Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Red Route PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
8lamps8
Hi, I received a red route pcn on 17/04/2018 and made an informal representation which has been refused. Please can someone advise on best options. Thanks
mdann52
Can you show us on Google Street View where you parked?
DastardlyDick
Well you're bang to rights on the Contravention itself.
What did your representation say? Please post it up so that any aspects of "failing to consider" can be examined.
I believe that the PCN may be invalid as you were not in contravention at 0851 - you were at 1007, but the PCN doesn't say that!

See what other's have to say.
8lamps8
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 12:37) *
Well you're bang to rights on the Contravention itself.
What did your representation say? Please post it up so that any aspects of "failing to consider" can be examined.
I believe that the PCN may be invalid as you were not in contravention at 0851 - you were at 1007, but the PCN doesn't say that!

See what other's have to say.

I don’t have a copy of what I sent as it was on their website but I basically said what you just said

QUOTE (mdann52 @ Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 12:36) *
Can you show us on Google Street View where you parked?

stamfordman
The time on the PCN is different from the time cited on the rejection.

But we've seen this a few times with TFL overstaying PCNs - I'm not sure we've nailed down whether it is wrong for the PCN to give the first observation time as i think they just don't have a system that allows the start and end times to be entered.

mdann52
QUOTE (8lamps8 @ Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 12:57) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 12:37) *
Well you're bang to rights on the Contravention itself.
What did your representation say? Please post it up so that any aspects of "failing to consider" can be examined.
I believe that the PCN may be invalid as you were not in contravention at 0851 - you were at 1007, but the PCN doesn't say that!

See what other's have to say.

I don’t have a copy of what I sent as it was on their website but I basically said what you just said

QUOTE (mdann52 @ Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 12:36) *
Can you show us on Google Street View where you parked?



Link: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4649798,-...3312!8i6656
8lamps8
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 12:59) *
The time on the PCN is different from the time cited on the rejection.

But we've seen this a few times with TFL overstaying PCNs - I'm not sure we've nailed down whether it is wrong for the PCN to give the first observation time as i think they just don't have a system that allows the start and end times to be entered.

Not sure if this has any relevance, I didn’t over stay but returned to the same bay within two hours?
DastardlyDick
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 12:59) *
The time on the PCN is different from the time cited on the rejection.

But we've seen this a few times with TFL overstaying PCNs - I'm not sure we've nailed down whether it is wrong for the PCN to give the first observation time as i think they just don't have a system that allows the start and end times to be entered.


Yes, the PCN states 0851, the rejection and NtO both state 1007 - interesting to say the least.


IMO, since the OP was not in contravention at 0851 as stated on the PCN, and as he's now in for the full penalty, he has nothing to loose (except some time) by going to Adjudication.


Whether he wants to given that no previous examples are available to persuade an adjudicator is his decision.
hcandersen
?
A PCN and NTO must state the grounds for the penalty.

Grounds are not synonymous with contravention description, they must include sufficient info to establish the contravention which must include the time of contravention.

Here we have:
Invalid PCN because vehicle was not committing the alleged contravention at the time stated, implicitly accepted by the authority, which gives rise to false grounds, and
NTO giving different grounds to the PCN which IMO is a procedural impropriety.

OP, pl forget that you received the PCN and NTO, these are separate legal notices given/ sent to separate legal entities.
stamfordman
HCA - spot on - didn't see the NTO just the rejection...
8lamps8
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 16:45) *
?
A PCN and NTO must state the grounds for the penalty.

Grounds are not synonymous with contravention description, they must include sufficient info to establish the contravention which must include the time of contravention.

Here we have:
Invalid PCN because vehicle was not committing the alleged contravention at the time stated, implicitly accepted by the authority, which gives rise to false grounds, and
NTO giving different grounds to the PCN which IMO is a procedural impropriety.

OP, pl forget that you received the PCN and NTO, these are separate legal notices given/ sent to separate legal entities.

What would be my response to TFL? As I’ve already pointed out to them that the contravention didn’t occur at 8.51
stamfordman
Wait for HCA - I'm pretty sure he'll draft you a short but suitably acerbic formal appeal to the NTO.
cp8759
This seems very clear cut to me: a contravention may well have occurred, but the contravention alleged on the PCN can't have so it must be cancelled.
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 © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.