Hi guys,
I received a PCN in the post from Havering Council in Essex earlier today. It was served because I turned right into Romford town hall off the main road failing to see the 'no right turn' sign.

They have misspelt my last name. Does this carry any weight if I contest? or should I just pay up?


Thanks.

No but post the PCN havering have difficulty getting them right an we win many because of this

They would have obtained your name from the DVLA. You should check your driver's license for spelling. It is your duty to notify DVLA of any errors.

Surely you mean V5C ?

You are right, that is the main document to check but both should be checked for errors.

Thanks for the quick responses guys. It seems that the records at DVLA are incorrect so they will update them and send me a new V5.

I'm going to have to take the sucker punch and pay the fine.

QUOTE

I'm going to have to take the sucker punch and pay the fine.

Before you do so you could post all sides of the PCN here so the experts can check for errors, as long as you do not miss deadlines.

I have attached the images of the PCN below. Great to get hear some expert feedback ;o)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yGHEyt2_C...ZXrDNuqdGvTMDdb
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1X3bpsme1e...ccQFoYNq0hYutVr
https://drive.google.com/open?id=12gskdH7MW...I0V5yNTBynZP21y

Did you know it was a No Right Turn or is there confusing signage or stupid placement of it ?

You need to obtain the video and post a link here

There were a couple of signs but I just didn't notice them.... they were on the left side of the road whilst I was turning right... so i didn't even bother checking.....

this is the first sign
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-88AC4tOW...zdVzAj8JtCsZXsF

and this is where i took the right
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bnL3R3-c7...4phomU2IWr7zu4d

in fact, the first image above is for entry into another location... so you can ignore this....... the second image is the one where i took the turn.... and you can see the CCTV on the left-hand side also.



I don't have a video but have the photos from the councils website - see below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1K5i6_aXKb...kHJnpqcLa6RyRmU

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UMLpdbTRw...3uZm6RA8b4bQ0wP

As PMB alluded, it's flawed.

QUOTE

I don't have a video but have the photos from the councils website - see below:

Instructions for accessing video are on PCN. You should be able to save it to your device and then post on youtube or similar

The last paragraph of page 2 shortens the date by which you can make representations by two days payment must be made by date of notice but representations need be made by date of service (2 working days after posting) In doing this they also bring forward for the same reason the date by which they may serve a charge certificate

For Havering that is a B- they are improving

When you say it is flawed, can you explain a bit further? Do you mean i may have grounds to contest the PCN?



I did check the www.havering.gov.uk/pcn site again and there is no video. They only have 2 photos which I posted yesterday.

Further, the web code number noted on the second page isn't required (not requested on the website). Instead, it requires the PCN number and vehicle reg.



Based on the photos of the 'no right turn' sign I posted yesterday, could these be classed as bad placement and be a reason for contesting? I have posted a link to the no right turn again (below) for your reference.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bnL3R3-c7...4phomU2IWr7zu4d

QUOTE

I did check the www.havering.gov.uk/pcn site again and there is no video. They only have 2 photos which I posted yesterday.

Further, the web code number noted on the second page isn't required (not requested on the website). Instead, it requires the PCN number and vehicle reg.

You might want to contact Stamfordman by PM (Private Message) - he is the expert on obtaining videos.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showuser=59924

Brilliant. Thanks. I have sent him a message.

BTW, by obtaining the video, what is the objective here? Am I looking for something in particular in the footage which can be used for challenging the fine?

QUOTE

BTW, by obtaining the video, what is the objective here? Am I looking for something in particular in the footage which can be used for challenging the fine?

In moving traffic offences, the video is the evidence of the contravention, which it must show.

So if they can't supply the video or if the video does not show the entire incident, this could be grounds for a successful challenge irrespective of the photographic evidence?

If they can't supply the video to the adjudicators. Also if the PCN says you can view it at one of their offices, and they can't show it you can use that in your appeal.

I explained this at post 14 and yes it has won at tribunal many times but is never guaranteed

If you PM me the PCN details I'll sort out the video, if there is one.

I've PM'd CP with details - the video field is blank when I look but I think CP knows how to get the code as I do with Camden (if so remind me... I can't solve Havering)

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmF1kmxc5B8

stamfordman for future reference, right click the page, then view source, F5 (click yes), then find the link that includes Video.aspx, copy it to a new tab, change Video.aspx to Media.aspx and press enter and the video will download.

Isn't contravention 50 failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn?

