Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: TFL PCN Yellow Box Junction with Scanned Images
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
amityagnik
Hey guys, been a while since i've been on here...

Recieved a PCN from TFL yesterday regarding a code 31 in a yellow box junction. I'm going to upload scans tomorrow from work scanner at homes not working. I have read other posts regarding the incorrect wording on the PCN's from TFL regarding yellow box junctions,

The PCN is defective and unenforceable

The wording with regards to payment in the PCN is confusing and not compliant with the Transport for London Act 2003. The PCN begins as follows:

A penalty charge of £130.00 is payable before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of this notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50%.

This is in accordance with section 4(8)(iii) and (iv) of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003. It then continues to state:

If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice...

The above statement is not in accordance with section 4(8)(iii) of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003, it contradicts the previous statement and wrongly suggests that the owner has to pay within 28 days from the "date of service" whereas it should be the "date of this notice". The PCN is therefore defective and should be cancelled.

The following PATAS case was upheld with regards to the same defective PCN wording:

PATAS Case Ref: 2100498211, Mr Naser Dabiri vs.Transport for London

"...the Penalty Charge Notice is defective and unenforceable: whilst the Penalty Charge Notice correctly states that the 14-day and 28-day payment periods begin with the date of the notice in accordance with section 4(8)(iii) and (iv) of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003, the Penalty Charge Notice then goes on to incorrectly state "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge Notice or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice..." when the 'date of service' provision does not apply to the 14-day and 28-day payment periods (see above) - it only applies to the local authority having a discretion to disregard representations received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the Penalty Charge Notice in question was served (in accordance with paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act)."

I am also citing additional cases that were upheld over the same defective PCN wording,

PATAS Case Ref: 2100628598, Mr Bryan Henry Siequien vs. Transport for London
PATAS Case Ref: 207037298A, Mr Derek Clotworthy vs. Transport for London
PATAS Case Ref: 2080336756, Mr Robert Southgate vs. Transport for London

The contravention code entered on the PCN is also incorrect. According to the PCN contravention codes issued by London councils as of January 2011 (PCN codes version 6.6), contraventions using CCTV evidence should carry the suffix "j", therefore the correct code on the PCN should have been "31j". I have attached the contravention codes of Richmond and Hounslow councils for reference under Appendix E.

Do you think if I reply with this to TFL, they'll reject the appeal as always and allow the case to go to PATAS?

Images now uploaded...


londonicon
looks good, but I will wager it will get rejected as a matter of course and you will be off to PATAS,

best of luck LI
amityagnik
Images have now been uploaded...any help with what to reply to TFL with will be appreciated.
Firestone
Here is the exact wording I used. I appealed on two further accounts, but this did not add any weight as the video did show my car in the box - however I won on the first point alone and so should you. In addition to my list of judgements, you should add a couple more and there are some further ones if you look back in these forum threads, eg: 2110504128, 2110501141, 2110428700, 2110436163, 2110335439, 2110479009.

You will win, but TFL will reject your appeal with them and gloss over these points, however you should win at the appeal with TFL. I turned up at the hearing, but you should be able to do it by post. However you must use this wording and quote the previous precidents and look up the names of these above cases on the PATAS website and quote them in the format as detailed below:

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/...egAdvanced.aspx


Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.
Dear Sir/Madam
Ref: PCN Number: XXXXXXX

My grounds of my appeal are that:
The contravention alleged by the Authority on the Penalty Charge Notice did not occur.
The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

The basis of my appeal is set out below:

1) The wording in the PCN is unlawful and not compliant with the statutory legislation.

The PCN begins as follows:

“A penalty charge of £130.00 is payable before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of this notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50%”

This is in accordance with section 4(8)(iii) and (iv) of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003. It then continues to state:

“If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice...”

The above statement is not in accordance with section 4(8)(iii) of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003, it contradicts the previous statement and wrongly suggests that the owner has to pay within 28 days from the "date of service" whereas it should be the "date of this notice". The PCN is therefore defective and should be cancelled.

The PCN has been adjudged in at least 4 separate PATAS judgments to be defective and unenforceable: -

Case Ref: 2100628598, Mr Bryan Henry Siequien V Transport of London
Case Ref: 2100549287, Mark Sutton V Transport of London
Case Ref: 2100498211, Mr Naser Dabiri v Transport for London
Case Ref: 211032734A Benjamin Hochhouser v Transport of London.


Yet Mr XXXXXX the author of the Notice of Rejection appears to ignore these judgments and does not give reasons why the PCN is compliant with the statutory legislation.

In fact he does not even address this issue at all.

2) The photograph which TFL have provided with the PCN shows that the exit to the Yellow box junction is effectively clear.

3) There is an obstruction between the camera and the yellow grid box junction which obscures part of the view to the yellow grid and exit and further invalidates this PCN

As a result of these three main points of appeal and in particular appeal point 1, I request that my appeal be upheld.
Firestone
Here is the exact wording I used. I appealed on two further accounts, but this did not add any weight as the video did show my car in the box - however I won on the first point alone and so should you. In addition to my list of judgements, you should add a couple more and there are some further ones if you look back in these forum threads, eg: 2110504128, 2110501141, 2110428700, 2110436163, 2110335439, 2110479009.

