Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Code 624 - Lambeth
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
triplem
Hi

I received a PCN Code 624 for parking with all 4 wheels on a footway (quite a wide one but that's not my point).

I've read quite a few similar psts, but can anyone tell me if the contravention wording - which I know is incorrect - will by itself be enough to quash a ticket?

Like most, I have to decide if it's cheaper to pay - and I don't want to roll over easily to such an organisation - or go to PATAS which would cost me 5 times as much (lost income, travel etc) even if I won. Put it like that I guess the answer is sadly obvious, but I will lodge the informal appeal.

The Lambeth PCN's still state:

624 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking) (all wheels on footway)

As I understand it the correct terminology is - according to http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/...travention-code

62 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway 4) all wheels on footway

Does anyone know if this on its own merit would be sufficient? The examples I've seen are usually with other factors which compound the arguement in favour of quashing the ticket.

Thanks in advance for any help!







Chaseman
Yes, this is incorrect wording by reference to both the London Councils' standard list of contravention codes and by ref to the London Local Authorities and Transport Act 2008 which updated the original GLC (General Powers) Act 1974 that originally banned footway parking in London.

Lambeth have been using the incorrect definitions for years but seem unwilling or unable to change, presumably relying on the belief that most people will pay up to make the problem go away. It is utterly cynical, evidenced by the fact that when cases get to adjudication, on my small survey, Lambeth more often than not offers no evidence i.e. they throw in the towel.

What this means is they routinely turn down appeals both informal and formal, play the numbers game and then accept defeat to the small handful of motorists who have the determination to persist.

Here is a link to my own recent case on footway parking where I now have a formal stage 2 complaint in with Lambeth, having appealed successfully to the London Tribunals (successor to PATAS). Lambeth predictably threw in the towel, but on location rather than wording. However, if you work your way through the string in the early part you will find my informal challenge (post #32) which has all the references you need to the London councils code, the law, and previous PATAS cases which all say "Lambeth - you've got it wrong". The Rebecca Abbs case is particularly relevant.

At the expense of a bit of time and effort I do recommend you appeal this one. Lambeth are likely to offer no evidence at LTs which means you don't have to attend. You can also ask for costs at LTs for wholly unreasonable or vexatious prosecution, although I was unsuccessful in this.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=102976&hl=

Oh and can you re-post the PCN with the location and times shown and a link to GSV for the location if possible.
DancingDad
What he said.
Wrong wording should be fatal but will need an adjudicator to confirm on the day.
hcandersen
But you need to be smarter than just to say that it's wrong - too many OPs fail on this point.

My approach is probably long-winded, but is intended to draw out on their reasoning.

You ask them specific questions should they reject your challenge, and you might have to lead them by the nose:

Do the authority agree that in this case they may only impose this level of penalty subject to the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and regulations made thereunder?

Do the authority agree that as a London local authority the regulations require them to act through a joint committee established for this purpose, in this case London Councils?

Do the authority accept that London Councils has published the schedule of penalties applicable to specified contraventions and that only those contraventions may be used in support of a demand for the applicable penalty?

Do the authority agree that the contravention in the PCN does not conform to the description in the published schedule? For ease of reference I have set out the one used by the authority and that specified by London Councils and highlighted the difference (OP, set them out).

If the authority disagree with any of the above they are required to set out their reasoning and not simply make bland statements.

My challenge is based on the fact that as the authority did not use the prescribed contravention description for this penalty approved and specified on behalf of the authority then no penalty is recoverable by the authority under this contravention description and this constitutes grounds that the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of this case.
Chaseman
Try the HCA approach by all means but Lambeth Parking is staffed by such meatheads that all you are likely to get is a "form" rejection that says:

"Thank you for your letter. We have decided not to cancel your PCN. This is because you were parked on the footway. No need for signage, banned everywhere in London, dangerous for wheelchair users, the blind, people with pushchairs, damages the pavement blah blah blah, here's how to pay."

You are very unlikely to get an answer to detailed points on the London Councils' code or the legislation because they know they are wrong and will simply try to wear you down by insisting the PCN was properly issued.
hcandersen
This is to do with the long game.

You line them up with the questions which if necessary you repeat at NTO stage.

When you come to appeal on the basis of the papers only you then have a much stronger case. None of my questions is frivolous and if the authority won't respond then this gives you a stronger case.
triplem
Thanks to all three of you!

As requested, PCN with time and locaton, also GSW and picture (although the place is now a building site and has hordings between the Shell Foundation and road.

