Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN with no location specified
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Asar
Hi All,

Was hoping you could give me some advice on the attached PCN. I didn't even realise there was any restrictions - if I am even right about the place I think it happened! Anyway as you can see on the PCN that the location is not specified.

Does that not make this PCN invalid?
alloageorge
are you saying there is nothing written
to the right of "in"?
DancingDad
QUOTE (alloageorge @ Sun, 20 Feb 2011 - 21:22) *
are you saying there is nothing written
to the right of "in"?


If you haven't scrubbed it and it aint there, no contrvention.
But you do need to challenge.
I wouldn't get carried away
Dear Sirs
Ref PCN ???????
There is no location specified.
Without a location the contravention did not occur.
Cancel it by return.
Bogsy
Whether it's invalid depnds upon whether the law requires the location to be stated on the PCN. I'm not aware that it does but perhaps others can confirm this.

In any appeal I do suggest including the text below, keeping in any bold, italics etc. The text was drafted with the intention of turning tables so that the council has to prove the penalty charge is lawfully imposed. Just because they have a photo of an alleged contravention does not necessarily mean a contravention actually occurred. Councils, like everybody else, make mistakes, so it’s always worth scrutinising their actions.


It is noted that the penalty charge has been imposed under the provisions of section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”).

It is necessary to make the council aware that section 1(2) of the 2003 Act advises that the powers of section 4 of the 2003 Act will only apply from the “appointed day”. Section 3 gives direction as to what constitutes the “appointed day” and it directs in relation to a borough council that it is such a day as may be fixed by resolution of the borough council. It is important to note that any such resolution is subject to and must be in full accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the 2003 Act.

Section 3(5) of the 2003 Act requires that the resolution of the council fixing the “appointed day” and the general effect of the provisions of the 2003 Act coming into operation as from that day must be published in a local newspaper and in the London Gazette at least 3 months before the commencement of the “appointed day”.

Considering the above, I require the council to provide evidence that the council has passed, in regard to section 4 of the 2003 Act, such a resolution fixing the “appointed day”. In addition, I require evidence that a notice was published in both a local newspaper and the London Gazette. Section 3(6) of the 2003 Act details what specific items the council should provide as evidence.

3(6) Either a photostatic or other reproduction certified by the officer appointed for that purpose by the borough council or by Transport for London to be a reproduction of a page or part of a page of any such newspaper or the London Gazette bearing the date of its publication and containing any such notice shall be evidence of the publication of the notice, and of the date of publication.

I must advise the council that the contravention can only be enforced if it has been correctly enabled in accordance with the law and therefore the council need to establish that it has been. I will remind the council that in the key case between Terence Chase v Westminster City Council, the adjudicator emphasised that a council has a legal duty to provide all evidence at the earliest opportunity to an appellant. An appellant requesting access to the evidence when an allegation is made against them is a reasonable act and not to provide the evidence when asked is an unreasonable act since any failure by the council to provide any evidence will prejudice an appellant’s ability to consider whether they have reasonable grounds to continue to adjudication.

Further, by serving the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the council are alleging that I contravened section 4(5) of the 2003 Act by either failing to comply with a prescribed order or failing to comply with a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. However, the PCN does not inform me which one these two applies. Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act requires a PCN to state the grounds on which the council believe a penalty charge is payable. According to section 4(5) of the 2003 Act there are only two grounds possible and the contravention description given on the PCN, although it makes reference to a particular traffic sign, it does not tell me whether that particular traffic sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign or whether I contravened a prescribed order that the traffic sign simply gives effect to. This information is important as it is required to enable me to learn whether I breached the ground (whereby a penalty charge is payable) given under section 4(5)(a) or 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act. Withholding this information may be considered prejudicial by the courts since an appellant may spend time trying to obtain a prescribed order in preparation for an appeal when in fact the relevant traffic sign may not be regulated by a prescribed order but by some other statutory provision, as scheduled section 36 traffic signs often are. It is critical to remember that on receipt of a PCN a person has no more than 28 days to prepare an appeal and an appellant can ill afford to waste time on establishing whether they contravened a prescribed order or a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. It is my belief that section 4(8) of the 2003 Act requires this information to be stated on the PCN and the failure of the council to do so raises doubt about the lawfulness of the PCN served.

As the PCN fails to confirm whether it is being served on the ground given under section 4(5)(a) or section 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act, I hereby require the council to confirm this point. Where the council claim it is under section 4(5)(a) then I require the council to provide me with a full copy of the prescribed order that they believe has been contravened and I require the council to explain fully what article or articles they believe were contravened and to direct me to the specific entry for the location concerned within the relevant schedule. If the prescribed order has been amended then it is necessary that these amendments are also provided in full. Where the council claim that the PCN was served under the provision of section 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act then I require the council to provide evidence that the traffic sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. It is a requirement of section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the 1988 Act) that a section 36 traffic sign be “lawfully placed”. Section 36(2) of the 1988 Act provides that a section 36 traffic sign is lawfully placed only if the indication given by the sign is an indication of a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement, or it is expressly provided by or under any provision of the “Traffic Acts” that section 36 of the 1988 Act shall apply to the sign or to signs of a type of which the sign is one. Considering this, it is necessary for me to establish whether the scheduled section 36 traffic sign has been lawfully placed. Therefore, I ask the council to confirm what legal provision gives effect to the scheduled section 36 traffic sign that I am alleged to have contravened.