You will win, but TFL will reject your appeal with them and gloss over these points, however you should win at the appeal with TFL. I turned up at the hearing, but you should be able to do it by post. However you must use this wording and quote the previous precidents and look up the names of these above cases on the PATAS website and quote them in the format as detailed below:

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/...egAdvanced.aspx


Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.
Dear Sir/Madam
Ref: PCN Number: XXXXXXX

My grounds of my appeal are that:
The contravention alleged by the Authority on the Penalty Charge Notice did not occur.
The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

The basis of my appeal is set out below:

1) The wording in the PCN is unlawful and not compliant with the statutory legislation.

The PCN begins as follows:

“A penalty charge of £130.00 is payable before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of this notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50%”

This is in accordance with section 4(8)(iii) and (iv) of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003. It then continues to state:

“If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice...”

The above statement is not in accordance with section 4(8)(iii) of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003, it contradicts the previous statement and wrongly suggests that the owner has to pay within 28 days from the "date of service" whereas it should be the "date of this notice". The PCN is therefore defective and should be cancelled.

The PCN has been adjudged in at least 4 separate PATAS judgments to be defective and unenforceable: -

Case Ref: 2100628598, Mr Bryan Henry Siequien V Transport of London
Case Ref: 2100549287, Mark Sutton V Transport of London
Case Ref: 2100498211, Mr Naser Dabiri v Transport for London
Case Ref: 211032734A Benjamin Hochhouser v Transport of London.


Yet Mr XXXXXX the author of the Notice of Rejection appears to ignore these judgments and does not give reasons why the PCN is compliant with the statutory legislation.

In fact he does not even address this issue at all.

2) The photograph which TFL have provided with the PCN shows that the exit to the Yellow box junction is effectively clear.

3) There is an obstruction between the camera and the yellow grid box junction which obscures part of the view to the yellow grid and exit and further invalidates this PCN

As a result of these three main points of appeal and in particular appeal point 1, I request that my appeal be upheld.
interlog
Just to point out that there is no such thing as "precedent" during the Appeal process. Any decision is not binding on another Adjudicator.
Firestone
Yes OK, i didn't know.

It's just when I had my appeal, the adjudicator said to me that if the existing judgements were valid, he would uphold the appeal on mine, so it does seem that great store is placed on previous judgements where the situation is black & white as with wording on the PCN, but might be less black & white on situations like with markings and signs etc
interlog
Yes it does help if favourable Adjudications were made. But having said that, I have read Adjudications by one of the female Adjudicators not allowing appeals on the wording issue so it may well be pot luck on the day.
Firestone
Gosh, i didn't know it was that inconsistent. It would the probably help Amityagnik then to have as many existing favourable judgements as possible in his submission - a bank of atleast 10 or so which would make it very perverse for an adjudicator to not uphold his appeal when it comes to it.
pacman 24
I recently won an appeal against TFL using the same letter template, so thanks.

Does the same defence work for box junction PCN's from other councils (ie do they also have incorrect wording)? A friend has recently recieved a box junction PCN from Hammersmith & Fulham. I've changed the template slightly, using their wording, do you think it will work when it invariably gets taken to PATAS?

I also can't find any case numbers on the PATAS site where cases have been won on similar grounds against LBHF.

Dear Sirs,

I would also ask you to provide proof that the box junction in question has DfT approval and is of regulation size.

I would also argue that the wording of the above PCN issued to me is defective and unenforceable. The 'date of service' provision contained in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 2003 ('LLAA 2003') does not apply to the 14-day and 28-day payment periods specified by section 4(8)(a)(iii) and (iv) of LLAA 2003, as it only applies to the Enforcement Authority having a discretion to disregard representations received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the Penalty Charge Notice in question was served.

The wording of the above PCN issued to me states:

"If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge of £195.00 may be payable. We may then send you a charge certificate seeking payment of this increased amount"

Accordingly, the Penalty Charge Notice issued to me conflates the "28 day period" for payment which begins with the date of the Penalty Charge Notice, as provided for in section 4(8)(iii) of LLAA 2003, with the "28 days" for the making of representations which in fact only begins with the date of service of the penalty charge notice in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to LLAA 2003. I have noted that similar appeals have been upheld by the PATAS adjudicator, for example case numbers 2110504128, 2110501141, 2110428700, 2110436163, 2110335439 and 2120237119 are just some that I can quote you. Therefore, I reject the validity of the above PCN issued to me.
bama
there is no precedent (as stated above)
but isn't there a 'preponderance of evidence' when there is good sized clutch of such decisions.
pacman 24
Agreed, but the cases highlighted are against TFL rather then LBHF. Has anyone won or come accross such a case that PATAS ruled against LBHF?
Hippocrates
The wording issue may well be placed before the High Court in the near future.
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.