GSW - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.504542,-0...3312!8i6656







Before anyone mentions the poor quality of the pic, there are a couple more which do show the car is on the footpath. Its not easy to see in this one due to the light

I'm up for taking them on. One thing though is that the car is a hire car.
If I challenge it, will the car hire firm get the subsequent letters, just pay the full amount and then take it from me?

Many thanks for all comments!
DancingDad
Hire company will get the NTO.
How they deal with it should be in T&Cs and quite possibly include an admin fee.
Economics may be that paying at discount is better then fighting but still paying an admin fee even if you win
Check that out.
If you do want to go forward, ensure hire company will return the NTO citing you as the driver so you will get your own.
Chaseman
You've still obscured the date on PCN but I am assuming you received it in the last couple of days. I would go ahead with an informal challenge to Lambeth, tell them it's a hire car and ask them to direct all future correspondence to you and not to the registered keeper. The chances are they will screw up on this.

At the same time I would write to the hire company, or send them an e-mail with a read receipt, to say you have received a PCN, which you are challenging, asking them to forward any correspondence they receive to you and in particular not to pay anything.
triplem
Thanks guys.

It was Sunday (28th August) so still a fair few days to send informal challenge.

I will contact the hire company and find out how we can stop them just treating it as an admin exercise (its a very large company so my fear is its probably handled centrally).

If thats the case then DancingDad you are absolutely right. I'd still lose if I won.

I really don't like the way these councils operate, so if I can avoid the hire company deciding to deal with it and passing the costs plus admin fee, then I will most definately fight it.
hcandersen
You have your chance with your informal challenge, so get that submitted.

If nothing else it buys you extra time to conduct your parallel discussions with the hire company.

You've blanked the date of issue - you must tell us what it was as this sets the clock ticking and at present we have no idea where we are timewise.

You challenge; they consider and get round to responding - probably 4 weeks; they re-offer the discount for 14 days; then and only then could they serve a NTO. So, NTO is probably up to 8 weeks away.

You do nothing and they'll send NTO in 4 weeks.


@Chaseman, I don't know what this is designed to achieve. The OP does not have the legal status to request that the NTO be sent to them, are you hoping that the authority would and this would be their c**k-up? I'd be careful because I wouldn't want the OP to knowingly misrepresent themselves to the authority as having a capacity which they do not.
Chaseman
[quote name='hcandersen' date='Sat, 3 Sep 2016 - 08:22' post='

You've blanked the date of issue - you must tell us what it was as this sets the clock ticking and at present we have no idea where we are


@Chaseman, I don't know what this is designed to achieve. The OP does not have the legal status to request that the NTO be sent to them, are you hoping that the authority would and this would be their c**k-up? I'd be careful because I wouldn't want the OP to knowingly misrepresent themselves to the authority as having a capacity which they do not.
[/quote]

The key point I was making was to warn the hire company not to just pay up and charge the OP. I was meaning that hire co should identify driver to LA and have NTO issued to him so he can conduct defence.
triplem
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 3 Sep 2016 - 08:22) *
You have your chance with your informal challenge, so get that submitted.

If nothing else it buys you extra time to conduct your parallel discussions with the hire company.

You've blanked the date of issue - you must tell us what it was as this sets the clock ticking and at present we have no idea where we are timewise.

You challenge; they consider and get round to responding - probably 4 weeks; they re-offer the discount for 14 days; then and only then could they serve a NTO. So, NTO is probably up to 8 weeks away.

You do nothing and they'll send NTO in 4 weeks.


Thanks HCA

As per the post above yours, the date was 28 August.

I will send the informal challenge. I guess I have nothing to lose there. My main concern is th ehire company taking the easy route, paying up the full amount and charging that to me plus their admin fee.

Can you elaborate on your reply on 1 Sept please? It makes sense to me, however are the questions part of my informal challenge?

cheers!
hcandersen
They are the challenge.

I've put the 'my challenge' bit at the end, but it would probably be useful to put it at the beginning as well.

Dear Mr. Parking,

PCN No. ...... VRM No........

I refer to the above PCN issued on *** for the contravention of ..... in full.

My challenge is based on the fact that as the authority did not use the prescribed contravention description for this penalty approved and specified on behalf of the authority by London Councils then no penalty is recoverable by the authority under the contravention description used and this constitutes grounds that the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of this case.

The authority are required to consider the following:
........

The authority will see that they may not impose a penalty under the description used and must cancel the PCN.

