Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN in Lambeth
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
pastaman
Waiting to move house so parking permit is for the zone that we're moving to which is different from the zone where we're staying temporarily. I thus got caught out a couple of weeks back.

12th December 2011
The Council believes that a PCN is payable with respect to the associated vehicle for the following alleged contravention: 12S Parked in a residents` or shared use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge (shared use bay).

Will post up the pictures of the actual PCN tonight. It says that the vehicle was observed from 9.48 - 9.53.

Pictures from CEO are below.



Can't see any glaring errors here but if anyone can spot them it's this forum.
pastaman
Here are the PCNs.


Enceladus
Your discount opportunity expired on Christmas day. If you have not paid-up then you might as well fight this all the way as you now have no incentive to do otherwise.
pastaman
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 26 Dec 2011 - 13:20) *
Your discount opportunity expired on Christmas day. If you have not paid-up then you might as well fight this all the way as you now have no incentive to do otherwise.


Cheers for the reply Enceladus, hope you had a good Christmas.

I think this one actually expires today, as it's still showing as £65 to pay on the website. Don't think there's much chance with this one though, seems pretty solid, markings look good.
Neil B
Is that a lambeth permit shown?

I'm not sure they're allowed so many 'zone identifier tiles' on the sign. Surely, apart from possibly being non prescribed, it leads to confusion.
hcandersen
The obvious ground of Procedural Impropriety springs to mind as the PCN does not include the time of contravention. This is required to be stated by the authority, not inferred by the motorist from optional information within the PCN i.e. the later time of the observation period.


HCA
Exiled Yorkshireman
There is an argument, which I believe was first postulated by Bogsy, that the contravention description is insufficiently precise to convey what you actually did wrong. Based on Bogsy's argument, here is some text I used to challenge a Tower Hamlets PCN (still awaiting response) but feel free to adapt to your own circumstances:

QUOTE
The enforcement authority has committed a procedural impropriety


Section 1(e) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations states, “A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it by regulation 3(2) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, state—(e)the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable”

The grounds stated on the PCN were, “Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge.”

The law requires a PCN to state the grounds why the CEO believes a penalty is payable. The words used on the PCN are insufficiently precise to comply with this requirement. I calculate that there are twelve possible permutations of the alleged contravention committed:

• Resident's parking place/no permit displayed
• Resident's parking place/no voucher displayed
• Resident's parking place/no pay & display ticket displayed
• Resident’s parking place/parking charge not paid
• Shared use parking place/ no permit displayed
• Shared use parking place/ no voucher displayed
• Shared use parking place/ no pay& display ticket displayed
• Shared use parking place/parking charge not paid
• Resident’s zone/ no permit displayed
• Resident’s zone/ no voucher displayed
• Resident’s zone/ no pay & display ticket displayed
• Resident’s zone/parking charge not paid

It may be that the council is using wording standardised by London Councils but this does not mean it satisfies paragraph 1(e). The law does not invite a PCN to list a combination of possible grounds but requires something definitive from the CEO to be stated. As the PCN states a combination of possible grounds the PCN is too vague to satisfy paragraph 1(e) and wholly inadequate for its primary purpose of informing a motorist of the particulars of the alleged contravention. It is not for the recipient to work out which ground is applicable. It is for the PCN to state it.
pastaman
Hans, I guess this could also be used here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=67197

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 27 Dec 2011 - 10:29) *
The obvious ground of Procedural Impropriety springs to mind as the PCN does not include the time of contravention. This is required to be stated by the authority, not inferred by the motorist from optional information within the PCN i.e. the later time of the observation period.

Though won't they argue that the contravention was occurring for all five minutes stated on the PCN?

I think Bogsy's defence will not be work with the other contravention's wording: "16B Parked in a permit space or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit (business bay)." as that is much more specific but I can give it a go. Given the last two PATAS appeals I've won have been due to the council not responding to my evidence it seems the more the merrier.
SchoolRunMum
A Time of Contravention has to be on a PCN:

http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/parkingtickets.htm

An observation period is optional, non-specific to a particular minute and should not be the only info on a PCN that a recipient can use to infer a contravention time. I have never seen this go to adjudication yet but it's been suggested every time we have had a Lambeth or Haringey PCN in recent months. I doubt the Council like it much - our Council poster Clark Kent doesn't agree with it as an argument - but I feel that if it's OK to 'hide' the Time of Contravention within a 'period of minutes observed' the Council may as well go the whole hog and just print PCNs saying 'issued in the week commencing Monday xx/xx/11 and feel that's enough to show the Date of Contravention!

Hope that makes sense. I say include the missing Time of Contravention.
pastaman
Thanks Mum,

I will include that. Might put all the PCNs in the same appeal, just to make things more complex.
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.