Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Why do councils/companies keep issuing non-compliant PCNs?
FightBack Forums > Discussion > The Flame Pit
Flutteringthicket

I’ve got quite interested in all this since finding this forum. As I understand it:

- For a lot of years, adjudicators have been reporting back to authorities drawing attention to the importance of compliant wording on PCNs.
- Non-compliant PCNs are ultimately unenforceable.
- The DoT has made compliant templates available for authorities to use.
- The same non-compliance issues keep cropping up in tribunals and on this forum and MSE.

So why is there still such an abundance of non-compliant council PCNs?

And even more baffling are private parking companies, whose survival depends on collecting parking charges. Yet they continue to issue PCNs they must know are invalid. Why?

I can only think that amending the wording would be like hitting the reset button, i.e. effectively an admission that the pre-amendment PCNs were not fit for purpose, and consequently any uncollected charges on those PCNs might have to be written off. Am I close?
Or is it just good old-fashioned incompetence and bad organisation?

Given the draconian treatment doled out to so many posters on here, I’m kind of glad the PCN issues exist, as a kind of “loophole” to release them from charges they shouldn’t be obliged to pay.


But then equally, some genius could park on double yellows at rush hour for a haircut, and get themselves off the hook on a technical argument, and that’s hardly justice - so it’s swings and roundabouts, really. But I digress...

Why don't they just change the wording?


The Rookie
In what way can a private company PCN be non compliant or invalid?

They can choose to use PoFA or not but that doesn’t make it invalid.
Flutteringthicket
I apologise, I know zilch about this, as I'm sure is obvious.
I knew I should have prefaced my question with the sentence "This is no doubt a stupid question."

Maybe I should rephrase the question to ask about councils only.

cp8759
QUOTE (Flutteringthicket @ Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 20:03) *
Why don't they just change the wording?

Cos they're not that smart. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Incandescent
For councils using CPE legislation (Traffic Management Act 2004 and regulations associated with it), they would seem to be so totally thick and stupid that they never actually read the legislation ! What a PCN must contain is laid down in great detail. However because no adjudication determines subsequent ones, and only about 1% of people bother taking things to adjudication, they make shedloads of money by being thick and stupid !!
Flutteringthicket
But even if they're that thick and stupid that they never read the legislation, at some point they're going to get a clever letter from a savvy PCN recipient, saying something like "Your PCN omits the following essential information, which you are required by law to provide. So I won't be paying you a penny."

At that point, wouldn't you review your PCN wording and fix the problem?
DancingDad
QUOTE (Flutteringthicket @ Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 21:52) *
But even if they're that thick and stupid that they never read the legislation, at some point they're going to get a clever letter from a savvy PCN recipient, saying something like "Your PCN omits the following essential information, which you are required by law to provide. So I won't be paying you a penny."

At that point, wouldn't you review your PCN wording and fix the problem?



Some do.
But all compare the cost of one lost parking penalty to scrapping umpteen thousand pre printed forms and continue to use the stock.
And maybe do not correct for the next printing run anyway.
Very rare that a mistake will cause any council more then momentary discouragement in their pursuit of parking penalties.

To be fair to councils (someone has to) we see far fewer wording issues then we used to so they have caught up somewhat.
cp8759
QUOTE (Flutteringthicket @ Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 21:52) *
But even if they're that thick and stupid that they never read the legislation, at some point they're going to get a clever letter from a savvy PCN recipient, saying something like "Your PCN omits the following essential information, which you are required by law to provide. So I won't be paying you a penny."

At that point, wouldn't you review your PCN wording and fix the problem?

It depends on how may PCNs they issue and how many challenges they get. In London at least parking PCNs are all, as far as I'm aware, substantially compliant. When we get a case from some mickey mouse district council out in the sticks, I always ask to see the back of the PCN cos half the time they get it wrong, but in fairness they issue a lot less, so have fewer tribunal cases.
PASTMYBEST
Tfl had a problem with there MTC PCN's for a good while last year. In fairness they DNC all those appealed on it and changed the wording to comply. The biggest problem IMO is that different adjudicators take different views TPT with the WILL/MAY issue case in point. Councils are not sanctioned for getting it wrong repeatedly so just carry on
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.