are clear winners on their own but together show the pigs ear that has been made of imparting mandatory information.

I don't see the need to ignore the signs and lines either, just to phrase it properly
Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped on the ZZs.
On the day, I pulled up to what seemed like the end of them, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present.
I note that historical shots from streetview show lines present but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day.
This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the alleged contravention.


Agree with the lines, always best to start with the contravention, just can't see it winning on that. there is also the within/ beginning with. This PCN could have been drafted by my granddaughter


Wow! Impressed with your professionalism, really smile.gif
Thank you gentlemen.


as a great part of your representations will be on technical aspects i would advise posting here for review before you send

Posted by: materaz Sat, 23 Dec 2017 - 20:12
Post #1341977

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:49) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 14:44) *
Add in the date of service being the date delivered.
In adding that the authority removes the certainty that the 2004 act provides and replaces this with a tenuous date that the authority cannot know.

And failing to have regard to Sec of States statutory guidance in that they refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.
The reasoning that this is a formal document ignores that a regulation 9 PCN is also a formal notice and that both are the first opportunity for the owner or driver to question why the PCN has been served.

And Bogsy's that there is no such animal as a PCN and Notice to Owner.

And failing to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether they have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.

None of which are clear winners on their own but together show the pigs ear that has been made of imparting mandatory information.

I don't see the need to ignore the signs and lines either, just to phrase it properly
Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped on the ZZs.
On the day, I pulled up to what seemed like the end of them, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present.
I note that historical shots from streetview show lines present but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day.
This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the alleged contravention.


Agree with the lines, always best to start with the contravention, just can't see it winning on that. there is also the within/ beginning with. This PCN could have been drafted by my granddaughter


Finally, after 60-hour working week found time to draft the appeal:


Appeal

Dear Sir or Madam,

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE (PCN):
VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK:
DATE OF THE SERVICE: 16/12/2017
DATE OF THE NOTICE: 14/12/2017
DATE OF THE CONTRAVENTION: 08/12/2017


I appeal on the following grounds:


1. The contravention did not occur.

Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped in a restricted area outside a school. On the day, I pulled up for a matter of 8 seconds to what seemed like the start of restricted area, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present. I note that historical shots from Google Street View show lines present, but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day. This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the contravention.


2. The PCN/NtO is defective.

2007 No. 3482
ROAD TRAFFIC, ENGLAND
The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007

The PCN has failed to have regard to Secretary of States statutory guidance in that Enforcement Authority refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.

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 PCN states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate if the recipient does not appeal or pay. Clearly, there is a substantial difference between 'may' and 'will'. 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.

Moreover, the law does not allow serving a hybrid notice that claims to be both a Penalty Charge Notice and a Notice to Owner. A NtO can only be served if a civil enforcement officer has served a PCN and it is not paid within 28 days of being served. In my case no CEO served a PCN.

Therefore, in view of the above, I require you to cancel the PCN/NtO with immediate effect.

Yours faithfully
----------------------------

Hope, won't be beaten much (might miss something since my English is second language) smile.gif


Posted by: Incandescent Sat, 23 Dec 2017 - 23:37
Post #1342000

Yes, looks OK but what are you going to do when they inevitably reject your appeal ? Councils are supposed to judge the appeal and decide one way or the other, but funnily enough they judge 99.99% - reject, why ? Because then most people just cough-up, and the money is kept by the council. Not a good process for producing unbiased decisions, is it ?

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 09:39
Post #1342020

post 31 ?

Posted by: materaz Mon, 25 Dec 2017 - 13:50
Post #1342164

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 09:39) *
post 31 ?


Merry Christmas!!!

Thanks DancingDad smile.gif
You mean I didn't mention regulation 9 from post 31?

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 25 Dec 2017 - 14:39
Post #1342165

QUOTE (materaz @ Mon, 25 Dec 2017 - 13:50) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 09:39) *
post 31 ?


Merry Christmas!!!

Thanks DancingDad smile.gif
You mean I didn't mention regulation 9 from post 31?



Date of delivery and viewing the video not mentioned.

