Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: issue dates on tickets
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
joinaman
Hi there, just a quick question

I am still arguing with my local council about a parking ticket for parking on a broken double yellows and missing T bars, which I am sure I am correct in telling them to put it where the suns don't shine.

But have been reading about Neil Herrons case, which states that a "date of issue" Must[u] be shown on the PCN.
The ticket I have shows the

Notice Number

The date

Vehicle Registration

NO date of issue

On the tear off slip it has the

Notice number

Date

vehicle Registration

Should it not also state the "date of issue" on the top of the ticket and also on the tear off slip ?

The local paper, same one as LLoydon1, seems intereted in this, and would be nice if I am correct in saying that the PCN is not legal and cannot be enforced

P.S one of the letters from the council states " the PCN can be issued when it is clear the yellow line is present, even if the nT bars are missing and the lines are patchy, this is on the advice from the NPAS" blink.gif
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (joinaman @ Mon, 10 Apr 2006 - 17:40) *
Hi there, just a quick question

I am still arguing with my local council about a parking ticket for parking on a broken double yellows and missing T bars, which I am sure I am correct in telling them to put it where the suns don't shine.

But have been reading about Neil Herrons case, which states that a "date of issue" Must[u] be shown on the PCN.
The ticket I have shows the

Notice Number

The date

Vehicle Registration

NO date of issue

On the tear off slip it has the

Notice number

Date

vehicle Registration

Should it not also state the "date of issue" on the top of the ticket and also on the tear off slip ?

The local paper, same one as LLoydon1, seems intereted in this, and would be nice if I am correct in saying that the PCN is not legal and cannot be enforced

P.S one of the letters from the council states " the PCN can be issued when it is clear the yellow line is present, even if the nT bars are missing and the lines are patchy, this is on the advice from the NPAS" blink.gif



With regards to the yellow lines:

Moses -v- Barnet

Yet Barnet in their appeal submission to the adjudicator astonishingly state that if they lost their appeal it would make many parking tickets issued by Barnet council and other London Authorities unenforceable. The Parking Adjudicator dismissed this argument [sic] by stating “Surely good administration commences with compliance with the Law?”

So no they aren't enforceable if they don't conform to the law.

Are we allowed to park for free because we didn't have change for the ticket machine? NO, are we allowed to park for free because we were only going to be a couple of minutes? NO. Neither can the council issue a fine for an illegal line.

Wriggle and squirm!! it's what the council's do best.


With regards to the date of issue, i'll get back to you.
joinaman
Thanks for the quick reply Wayne

I thought I was correct on the lines, that's why I have been refusing to pay.
Have twice stated that I want to take it to court to prove it, but so far no joy.
They did state that my reference to case law is no longer relevant, as the adjudicators and not the courts decide.
But I really would like to know if the tickets are wrong, cos that would really stuff up the system for them.

Thanks again
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (joinaman @ Mon, 10 Apr 2006 - 18:05) *
Thanks for the quick reply Wayne

I thought I was correct on the lines, that's why I have been refusing to pay.
Have twice stated that I want to take it to court to prove it, but so far no joy.
They did state that my reference to case law is no longer relevant, as the adjudicators and not the courts decide.
But I really would like to know if the tickets are wrong, cos that would really stuff up the system for them.

Thanks again



If there is only a date, then the ticket is illegal. The ticket must have date of issue to be legal, there is still some confusion with regards to date of notice.

If there is just "date", then the ticket does not conform to section 66 (3) road traffic act 1991. see section date of issue.
joinaman
Thanks Wayne

Please excuse me for being a bit slow,

but should the "date of issue" be on both sections of the PNC or just the tear off section ?

Looked at the RTA 66(3) but could not find the bit about issue dates blush.gif

Want to get it right before I ring the paper back>

Even without the missing "date of Issue" can I force the council into taking me to court ?

It's been nearly 8 months so far, and have just sent in letters and photos to the Parking Adjudicator, which they seem to be rejecting. The last letter said THE PENALTY CHARGE HAS NOT BEEN PAID!

Do not want to be polite in replying to them again, if I am in the right. I would really like to tell em to get stuffed biggrin.gif and see them in court. Is this possible ?