Even if Performing a prohibited turn - No right turn a legitimate description of the contravention, should not the Council have provided evidence of the vehicle passing the sign?

Is Main Road (Romford) a precise enough description of the location? How many No right turn signs along Main Road? Main Road (Romford) is a very long Road.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Main+Rd,+...#33;4d0.1991493

The contravention description matches the list published by London Councils. I only counted two prohibited right turn signs along the entire road, but an argument on vague location could be made given there are at least 29 T junctions on Main Road and the photo on the PCN gives no clue whatsoever as to what the location is. The PCN also mis-states the timeframe when the council may issue a charge certificate.

Thanks for this mate. Much appreciated. I'll be popping into see them tomorrow at some point. Will let you know how it goes.

QUOTE

Thanks for this mate. Much appreciated. I'll be popping into see them tomorrow at some point. Will let you know how it goes.

Popping into the Council office/viewing centre? For what purpose?

CP has posted the video for you in post #24.

It does not show you passing a sign, nor does it show the location.

I count 3 signs. But, 1 of these signs was for an earlier entry into another location. I posted the first two yesterday in post #11. I have posted the third in the link below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=152liACDxo...gE0Uf53bH3mo2Ir



Awesome. Thanks for this. Much appreciated.



Correct. I wrote the post without scrolling up and reading the latest updates. Big thanks.

When you say the "The PCN also mis-states the timeframe when the council may issue a charge certificate." Are you referring to the last paragrapgh in the below image?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WgGWz1SEO...TqfXtWhnVbiPtFX

It suggests they will send me a charge certificate if i don't pay the fine or make representation within 28 days from the date of the notice. The date of the notice is 12/02/2020. So I make 28 days from this 11/03/2020. If this is incorrect, what should it be?


..







In my challenge letter to the council, should the below 3 points be raised? And how would you word it? Are there any other points I can raise?

1. There are over 29 T junctions on Main road and the details are very vague regarding the precise location of the said offence.
2. The video evidence does not show the vehicle passing any clear and obvious no entry or no right turn sign.
3. The PCN also misstates the timeframe when the council may issue a charge certificate.

..

When you say the "The PCN also mis-states the timeframe when the council may issue a charge certificate." Are you referring to the last paragrapgh in the below image?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WgGWz1SEO...TqfXtWhnVbiPtFX

It suggests they will send me a charge certificate if i don't pay the fine or make representation within 28 days from the date of the notice. The date of the notice is 12/02/2020. So I make 28 days from this 11/03/2020. If this is incorrect, what should it be?




In my challenge letter to the council, should the below 3 points be raised? And how would you word it? Are there any other points I can raise?

1. There are over 29 T junctions on Main road and the details are very vague regarding the precise location of the said offence.
2. The video evidence does not show the vehicle passing any clear and obvious no entry or no right turn sign.
3. The PCN also misstates the timeframe when the council may issue a charge certificate.

Are my posts not visible in this thread?

Leaving aside this post, you posted no. 2, 14 and 21.

I misread your post 14 the first time around. Are you suggesting that because the letter was served by post, the council must allow for 2 more days in addition to the 28 specified? Is this a legal right when receiving something via post?

So does point 3 below reflect this more accurately now in your opinion?

1. There are over 29 T junctions on Main road and the details are very vague regarding the precise location of the said offence.
2. The video evidence does not show the vehicle passing any clear and obvious no entry or no right turn sign.
3. The PCN also misstates the timeframe when the council may issue a charge certificate. There should be 2 additional days afforded due to this letter being served by post.

Yes the legal timeframes are mixed up it these regulations

For payment you have 28 days from date of notice

For representations it is 28 days from date of service of the notice. This date of service is legally defined, it is two working days from date of posting which without evidence to the contrary is taken as date of notice In your case the pcn was posted on a Wednesday so date of service is the Friday. The same applies to the date when they can serve a charge certificate.

This is important because the council remove two days from the time you are allowed to appeal and also increase the penalty two days early.

This case is a good example

217048098A

The Appellant was represented at this scheduled personal hearing by Mr Dishman but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.
This Penalty Charge Notice was issued under section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Section 4(8)(a) of the Act provides that a penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state ... (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; ... (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; ... and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.
In this case the Penalty Charge Notice states: 'The penalty charge of £130 must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period and no representations have been made, an increased charge of 50% to £195 may be payable and a charge certificate may be issued.'
It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time he has to make representations.
I accept this submission. The wording does not comply with the requirements of the Act and therefore effectively limits the time a recipient has to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued.
It may be that the wording of this type of Penalty Charge Notice has been subsequently changed but the Adjudicator is only able decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Thanks for the prompt reply. This is interesting.