Add em all in

Merry Christmas

Posted by: materaz Tue, 26 Dec 2017 - 12:28
Post #1342237

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 25 Dec 2017 - 14:39) *
QUOTE (materaz @ Mon, 25 Dec 2017 - 13:50) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 24 Dec 2017 - 09:39) *
post 31 ?


Merry Christmas!!!

Thanks DancingDad smile.gif
You mean I didn't mention regulation 9 from post 31?



Date of delivery and viewing the video not mentioned.

Add em all in

Merry Christmas


Understood. Thanks DancingDad!

Thanks very much gentlemen! Wishing you all the best in coming New Year 2018 smile.gif

Posted by: materaz Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:14
Post #1346634

Hi Everyone smile.gif

Got 'notice of rejection - formal' today (attached). Moreover, borough of Bexley considers the PCN is compliant with the regulations in ALL RESPECTS. Can't believe they indeed, carefully considered what I said.

Again and again, I do appreciate Pepipoo's users advises and time spent.

Thanks!

 

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:20
Post #1346638

So what now pay or appeal. The notice of rejection is flawed also, but they wont accept it

Can you add the PCN again i can't find it

Posted by: Incandescent Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:26
Post #1346640

I can't see you winning this one at adjudication as you were on the zig-zag markings, albeit they were worn. An adjudicator will note that you were right by the notice advising of not stopping on the road markings.

Posted by: hcandersen Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:34
Post #1346643

The NOR is non-compliant as it misinforms you regarding your rights of appeal and the authority's power to serve a CC.

WTF is wrong with these morons that after more than 10 years they still cannot get these basics right.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:47
Post #1346646

QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:26) *
I can't see you winning this one at adjudication as you were on the zig-zag markings, albeit they were worn. An adjudicator will note that you were right by the notice advising of not stopping on the road markings.



I see a very strong case considering the number of PI's

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 00:29
Post #1346662

Any chance of popping on the final version of what you sent?

Posted by: materaz Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 13:48
Post #1346749

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 00:29) *
Any chance of popping on the final version of what you sent?




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29/12/2017

Dear Sir or Madam,

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE (PCN):
VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK:
DATE OF THE SERVICE: 16/12/2017
DATE OF THE NOTICE: 14/12/2017
DATE OF THE CONTRAVENTION: 08/12/2017


I appeal on the following grounds:


1. The contravention did not occur:

Having reviewed the video and stills taken from it, I cannot see that I stopped in a restricted area outside a school. On the day, I pulled up for a matter of 8 seconds to what seemed like the start of restricted area, not seeing the very faded and worn lines that may have been present. I note that historical shots from Google Street View show lines present, but firmly believe that they were inadequate on the day. This is borne out by the authority repainting the lines shortly after the date of the contravention.


2. The PCN/NtO is defective:

a)
2007 No. 3482
ROAD TRAFFIC, ENGLAND
The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007

The PCN has failed to have regard to Secretary of States statutory guidance in that Enforcement Authority refuse to re-offer the discount despite that being the SoS recommendation.

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 PCN states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate if the recipient does not appeal or pay. Clearly, there is a substantial difference between 'may' and 'will'. 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.

b)
Law does not allow serving a hybrid notice that claims to be both a Penalty Charge Notice and a Notice to Owner. A NtO can only be served if a civil enforcement officer has served a PCN and it is not paid within 28 days of being served. In my case no CEO served a PCN.

c)
The date of service being the date delivered.

d)
PCN failed to include mandatory information regarding how to view the video. Whether you have online facilities or not, the legislation still requires the offer of an office and time of the recipient's choice.


Therefore, in view of the above, I require you to cancel the PCN/NtO with immediate effect.

Yours faithfully,

-------------------------------------------------------

Thanks smile.gif

Posted by: materaz Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 14:10
Post #1346755

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:20) *
So what now pay or appeal. The notice of rejection is flawed also, but they wont accept it

Can you add the PCN again i can't find it


Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 17:31
Post #1346811

Ok will run through both the PCN and NoR and draft something for you that includes all the errors. over the next few days

Bump on Thursday if you have heard nothing from me

Posted by: Incandescent Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 18:49
Post #1346830

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:47) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 22:26) *
I can't see you winning this one at adjudication as you were on the zig-zag markings, albeit they were worn. An adjudicator will note that you were right by the notice advising of not stopping on the road markings.