Thanks again
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (joinaman @ Mon, 10 Apr 2006 - 21:04) *
Thanks Wayne

Please excuse me for being a bit slow,

but should the "date of issue" be on both sections of the PNC or just the tear off section ?

Looked at the RTA 66(3) but could not find the bit about issue dates blush.gif

Want to get it right before I ring the paper back>

Even without the missing "date of Issue" can I force the council into taking me to court ?

It's been nearly 8 months so far, and have just sent in letters and photos to the Parking Adjudicator, which they seem to be rejecting. The last letter said THE PENALTY CHARGE HAS NOT BEEN PAID!

Do not want to be polite in replying to them again, if I am in the right. I would really like to tell em to get stuffed biggrin.gif and see them in court. Is this possible ?

Thanks again


http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/about/ci...%20of%20PCN.pdf


No problem at all, it should be on the main ticket, the tearoff slip may have "date" as per the DfT model but does not require a date of issue, the key is to the main part.

You would not be able to force the council to court over it, that's the main problem with DPE. You could try a small claims court but I would write to the council with your evidence, quote Bury v Macarthur and send them a copy of the NPAS circular. You could also send the information to NPAS again, remember NPAS should have spotted this huge mistake already. At the very least you should go to your local rag and inform them. Could you also post a copy of the PCN? Cheers
joinaman
Hi there, any advice would be welcome about the following

http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scan100025ia.jpg ( Hope this link works to show my PCN)

Sent a letter to the Legal Department, used the template by Mr Herron, asking the same questions about the legality of the tickets issued without a "issue" date ( My thanks to Mr Herron)

Got a reply today, ( From the Head of Enforcement, not the legal dept, as follows


The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area)( Metropolitan District of Leeds) Order 2005 came into force on the 1st March 2005. To date 115,020 PCNs have been issued
All relevant goverment guidence has benn considered including the model PCN. Legal officers have benn involved in the process throughout and their advice has benn sought on numerous matters, including the legislative requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and the wording for the Penalty Charge Notice.
The PCN we use does conform to statutory requirements.
The PCNs have not been altered to show a "date of issue"
Our PCNs do conform to the correct legal wording, however, for your information, there is no requirement in either the Road Traffic Act 1991, or Circular 1/95 to include the wording you describe
The Bury case hinged on the fact that their notice did not have a date at all, only a date of contravention. The specimen notice in Circular1/95 does show a "date of issue", but this does not have the force of a legal requirement. Leeds City Council notice states "Date" as instructed in circular 1/95(para 12.3(g)) Paragraph 66 of the Road Traffic Act only refers to a "date", not a "date of issue". So the legal requirements are met provided the notice has a date on it rather than a date of offence. blink.gif
As above, our PCNs are compliant with the legislation
I would indicate that we have had 42 appeals considered ( non have related to PCNs which do not conform to section 66(3) and benn successful in 21 ( well above the average)
As above your queries regarding the legality of the PCNs do not relate to Leeds and therefore they are not considered relevant.
The cover letter from the Legal Department says that the above responce would not appear to be at odds with the goverment guidelines or appropriate legal requirements
The Councils approach to Decriminalised Parking and in particular the wording in the Penalty Charge Notice would therefore appear to be intra vires.
If there are any matters on which you require further clarification, please indicate.


Any views on their reply ?? Not sure if a load of Bull**** or if any of it is correct

Still waiting for a reply from the Parking Services about the legality of trying to enforce the ticket given for parking on broken lines with missing T bars


Many Thanks
Wayne Pendle
You are right, it's a load of old Bull and they're lying toe-rags. The Bury case hinged on exactly the same situation that Leeds now find themselves in, you may like to suggest to them that they read it (i'm not joking). There is no date of issue, only a date of contravention and this does not conform to section 66 (3) © .

“to comply with section 66(3), a PCN must have a date. The date of contravention is not the date of notice even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention. I accept that in Bury, no notices are issued after the event. Nevertheless, the absence of the date of Notice is a serious problem because a motorist is not always sufficiently au fait with the act to appreciate that as a matter of practice (but not as a matter of law) the date of the contravention will be the same as the date of notice. It is perhaps worth remarking, by way of example, that in certain circumstances in London, contraventions can be photographed and then subsequently followed up with a PCN issued on a completely different date.


