Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Not Served - NTO Received - Lewisham
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
CityChic
Hello all, I seem to have a talent for attracting PCNs in recent months after years without getting any.

I have a strange case that I would like some help with. I've had some great initial help from a forum friend that I will add below.

I've received a Notice to Owner for contravention: 05S; Parked after the expiry of paid time - shared use bay

I returned to my car after going to the supermarket to find a warden taking photos of my car with a ticket on the windscreen. He said I had gone over time. I asked him to cancel if possible to which he said no as he had already taken photos. I was ready to leave and pay the reduced fee of £40 if all checked out as compliant on the PCN.

What he did next is very strange. He took the PCN off the car to show me that it didn't print properly. The writing had printed half way down the paper so was illegible. I asked him to give me back the PCN so I could be on my way. My thoughts were I'd have a look at it and if too illegible I might have grounds for cancellation.

He wouldn't give it back. Using my phone I took pictures of him with the PCN in his hand. The photos are time stamped after the PCN was supposed to have been served. I also took video footage of me asking him if he's going to give the PCN back to me, again time stamped after it was served. He just ignored me and continued tapping into his machine. I told him I have to go. As he wouldn't give it back I drove away. I thought I would get it in the post, anticipating whether I'd get the badly printed version or a new freshly printed one.

As you've probably guessed from the title no PCN arrived in the post. After a month I received a NTO which I've attached below.

I wasn't given the chance to inspect the original PCN to see if it was compliant, nor provided the option to pay the reduced fee.

My option now is to pay the full amount of £80 or make representations. I have nothing to lose at this point so I'll make representations.

From the options given on the NTO I think I'll need to choose procedural impropriety as it wasn't served lawfully. Also the option; the CEO was not prevented from serving the PCN as evidenced by my photos and video. It will be interesting to know what he has written in his notes.

A very helpful forum member has given me some options to consider:

"Removal of or interference with a penalty charge notice

11.—(1) A penalty charge notice fixed to a vehicle in accordance with regulation 9(a) shall not be removed or interfered with except by or under the authority of—

(a)the owner or person in charge of the vehicle; or

(b)the enforcement authority.

(2) A person contravening paragraph (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.


By what authority did he remove it and was it a case of misfeasance in public office (he knew his actions would cause harm by causing you to lose the discount)."


I've not had a good experience at the London Tribunals recently so would like to put forward the best possible case for the Council to cancel...though we know that's highly unlikely. Regarding interference does the CEO qualify as the enforcement authority? I'm guessing he does but only under certain conditions.









This is the CEO with my particular PCN in his hand, ignoring me and tapping into his machine. (Sorry, I can't get it to display vertically)


stamfordman
He obviously realised the PCN was not compliant and was probably trying to cancel and reissue but maybe his machine was malfunctioning.

I'm not sure they can issue a postal PCN in these circumstances but in any case they haven't and the NTO says it was served at the scene. I presume this ought to be an easy appeal based on no PCN served/prevented from being served and you have evidence.

Wait for experts!
Neil B
Can we see the vid?
stamfordman
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 16:19) *
Can we see the vid?



Will probably reveal the CEO unless OP/we can edit it out - maybe the soundtrack?
CityChic
The video will reveal the identity of the CEO and possibly mine for anyone that knows me rolleyes.gif ...but I am willing to send it you privately. Many of you offered invaluable help on my last thread so I'm happy for you to see it. It's just under 32Mb in size.
DancingDad
If the video includes the CEO saying it was not printed correctly, then this is an easy win.
When the PCN was put onto the vehicle it was served.
If your evidence shows the PCN was non-compliant (or infers this) then the 1st notice in the chain fails and thus the whole chain must.

Secondary to this.
While a PCN is regarded as served once it is fixed to the vehicle and often regarded as happenstance if it then disappears, a CEO cannot take it away with them.
For a CEO to remove the PCN removes the whole purpose of service, removes the opportunity for the driver to pay at discount or challenge and to check signage or any other relevant information on the day.

Cannot see you losing at adjudication.

Send council selected prints from the video to show what you have with any challenge.
Procedural Impropriety on both grounds.

Yes a CEO is the "authority" when they are working.

As a matter of interest, how long over were you ?
stamfordman
Any pics on Lewisham's site showing the PCN on the car?
Incandescent
Let's get back to basics. Were you in contravention ? There is a 10 minutes grace period for paid-for time. If you were over that, then the CEO was right to prepare a PCN. Then there is the process of serving it. It's clear from what you say that this was not done due to the CEO's machine not working properly. HOwever it is very likely the CEO's notes have a totally different story. In cases like this, it is who is believed, you or the CEO. Frankly, if you think the council are going to give way, think again, they love the money too much, but you have to appeal to them before you can get to London Tribunals. Of course the council may offer the discount again to you despite issuing an NtO. At that point you can decide what to do.
disgrunt
I would go in hard with a very forceful letter.

It is an offence to remove a pcn once served if you are not the owner/driver.

I would say your story as above and say that you have the video of the ceo removing the pcn and refusing to return it. The council have deliberately prevented you being able to pay at the discount and therefore they need to cancel the pcn. If they doubt your honesty please contact you to arrange to view the video.