If they do not then in their rejection they must set out their responses to the questions and their justification for using this description which, as they know, has been rejected on numerous occasions by adjudicators.
triplem
Thanks HCA, and everyone else who commented.

I also contacted the hire company who put me through to their traffic dept (as any NTO would be sent to this central dept) They told me that the LA should send any further comms to me, but if they did get it I can let them know that it is bein gformally challenged. No doubt they'll play ignorant and reject the challenge, so let's see how it all unfolds!

I've sent this as my informal challenge - many thanks HCA for the wording:

PCN No: LJXXXXXXXX
VRM: XXXXX

I refer to the above PCN issued on 28/08/2016 for the contravention of - 624 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking) (all wheels on footway).

My challenge is based on the fact that as the authority did not use the prescribed contravention description for this penalty approved, and specified, on behalf of the authority by London Councils, then no penalty is recoverable by the authority under the contravention description used. This constitutes grounds that the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of this case.

The authority is required to consider the following:
Does the authority agree that in this case they may only impose this level of penalty subject to the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and regulations made thereunder?

Does the authority agree that as a London local authority the regulations require them to act through a joint committee established for this purpose, in this case London Councils?

Does the authority accept that London Councils has published the schedule of penalties applicable to specified contraventions and that only those contraventions may be used in support of a demand for the applicable penalty?

Does the authority agree that the contravention in the PCN does not conform to the description in the published schedule? For ease of reference I have set out the one used by the authority and that specified by London Councils and highlighted the difference below:

Contravention in the PCN
624 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking) (all wheels on footway)

Contravention code specified by London Councils (2016)
624 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway (all wheels on footway)

The authority will see that they may not impose a penalty under the description used and must cancel the PCN.

triplem
I looged my informal challenge as above online on 5th Sept.

Their auto response said they aim to respond in 28 days.

This has passed. Should I just wait? or should I be contacting them with a formal challenge?

Thanks
DancingDad
Patience smile.gif
triplem
OK. now I have heard back , but the sneaky ****'s at Lambeth have tried a Judas punch.

I have had nothing since my informal challenge was sent in on 05/09/2016.

Today I received a letter from the car rental company, with their standard admin fee, enclosing the Notice to Owner.

So I guess Lambeth get the details from DVLA, see its a hire car and go for path of least resistance and maximum pain. They had my personal details on the challenge, but have instead sent the NTO to the rental firm.

Also, the NTO looks like its a scan. So the challenge details etc. which are listed as "overleaf" are not included. The letter from the rental company says that they have passed my details over and advise waiting for the new notice to be sent before paying or appealing the fine.

So, if hcanderson is out there, what's your advice next buddy? They have not responded to the facts I put to them as you laid out.

Any advice gratefully received.
Mad Mick V
Clear procedural impropriety if no response to your informals and it has cost you so I would be looking for costs at adjudication.

Make sure the hire company is passing responsibility to you.

Mick
triplem
Cheers Mick
Yes, the hire company is passing responsibility to me, and yes, will definately look for costs.

Do they HAVE to respond to informals? I guess they didn't as per hcanderson's advice the informal challenge put them in an awkward position, so I assume they've rather said nothing than hang themselves?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE
Today I received a letter from the car rental company, with their standard admin fee, enclosing the Notice to Owner.


This cannot be right, the hire company cannot pass the NTO to you. they must challenge and the council re issue in your name
triplem
It says on the letter accompanying the copy of the NTO "that they are obligated to forward my details to the relevent council/police force/parking agency who will in turn reissue the penalty charge direct to you".

I must admit, I see your point. It states on the NTO "you are legally responsible for dealing with this notice. Do not pass it on to the person who was in control of the vehicle at the time the alleged contravention occured".

not sure if car hire companies are classed differently?
DancingDad
No they are not.

If the NTO is addressed to them, it is their responsibility.
They have a mechanism (see back of NTO Grounds, Hire Company) to deal with this simply, ie pass on your details.

You will then get your own NTO.
triplem
Thanks DancingDad. They didn't scan the back of the NTO so I can't see it. They only sent me the front.

The LA already had my details of course as I sent informal challenge. It looks like they chose to ignore that.

So I wait out for an NTO?
DancingDad
Yup.
There is a hire company ground, says something like this
(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a hiring agreement; and
(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice served in respect of any parking contravention involving the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;

May want to contact hire company and make sure they are using the hire company ground.
Many have an admin fee so you are probably stuck with that anyway but ask.
But you want to make sure that they are not simply going to pay it and back charge your credit card.... some do.
triplem
Thanks again DD.

