Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN illegal?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
I got a PCN a few months back because our visitors permit had fallen from the windscreen because of the hot weather, I wrote in politely asking them to overlook it this once as it has a permit in it every single day normally they have since written back saying tough pay up or else and send an NTO to the RK of the vehicle (not ourselves for insurance reasons).

Anyway the ticket does not say Date of issue or Date of Notice it just says "First seen at" and "PCN issued at..."

I presume because the Date of Issue, Date of Notice and Date of Contravention are missing then it is unenforcable? I am planning my next step now the NTO has come in so any advice would be very welcome so I dont put my foot in it lol.

There was an article in the paper recently about the £400,000 that PCNs have raised for Norwich City Council, grrrrr it makes you cross every single one of them should be invalid.

the ticket has only one date (contravention) and is missing the other
required date (issue or notice)

it is thus a nullity and is not a PCN under the RTA 1991 at all

once you get the NTO write back telling them this


This purported PCN is a nullity and is unenforceable as it does not comply with the relevant requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1991 in that it does not have a date of issue. This purported PCN is not a PCN at all.

Any attempts to enforce the purported PCN or any claims or rights you believe you may have resulting from it are illegal.

The purported PCN does have a date of contravention but it is clearly established law that the date of issue and the date of contravention are entirely separate. See for example the circular of the NPAS Appeal Adjudicator dated 04/04/05 in reporting the appeal of MacArthur v Bury of 16/02/05. In MacArthur the NPAS Appeal Adjudicator stated "The date of the contravention is not the date of the notice even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention". The same conclusion was drawn by the PATAS Parking Adjudicator in the Moses v Barnet adjudication of 18/02/06 and this adjudication was upheld by the Hon. Mr. Justice Jackson in a judical review in the High Court on 01/08/06. This judgement made clear the requirement for both a date of issue and a date of contravention.

Please write by return that you accept that this purported PCN is a nullity and unenforceable.


that should fix it - if they reject then make a formal complaint
to the councils own ombudsmand and then to the local governemnt

you claim on 'contravention did not occour' even if you have admitted parking
it doesnt matter - they cannot issue a new or corrected pcn - the contravention
did not occour as within the RTA 1991 no contravention is alleged as the 'pcn'
is a nullity

patas/npas will cancel on appeal anyway

also tell everyone you know who has had a ticket to do the same
and to make a claim of restitution if they have paid up
on a nullity 'pcn' - tell them about this site
That's one of the worst Notice's I've seen.

Not only does it lack a Date of Issue, it says "You are therefore required to pay within 28 days or within 14 days.

Within ** Days of When???
NTO sent to partners aunt (car is in her name) reply will be posted back to NCC tomorrow, thanks guys will post up what happens next, knowing NCC they will ignore it as well lol
more on this HERE
Parking attendants are not authorised to receive payment

I love it when they write stuff like this. They know that some of their own wardens are lying crooks.
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (jrp45 @ Sat, 26 Aug 2006 - 09:35) *
more on this HERE

1. "City Hall insisted that drivers who have paid up stood little chance of getting their money back as the error was a technicality and they had already acknowledged their guilt."

Arrogent sh!tes, this is the sort of tripe that gets my goat. These Councils are NOT above the law and clearly they haven't learnt as much. As far as i'm concerned Norwich are on my hit list now.

It is because of their Solicitors, that they find themselves with non-compliant PCNs, therefore I would suggest they keep their mouths shut for now for Justice Jackson said

"Mr Justice Jackson mentioned that the requirement of the two dates, (contravention and notice), had been mentioned by Adjudicators on more than one occasion. He emphasised that the statutory requirement of the form of the PCN were simple and clear – compliance was not difficult and a specimen form had been available for more than 10 years. Enforcing authorities therefore had no excuses for non-compliance."

2. "A city council spokesman last night admitted that the authority had changed its system. But council lawyers still believes that the issue is a technicality and are waiting on the written ruling to clarify the situation

How interesting; Barnet thought that and look where that's got them, the other Councils and Adjudicators.

3. “On 14 August we were informed by the National Parking Adjudication Service of the potential consequences of the judicial review against the London Borough of Barnet,” she said. “The final judgement has not yet been published".

Oh, this should be interesting, FOI request winging its way to the Council. What's an "independant" adjudicator doing offering "advice" to a local authority when I was told that no advice had been or could be given?

4. "This does not mean that people who failed to comply with parking regulations are entitled to a refund. They have accepted that they were at fault and have paid their penalty.”

Really? I think these arrogent bastards will be eating their words very shortly. Especially when the district Auditors receive a call.