You could also say you are considering reporting the ceo to the police so please could they provide the ceo’s Name. I would also consider how much the papers would pay for this video. The daily mail love the poor motorist being stung by dodgy council, but you might need to have your photo taken with a sad face.

DancingDad
QUOTE (disgrunt @ Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 20:44) *
......It is an offence to remove a pcn once served if you are not the owner/driver......


The CEO or other relevant authority may remove a PCN with good reason.

Removing it to cancel and serve another is good reason.
Removing it, not serving another and pretending it was served isn't a good reason.
CityChic
The pay and display ticket says paid until 17:24 and the NTO says contravention time 17:36 so according to the CEO 12 minutes over.

Unfortunately I cannot find any option on the Lewisham website to view the PCN or any of the CEO's photos. I guess I'll see them when they send the rejection.

I didn't start recording straight away but thought to do so when he wouldn't give the PCN back.

stamfordman I think you are right in that he knew the PCN was non-compliant so quickly took pictures of it attached to the car and was trying to re-issue it when I arrived. I guess he wasn't expecting me back and there was no way he was going to let me leave with the badly printed PCN.

The video is only 14 seconds long but was recorded at 17:43, 7 minutes after service yet there he is with the PCN in his hand. This is how long I was standing there with him while he took it off the car, showed me that it didn't print properly and fiddled with his machine. Surely there is no reason why a CEO should have the served ticket in his hand after 7 minutes. This time period should account for something in my representations.

The video transcript literally goes like this:

Me: “But you’ve got the ticket it your hand.”

CEO: “But I’ve got pictures.”

Me: “But you’ve taken the ticket back. You haven’t actually issued it to me”

CEO ignores me and taps into his machine.

Me: “You’ve got the ticket in your hand so you have to issue it right?”

CEO ignores me and taps into his machine.

Me: “Alright bye.”


In the video alone I give him three opportunities to give the PCN back. After standing around for 7 minutes I decide to leave.

What he did with the ticket I have no idea.

I'll go ahead with procedural impropriety.
CityChic
Hi all, back again.

So, the council has offered the discounted payment in response to my representations. Please find my representation below as well as their response.

My concern is that I still have not seen the PCN. Surely being privy to the actual PCN counts as part of the procedure? What happens in cases where the PCN is removed by a third party or lost? Is the driver not provided a copy? I feel inclined to ask for a copy of the original PCN.

"Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.

I am citing procedural impropriety as the reason for cancellation as the PCN was not lawfully served.

On 7 September I returned to my vehicle to find CEO L*** taking pictures of my vehicle with a PCN affixed to the windscreen.

As I was preparing to leave with the PCN CEO L*** removed the PCN from the vehicle to show me that it hadn’t printed properly. The text had printed half way down the paper so was illegible. As I was now standing at the vehicle for some time with the CEO I asked him to give me the PCN so that I could be on my way. He refused to give me the PCN and would not explain why. As I knew this was not usual procedure I took photos as well as video footage of the CEO with the PCN in his possession. Time stamped photos are enclosed. The video footage shows that I ask the CEO to give me back the PCN. He refuses and simply states that he has pictures.

Once a PCN has been fixed to a vehicle it is an offence to remove or interfere with it. By what authority did the CEO remove the PCN? And by what authority did he refuse to give it to me? Removal of the PCN by the CEO removes the whole purpose of service; it removes the opportunity for me to submit an informal challenge. It removes the opportunity for me to check signage or any other relevant information on the day. The CEO knew that by removing the PCN I would not have a chance to inspect it for compliancy. He had already stated that it had not printed properly. He also knew that removal of the PCN would cause me to lose out on the discounted period.
I ask that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled as it was not lawfully served in accordance with regulation.
Yours faithfully"






PASTMYBEST
You drove away whilst the CEO was in the process of preparing the second PCN. In that situation they can issue a postal PCN they did not so must be relying on the first. This is supported by the rejection saying it was properly served.
Your video refutes this no proper service of a reg 9 PCN (affixed to car or handed to driver) so no valid NTO can be served
Mad Mick V

OP --did they consider your challenge? No --so at the NTO stage you are in the prejudicial position of having to pay the full amount.

I would not waste any more time on it but submit your original challenge--no additions at the NTO stage.

If they reject you have more than enough to convince an adjudicator and claim costs.

Mick
p.s. think of all the Xmas cards you are going to get from the Councils which have extorted money from you this year!
CityChic
Okay, so the letter I received says if I don't pay the discounted amount for any reason they're going to issue a Notice of Rejection. No time period is mentioned as to when I can expect to receive the rejection.

So as the CEO didn't adhere to regulation 9 the NTO I received is invalid?