A photo or CCTV footage of my vehicle against the backdrop of a traffic sign is not proof of an actual contravention. I will remind the council that where they serve a PCN then the burden of proof in regard to any alleged contravention remains with them. As such, I will only be satisfied that a contravention occurred if the evidence requested provides unequivocal proof of a contravention.

Yours with love, hugs & kisses.
DancingDad
While I luv you Bogsy I gotta disagree in this case.
Adamou V Haringey is clear that without a clear location the PCn is null and void
QUOTE
However I do not have to decide that issue, because the confusion that has evidently arisen in Mrs Adamou's communications with the Council clearly demonstrates that the original PCN failed to comply with the requirements of Section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This provides that the PCN "must...state...the grounds on which the council... believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".
The Council's own evidence shows that they have no fewer than 9 cameras in High Road N22, 6 of which are located at junctions. Whether or not all are devoted to monitoring compliance with box junctions, it makes clear that this is a long road with a considerable number of junctions. It is evident from Mrs Adamou's case that she did not know on receipt of the PCN where the contravention was alleged to have occurred. Had the PCN specified "High Road N22 at its junction with Bounds Green Road", then Mrs Adamou would have known where to look. As it was, by simply stating "in High Road N22", I find that the PCN did not state the grounds on which the Council believed that the penalty charge was payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of a PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention, but where it was said to have occurred. I find therefore that no valid PCN was served on Mrs Adamou, and so the Council cannot enforce this penalty charge.
Bogsy
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 20 Feb 2011 - 23:17) *
While I luv you Bogsy I gotta disagree in this case.
Adamou V Haringey is clear that without a clear location the PCn is null and void
QUOTE
However I do not have to decide that issue, because the confusion that has evidently arisen in Mrs Adamou's communications with the Council clearly demonstrates that the original PCN failed to comply with the requirements of Section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This provides that the PCN "must...state...the grounds on which the council... believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".
The Council's own evidence shows that they have no fewer than 9 cameras in High Road N22, 6 of which are located at junctions. Whether or not all are devoted to monitoring compliance with box junctions, it makes clear that this is a long road with a considerable number of junctions. It is evident from Mrs Adamou's case that she did not know on receipt of the PCN where the contravention was alleged to have occurred. Had the PCN specified "High Road N22 at its junction with Bounds Green Road", then Mrs Adamou would have known where to look. As it was, by simply stating "in High Road N22", I find that the PCN did not state the grounds on which the Council believed that the penalty charge was payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of a PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention, but where it was said to have occurred. I find therefore that no valid PCN was served on Mrs Adamou, and so the Council cannot enforce this penalty charge.



You're not disagreeing DD you're confirming what I hoped would be confirmed. The legislation does not explicitly appear to require a PCN to provide the location but if an adjudicator has decided this forms part of the "grounds" then that's good news since it's favourable to the appellant and creates a legal argument that can lay claim that the location on the PCN is a legal requirement.
Scaramouche
Using a route restricted to certain vehicles! More in a minute - unless bama beats me to it!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry524476

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...%20vehicles.pdf

Sorry, having a few problems linking. Anyway, to follow on from Socrates and Plato biggrin.gif : could we see the second page, please?
scires
Dear Alloageorge and Scaramouche, and everybody else that have replied

Asar has posted the PCN here on my behalf because he was registered and knows your system but because of the short time I have to respond I have tried to have a go. Please forgive me for mistakes and upsetting anyone.

The reverse of the PCN is .

The location is supposed to be next to "In" but amazingly is blank, I wanted to go back to the scene of the alleged crime and see how I managed to make such an alleged offence and check for signs/warnings etc that I somehow missed but cant without the location. However, I have been reading several of your threads and the link that Scaramouche has given is the same place, Clements Road.

I would appreciate any advice on how to word my representation and which box to tick on the PCN.

Thanks for all your help and really fast replies.
Scaramouche
Check the thread I linked earlier as the same advice will broadly apply re the paperwork. The ground re taken without consent is wrong. It also states "used" which is ambiguous. As you are pressed for time, see this letter composed, using the relevant parts as you see fit:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry523478

We need pictures of all signs, road markings, warning signs please, if possible. Agree with Dad's advice below i.e. don't use any of this at the moment, only later if necessary.