Chaps, if you have any documentation at all on Norwich, please would PM me and I'll give you an email address to send it to. Confidentiality and descretion will be assured, I think i'm going to spend a little time on Norwich for the time being.
there is no such thing as 'guilt' in DCPE this spokesperson
does not know his arse from his elbow (what do you expect)

DCPE is a statutory regime which requires the payment
of a penalty for a contravention

if the requiremnts of the regime were defective to the extent
that the demands were a nullity ab initio* (as apposed to
defective and subject to challenge to decvlare void - see PATAS als bar v westmnister for the difference)
then the money is paid under mistake and duress and
can be the subject of restitition

the JR of moses v barnet is awaited but is expected
to confim that PCNs without a date of issue
and a date of contravention are nullities ab initio

whether a PCN which says 'you must pay'
or an nto whiuch says '28 days from this letter' are void
ab intio or only challengable on the basis of unfairness
is something to be discovered

the patas/npas do not have the power to declare all
documents void ab initio only the courts can decide
so for the moment their is a rebuttable presumption that they
are not void ab intio - so you probably cannot reclaim
as things stand at the moment
Wayne Pendle
err, yeah, cheers mate; I'm a bit new to all this wink.gif

Regardless, a case for broad ultra vires could be made and as such, especially seeing where the Penalties are civil matters and in light of the Judges comments. Multiple class actions would ultimately decide the fate of these Councils in that case.

I am very confident however, this will turn out to be void Ab Initio; the summary has indicated as much in that by indicating

"He emphasised that the statutory requirement of the form of the PCN were simple and clear"

in other words, Parliament's will was clear from the outset and therefore a PCN with only one date has never had any legal validity; ie void Ab Initio. I really can't see how else Councils are going to get out of this unless the Government pass emergency legislation which of course would not only be highly embarassing but would be the end of civil enforcement.
PM'd you m8 I have someof the NCC paperwork total idiots they are and the LGO is currently investigating them over many other issues I have brought to their attention
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (Rich44 @ Sun, 3 Sep 2006 - 15:23) *
PM'd you m8 I have someof the NCC paperwork total idiots they are and the LGO is currently investigating them over many other issues I have brought to their attention

Thanks Rich, I'll have a look when I get a couple of minutes,


Still havent heard anything since I sent the NTO back to NCC but I am due to hear from the LGO next week sometime and I shall add it to my complaint about NCC, pillocks that they are
Today we had a reply to our appeal via the NTO and they have again rejected it and given us xx days to pay before the fine goes up to £90, whats the next step?
Wayne Pendle
QUOTE (Rich44 @ Wed, 13 Sep 2006 - 13:01) *
Today we had a reply to our appeal via the NTO and they have again rejected it and given us xx days to pay before the fine goes up to £90, whats the next step?

PM me Rich, i've sent them a wee bombshell. wink.gif
appeal to npas/patas - thye shoudl have sent a form

check the notice of rejection - most of these are defective
on the days from letter vs service isssue

claim for costs - thye are clearly being wholly unreasonable
following the moses v barnet JR
oh ive also emailed Neil Herron as he was in the local paper recently regarding NCCs PCNs so he will probably be interested that NCC are being unreasonable.

Oh is it unreasonable for them to refuse to send correspondance to me even though I have said I am the driver etc they are still sending everything to a 67 year old woman who is getting very scared - more scare tactics grrrrrrrrr I specifically told them last time I was dealing with it, I was the driver etc but they still send to the registered keeper is that right?
Actually NCC have really cheesed me off now harassing a 67 year old woman who is innocent in all this.

Who fancies open season on them? Just walking about lately I have spotted dozens of road marking violations. If I create a website and upload all the pics of what I think is illegal and the location anyone fancy having a major pop at them?

They just dont give up ffs anyone want a field day with this letter they sent the RK who is 67 and they wont communicate directly with me even though I have admitted I was the driver and I parked the car.

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above PCN.

Your representations have been carefully considered in the light of the circumstances at the time and in accordance with the RTA 1991. Gorunds for cancellation of the charge have not been established and this letter is the formal Notice of Rejection of Representations.

The reason for rejection is: The PCN was correctly issued. Your vehicle was parked in an area clearly shown to be restricted to "Authorised permit holders only" and indicating that this area of the car park was not available to non-permit holders at that time. As previously stated as a resident (She is not a resident she lives in Cambridge, I live in Norwich!) you are not permitted to use a visitors permit on your vehicle. I note the points that you have raised regarding the validity of the PCN design. The council will review the situation once the full High Court judgment has been received. In the meantime enforcement action will continue as normal. Your reasons are therefore not accepted as grounds for cancellation of the PCN.

You now have 28 days (from when?) to pay the charge of £60 or appeal agains the decision to the independant parking adjudicator. Full details of the appeals procedue are enclosed. The decision of the adjudicator is binding on both you and the Council.

Failure to pay , or to lodge an appeal, will result in a Charge Certificate being issued which will increase to the original charge by 50% to £90. If the increased Penalty charge is not paid within a further 14 days an application will be made to the county court to recover the money.

Yours (up?)

Norwich City Council

Couple of things:

They state that she is a resident when she lives 60 miles away so going by their rules as she is deinitely NOT a resident then she should be able to use the visitors permit - Which from the looks of it they are not contesting that it was in the vehicle and visible!

You now have 28 days..... - From when, the date of this letter, the receipt of this letter???

The council according to the local paper EDP has changed its wording on the PCNs - indication of guilt on their part?

They STILL refuse to talk to me and insist on harassing the RK of the vehicle instead of the person who was actually driving it and incurred the PCN
the 28 days makes this notice of rejection invalid

RTA 1991 needs to be 28 dates from service of notice

see lukha v ayelsebury

got to npas - ask for costs - wholly unreasonable
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 © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.