Hi there,

So today, the lovely guys/gals at Leeds City Council gave me my first ever parking ticket! Yay! :'(

The parking contravention code sited is "27: Parked adjacent to a dropped footway". I am not sure that I will be in a chance to get this cancelled and wanted to understand what others believe is the right course of action.

I did have some doubt whether it was ok where I had parked, given the opposing side dropped curb has double yellow lines curving all the way around and is clearly identifiable so thought it was alright as I am outside of the double yellow line and partially on the dropped curb.

If you look at the google maps location and the picture from Leeds City Council evidence images you can see the marking (the red arrow that I put on the image just to be clear)

Google maps location: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7908143,-...6384!8i8192
*I was parked just past the double yellow lines where the blue Vauxhall Astra is parked, against the Brick wall and railing*

You are bang to rights on the contravention, but the PCN makes an accretion that it should not. That if the PCN is not paid at the NTO stage the penalty WILL increase by 50%. The regulations only allow that it may this can win on its own

100% you should challenge on the will / may flaw on the PCN. Send them a copy of this http://bit.ly/2UqVTSF together with the wording below:

-------------

Dear Sir or Madam,

The alleged contravention is not contested, however liability is disputed on the basis of a procedural impropriety. The PCN asserts that if no payment or representations are received at the Notice to Owner stage, the penalty will increase by 50%; this is an unlawful fettering of discretion. The council is only entitled to say the penalty may increase, as the council cannot foresee the future. I refer you to the findings of the Traffic Penalty Trbiunal in Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (case reference CV00067-1902):

"10. I agree with Mr Hadi that the wording ‘will result in a charge certificate being issued which will increase
the original charge by 50%’ has a meaning which is materially different to ‘a charge certificate may be
served’. Regulation 6 prescribes ‘may be served’, no doubt because:
1. The Council have power to receive and consider late representations under regulation 5(1), in
which case they would not issue a charge certificate;
2. An Adjudicator has power to register a late appeal under regulation 7(1)(b);
3. The Council have a discretion at any stage of the process.

11. The Council submit that ‘will result’ is acceptable. But when they post the Notice, they cannot foresee
the future. The owner/driver might submit further overwhelming evidence of compelling mitigation, or
contact the Council about paying only a day late or appealing to TPT only just out of time.

12. It is not a foregone conclusion that a charge certificate will be issued, but a possibility.

13. I find that the Notice of Rejection does not accurately convey the meaning of regulation 6(1). I find a
procedural error by the Council. For this reason, I allow the appeal. Mr Hadi has nothing to pay."

I put it to you that if a council cannot foresee the future at the Notice to Owner stage, it is even less likely the council could foresee the future at the PCN stage. Any increase of the penalty charge to the charge certificate level is, at the PCN stage, not a foregone conclusion but a mere possibility.

It follows that because of the council's procedural impropriety in this case, regardless of the fact that the contravention occurred, the PCN must nonetheless be cancelled.

?
This is not directly relevant.

The reference is to the use of will in a NOR, not a PCN.

The contents of a NOR are prescribed as regards will/may, they are not with a PCN.

The issue here is whether and with what effect this is the taking of a step not in accordance with the General or Appeals regs.

Thank you for the quick response.

So I believe that you are referring to the "if the pendently change is not paid or challenged" section (below) where [bwill][/b] is stated under the challenge section of the ticket. I wanted to understand the assertion surrounding the wording...

"If you challenge this PCN but the council issues an NtO anyways, the owner must follow the instructions on the NtO."


Can the council issue a NtO even with the first 14 days if I challenge a PCN? If so, would I loose the right to a reduced fee for this ticket therefore meaning an NtO would be issued at original penalty of £70?

Are there regulations surrounding this?

Failure to pay at this stage will result in the penalty charge increasing by 50%"


I guess this is the problematic sentence and the use of will?


Did a bit of research on the government website and found this snippet
https://www.gov.uk/parking-tickets/challenging-a-ticket

"Challenging a penalty charge notice (PCN)
You have 28 days to challenge a PCN. If you do it within 14 days and your challenge is rejected, you may only have to pay 50% of the fine."

This is also mentioned on the Traffic penalty tribunal website.
https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/t...appeal-process/
Challenge
To challenge this kind of PCN you should contact the council as soon as possible – read the notice for details. Quote the PCN number and say why you believe you should not have to pay. This is called an informal challenge.

The council will decide whether or not to cancel the PCN. If they cancel it, you have nothing to pay. If they don’t cancel it, you can either pay the penalty or wait for the issue of the Notice to Owner (see below).

If you challenge within 14 days and the council rejects it, they will usually reset the 50% rate for a further 14 days. You can check with them whether they will do this.

If the PCN was sent through the post, you should follow the instructions below to make representations. No Notice to Owner is issued in these circumstances. A PCN sent through the post should be sent within 28 days of the date of the alleged contravention.

If you want to challenge a PCN, do not pay it. If you do, the council will close the case and that will be the end of it.
Notice to Owner (NtO)
If the council decides not to cancel the PCN and you don’t pay, they will send an NtO to the person who the DVLA has as the registered keeper of the vehicle, this is presumed to be the vehicle’s owner. At this point the penalty will usually be the full amount, £50 or £70. The council will also send an NtO if they don’t have payment or any contact within 28 days of issuing the PCN. They can issue an NtO between 28 days and 6 months (longer in limited circumstances) after issuing the original PCN.

Given where we are, such a long post doesn't help much, sorry.

OP, take it as read that we know what's in the regulations, statutory guidance, the Act, Traffic Signs etc. Regs, previous adjudication decisions, Traffic Signs Manual etc. We also have wide but at times differing views on the overarching concepts of fairness, implied conditions and how they would be applied.

We don't need you to research this and post at length, what you bring to the table is the facts on the day, what you did and why and acting as gatekeeper for the authority's notices and correspondence.

And ultimately the decision maker, after all it's your money if you are the registered keeper.

Appreciate the advice. I was definitely in the wrong to have parked there, so decided it was sensible to pay up and chalk this up to a lesson learned.

Duly noted on the research bit, more of a force of habit to try and understand the full context

Thanks hcandersen, cp8759 and PASTMYBEST

It your money, but if you'd followed our advice, you would have almost certainly ended up paying nothing.