Hi Folks,
I'm hoping someone can PLEASE help me with an ongoing issue that's lasted since February this year. Your forum has been a fantastic help to me during the past few months whilst dealing the formalities related to a PCN I did not receive in December 2005. But I'm now at the stage in the game where I some extra guidance/ advice with regards to the next steps. Please forgive the very very long posting, but I wanted to make sure all the information is in one place to avoid additional questions if anyone can help (especially considering the tight deadline). So in brief, here is my situation: I received an NTO in February for a PCN I did not receive; I made my representation => it got rejected; I made a formal appeal to PATAS => it got rejected (the decision of which was given to me about 4 months after the fact); I asked for a review of the decision => it got rejected; I received a Charge Certificate => and now I need to take this to the next level.
Now for the long part....
I showed the paperwork to Neil Herron and he confirmed for me that the NTO and NOR are indeed invalid. My problem appears to be that at the time of my appeal I did not know this, so I did not put together the most compelling argument (although at the time I thought I was convincing) as I was not aware of the legal cases/ precedents etc at the time - basically hoping there would be an element of reason with PATAS! I provided a detailed explanation of the events, but this was rejected by the adjudicator for a number of reasons, including the point that there were photographs showing a PCN on my windscreen, that Hillingdon did not have a record of a broken machine for that day, and this quote from the adjudicator: "I do not accept the Appellant's account of it taking 30 minutes to buy a ticket and display it." I appreciate the fact that in most cases, the adjudicators are faced with very little evidence to support appeals, and that it would indeed make sense to go with the obvious things like a photograph to prove that a PCN was indeed issued. The simple fact is, I didn't receive it, and if I had, I would have made my representations immediately, with the valid pay and display ticket to prove it - it doesn't make sense for me to just ignore it and hope it'll go away! If indeed a PCN was placed on my car, then it is possible that someone removed it from my windscreen. What I find unacceptable is that the adjudicator doesn't even entertain this possibility, nor the possibility that perhaps the ticket machine was indeed experiencing an outage at the time I tried to use it - which could perhaps explain why there was no log of it being broken on that day. Furthermore, it's also possible that a fault was only reported later on and then logged under a different date - none of this is even considered.
Perhaps my appeal did not contain the strongest defence, however, I did expect a certain level of reason and that I would be given the benefit of the doubt, most notably with regard to my recollection of the chain of events and the time it took me to finally get a ticket. I find it absolutely unacceptable and a direct insult to my integrity that the adjudicator doesn't accept that it would have taken me 30 minutes to do so. There is nothing to support this reason! In hindsight (a little too late) the only way to prove this is via the cctv footage in the car park - which in itself would be a process getting hold of - but I only thought of this afer I had submitted the appeal. I'm also annoyed that the response from the adjudicator refers to my partner, when he did not drive the vehicle or submit the appeal - even though he is the registered keeper - and the fact that the decision letter mistakenly records the time of the parking attendant's observation, i.e. 17.12 - 17.29 as opposed to 11.12 - 11.29. Granted, this is obviously a typographical error, but an error nonetheless.
When I put in my request for a review of the PATAS decision, I somehow managed to put together a 7 page letter to requesting a review based on information I collated from the web. My main arguments were around the impartiality (or lack thereof) of the Adjudicator, the flimsy evidence presented, but i've also stated that I felt the NTO was null with regard to the "date of service" point, and cited the Lukha case. I wasn't too sure about the PCN and the date issue, as mine has a "Date of Notice" and "Observed on xxxx" date; as opposed to "Date of Issue" and "Date of Contravention", but I went for it anyway. The second PATAS adjudicator rejected my review request entirely - even though he acknowledged the non compliance of the paperwork! He said something along the lines of it's doesn't cause prejudice therefore it's inadmissible and not relevant at this stage as I should have argued this point earlier on in my initial appeal.
So now I'm kind of stuck at the Charge Certificate stage, with a few days to go before the 14 days deadline expires! My understanding is that because I have gone through the appeals process entirely, and in order to avoid a judicial review (which I hear is very expensive and I cannot afford), my only remaining option is to file a statutory declaration based on the ruling by Caroline Sheppard in the Lukha case, i.e. that I have not received an NTO/ illegality etc. I also found this online on the LMAG website: http://www.lmag.org.uk/modules.php?name=Ne...icle&sid=67 So am I right in assuming that even though PATAS have ruled twice against me, I now have additional precedent to use against Hillingdon when I submit the declaration because there paperwork is invalid?
If I am right here, I guess I need to get cracking, but the thing is, I'm very confused and a bit worried about a few things. First there's the whole "prejudice" thing, and how I would argue it. Then there's also the issue of the conflicting PATAS rulings that contradict the Lukha case ruling and "no prejudice" is always quoted. I'm also a bit confused about the Lukha case: she received a charge certificate, but why did NPAS make a decision? Was this not at statutory declaration stage? Or is it because she had not received the other paperwork that she had to go to NPAS first? Does this mean that if the court rules that the paperwork is invalid, does the entire PCN get eradicated? Or does Hillingdon get instructed to issue me with a compliant NTO and the cycle begins again?
The thing is, I don't want the court to fine me or worse for making a false declaration => is there a risk of this happening if I use the Lukha case in my statutory declaration? I don't want to give up now after this slog - believe me i'm tempted - but I could really use some help with this final stage to get rid of this PCN once and for all. I think I know which form to fill in from the court website, but if there's any other information out there that anyone can help me with, PLEASE could you email me or call me? I would be ever so grateful.
Thanking you in advance.
Regards,
Asti