Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: payment slips on PCN's
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
ncmoody
I have been reading the threads for some months now and thought I had got the gist of the main arguments.
However I am confused by the situation regarding payment slips on PCN's.

If a PCN has a payment slip attached is this an automatic 'own goal' invalidating the PCN.
or is that,
as the payment slip does not form part of the PCN, if the phrase "please refer to instructions overleaf" regarding payment is on the slip not the body of the PCN, is it this that invalidates the PCN, not the attachment of the payment slip.

If whichever of the above invalidates the PCN, is that enough to render the proceeding null and void or are other errors and omissions in the process required to kill it off.

IF the PCN is invalid for the above reason, can you inform the issuer of this and just sit back or must you follow each stage with an appeal right up to PATAS?

If having informed the issuer that the PCN is invalid for the above rreson and they persist can you claim harassment under the relevant legislation?
Bernie the Bolt
It is perfectly correct to have a payment slip attached to the PCN. However it has been held that the payment slip is not part of the PCN so if any of the RTA required details are on the payment slip they must also be on the PCN.
It seems to be common practice to for the PCN to refer to information overleaf. AFAIK it has not been tested whether the reverse of the PCN is part of the PCN. I have two PATAS appeal pending where this forms part of the appeal. The thing is that once the adjudicator finds a reason to allow the appeal they then stop considering the other points and I have always won based on "simpler" issues.
There is an evidential issue that I feel will determine this point and that is that there always used to be two identical PCNs printed - one for the motorist and one as evidenve for the appeal. Now the second copy is generally an electronic verison and it is quite possible that the electronic version does not include the details on the reverse - if it doesn't I feel the argument should be home and dry!


You must follow each stage with an appeal. I would always send recorded delivery also.

You cannot argue harassment as the authorities have a statutory entitlement to enforce. Harrassment may apply if you were being pursued and denied your rights of appeal.

ncmoody
Bernie the bolt:

Reading the above, it seems that you only require one significant flaw to render the PCN , and hence the rest invalid.

Is there a list of these signnificant flaws somewhere that is easilly accessable.

If not could one be started with your 'wins', and extended with others who have had successful appeals to PATAS?
The above may be a question to Site Admin
Bernie the Bolt
I would not necessarily rely on just "one significant flaw".
All of my appeals have been a "basket" of issues that together are designed to show that the enforcement process is fundamentally flawed.
However I have won on the basis that the "contravention did not occur" or the council has withdrawn "due to a processing error".
I certainly think that there are good reasons to have a "common errors" thread and I am happy to contribute. I suggest that there are two parallel threads - one for the PCN and one for the NTO.
nimh999
QUOTE (ncmoody @ Fri, 21 Dec 2007 - 15:04) *
it seems that you only require one significant flaw to render the PCN , and hence the rest invalid.

Correct. The adjudicator does not have to consider each and every point that is raised by an appellant.

The adjudicator will almost always go for the least contraversial point when finding in your favour. This then still allows councils to keep issuing invalid, non compliant PCN's because they have not adjudicated on that. It just allows the the adjudicator to keep his job because PATAS and NPAS are paid a percentage for each PCN issued.

A bit like the Inland revenue taxing prostitutes. It's an illegal trade but they still want their income tax.



QUOTE (ncmoody @ Fri, 21 Dec 2007 - 15:04) *
Is there a list of these signnificant flaws somewhere that is easilly accessable.

If not could one be started with your 'wins', and extended with others who have had successful appeals to PATAS?
The above may be a question to Site Admin
There doesn't seem to be a one stop shop for defective PCN's. You have to trawl unfortunately. There is obviously this site.

You could also try LMAG http://www.lmag.org.uk/modules.php?name=Co...wpage&pid=3

Logiclaw http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/

Neil Herron

and there are others but I agree it can be hard work looking for that little gem.
Bernie the Bolt
QUOTE (nimh999 @ Fri, 21 Dec 2007 - 15:23) *
The adjudicator will almost always go for the least contraversial point when finding in your favour. This then still allows councils to keep issuing invalid, non compliant PCN's because they have not adjudicated on that. It just allows the the adjudicator to keep his job because PATAS and NPAS are paid a percentage for each PCN issued.

A bit like the Inland revenue taxing prostitutes. It's an illegal trade but they still want their income tax.


I don't see it quite like that. I see it that once they have found a reason to cancel the PCN and NTO their job is done and they can move on to the next one. It makes more sense to go for the easy to decide issues first.

What makes the Moses/Barnet case so valuable is that it does show that fundamental errors can render an entire enforcement process invalid and this decision is binding on the adjudicators. Some previous decisions of the adjudicators have seemed to suggest that they would shy away from making a decision in favour of the motorist if it would have widespread impact.

I don't agree with the conflict of interest issue. My experience of the PATAS adjudicators is that they are totally impartial. Certainly the figures seem to suggest so.
nimh999
QUOTE (Bernie the Bolt @ Fri, 21 Dec 2007 - 15:32) *
What makes the Moses/Barnet case so valuable is that it does show that fundamental errors can render an entire enforcement process invalid and this decision is binding on the adjudicators. Some previous decisions of the adjudicators have seemed to suggest that they would shy away from making a decision in favour of the motorist if it would have widespread impact.

Surely this statement contradicts what you have said below and confirms what I said. The adjudicator is not there to shy away from decisions just because the end result might have widespread impact.

What has widespread impact got to do with it? That is totally irrelevant.


QUOTE (Bernie the Bolt @ Fri, 21 Dec 2007 - 15:32) *
I don't agree with the conflict of interest issue. My experience of the PATAS adjudicators is that they are totally impartial. Certainly the figures seem to suggest so.

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.