In conclusion, considering the 3 points I have recorded above in summarisation of all the input of your good self and the other folks that have contributed considerably, not only is the PCN issued to me vague, in terms of location and whether the car travelled past a no right sign, but there is an error due to not being afforded the 2 additional days which comes with the PCN being served via post.

I will go ahead and use the 3 points above to challenge the PCN.

What is the typical process? Do they receive this and immediately pass it on to the independent adjudicator? Could this end up in court?

Don't fancy a large bill if it all goes belly up

QUOTE

What is the typical process? Do they receive this and immediately pass it on to the independent adjudicator? Could this end up in court?

The process is outlined on the PCN 'How to make representations' (apart from the timimescale error PMB picked up on.

You are making representations, not appealing. An appeal to the Tribunal (not court) before an Adjudicator comes if/when the Council reject reps. Councils usually re-offer the discount iof rejecting reps made in the discount period.


Note well you do not have to use and have no need to use the form sent (on no account return the form if it is the back of the PCN itself). You can make reps online (keep a hard copy) or by post (1st class at post office with proof of posting - keep a copy).

As for your reps.

Personally ( I am no expert) I would draft something along the lines of

[Name Address]
To whom it may concern
re: PCN [number] Reg Mark [ABC123] Dated

I, being the registered keeper wish to make represenation against the above PCN on the following grounds

1] The PCN is defective because it fails to give an adequate location of the alleged contravention. Main Road(Romford) is xxxx miles long, with numerous junctions.

2] The PCN is defective because it incorrectly states the period before which ..... [PMB's point...]

3] The Council has failed to provide evidence in the video or still images of the vehicle passing any 'No Right Turn' sign

For the foregoing reasons I believe the PCN should be cancelled as unenforceable.

Yours etc......
------------------------------
Wait for the experts to comment. Post your own draft of exactly (except for personal details)what you propose to write. Do not miss deadlines.

Brilliant. This clears things up and is greatly appreciated. You sound like a professional lawyer

As suggested, i will wait for others to comment before representing.

post your draft here before sending, one of us will tidy it up if needed

It should be 28 days from the date of service of the notice, as per paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/...graph/5/enacted

As the date of service was 14 February, the 28 day period expires on 12 March. The period of 28 days beginning with the date of the PCN would expire on 10 March, two days earlier.

Hey Guys,

I have posted a draft letter to Havering Council below. Please let me know what you think? And I greatly appreciate your hard work in putting this together.


========================
========================
========================

Mr John Doe
10 Crazy Street
London
W1 2AA

19th February 2020,

To whom it may concern,

re: PCN Number: HG1234567 VRM: AB12 345

I, being the registered keeper of the above-mentioned vehicle wish to make representation against the above PCN on the following grounds:

1] The PCN is defective because it fails to give an adequate location of the alleged contravention. Main Road(Romford) is approximately 1.6 miles long, with over 25 junctions.

2] The PCN is defective because it incorrectly states the period before which Havering council can issue the charge certificate.

For representations, it is 28 days from the date of service of the notice. This date of service is legally defined, it is two working days from date of posting which without evidence to the contrary is taken as the date of the notice. This means the date of service should be the 14th February 2020, so the 28 day period should expire on 12th March 2020. However, as it stands, the date of notice on the PCN is 12th February, so 28 days expires on 10th March. This results in a loss of 2 days to appeal and means the penalty will be served 2 days early.

3] The Council has failed to provide evidence in the video or still images of the vehicle passing any 'No Right Turn' sign


For the foregoing reasons, I believe the PCN should be cancelled as unenforceable.

Yours truly,

John Doe




========================
========================
========================

Collective date brain fade??

28 days beginning on, not from, in both cases.

Beginning on 14th gives this as day 1, therefore 27 days on we reach day 28 = 12 March!

And wrong period description is not one of the statutory grounds under the LLA. Which is it that the OP is being recommended to use?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

Your dates are correct even if you did not use the correct legal terminology, the point is made.

For both grounds the statutory ground is by way of a collateral challenge under the ground the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case. This is because the council fail to comply with the statutory requirements thus the only penalty that can be demanded on the basis of the flawed document is NIL.

TBH I do not think it matters overmuch at this stage

Noted. I've updated the template. Thanks ;o)

In answer to HCA's '?'