They are completely missing the point regarding the circular 1/95 and they choose to ignore it

Fight it, you will win, speak with Neil herron, you'll find his number on the blog, this smacks of arrogance by a local authority who are sticking two fingers up to their electorate. You have effectively put them on notice. In my opinion, the Council are now obtaining monies by deception.

The more that councils continue to ognore the adjudication service, the quicket the system will collapse.
joinaman
Thanks Wayne

Will try Mr Herron.

I am certainly not going to give in on this one.
Have sent a seperate letter to the Parking services asking them to reply in writing, after consulting their legal department they try to enforce unlawful tickets, and why will they not accept that PCns, some
road signs and road markings are not compliant with the law, and that they will give additional training to
their parking attendants to prevent unlawful tickets being issued.

Not holding my breath for a truthful reply, if any, but have staed that this ticket will NOT be paid and that I will be claiming costs/damages from them for vexatiously pursuing this unlawful PCN


It just p*sses me off when they not only lie to me, but to the newspapers and all the other people

Look at what they are saying to Lloydon1.and that was in the local paper.!

It's time they where proved to be liars and made repay all the unlawful PCNs and then taken to court and charged.

I know I can go to the small claims court for the money, but I raslly, really want to go higher with this and kick their arses, and show the whole county just what lying scumbags they really are Even the legal department, under the freedom of information act, is lying

Will see what Neil says then take it further. Have been holding off replying to the local paper, but maybe it's time I gave them some more to be going on with. Probably won't stop em lying, but might start getting them worried and make other people start contesting their tickets.

Thanks Again
Wayne Pendle
I beleive you may have phoned Neil Today, hope you don't mind but I've posted a copy of this thread to him, including the text from the letter you received. The letter you've received is not only totally misleading, it's maladministration as far as i'm concerned.
joinaman
Thanks Wayne

No problems, thanks for putting me on to him. Got a quick reply back from him, which was nice. Felt a bit guilty asking him , cos he must be a busy man

Sent a draft of the letter to Neil plus a copy of the PCN, just waiting to see what he says. unsure.gif

Even if the ticket IS legal, i have still the fact that the lines where not correct, so will continue .

Just would be nice to give em a good kicking with an unlawful PCN biggrin.gif

Seen another letter in the local rag, man got a PCN for parking on clean tarmac, no lines, bit like Loydon1 and his invisible lines. Time somebody showed the public what lying pieces of sh*t they really are.

Make you wonder just how many of the 115, 020 tickets issued since last March are actually legal. ?

Nice job if you can get it, 115,20 @ £60 a throw, just for telling lies ! Nothing to do with traffic and road management now, it's all about the money

No wonder I'm turning into a grumpy old man icon_hang.gif
Wayne Pendle
hehe, My middle name became victor meldrew many years ago now. I can assure you ticket's illegal (or as someone pointed out, unlawful). I prefer illegal because these local authorities have had ample opportunities to correct their tickets and they haven't done in the vain attempt that they think it will go away. |it isn't going to.

Not only is it easy money for them, they have been earning a packet for the scumbag Bailiffs. They have no qualms about sending the Bailiffs in, increasing the value of the fine by hundreds of punds, therefore, it's nice when these local authorities get a taste of their own medicine. Trust me when I say, that parking will break many of these councils, i don't mean monetary, I mean it will be a long time before Councils think they can run roughshod over the people again.

Anyway, good luck and it's entirely up to you, but I donated the value of my ticket I would have paid, to the Metric martyrs, they do all of this for nothing, same of pepipoo.
Jammy1
I've had a PCN from Camden that only has a date of contravention on the body of the PCN, and a date of issue on the pink payment receipt. However I note that on the back of the PCN itself, under the Payment section, it states:

"The Penalty Charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the Penalty Charge Notice i.e. the date shown overleaf. If the Penalty Charge is paid before the end of the period if 14 days beginning with the date of the Penalty Charge Notice, you only have to pay the reduced amount as shown overleaf. etc etc"

Does this cover them? I hope not, as I'd like to use the issue date as one of the points on which to appeal.