I see a very strong case considering the number of PI's

Of course if there are several PIs there is hope as these can win appeals, (at adjudication of course !)

Sorry, should have read this thread more thoroughly !

Posted by: materaz Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 19:26
Post #1347066

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 17:31) *
Ok will run through both the PCN and NoR and draft something for you that includes all the errors. over the next few days

Bump on Thursday if you have heard nothing from me


Very kind of you!

Thank you smile.gif

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 21:41
Post #1348513

have started drafting will be finished over the weekend. Plenty of time left

Posted by: materaz Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 22:43
Post #1348744

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 21:41) *
have started drafting will be finished over the weekend. Plenty of time left


No problem at all Sir smile.gif

Thanks!

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 22:58
Post #1350362

At last. Thought I'd never get a bit of time. Feel free to use verbatim, edit or chuck your choice. All the arguments are sound, but we can not guarantee anything.

Appeal against the imposition of PCN number xxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark AB 23 CDE

Your name and address.

I make this appeal under the statutory grounds of

1:- the contravention did not occur

2:- For various reasons, That there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the authority


My representation to the council were made for the same reasons, though in their notice of rejection they merely re iterated the reason for the issue of the PCN and asserted that the PCN was compliant

I submit that the contravention did not occur because the signage was inadequate to the extent that if fails to comply with the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 regulation 18

I did not have the benefit of an elevated position as is captured by the CCTV. From a drivers perspective the position I stopped was before the road markings commenced and before the upright sign, I would expect to mark the beginning of the restricted area. That the markings were re-painted shortly after this alleged contravention is testament to the lines being non compliant.

I respectfully ask the adjudicator to consider the view a driver would have, the worn condition of the road markings and the position of the upright sign and find that these in combination give rise to a finding that the contravention did not occur.

That there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the authority

The PCN

paragraph two of the fourth chapter of the PCN entitled How to make representations, states

That if neither payment or representations are made within the 28 day period the penalty WILL increase by 50% and a charge certificate WILL be issued. Two issues need be considered here.

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 at the schedule 2(f) set out the time after which a charge certificate MAY be served. This is “the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;”

The date of service is made at 3(2) of the regulations and is in the normal course of events two working days after date of posting. This is taken to be the date of notice unless it can be shown otherwise.

The term within by accepted legal convention would start the counting on the next day after posting, extending the time the regulations allow by at least one day.

I submit in support of this view finding of adjudicator Anthony chan in case number2130536182 where he follows the finding in the key case of Al's bar vs Wandsworth case number 2020106430

The second part of this procedural impropriety is in the use of the term WILL where the regulations allow only that the term MAY be used, thus maintaining the authorities discretion. And them not falling foul of the common law by fettering their discretion to choose to continue enforcement or not.

This point has been before the tribunal numerous times, and I respectfully ask that the findings of the following adjudicators be considered in reaching your finding..

Belinda pearce 216022028A She found as follows
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.

And also adjudicator's

John Lane 2160211959 Sean stanton-Dunn 2160210490 Christopher Rayner 2160211926

Michael Lawrence 2160422149 Joanne Oxlade 2150379790 and Neeti haria 2150479729

I submit that the errors within the PCN amount to procedural impropriety and as such the PCN must be cancelled

The notice of rejection

I submit that the NoR falls into procedural impropriety by failing at 5(2)(b) of the appeals regulations.

The authority are required by the above regulation to consider any representations. I contend that by, on the first point of my representation, merely re-iterating the contravention no consideration has been given to my representation.

Similarly with my representation re the errors on the PCN, a bland statement that the PCN is compliant is not evidence of consideration.

Further page two of the NoR sets out the time frame for action. It states 21 days from date of service for payment of the discounted amount. 28 days from date of service for the payment of the full amount or to make an appeal. It suffixes all of these time frames with the word delivered in brackets.