I did call them when I first got the PCN to make sure that they wouldn't just pay it and charge me. They assured me they wouldn't, and it seems they pass on your details and just add the admin fee.

will be great to get advice on the formal challenge once I get the NTO!
triplem
Hi

I finally got the NTO through today addressed to me. It is dated 16/11/2016. I'm assuming it took longer to get to me because it only shows my address as my road, no number/house name..... and my road has hundreds of houses!

So, as they clearly ignored my informal reps as posted earlier, (I never even got a response but do have the ref number from their website) and sent the NTO direct to the car hire firm, I'd be really grateful for some wording for the formal reps.

HCA gave me some great wording for the informal reps, which is why I guess they never bothered responding as they would have hung themselves.

Which of the statutory grounds should I go for?

Thanks
triplem
...any advice please guys?
DancingDad
Go with same as informal except add a heading in bold.... Procedural Impropriety
Then add a new heading.... Procedural Impropriety
Enforcement Authorities are obliged to consider informal representations.
These were sent on ???? date and a receipt obtained.
Given that no response was received, there is a clear implication that the representations were never considered.
Without clear evidence that consideration took place, this must be considered a procedural impropriety and the PCN cancelled.

Third heading but check with hire company first.
Ask them what address they gave to council, get a copy of the letter if possible.
If this shows your correct address with house number, failing to properly address to the given address is a procedural impropriety.

Whatever.....
Ensure you give correct address on the challenge and draw to their attention that the wrong address was used on the NTO.
triplem
Thanks DD. Will do.

Unfortunately the Car Hire firm cocked up the address, so I can't pin that on Lambeth.

They DO already have my correct address from my original informal reps, which they ignored, and yes I will ensure that attention is drawn to my correct address in my challenge.

I didn't know that they were obliged to consider informal reps. Thanks. I do indeed have the reference and date of my informal reps so will add what you've advised to the original and fire it back at them.

Do you think that there is any point in challenging them back too, letting them know I will be claiming the car hire firms admin fee?

I can't help but think that they ran the plate through the DVLA after my informal reps, saw it was owned by a large hire company and thought "***k him, we'll make him pay an admin fee for trying to be smart"..... Or am I just paranoid?

If they'd had replied to my informal, there would have been no need for the admin fee.

Many thanks!!
triplem
...any thoughts guys about putting in formal reps that I will claim the car hire admin fee from the LA?

or any other points before I reiterate my informal reps as DD advises?
triplem
Shall I put the whole thing under Procedural Improprietry?

Or

The Penalty Charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case (as the wording is incorrect, therefore there is no charge associated with the wording on the PCN

Can anyone also tell me if failing to respond to informal reps is definately a Procedural Impropriety?

Cheers guys

PASTMYBEST
Failing to respond is not of it's self a PI. Failing to consider is. Not responding is an indication that no consideration has been given. The test is balance of probabilities.
The normal course of events see's a response, so failing in this casts a doubt as to any consideration
triplem
Thanks PASTMYBEST.

So as DancingDad says, list as PI for failing to consider, and also PI for the original response?
hcandersen
Tactics come into play here.

Is the PCN invalid because the grounds are not correct? Yes.

Have the authority lost on this point before? Yes.

Do they still try it on? Yes.

Why? Answers on a post card pl, addressed to The Muppet Show, Lambeth.

Would they want to be exposed again at adjudication? Probably not.

Is there a third way? Possibly, perhaps you can give them a procedural irregularity/technical or processing error to hide behind.

Get on to this site and put in your post code:
http://www.royalmail.com/find-a-postcode

How many possible addresses does it throw up?

If it was me I would call the hire company, tell them you received their letter and ask them what address they gave the authority for you. Don't prompt them, get them to look at their records. Then come back here.

Depending on their reply, I would consider (but don't do it yet) phoning the authority, reference the PCN and tell them that I'd received a letter dated ** from the vehicle hire company enclosing a copy of a NTO dated ****which had been sent to them by the authority. The letter said that the authority would be sending me a NTO and ask them whether they've done so.

When they tell you they have, ask them what address they used and when they tell you ask them how this would get to you because it doesn't have a full address.... (this is where the hire company's info comes in)

I wouldn't tell them whether you do or don't have the NTO, I'd see what they said and make a note, including the person's name. I would not dispute the contravention.

