Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Consecutive PCNs within 24 hours
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
kayjay
Hi

I park on street and my resident parking permit recently expired while I was on holiday. By the time I got back I had been issued with 3 PCNs on three consecutive days. I do not intend to dispute that a fine is warranted (it is my fault for forgetting to renew my permit before going on holiday) but I have two main questions:

1) Can I argue that I committed one offence and should therefore be punished for it only once, or is the council correct in treating these as three separate offences?

2) Even if these are to be treated as three separate offences, is there any rule that says that more than one PCN cannot be issued within a 24 hour period? The reason I am asking is that the PCNs issued to me are as follows:
- Wednesday 11:04 am
- Thursday 10:33 am
- Friday 10:25 am

i.e. the second one is within 24 hours of the first one and the third one is within 24 hours of the second one.

The parking restriction applies from 8:30 am to 6:30 pm Monday to Friday.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
stamfordman
I would write a grovelling letter pointing out you are a resident (and probably a council tax payer) and see if they let you off. This may depend on what council it is - some are more friendly than others towards their residents - after all you had no intention to blag free parking on your own street. Make sure you have renewed the permit from the expiry date if you can.

As for the three PCNs, they should be treated as one given that the car hadn't moved.
Steve_999
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 7 Sep 2016 - 20:07) *
. . . . .

As for the three PCNs, they should be treated as one given that the car hadn't moved.


After 18:30 each day the car would no longer be in contravention. At 08:30 the following day, it was again in contravention.

Unfortunately not continuous.
John U.K.
QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Wed, 7 Sep 2016 - 21:28) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 7 Sep 2016 - 20:07) *
. . . . .

As for the three PCNs, they should be treated as one given that the car hadn't moved.


After 18:30 each day the car would no longer be in contravention. At 08:30 the following day, it was again in contravention.

Unfortunately not continuous.


However, I'm fairly certain adjudicators have taken different views on this, sp not open and shut.
Chaseman
Here's the case you need from PATAS (precursor to LTs).


QUOTE
Case Details


Case reference
2110166557

Appellant
James George Gibson

Authority
London Borough of Haringey

VRM
P844KKU




PCN Details


PCN
HY53096054

Contravention date
15 Jan 2011

Contravention time
09:40:00

Contravention location
Lausanne Road

Penalty amount
GBP 80.00

Contravention
In resident shared use place with invalid perm


Decision date
18 May 2011

Adjudicator
Carl Teper

Appeal decision
PCN appeal allowed

Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons
The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' parking place or zone displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011 at 09.00. The Appellant's case is that the permit had not been renewed because they had not received a renewal notice from the authority. The Appellant and his wife were on holiday from 31 December 2010 until 23 January 2011 during which period the Penalty Charge Notices were incurred. I have considered the evidence and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents parking place displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4 January 2011. It is the Appellant's responsibility to renew their permit and they are not entitled to rely on the courtesy renewal letter, which may not have been received. However, I find that the Appellant's vehicle committed one contravention of parking in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011. I find that one continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remains at the same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. Further, I have taken into account that the residents' bay is operational from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday and I find that the situation would be the same if the residents' bay was operational 24 hours a day 7 days a week. There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a continuous contravention, such as removal. For the reasons given this appeal is allowed.


This nails Steve's point as to whether a new offence is committed because the restriction periods are non-contiguous i.e. not a 24 hour restriction. The answer is, it doesn't make any difference.
hcandersen
A non-continuous restriction does not of itself prevent the OP arguing and relyng on the defence of continuous contravention.
Steve_999
I'm very pleased to be wrong as it is very clear that morally, if not legally, it should be considered a single offence.

I do believe that people have lost on this point in the past and so, as John U.K. says, it can vary between adjudicators. You certainly need to be aware of the potential arguments and gather examples of other adjudication results. Although they wouldn't be binding on another adjudicator, they would at least be persuasive.
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.