The term from as with the term within would cause counting to start the day after service not as the regulations require “beginning with the date of service”

This error is compounded by the inclusion of the word delivered. The date of service is set by regulation as stated earlier. It sets an unambiguous time frame all parties both parties would use the same start and end dates for actions Whereas the day of delivery is an ambiguous date. The postal service is not universally reliable and delivery could well be 3,4,5 or even more days after posting. The recipient ,using the time frame given by the authority, would be out of step by whatever period, after the two days the post was delivered. The authority on the other hand using the mandated two working days from date of posting

A person may wish to pay but for whatever reason needs to wait until the last minute. If the date of delivery was after the two days allowed for service, they could easily find they attempt to pay late, an increased penalty them being demanded.

Similarly, if a person wants to appeal, but leaves it until the last moment, they could find their appeal rejected as out of time.

This is compounded by the failure to accurately convey the correct time for making appeals. Omitting that an adjudicator may allow such additional time as they deem fit

I respectfully submit that for any one or all of the reasons stated the enforcement of this PCN be invalid and it be ordered cancelled.






Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 23:23
Post #1350367

QUOTE
This error is compounded by the inclusion of the word delivered. The date of service is set by regulation as stated earlier. Whereas the day of delivery is an ambiguous date. The postal service is not universally reliable and delivery could well be 3,4,5 or even more days after posting.

By including the word delivered the authority implies that the recipient can use that date to calculate deadlines while the authority will be working to the deemed date of service as laid down within the regulations. This creates real prejudice and the risk that the recipient will miss deadlines while working to a date that only they could know.

I'm also wondering if the fact that the authority repainted the ZZs shortly after the contravention date can be used to illustrate the poor state and that the authority knew they were below the standard needed ??

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 09:23
Post #1350421

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 23:23) *
QUOTE
This error is compounded by the inclusion of the word delivered. The date of service is set by regulation as stated earlier. Whereas the day of delivery is an ambiguous date. The postal service is not universally reliable and delivery could well be 3,4,5 or even more days after posting.

By including the word delivered the authority implies that the recipient can use that date to calculate deadlines while the authority will be working to the deemed date of service as laid down within the regulations. This creates real prejudice and the risk that the recipient will miss deadlines while working to a date that only they could know.

I'm also wondering if the fact that the authority repainted the ZZs shortly after the contravention date can be used to illustrate the poor state and that the authority knew they were below the standard needed ??



Have edited slightly to include your input

ta

Posted by: materaz Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 11:24
Post #1351397

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 22:58) *
At last. Thought I'd never get a bit of time. Feel free to use verbatim, edit or chuck your choice. All the arguments are sound, but we can not guarantee anything.

Appeal against the imposition of PCN number xxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark AB 23 CDE

Your name and address.

I make this appeal under the statutory grounds of

1:- the contravention did not occur

2:- For various reasons, That there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the authority


My representation to the council were made for the same reasons, though in their notice of rejection they merely re iterated the reason for the issue of the PCN and asserted that the PCN was compliant

I submit that the contravention did not occur because the signage was inadequate to the extent that if fails to comply with the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 regulation 18

I did not have the benefit of an elevated position as is captured by the CCTV. From a drivers perspective the position I stopped was before the road markings commenced and before the upright sign, I would expect to mark the beginning of the restricted area. That the markings were re-painted shortly after this alleged contravention is testament to the lines being non compliant.

I respectfully ask the adjudicator to consider the view a driver would have, the worn condition of the road markings and the position of the upright sign and find that these in combination give rise to a finding that the contravention did not occur.

That there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the authority

The PCN

paragraph two of the fourth chapter of the PCN entitled How to make representations, states

That if neither payment or representations are made within the 28 day period the penalty WILL increase by 50% and a charge certificate WILL be issued. Two issues need be considered here.

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 at the schedule 2(f) set out the time after which a charge certificate MAY be served. This is “the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;”

The date of service is made at 3(2) of the regulations and is in the normal course of events two working days after date of posting. This is taken to be the date of notice unless it can be shown otherwise.

The term within by accepted legal convention would start the counting on the next day after posting, extending the time the regulations allow by at least one day.