By the way, the Royal Mail's delivery process works on post code first (if present), then street and number - believe it or not, the name is not relevant to them, they're obliged to deliver to addresses. IMO, if the authority were not given an address which met the minimum criteria (which your call to the hire company would reveal) then they should not have accepted the hire company's reps but gone back to them. But if they were given the correct address then IMO their action in not using it amounts to a PI.

Time frame. NTO dated 16 Nov, deemed served 18th, therefore last day for submitting reps is 15th Dec.
DancingDad
That is a good point from HCA.
If the address given by the hire company does not "compute" by Royal Mail, then it is not a proper address and the NTO cannot be said to have been properly served, which is a PI in its own right.
And means that it doesn't really matter whether the wrong address was council or hire company generated, it is still not a proper address.

Certainly worth digging deeper into this.
triplem
Muppet Show, Lambeth laughing5.gif Great points!

Royal Mail throws up 13 possible addresses to my post code.

I will call the Hire Company on Monday and report back. Thank you both!
triplem
HCA & DD

I called the hire company. Yes they only have my address down as the one on the NTO (without my house, just the road).

Don't know why thats all they had, but they confirmed that thats all they gave to Lambeth.

What's your thoughts on the next course of action?

Thanks
DancingDad
Go with what was said before and add the alternative suggested by HCA
That is, the address used on the NTO was simply copied parrot fashion from the hire company information but a cursory check on Royal Mail post code checker shows that without the house number, 13 different possible addresses are covered.
In this respect, the council should not have accepted hire company ground challenge as it failed to provide correct information and cannot be considered to have used a proper address for the notice. Failing to use a proper address fails the basic requirement for service of a notice and is a procedural impropriety.
triplem
I just had a thought. If I call Lambeth and let them know about the address, could that just mean tipping them off so they send another NTO to the correct address?
They already have my correct address from my informal reps, which they chose to ignore, but still have. They'd still be within the timeframe to send the NTO.

I've found and been reading the Traffic Management Act 2004

I guess these points form the basis of the PI regarding the informal reps?

10.7
It is likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges against penalty charges before they issue the Notice to Owner and authorities should consider them (the concept of informal challenge does not apply to penalty charges issued by post where the penalty charge notice will act as a Notice to Owner). They are likely to receive these within the 14 day discount period.
Enforcement authorities should give proper consideration and respond to these challenges with care and attention, and in a timely manner in order to foster good customer relations, reduce the number of Notice to Owners sent and the number of formal representations to be considered.
The Secretary of State suggests that authorities should respond within 14 days. Enforcement authorities should also have suitably trained staff with the appropriate authority to deal with these challenges.


10.11
If the enforcement authority considers that there are no grounds for cancellation, it should tell the vehicle owner and explain its reasons.

10.12
If a challenge is received within the discount period and subsequentlyrejected, the Secretary of State recommends that the enforcement authority should consider re-offering the discount for a further 14 days to incentivise payment. Authorities should always make it clear that an 30
owner who has an informal challenge rejected may still make a formal challenge if a Notice to Owner is served
triplem
For HCAndersen

You said "Depending on their reply, I would consider (but don't do it yet) phoning the authority"

When do you suggest I do call them?

Thanks
triplem
OK - I called Lambeth today, not easy as they won't discuss PCN's over the phone! I told them it was regarding NTO.

They really are the Muppet Show. The woman I spoke too sounded like she was care in the community - I did make a note of her name.

After some banality she confimred that the address they were given by the rental firm didn't have a house number or name. I asked how the NTO was supposed to get to me and she didn't know.

She told me to call an 0845 number to update my details for them. I asked her why on earth she thought I would do that, and that as far as I can see the NTO is between the car hire company and Lambeth to sort out.

She did mention that they had my informal reps, which does have my full address on it, but she obviously isn't bright enough to connect the dots.

To conclude I told her I only called becasue I had received the letter from the car hire company and was wondering where the NTO was. Now that she confirmed that they sent it to a road and not my home it all made sense.

Soooo...... Shall I continue to send in the formal reps with this information as yet another PI? Or do I play possum, which I am probably within my rights to do but will up the ante a lot more than necessary?

Cheers
triplem
OK, this is what I intend on sending as my formal reps. Any thoughts?.....

PCN No: XXXXXXXX
VRM: XXXXXXXX

I refer to the above PCN issued on xx/08/2016 for the contravention of - 624 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking) (all wheels on footway).

My grounds for Representations are that there has been procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority as follows.