The other point hopefully in my favour (?), is that the PCN hasn't been issued properly. The information on it is incorrect as the registration number printed out isn't the registration number of my car. Two of the letters don't correspond with those on my vehicle, however the Tax Disc Number is correct, as is the colour and make of car. I can't ignore the PCN as I checked the wrongly printed registration number at the RAC site and although it belongs to a different make of car, it's the same colour as mine. I don't want someone else to end up having to fight it!!

Do I have any chance on either front?
Wayne Pendle
No, it does not cover them at all, in fact it was on precisely your point, that Bury -v- Macarthur appeal was allowed. As I understand it, Camden has already lost a hearing with regards to the date of issue already, look at LMAG for more information or speak with Barry Seagal of appealnow.com

The wording on the back differs somewhat from the act anyway.
Jammy1
Thanks Wayne! There are further developments on the date of issue/notice at the LMAG forums. I couldn't access their site last night but managed to post there this morning on the same subject.

Please see: http://www.lmag.org.uk/modules.php?name=Fo...viewtopic&t=220 and the discussion re the Culligan v LB Camden adjudication. As I understand it, the Adjudicator ruled for Camden on the date of issue/notice matter, using the key point of "ie the date shown overleaf". This conflicts with the Al's Bar vs Sutton ruling which apparently specifically says the statement of grounds can't be used as date of notice. The different adjudications rather muddy the water...
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (Jammy1 @ Sat, 29 Apr 2006 - 14:47) *
Thanks Wayne! There are further developments on the date of issue/notice at the LMAG forums. I couldn't access their site last night but managed to post there this morning on the same subject.

Please see: http://www.lmag.org.uk/modules.php?name=Fo...viewtopic&t=220 and the discussion re the Culligan v LB Camden adjudication. As I understand it, the Adjudicator ruled for Camden on the date of issue/notice matter, using the key point of "ie the date shown overleaf". This conflicts with the Al's Bar vs Sutton ruling which apparently specifically says the statement of grounds can't be used as date of notice. The different adjudications rather muddy the water...



The state of grounds has no relevance at all to the front of the ticket, so the adjudicator was wrong to include it.

I have to say, this is actually excellant news happy.gif . When a case goes to judicial review, assuming the judiciary haven't been had, they'll look at the inconsistancy and take this into consideration. Trust me, I know it's a pain at the moment but the more they squirm and that PATAS and NPAS prove to all that they are far from independant, the better.

This is a victory for all, it may not seem it at the moment so don't get disheartened. Still appeal on the grounds already mentioned if you wish to fight on, another adjudicator may find in you favour.
Jammy1
QUOTE (Jammy1 @ Sat, 29 Apr 2006 - 14:47) *
This conflicts with the Al's Bar vs Sutton ruling which apparently specifically says the statement of grounds can't be used as date of notice. The different adjudications rather muddy the water...

I picked up the reference to Al's Bar v Sutton ruling on another site, but when I searched for it online I found an Al's Bar v Wandsworth case at:
http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...cuments/Als.pdf

Presume this is the case they meant?
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (Jammy1 @ Sun, 7 May 2006 - 16:29) *
QUOTE (Jammy1 @ Sat, 29 Apr 2006 - 14:47) *
This conflicts with the Al's Bar vs Sutton ruling which apparently specifically says the statement of grounds can't be used as date of notice. The different adjudications rather muddy the water...

I picked up the reference to Al's Bar v Sutton ruling on another site, but when I searched for it online I found an Al's Bar v Wandsworth case at:
http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...cuments/Als.pdf

Presume this is the case they meant?



Yep, that's the one.
peterb
Remember, behind the scenes there are a lot of muppets running these Council scams.

If they are rejecting your first appeal, it's always good to have another point to appeal
on to FINISH them off.

If they are rejecting your first appeals regarding Lining.
Throw in your appeal regarding Invalid Ticket.

It would not surprise me if they decide not to contest at last minute your appeal at Traffic Appeals Service.
If you look at Traffic Appeals Service (TPAS) website they have reports showing statistics for each council.