I submit in support of this view finding of adjudicator Anthony chan in case number2130536182 where he follows the finding in the key case of Al's bar vs Wandsworth case number 2020106430

The second part of this procedural impropriety is in the use of the term WILL where the regulations allow only that the term MAY be used, thus maintaining the authorities discretion. And them not falling foul of the common law by fettering their discretion to choose to continue enforcement or not.

This point has been before the tribunal numerous times, and I respectfully ask that the findings of the following adjudicators be considered in reaching your finding..

Belinda pearce 216022028A She found as follows
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.

And also adjudicator's

John Lane 2160211959 Sean stanton-Dunn 2160210490 Christopher Rayner 2160211926

Michael Lawrence 2160422149 Joanne Oxlade 2150379790 and Neeti haria 2150479729

I submit that the errors within the PCN amount to procedural impropriety and as such the PCN must be cancelled

The notice of rejection

I submit that the NoR falls into procedural impropriety by failing at 5(2)(b) of the appeals regulations.

The authority are required by the above regulation to consider any representations. I contend that by, on the first point of my representation, merely re-iterating the contravention no consideration has been given to my representation.

Similarly with my representation re the errors on the PCN, a bland statement that the PCN is compliant is not evidence of consideration.

Further page two of the NoR sets out the time frame for action. It states 21 days from date of service for payment of the discounted amount. 28 days from date of service for the payment of the full amount or to make an appeal. It suffixes all of these time frames with the word delivered in brackets.

The term from as with the term within would cause counting to start the day after service not as the regulations require “beginning with the date of service”

This error is compounded by the inclusion of the word delivered. The date of service is set by regulation as stated earlier. It sets an unambiguous time frame all parties both parties would use the same start and end dates for actions Whereas the day of delivery is an ambiguous date. The postal service is not universally reliable and delivery could well be 3,4,5 or even more days after posting. The recipient ,using the time frame given by the authority, would be out of step by whatever period, after the two days the post was delivered. The authority on the other hand using the mandated two working days from date of posting

A person may wish to pay but for whatever reason needs to wait until the last minute. If the date of delivery was after the two days allowed for service, they could easily find they attempt to pay late, an increased penalty them being demanded.

Similarly, if a person wants to appeal, but leaves it until the last moment, they could find their appeal rejected as out of time.

This is compounded by the failure to accurately convey the correct time for making appeals. Omitting that an adjudicator may allow such additional time as they deem fit

I respectfully submit that for any one or all of the reasons stated the enforcement of this PCN be invalid and it be ordered cancelled.


Wow. I am speechless... So impressive! smile.gif

Thank you very much PASTMYBEST and DancingDad! Do appreciate your time and talented support! Will update as soon as get a reply from them.
smile.gif

Posted by: materaz Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 09:56
Post #1363689

Good morning Pepipoo members!

My appeal was allowed and I know definitely, that is only thanks to this great forum and its members advices!
Special, big THANK YOU to PASTMYBEST and DancingDad. PASTMYBEST's latest message was so impressive and really encouraging to proceed further. I owe you a drink PASTMYBEST smile.gif

Here are the details:

-------------------------------------
Case: 2180040054

Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.
The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
The adjudicator directs London Borough of Bexley to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and
the Notice to Owner.
If any penalty or fees have already been paid, the Enforcement Authority must now issue a refund
without delay. Enquiries regarding payment of the refund should be made to the Enforcement
Authority

Adjudicator's Reasons

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being stopped in a restricted area outside a
school in The Green, Welling (time and date).
I am allowing the appeal because I agree with Mr Materaz that the markings of the restricted area
had not been maintained to a standard sufficient to alert motorists to the restrictions in operation. The
images submitted by Mr Materaz show that the school entrance markings where the car was
stopped had become very badly faded. The Council cannot expect to enforce PCNs where markings
have ceased to be fit for purpose.

Adjudicator
----------------------------------------------

Attaching my explanatory photo which was submitted with the appeal.

Once again, Thank you gentlemen for all your help and assistance!
smile.gif

 

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 10:11
Post #1363692

Excellent news, well done

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