Waiting for the NoR means a guaranteed hearing at The London Tribunals. I haven't had a good experience with the adjudicators recently, but I assume there's no way the council will cancel...they seem willing to try their luck these days.

p.s. Mick, I'm expecting presents with big shiny bows...the amount of money they've gotten from me this year. dry.gif
PASTMYBEST
Your video is going to be key, it will show the adjudicator that no reg 9 PCN was served regardless their photos That letter is also extra procedural

What was the date of your representations, you might be able to engineer a time out here. They only have 56 days to consider reps against a NTO. Also NSL should not be doing the considering
CityChic
My reps were sent 30th Oct, so they've still got 7 days left to wait for the discounted payment (which they won't get) and then send the rejection within 28 days after that allowing 2 days for post. So two Christmas' in a row I'm trying to stop Lewisham council digging their hands into my pockets. glare.gif

Interesting you say NSL shouldn't be doing the considering because they've explicitly told me in advance that my formal reps will be rejected. They didn't say my formal reps will be considered as part of proper procedure. Looking at the NoR from my last case I see it was sent by London Borough of Lewisham not NSL. So before my reps are officially considered NSL are trying to scare me into paying.
hcandersen
OP, you're overcomplicating matters. (Incandescent set out the issues back in October)

According to you, the CEO rescinded service of the PCN by removing from the car. Why is not the main issue but useful as supplementary detail.

You have evidence comprising your statement, photo and a video which shows the CEO with what appears to be your PCN and a soundtrack of you asking for it to be given to you.

The CEO did not put this in their notes - a reasonable assumption, I think.

Despite your challenge including your evidence (I assume), this has been rejected by NSL who clearly attached more weight to the CEO's notes than your a count.

They've confused matters with their letter, parts of which are gobbledygook: no such thing as next step in Notice of Rejection, the next step is the Notice to Owner.

So, what's the problem?

The authority issue a NTO, you make reps, they either reject (foolish in light of your evidence) or accept. If the former, you go to adjudication and win.

Don't debate the issue endlessly. Given the passage of time jist wait for the NTO - you are the registered keeper?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 11:37) *
OP, you're overcomplicating matters. (Incandescent set out the issues back in October)

According to you, the CEO rescinded service of the PCN by removing from the car. Why is not the main issue but useful as supplementary detail.

You have evidence comprising your statement, photo and a video which shows the CEO with what appears to be your PCN and a soundtrack of you asking for it to be given to you.

The CEO did not put this in their notes - a reasonable assumption, I think.

Despite your challenge including your evidence (I assume), this has been rejected by NSL who clearly attached more weight to the CEO's notes than your a count.

They've confused matters with their letter, parts of which are gobbledygook: no such thing as next step in Notice of Rejection, the next step is the Notice to Owner.

So, what's the problem?

The authority issue a NTO, you make reps, they either reject (foolish in light of your evidence) or accept. If the former, you go to adjudication and win.

Don't debate the issue endlessly. Given the passage of time jist wait for the NTO - you are the registered keeper?



@HCA the thread started with a NTO. formal reps sent 30th Oct letter sent in response to formal reps advising pay up or we send NOR ??????????
Mad Mick V
Mea culpa ---I mentioned the NTO.

Mick
CityChic
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 12:26) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 11:37) *
OP, you're overcomplicating matters. (Incandescent set out the issues back in October)

According to you, the CEO rescinded service of the PCN by removing from the car. Why is not the main issue but useful as supplementary detail.

You have evidence comprising your statement, photo and a video which shows the CEO with what appears to be your PCN and a soundtrack of you asking for it to be given to you.

The CEO did not put this in their notes - a reasonable assumption, I think.

Despite your challenge including your evidence (I assume), this has been rejected by NSL who clearly attached more weight to the CEO's notes than your a count.

They've confused matters with their letter, parts of which are gobbledygook: no such thing as next step in Notice of Rejection, the next step is the Notice to Owner.

So, what's the problem?

The authority issue a NTO, you make reps, they either reject (foolish in light of your evidence) or accept. If the former, you go to adjudication and win.

Don't debate the issue endlessly. Given the passage of time jist wait for the NTO - you are the registered keeper?



@HCA the thread started with a NTO. formal reps sent 30th Oct letter sent in response to formal reps advising pay up or we send NOR ??????????


Yes @PMB this is correct. I've already sent formal reps in response to the NTO but received offer of reduced fee from NSL instead of NoR. As NSL has already stated that I'll receive a NoR I'll just sit tight and wait for it to arrive. Was hoping the council would cancel but looks like I'm due to spend another Saturday afternoon at the adjudicators...at least I can go shopping on Oxford Street after the hearing. tongue.gif
hcandersen
OP, my mistake and I'm still lost. It was the letter of 20th Nov. which threw me.

That letter is not a Notice of Rejection of Representations made by you against the NTO, therefore you do not have any right to appeal to an adjudicator. It is worse than gobbledygook, it is procedurally improper.

The procedure is:
NTO
Your representations
They must respond with a properly formatted NOR containing all the mandatory elements with 56 days, failing which they are deemed to have accepted your reps by default.

So, far from there being 5 or however many days for you to do anything, nothing could be further from the truth: they have until 25 Dec. (assuming your reps were served on 30 Oct) to serve a NOR.

By they, I mean the enforcement authority. NSL have no role in this.

That letter probably wins the game for you whatever they do now, but we'll see.

Wait for the NOR.
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.