It made interesting reading for my council, Haringey -London, who have a terrible record of pulling
out AFTER appeals are submitted to TPAS and not contesting.

TPAS has criticised Councils for doing this and not dealing with appeals properly at earlier stages.

peterb

=====================================================================
Ps: My experience is they soon tire of too much correspondence.
If you have 2 lines of attack, normally they are finished.

Once I received a Bus Lane ticket from Transport for London (TFL).
I was f****g outraged because the camera was on a roundabout, where drivers are filtering/changing lanes.
TFL did not want to know.

I made few phone calls, tracked down department & people responsible for bus lanes at this roundabout.
(they don't wan't to give you this information).
Had a "little chat" & told him what I thought, wrote him a letter.

Then spoke to TFL Enforcement policy department in TFL about Bus Lane regulations and picked through
all the TFL information, wrote them a letter.

Probably 3-4 grounds for appeal on each letter.

Sent all this off to the Ticket Processing centre saying I was taking this to the highest level of appeal.
They gave in.
Jammy1
Unbelievable! I contested the ticket firstly on the incorrect registration front...

"I am writing to object to the issuing of PCN No. "xxxxxxxxxx" of which there is a photocopy attached.
The main grounds for my challenge is that this PCN has been issued incorrectly and therefore it cannot be valid.
Whilst I am the owner of a 'Colour A' 'Make B' vehicle, it’s Vehicle Registration Number is not the one detailed on PCN No. "xxxxxxxxxx", which is printed as "xxxxxxx".
This is NOT the registration number of my car and I am neither the registered keeper nor the owner of any vehicle with the registration number of "xxxxxxx".
I ask that this PCN be therefore declared void and for you to thus rule that there is no Penalty Charge due from me."


I continued with... "The other grounds for my challenge would be that I believe this Camden PCN does not meet the compliance test with the mandatory details required on a PCN." ...and went into a great deal of detail citing Macarthur vs Bury , Wandsworth vs Al's Bar & Restaurant and commenting on Camden vs Culligan.

Have now received Camden's reply, detailing the PCN number, Date Issued, Location of Contravention and the incorrect Vehicle Registration Number at the top...

QUOTE
"Dear "XXXXX"

Thank you for your letter received on xx/xx/xx. This Penalty Charge Notice was issued because the above vehicle was observed parked without clearly displaying a valid Pay and Display ticket or permit.

You state in your correspondence that you believe the Penalty Charge Notice issued to your vehicle to be defective, in that it does not include the date of the Notice. However, the reverse of the Penalty Charge Notice clearly states that "the Penalty Charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the Penalty Charge Notice i.e. the date shown overleaf". The only date shown on the front of the Penalty Charge Notice is xx/xx/xx, and I believe that this clearly indicates the date of the Notice. This was accepted by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service adjudicator in the case of Culligan vs London Borough of Camden (2060054933).

I consider the Penalty Charge Notice to be fully compliant with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and thus am not prepared to withdraw it on the grounds you have raised.

Thank you for letting me know that you are not the registered owner of the above vehicle. A Notice to Owner will be sent in due course to the registered owner of the vehicle.

Yours sincerely,"

etc etc


So they're still banking on the Culligan vs Camden to evade the Date of Notice issue and ignoring the precedents set by the other cases. However I find their response to the incorrect registration on the PCN (by two digits) to be unbelievable!!

What to do?
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (Jammy1 @ Sat, 20 May 2006 - 14:36) *
Unbelievable! I contested the ticket firstly on the incorrect registration front...

"I am writing to object to the issuing of PCN No. "xxxxxxxxxx" of which there is a photocopy attached.
The main grounds for my challenge is that this PCN has been issued incorrectly and therefore it cannot be valid.
Whilst I am the owner of a 'Colour A' 'Make B' vehicle, it’s Vehicle Registration Number is not the one detailed on PCN No. "xxxxxxxxxx", which is printed as "xxxxxxx".
This is NOT the registration number of my car and I am neither the registered keeper nor the owner of any vehicle with the registration number of "xxxxxxx".
I ask that this PCN be therefore declared void and for you to thus rule that there is no Penalty Charge due from me."