Just put in a short challenge re the location issue.
DancingDad
Put representations as
There was no Contravention of an Order and The Penalty Charge Exceeded the Amount Applicable in the Circumstances of the case.
PCN ?????? Alleges that I am liable for a penalty charge for using a route restricted to certain vehicle yet gives no information where this is supposed to have happened or what restrictions were in place.
I append a copy for your information, the original can be inspected if required but will be retained by myself.
A PCN issued under LLATLA2003 requires that a PCN must state the grounds on which the authority believes the penalty is payable. Without a location this belief cannot exist and thus the alleged contravention of an order cannot be shown, the PCN is nul and void in law and hence the penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable.
Should you believe that the above statements are incorrect and are minded to continue enforcement I direct you to PATAS case 2060381000 Adamou v London Borough of Haringey that ruled on this specific issue.
Continuing in the light of your failure would be vexatious and wholly unreasonable and as such I will have no hesitation in appealing to PATAS against any rejection and will be including a request for costs in any appeal.
With affection etc


If you want to tag Bogsy's point above on it won't do any harm but do not refer to the cases Scary linked to at this time...you risk losing the location card if you do.
If they reject, and they may be silly enough to, and somehow believe that telling you where the location is changes anything, we bring those cases into an appeal to PATAS

Don't miss deadlines, you cannot lose this one unless you throw it away.
Scaramouche
I think bama is going to get revenge on this one!
scires
Firstly, thank you for all your help, when I first got the PCN I was so upset that I just wanted to pay it and forget it happened, but you have inspired me! If the location is the same as the link then it is a money spinner because it is relatively new and I missed it. With regard to what I should write, I was going to ask the question that DancingDad has answered, i.e. should I send off the original with the blatant missing location (which they would probably mysteriously mis-lay/lose) or send a copy. When completing the copy form should I tick the “There was no contavention…” box and the “The Penalty Charge exceeded the amount…” box.

Should I just concentrate/mention only the location issue at this point as DancingDad has described in his very useful drafted letter or do I add more on the PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY bit for example the 28 day thing which for some reason I cant find just yet. Or does adding more just cloud the argument, assuming the location bit is a very strong argument.

Also, one final point regarding the location issue, I found the following hand-book somewhere online, with the following title:
Independent Committee On The Review Of PARKING DOCUMENTATION AND NOTICES In Relation To The Traffic Management Act 2004 October 2008

I draw your attention to Point 33 (part e). The text says Statutory Guidance recommends that a PCN should also contain. Does "recommends" translate to NOT required by law?

Under Point 33 starting at bottom of page 15, finishing top of page 16, the following is stated
“The Statutory Guidance recommends that a PCN should also contain
(a) PCN number (all PCNs should be uniquely identifiable).
(b) CEO’s identification number.
The Statutory Guidance recommends that a PCN should also contain
(a) PCN number (all PCNs should be uniquely identifiable).
(b) CEO’s identification number.
© V ehicle make and colour (if evident).
(d) V ehicle’s tax disc number and expiry date.
[b](e) D etailed location of vehicle (full street name).[b]
(f ) Observations start and finish times.
(g) Contravention Code.”

Once again, thank you all for your help.
Scaramouche
This is a moving traffic contravention. Disregard the guidance for now. We need the second page. Do as Dad suggests. Keep your PCN. Was it here?: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=52376

Clements Road?

Just send the Dancer's draft letter. biggrin.gif If they reject, the other arguments can follow.
scires
Thanks Scaramouche, the location may be the same but I cannot say for sure (if I say it is the same then I may compromise my position of not knowing the location, just in case Redbridge Council are watching!). I will make photocopies of the front and back of the PCN, tick the two boxes outlined above and use DancingDad's draft letter.

Thanks again for all your help.
Scaramouche
Fair point, gov! I doubt they are, as they haven't learned from the last bashing! cool.gif That went to PATAS and they pulled out.
scires
Hi, just to let you know I have handed in my representations (by hand, with printed receipt!!). Just wondering, is there any value in sending in replies early as opposed to waiting for the final day of the 14 day period/28 day period?

Thanks
Neil B
QUOTE (scires @ Mon, 21 Feb 2011 - 19:56) *
Hi, just to let you know I have handed in my representations (by hand, with printed receipt!!). Just wondering, is there any value in sending in replies early as opposed to waiting for the final day of the 14 day period/28 day period?

Thanks


Don't even ask that question!!!

people have been caught out by delaying (and being advised to).

There might be particular reasons where we know the habits or failings of individual Councils but generaaly best to play safe.
scires
Dear DancingDad and Scaramouche (and others who helped)

You have all probably forgotten this thread just as I did, until this morning. I got a letter from Redbridge Council this morning, the bold print mentioned Penalty Charge Notice. I panicked, depression set in, and the words "Not again, how?". Fortunately, the letter was confirmation that they had accepted my representation and cancelled the Penalty Charge Notice we now consider this matter closed.

Thank you all for your help, it is really appreciated, you all made such a difference.
bama
had to be, they had no chance.
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.