1) Procedural Impropriety

Under the Traffic Management Act 2004
The Enforcement Authorities are obliged to consider informal representations. If the enforcement authority considers that there are no grounds for cancellation, it should explain its reasons. (10.7 and 10.11)
I lodged an informal challenge via the authority’s website on xx/09/16 at xx:xx and was subsequently issued the reference number xxxxxx. My full postal address and email address were given as contact details.
As no response was ever received, this is a clear indication that the representations were never considered. Without clear evidence that consideration took place, this must be considered a procedural impropriety and the PCN cancelled.

2) Procedural Impropriety

As the authority did not use the prescribed contravention description for this penalty approved, and specified, on behalf of the authority by London Councils, then no penalty is recoverable by the authority under the contravention description used. This constitutes grounds that the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of this case.

The authority is required to consider the following:
Does the authority agree that in this case they may only impose this level of penalty subject to the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and regulations made thereunder?

Does the authority agree that as a London local authority the regulations require them to act through a joint committee established for this purpose, in this case London Councils?

Does the authority accept that London Councils has published the schedule of penalties applicable to specified contraventions and that only those contraventions may be used in support of a demand for the applicable penalty?

Does the authority agree that the contravention in the PCN does not conform to the description in the published schedule? For ease of reference I have set out the one used by the authority and that specified by London Councils and highlighted the difference below:

Contravention in the PCN
624 Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking) (all wheels on footway)

Contravention code specified by London Councils (2016)
624 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway (all wheels on footway)

The authority will see that they may not impose a penalty under the description used and must cancel the PCN.

3) Procedural Impropriety

These formal representations are given even though I have never received an NTO from the Enforcement Authority. The authority, sent the NTO dated xx/10/2016 to the car hire company that own this vehicle, even though they had already received informal representations from me within the allowed time period, which they subsequently did not consider.

I received a copy of said NTO from the car hire company on xx/10/2016 informing me that they had passed my details to the authority.
Having never received a subsequent NTO I called the authority on xx/12/16 at xx:xx and spoke to someone called xxxxxx. I managed to ascertain that the car hire company hadn’t given my full address, the authority did not bother to check this information and proceeded to send an NTO out to my address but omitting any house name or number. My road has around 300 properties. I asked how the authority expected this letter to arrive? xxxxxx told me she didn’t know.

As the address given by the hire company is not a proper address, the authority should have not accepted the hire company’s representations and as such the NTO cannot be said to have been properly served. Therefore this must be considered a procedural impropriety and the PCN cancelled.

I have incurred costs on two fronts. Firstly from the car hire company’s ‘admin fee’ for dealing with PCN’s. This would not have happened if the authority had considered and responded to my informal representations. I have also had to spend considerable time in contacting the authority and responding to their PCN.

I have found the authorities conduct in this case to have been vexatious, frivolous and wholly unreasonable.
DancingDad
Gets the points in, expect a rejection but that is the name of the game unfortunately.

Ensure that you include full address with the challenge.

It will be interesting to see what address Lambeth use to reply.
hcandersen
But the hire company did have your correct address, didn't they - enclose their letter to you. Therefore it is not that the authority used the best address held by the hire company, they should have required a proper address which would ultimately have been forthcoming or not accept the reps.
triplem
Thanks DD and hcandersen.

Yes, I will include my full address in the reps.
The person I spoke to at Lambeth already told me my full address from the informal reps which she could see on their system. I didn't push that point, as I was only ascertaining the address of the NTO.
Due to the time allowed to serve an NTO I suppose they could still send one out now to the correct address and be within the time period for serving it?
So I didn't want to draw their attention to it too much.

The hire company did of course have my full address. They had my driving licence details. It just looks like they chose not to input them properly on their system. The letter they sent too was addressed incorrectly. How it got to me I think was more a case of luck and detective work for the postman.
triplem
One other question.... To post formal reps does it have to be on the NTO (which may not have arrived due to the address) or can I send it as a letter referencing the PCN number, WRN and my name and address?
DancingDad
Letter or on line/email if allowed.
Back of the NTO you haven't got will tell you
hcandersen
On re-reading I see that you intend to say that 'These formal representations are given even though I have never received an NTO from the Enforcement Authority. '

How can you say this because you have received a NTO from the authority, post #27 refers.
triplem
Would the PI regarding the incorrect address still hold if I did receive the NTO?

Or if the NTO is delivered without a 'proper' address does that make it a moot point?


...and I appreciate very much what you are both saying and not saying.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.