I continued with... "The other grounds for my challenge would be that I believe this Camden PCN does not meet the compliance test with the mandatory details required on a PCN." ...and went into a great deal of detail citing Macarthur vs Bury , Wandsworth vs Al's Bar & Restaurant and commenting on Camden vs Culligan.

Have now received Camden's reply, detailing the PCN number, Date Issued, Location of Contravention and the incorrect Vehicle Registration Number at the top...

QUOTE
"Dear "XXXXX"

Thank you for your letter received on xx/xx/xx. This Penalty Charge Notice was issued because the above vehicle was observed parked without clearly displaying a valid Pay and Display ticket or permit.

You state in your correspondence that you believe the Penalty Charge Notice issued to your vehicle to be defective, in that it does not include the date of the Notice. However, the reverse of the Penalty Charge Notice clearly states that "the Penalty Charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the Penalty Charge Notice i.e. the date shown overleaf". The only date shown on the front of the Penalty Charge Notice is xx/xx/xx, and I believe that this clearly indicates the date of the Notice. This was accepted by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service adjudicator in the case of Culligan vs London Borough of Camden (2060054933).

I consider the Penalty Charge Notice to be fully compliant with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and thus am not prepared to withdraw it on the grounds you have raised.

Thank you for letting me know that you are not the registered owner of the above vehicle. A Notice to Owner will be sent in due course to the registered owner of the vehicle.

Yours sincerely,"

etc etc


So they're still banking on the Culligan vs Camden to evade the Date of Notice issue and ignoring the precedents set by the other cases. However I find their response to the incorrect registration on the PCN (by two digits) to be unbelievable!!

What to do?


Culligan -v- Camden is a load of bull, it was a defence by a layman who got turned over by the adjudicator. This is where it's wrong, it is for the Council to prove that the offenc eoccured, not for the Appellant to obtain a law degree prior to the hearing. Quote the other cases listed and insist that the back of the ticket has no relevance on the front as it states date of notice/issue, not xx/xx/xx. That was the whole point of Bury -V- Macarthur and confirms that the adjudication service have their heads up their bottoms.

Re the index/reg number, then they they cannot pursue on those grounds alone. If they do continue,take it to appeal and apply for costs, they are acting vexatiously.
Jammy1
Thanks Wayne. (Congratulations on winning your case by the way!!)

However I read their letter a different way on the registration front, and took it to mean they're now going to pursue the owner of the car that holds the registration number they quoted on the PCN issued to my car. blink.gif

Two digits were wrong in the registration number they printed. I checked the other registration number at the RAC site and it belongs to a different make of car, but it is unfortunately the same colour as mine although the Tax Disc number will be different! So is some poor person going to have to fight my ticket?

Should I respond to the letter and if so how?
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (Jammy1 @ Sat, 20 May 2006 - 16:14) *
Thanks Wayne. (Congratulations on winning your case by the way!!)

However I read their letter a different way on the registration front, and took it to mean they're now going to pursue the owner of the car that holds the registration number they quoted on the PCN issued to my car. blink.gif

Two digits were wrong in the registration number they printed. I checked the other registration number at the RAC site and it belongs to a different make of car, but it is unfortunately the same colour as mine although the Tax Disc number will be different! So is some poor person going to have to fight my ticket?

Should I respond to the letter and if so how?



They can't change the PCN, therefore it will go to someone else. Have they actually sent you a notice to owner yet?
Jammy1
QUOTE (Wayne Pendle @ Sat, 20 May 2006 - 16:37) *
They can't change the PCN, therefore it will go to someone else. Have they actually sent you a notice to owner yet?


Thanks again Wayne, no, all I've received is the letter with the wording I posted earlier...

I just feel troubled by it possibly going to someone else!!


QUOTE (Wayne Pendle @ Sat, 20 May 2006 - 15:52) *
Culligan -v- Camden is a load of bull, it was a defence by a layman who got turned over by the adjudicator. This is where it's wrong, it is for the Council to prove that the offenc eoccured, not for the Appellant to obtain a law degree prior to the hearing. Quote the other cases listed and insist that the back of the ticket has no relevance on the front as it states date of notice/issue, not xx/xx/xx. That was the whole point of Bury -V- Macarthur and confirms that the adjudication service have their heads up their bottoms.



