Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Do NIPs/PCNs for all "offences" have to be delivered within a timeframe?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Bounder
I've received a Penalty Charge Notice relating to

"failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn"

(it's a right turn which has recently been prohibited but only till 9am on weekdays - go figure)

The offence allegedy occured on 27/6/06 but the PCN is dated 1/8/06 and arrived on Friday, so it took 'em 5 weeks to send it out.

I know that speeding NIPs have to be delivered within a short time of the offence, but does the same apply to PCNs of this type?

Many thanks in advance.
crystal
Hi,

Have you got a NIP or a conditonal offer of a fixed penalty ?
The 14 day rule applies to all NIP as far as I know, are your RK of the car ?

Regards
Crystal
Bounder
QUOTE (crystal @ Mon, 7 Aug 2006 - 12:26) *
Hi,

Have you got a NIP or a conditonal offer of a fixed penalty ?
The 14 day rule applies to all NIP as far as I know, are your RK of the car ?

Regards
Crystal


Thanks for the reply.

I'm not sure it is a NIP. It's headed "Penalty Charge Notice" and doesn't mention prosecution.

I am the RK.

There's a scan of the damn thing here, http://tinyurl.com/fgwr3
crystal
Hi
ummm not sure,. It not a ni ppand its not from the police. I am not sure they can make the RK pay, as they will have no proof of who was driving.

Hang around and hopefully someone will know


Regards
Crystal
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (crystal)
It not a ni ppand its not from the police. I am not sure they can make the RK pay, as they will have no proof of who was driving.

This refers to the 'experimental' rolleyes.gif extension of DPE to various minor motoring (primarily signing contraventions) offences in London; e.g. box junctions etc.

QUOTE (crystal)
Hang around and hopefully someone will know

Unfortuanatley, I'm not familiar with the legislation. sad.gif
whitewing
There was a guy on the radio today from Westminster Parking Gestapo - talking about their rollout of CCTV extortion cameras for parking. He mentioned that the PCN had to be sent out within 14 days. Not sure if this is the same as othethe CCTV offences.
Bounder
Further research reveals...


from the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003,

6 Limitation on service of penalty charge notice

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no penalty charge notice may be served under this Act after the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply ocurred.


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/locact03/30003--c.htm#4


I shall be appealing on that basis.
Teufel
this is a decrim enforcement by either a council
or TfL for an offence - they have rights to enforce
things like yellow boxes, banned turns, bus lanes etc
in the same way as parking - ie they need a TRO and signs etc

they can enforce based on camera/cctv

its a PCN and appeal is to PATAS

the PCN needs to be sent within 28 days of the offence to the RK who is responsible for the charge regardless of driving (ie like a parking PCN
contravention and unlike a speeding offence)
here is the act

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/locact03/20030003.htm

see part 2 s6(1)

i suggest you make a pre-nto appeal on the basis of being time out
(it is over 28 days) and await response

this should give you a new 14 days to pay reduced charge
or 28 to pay in full or make formal reps

there dont seem to be any special circumsatnces allowing them
to claim a delay (eg dvla failure) in the act but thye might try
and so claim - in your reps ask them to give reasons
for any rejection
Bounder
Many thanks for that.

I propose to write thus,


Recorded Delivery

8th August 2006

Dear Sirs,

re. Penalty Charge Notice Number WF75241608

I am in receipt of the above penalty charge notice issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

I note that part2, section 6, paragraph 1 of the Act states the following,


Subject to the provisions of this section, no penalty charge notice may be served under this Act after the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply ocurred.


As the alleged contravention took place on 27th June 2006 and the penalty charge notice was not issued until 1st August 2006 (35 days after the alleged contravention), I believe that the penalty charge notice has been served out of time and is thus invalid.

Therefore please cancel the penalty charge notice and advise accordingly.


Sincerely,




Any additonal thoughts or corrections gratefully received.
whitewing
I'd be inclined to add sometning along the lines of "Should you continue to attempt to persue this illegally issued PCN, Be advised that I will hold you liable for my time and expenses incurred in dealing with any further proceedings at a rate of £xx per hour or part thereof, and will have no hesitation in taking legal action to recover any such sums as necessary."