It may not be a ground of challenge, as he says but -

Collateral challenge, as mentioned, due to the potential effect of misleading a recipient.

This against the backdrop of some harsh words from an adjudicator over their repeated inability
to compose a straightforward, accurate document.

------
I don't personally like the draft as went in but we'll play with the response.
Too much mention of representations when that is not directly the error.
Noting how thick Havering have historically been, that just detracts from the actual erroneous statement (imho)
and leads to them missing the point altogether. We shall see.

Brilliant. I've changed the "from" to "beginning" in both instances to be legally accurate.


========================================================
========================================================

BELOW IS THE LATEST DRAFT HAVING MADE THE SUGGESTED CHANGE BY HCANDERSEN

=============================================
=============================================


Mr John Doe
10 Crazy Street
London
W1 2AA

19th February 2020,

To whom it may concern,

re: PCN Number: HG1234567 VRM: AB12 345

I, being the registered keeper of the above-mentioned vehicle wish to make representation against the above PCN on the following grounds:

1] The PCN is defective because it fails to give an adequate location of the alleged contravention. Main Road(Romford) is approximately 1.6 miles long, with over 25 junctions.

2] The Council has failed to provide evidence in the video or still images of the vehicle passing any 'No Right Turn' sign.

3] The PCN is defective because it incorrectly states the period before which Havering council can issue the charge certificate.

For representations, it is 28 days beginning the date of service of the notice. This date of service is legally defined, it is two working days beginning date of posting which without evidence to the contrary is taken as the date of the notice. This means the date of service should be the 14th February 2020, so the 28 day period should expire on 12th March 2020. However, as it stands, the date of notice on the PCN is 12th February, so 28 days expires on 10th March. This results in a loss of 2 days to appeal and means the penalty will be served 2 days early.


For the foregoing reasons, I believe the PCN should be cancelled as unenforceable.

Yours truly,

John Doe



Appreciate the feedback.

Not that it makes a significant difference, but I've switched points [2] and [3] around so they don't dwell on the representation before digesting the point regarding the video evidence.

I'll most likely make the representation online over the weekend. This will still be within the first 14 days.

Drop point 3, there is no requirement on the council to provide any evidence at this stage. The council will reject regardless of what you say so there's no point in adding anything, but this will need to be beefed-up a lot for the tribunal.

Whether this point 3 or 2 now it needs changing imho.

It jumps from the actual point to then immediately talking about something else, representations.
We know why the act is as it is; it's a hastily concocted confusion of time periods. You don't need to explain that to Havering.

It concludes with referring to losing two days to make representations ---- which, effectively you would, but the period in which you
may make representations is clearly stated on the PCN. And that's exactly what Havering are going to reply to you.

The issue is much simpler and straightforward.

Your first sentence, followed by >

'As defined in Schedule 1, s5 (2)(a) of the applicable legislation:-

Charge certificates
5(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.
(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served'

To be fair, it's just a matter of personal style. Some look at it one way, I prefer to come at it from the other end.

You take your pick.

Use Neils it leaves less wriggle room

Ooooerrr missus.

==============================================
==============================================

DRAFT 3
INCLUDING CHANGES SUGGESTED BY NEIL IN POST #47
==============================================
==============================================


Mr John Doe
10 Crazy Street
London
W1 2AA

23rd February 2020,

To whom it may concern,

re: PCN Number: HG1234567 VRM: AB12 345

I, being the registered keeper of the above-mentioned vehicle wish to make representation against the above PCN on the following grounds:

1] The PCN is defective because it fails to give an adequate location of the alleged contravention. Main Road(Romford) is approximately 1.6 miles long, with over 25 junctions.

2] The Council has failed to provide evidence in the video or still images of the vehicle passing any 'No Right Turn' sign.

3] The PCN is defective because it incorrectly states the period before which Havering council can issue the charge certificate.

'As defined in Schedule 1, s5 (2)(a) of the applicable legislation:-

Charge certificates
5(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.
(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served'.


For the foregoing reasons, I believe the PCN should be cancelled as unenforceable.

Yours truly,

John Doe




Let me know what you guys think? I've posted draft 3 of the letter directly above. The techincal jargon does throw me off a bit so i hope i understood your suggestion?



So if this is likely to be rejected by the council at first attempt, why would it have a better chance at the tribunal? is it because Havering don't quite know how incompetent they are but the tribunal will accept this as a legitimate error on their part?