Yes - I actually did go down that route in my original letter but they still came back with the Culligan vs Camden excuse! This is what I wrote:

QUOTE
The other grounds for my challenge would be that I believe this Camden PCN does not meet the compliance test with the mandatory details required on a PCN.

The Explanatory Note in the Guidance issued in 1995 by The Department of Transport and The Welsh Office: "on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside London" (Local Authority Circular 1/95) explains that:

"Sections of this Guidance highlighted in bold italics refer to certain minimum or common standards with which the Secretary of State expects all local authorities enforcing decriminalised parking to comply. The remainder of the Guidance is intended to assist local authorities and encourage a similarity of approach, whist at the same time allowing sufficient flexibility to cater for differing local circumstances"

Chapter 12 of the Guidance deals with PCNs. Paragraph 12.1 concludes, in bold italics:

"A specimen PCN is at ANNEX 12.1, and all authorities introducing decriminalised parking enforcement should use PCNs modelled on this one"

The Macarthur v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council, NPAS Case No: BC188, refers to the specimen PCN in the Guidance specifically showing a "Date of Issue" at the top.

Camden PCN No. CU02215847 has not been modelled on this specimen PCN and thus does not meet the minimum or common standards required by the Secretary of State, as it does not provide a clearly marked ‘Date of Issue’ on the front page of the PCN.

May I also refer you to the adjudication in the London Borough of Wandsworth v Al's Bar & Restaurant Ltd case, Reference: 2020106430.

"It is not sufficient for a date to appear in the paragraph (a) statement of grounds. The date appears there for the purpose of describing the grounds, not as stating the date of the notice. As to the Payment Slip, it is in my view not part of the PCN at all; it is a separate document that is, for convenience, attached to the PCN."

The Parking Adjudicator clearly states in case BC 188 Mr Roger L. Macarthur and Bury Metropolitan Borough Council:

"To comply with section 66(3)©, a PCN must have a date. The date of the contravention is not the date of the notice even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention."

and

" In my view, if Parliament had intended the date of contravention to be the starting point for the relevant periods, it would have said so. The specimen PCN in the Guidance specifically shows a "Date of Issue" at the top. The tear off slip is not part of the PCN and may be detached."

Although the reverse side of the Camden PCN includes following text:

"The Penalty Charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the Penalty Charge Notice i.e. the date shown overleaf. If the Penalty Charge is paid before the end of the period if 14 days beginning with the date of the Penalty Charge Notice, you only have to pay the reduced amount as shown overleaf."


there is no ‘Date of Notice’ or Date of Issue’ shown overleaf, only the date of the alleged contravention within the description of the grounds.

I am aware of the contention in the London Borough of Camden v Culligan case, Reference: 2060037694 that the text on the reverse of Camden’s Penalty Charge Notices indicates that the ‘Date of Issue’ is the ‘Date of the Notice’, however this completely conflicts with the Macarthur v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council ruling that the date of the contravention is not the date of the notice even if the PCN is issued on the same day as the contravention, and the Al's Bar v Wandsworth ruling which is very specific in that the date in the statement of grounds cannot be used as the ‘Date of Notice’!

Therefore I continue to contest that the Camden PCN does not comply with section 66(3) c, d and e of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and wasn’t modelled on the Department of Transport’s specimen PCN in the Guidance as required by the Secretary of State, which indicates there should be a box or heading named "Date of Issue", under or into which the date should be inserted.
DW190
QUOTE
I just feel troubled by it possibly going to someone else!!


Don't be.

It lets others know about their incompetance.
Jammy1
It's been pointed out that Camden were quoting a different case to the one I quoted to them!

London Borough of Camden v Culligan case, Reference: 2060037694 was the case I quoted -
as per: http://www.lmag.org.uk/documents/CulliganVCamden.pdf

QUOTE ("Camden Correspondence Officer")
This was accepted by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service adjudicator in the case of Culligan vs London Borough of Camden (2060054933).
unsure.gif

Does anyone have details of this other case they're quoting?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.