Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Is This PCN Valid?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Dingding
Hello smile.gif

I recently received a PCN and I'm new to fighting these (I see a lot of people do). Could you help see if this PCN is valid please and if there is some way i could dispute it.

The story goes:

There is this junction where there is a width restriction. I drive through this junction everyday and sometimes there's a car, van or 4x4 that is too wide to pass through the width restriction or takes an age as it is clearly only just able to get through by driving inch by inch. Now on occasion when this occurs and road becomes blocked, I see lots of cars overtaking and passing on the other side of the road. I must have seen this a hundred times over the years and so it seems that one and the only time I'm in this situation I get a letter through the post.

I have tried to do a bit of research myself before posting but the only issue that I can think of is with the alleged parking contravention. I checked the council's website and can't find any info about it it. I checked their parking enforcement protocol and there is no mention of it. Therefore I would argue that an impropriety has occurred. I'm I wrong?

Any help would be much appreciated! PCN attached below:










hcandersen
Traffic Management Act? Moving traffic in London falls under the London Local Authorities etc. Act 2003 if I remember correctly.

I think this is your lucky day. They must have printed this on the wrong form. I wonder how many others were similarly processed incorrectly?


HCA
clark_kent
Agree with above the wrong form has been used and apart from the heading the wrong list of appeal points is included.
bama
we have seen this happen before - it should be impossible if their back office systems actually implemented the requirements of the legislation.

They will probably deny everything and push to adjudication and then drop out.
but a nicely worded set of reps may make them drop out quickly.
This is a PCN AND an NTO (under reg 10 ) so reply with formal reps and see what happens.

put your draft on here for comment before you send.
Dingding
Thanks for the replies everyone. smile.gif

I will draft something and post up after a little look at the TMA 2004 and the LLC 2003 as suggested.

Any other thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Dingding
Here's the daft of the letter I'm going to send. I see that all of you (especially Clark Kent) have had some input in a letter of this sort before. Thanks to all again for your help:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am making representations to you against the imposition of the PCN no. xxxxxx as there has been a procedural impropriety by The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (also known as the Enforcement Authority) in issuing this PCN.

The PCN states it is issued under the Traffic Mangement Act 2004, however the Enforcement Authority has no authority to use this statute for moving traffic contraventions. The relevant legislation, which is not mentioned on the PCN, should be the London Local Authorities Act and TFL act 2003.

The PCN also has other errors such as referring to the alleged contravention as being 'a parking contravention', the wrong time scales for making representations and incorrect grounds for appeal.

Therefore I believe the PCN issued is invalid and should be cancelled immediately. I Look forward to your reply in this matter

Best regards


Is this enough or should I also mention that the amount payable for the alleged contravention is more than it should be as it cannot be imposed under TMA2004?

bama
it should be enough

its a slam dunk win IMO at whatever stage the LA drags it out to.
if its not a mindless drone who just pumps out rejection letters irregardless they should cancel.
If they don't cancel off the bat then they will be giving clear evidence that either
1 they have not considered your reps
or
2 they are utterly incompetent and untrained

(or both !)

needless to say keep good quality coloured copies/scans of the completed NTO !
hcandersen
Don't over complicate this. They're dead, put them out of their misery PDQ and just send it off.

I return to my earlier post: if you're inclined (and you don't want to spare them embarrassment) ask them under Freedom of Information how many other unlawful demands for penalties did they make by virtue of using an incorrect notice on that day?


HCA
clark_kent
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 28 May 2011 - 07:58) *
Don't over complicate this. They're dead, put them out of their misery PDQ and just send it off.

I return to my earlier post: if you're inclined (and you don't want to spare them embarrassment) ask them under Freedom of Information how many other unlawful demands for penalties did they make by virtue of using an incorrect notice on that day?


HCA



It would be impossible to tell how many were issued the pre printed PCN forms are just put in a printer attatched to a PC it could be a single PCN or it could be the whole days work, there would be no way of recording what media the PCN was printed on just the time and the date it was printed.
hcandersen
The system should operate progressively and should show when notices were printed in individual cases (date of posting and a key date in in the process) because it tracks progress. It should be possible to identify the batch in which this notice is situated and therefore all other probable ones.

HCA
bama
eh ?
the variable text unique to each PCN and that includes the (alleged) penalty charge amount and the discount amount and the pics of the 'contravention' barcodes etc go in different places on the stationery.
if they loaded the wrong forms the printed parts (not part of the PCN 'stock form') would be in the wrong places wouldn't it.

contrast and compare
http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t54774.html

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62002


where is the camera operator number on this 'LLA PCN printed on the wrong paper' ? ?

if it was just wrong stationery that would still have been in the print data stream sent to the printer and would have come out somewhere on the page.