IANAL and I have no idea if this would work in practice, but at least shows you are serious...
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (whitewing)
but at least shows you are serious...

No it doesn't. It shows that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
whitewing
..so are you saying that if their illegal actions cost you money there is no legal recourse to recover your costs & compensate you for your time? ( I don't know - seems somewhat unfair if not).

If this is the case, then would another approach be to simply state "I intend to take no further action on this matter, and you persist and it comes to court I shall apply for costs when you lose"?

Might there also be a possible route for civil action for harrassment (chasing a non-existent/illegally claimed) debt?
DW190
QUOTE (whitewing @ Wed, 9 Aug 2006 - 09:08) *
..so are you saying that if their illegal actions cost you money there is no legal recourse to recover your costs & compensate you for your time? ( I don't know - seems somewhat unfair if not).

If this is the case, then would another approach be to simply state "I intend to take no further action on this matter, and you persist and it comes to court I shall apply for costs when you lose"?

Might there also be a possible route for civil action for harrassment (chasing a non-existent/illegally claimed) debt?


QUOTE *
IANAL and I have no idea if this would work in practice


It wouldn't at this stage
Teufel
authorities have a right in law to pursue alleged offences/contraventions
where they have a reasonbable cause to believe they occoured
and that you are responsible

they incurr no liability until their actions are no longer reasonable

this is in general - specific legislation may give certain authorities
or for certain offences more (or occassionally less) scope to pursue
whitewing
QUOTE (dominicp @ Wed, 9 Aug 2006 - 10:32) *
authorities have a right in law to pursue alleged offences/contraventions
where they have a reasonbable cause to believe they occoured
and that you are responsible

they incurr no liability until their actions are no longer reasonable

this is in general - specific legislation may give certain authorities
or for certain offences more (or occassionally less) scope to pursue


I think most people would consider the pursuit of a PCN issued in contravention of the act, when that contravention had been pointed out, to be unreasonable.
fred2
QUOTE (whitewing @ Wed, 9 Aug 2006 - 23:13) *
I think most people would consider the pursuit of a PCN issued in contravention of the act, when that contravention had been pointed out, to be unreasonable.
This is something I'm considering "WHEN" our case is won. It says on the NPAS site, although rare costs may be awarded if in the opinion of the Parking Adjudicator either party has behaved in a “frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable” fashion."

Even if the Council drop it at the formal reps stage I'm still going to consider issuing small claims action to recover modest out of pocket costs in defending against the Councils unreasonable behaviour to pursue an action knowing it is certain to fail at the independent adjudication stage.

It costs just £30 to issue proceedings in the small claims court (for claims upto £300) which if successful you claim back from the otherside including 8% under the County Court rules. I can't really see any problem going down the small claims route as you would only need to demonstrate that the Council have been wholly unreasonable in their relentless pursuit knowing their actions will fail - and in light of the recent Jackson decision that should be easy. For £30 it's a gamble I'm willing to take - after all, I've saved £60 laugh.gif
Bounder
Update: SUCCESS!

Letter received this morning...


"Having assessed the case in question, and the evidence we have available at present on this occasion the ticket has been cancelled and no payment is due from you."



How gracious of them smile.gif
bossjohnc
Was this in Station Road E4 by any chance?

I have some interesting (if you're inclined) information on those no-right-turns.

I have also received two PCNs - one was over 28 days, another was over 14 but under 28. I appealed both on the basis that they had to be issued within 14 days, without reading this thread!

I also sent copies of correspondence that I had with the council 4 years ago as mitigation - in summary:

I found out from them that the no-right-turns along station road are there to prevent people using the back roads to avoid the traffic lights at the bottom of Station Road. The signs are on all 4 turnings and run from 7:30am until 9:30am. This prevents me from turning right in to my office, which is on Station Road (car park at rear). Instead, I'm expected to go all the way to the lights, turn right, go to the next set of lights, turn right again and use the back roads that they want to keep clear to get to my office.

I wrote to one of their representatives, and suggested a better alternative, which would only require two roads to be restricted, and would allow everyone on Station Road to get to work, and would not increase traffic on the back roads.

He conceeded that it was a great idea, and far better than the current arrangement. However, they had no budget to organise it and change the signs.

4 years later, they've resurfaced the road, re-paved/dug up/re-paved/dug up and re-paved the pavement along the entirity of Station Road, and replaced all four signs, in the same manner as they were originally.

I'm hoping they take my correspondence in to account as well.
bossjohnc
Waltham Forest Council have rejected my representation, they originally sent me a PCN 21 days after the alleged offence.

I disputed it saying that PCNs need to be sent within 14 days - this was on a bit of a whym though as I wasn't sure.

Thankfully, they've written back saying that often there are circumstances beyond their control which mean that it takes longer than 14 days for the PCN blah blah blah. They also mention something called "The Code of Practice for CCTV Enforcement".

A quick google provided the document they were talking about.

In it, it says:

"2.4.12 All PCNs are to be issued within 14 days of the contravention and should be sent by first class post. The PCN is deemed to have been served when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

So I am contesting their rejection on the basis that there were no reasons beyond their control for the delay.

My letter says:

----

Wednesday, 27 September 2006

RE: Letter 26/09/2006 ref WF75338xxx

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence received on the above date (copy enclosed) which I received this morning.

I am disappointed to hear that you have rejected my representation. The PCN was clearly sent 21 days after the alleged contravention.

The code of practice for CCTV enforcement clearly states:

2.4.12 All PCNs are to be issued within 14 days of the contravention and should be sent by first class post. The PCN is deemed to have been served when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

You do mention that you may have suffered delays beyond your control such as the DVLA details being incorrect, and ‘Change of Keeper etc.’. However, my car is privately owned, and has been registered to the address that the correspondence was sent to for nearly three years. Additionally, there has been no change of driver in that time. I refer to point one in my original letter:

1) This is an endorsable offence that took place over 14 days before the PCN was issued. Therefore it is time expired and not valid. My car is privately owned, and held and registered at the same address that is present on the V5 document belonging to the car, so there is no good reason for this delay.

I would appreciate an explanation for the delay in the receipt of the PCN, but clearly if there is no real reason beyond your control, then you have not complied with ‘The Code of Practice for CCTV Enforcement’, and therefore the PCN is time expired, and invalid.

I would therefore appreciate it if you would re-consider your position.

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Yours Faithfully,
----


I'm a complete amateur at this, and would appreciate any guidance...

Thanks!
bossjohnc
Sorry, I've just found the appeal form which I'm now filling in - but interestingly on that they mention that a PCN should arrive within 28 days, not 14...
Teufel
i think 14 days is a target - the law is 28 days - see above
DW190
QUOTE (bossjohnc @ Wed, 27 Sep 2006 - 16:25) *
1) This is an endorsable offence that took place over 14 days before the PCN was issued. Therefore it is time expired and not valid. My car is privately owned, and held and registered at the same address that is present on the V5 document belonging to the car, so there is no good reason for this delay.


If the offence is endorsable surely you should receive a Notice of Intended Prostitution and a Section 172 request.
bossjohnc
Well, my point is that it is an endorsable offence - does this mean it had to be endorsed?

If your answer is yes, this would mean that an authority could send through a PCN for speeding after 14 days would it not?
ChromeNewt
Looks like they messed up, although I may have messed up first (I'll let you decide).

I sent a letter back about the earlier offence stating again that the notice must be served within 14 days or it is invalid, not mentioning the second one. I also sent a PACE statement with the blank nip for the second one. I then got a reply back and the gist of it is that they think that both the letter and PACE were for the first one and more of their finger wagging, and I just this morning recieved a conditional offer of fixed payment for the second one.

What should I do now? Was it wrong not to send a PACE for the first one? I thought that by sticking to my guns on the first onethey couldn't do anythng. I think I'm well and truly on their radar now so I'm in for the long haul.
bossjohnc
err... wrong thread?
ChromeNewt
Oh god, sorry. icon_redface.gif
bossjohnc
I'm pleased to say that I appealed on the basis that it was a CCTV contravention that arrived after the 14 days specified in the guidelines, and WF council have decided not to contest my appeal. Whether this is because they don't have the time, or because of the guidelines will remain unknown.
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.