I reckon its much more fundamental than 'wrong paper'
clark_kent
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 28 May 2011 - 08:30) *
The system should operate progressively and should show when notices were printed in individual cases (date of posting and a key date in in the process) because it tracks progress. It should be possible to identify the batch in which this notice is situated and therefore all other probable ones.

HCA



Yes but if it was the case of just using the wrong paper a FOI would still be unable to identify anything other than how many got printed not how many were wrong. The batch may have been 200 sheets and then the printer ran out of paper after 175 and the wrong paper then used. However Bama raises a good point about the layout it would seem that it would have resulted in over printing as the layout is completely different.
Dingding
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 28 May 2011 - 07:58) *
I return to my earlier post: if you're inclined (and you don't want to spare them embarrassment) ask them under Freedom of Information how many other unlawful demands for penalties did they make by virtue of using an incorrect notice on that day?


HCA


I'm quite satisfied that I have a case and at this point would rather leave it at representations. If rejected then will definitely. Not sure if I'm allowed to mention another site but have seen that it looks like a good place to get FOI requests through.


QUOTE (bama @ Sat, 28 May 2011 - 05:12) *
...needless to say keep good quality coloured copies/scans of the completed NTO !


Wouldn't be easier just to send them the Reps by email?
Dingding
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 28 May 2011 - 07:58) *
I return to my earlier post: if you're inclined (and you don't want to spare them embarrassment) ask them under Freedom of Information how many other unlawful demands for penalties did they make by virtue of using an incorrect notice on that day?


HCA


I'm quite satisfied that I have a case and at this point would rather leave it at representations. If rejected then will definitely. Not sure if I'm allowed to mention another site but have seen that it looks like a good place to get FOI requests through.


QUOTE (bama @ Sat, 28 May 2011 - 05:12) *
...needless to say keep good quality coloured copies/scans of the completed NTO !


Wouldn't be easier just to send them the Reps by email?
Neil B
QUOTE (Dingding @ Sat, 28 May 2011 - 13:41) *
Wouldn't be easier just to send them the Reps by email?


Given we are not sure exactly what has happened it seems important to send back at least a copy. Otherwise their IT system may be telling them something different to what we can clearly see - and you prolong the matter.

-
bama
Just think about this for while - there are very serious issues here.

there is no way on god's good green earth that they can produce a TMA PCN for an LLA moving contravention unless their systems and processing methods ignore the statutory requirements.
this raises serious question of who approved the system etc as council have to act lawfully and in these cases it os apparent that they have not made any attempt to ensure that they did.
If they argue that they did make such an attempt then that amounts it is an admission that are incapable of it !

TMA has no moving violation (implemented). Data for TMA PCN is way different than that for a LLA PCN.
CCTV system is an 'approved' one (stop laughing at the back !) so it starts with a set of 'LLA data' for the case but ends up coming out the other side as a set of 'TMA data'.
who who changed the data ? when ? where ? how did the system let them edit/change the 'LLA data' ?
of what possible use (or reliability) is any of the 'LLA data' even when its properly printed on an LLA NTO as from the example in this case it is obvious that even if the CCTV system is a proper 'approved' one there can be no reliance on it at all as it is subject to post facto alteration and modification.
the chain of evidence is obviously compromised.


security ?
audit ?
data integrity?

just three things missing among many

Very serious questions IMO.

would love to know which bozo(s) signed off their solution - frankly its pathetic that should occur. but as the system issues detriments to hundreds of thousand of motorists it is clear that duty of care is ignored.
I would argue that there is misfeasance going on (as well an nonfeasance).
Thats one system I would love to check over from design specs to implementation and delivery.
though I reckon the report would be massive...

a simple 'wrong form' reveals its really a cesspit IMO.

unfit for purpose springs to mind - unless of course its been implemented with the actual purpose, as opposed to the stated purpose, of just raising revenue no matter what the regulations and requirements are. that couldn't be the case could it.....

"by their actions you shall know them"
Dingding
Hi Guys

I just wanted to say thank you for your advice. I have just received a response from LBHF.

"Thank you for writing to us about the above PCN.

After carefully considering your case, We have decided to cancel this PCN.

Please be advised that we consider all cases individually, and other PCNs issued in similar circumstances may not be cancelled."

OoooH YEAH!

Thanks again smile.gif
bama

they had no choice. that wrong form revealed a cesspit.

Could it be H&F just trying to keep the lid on it to stop the smell spreading ?

mental note to self: H&F cctv PCNs are 'questionable', VERY questionable.


was that letter from H&F signed ?
cabbyman
Did you send the FOI enquiry to see how many other 'victims' there were?
makara
Brilliant! Well done - always nice to see a council cave in.
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.