Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN - Newham Code 32d contravention
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
EssDotEnn
Hi,

Just registered on the forum to see if I have a case - I've received a PCN (attached images) with footage suggesting that I've driven up a one way street.

I entered Neville Road from Green Street and parked as shown on the left - . After about 5 minutes i turned the car around drove back onto Green Street not realising this was a one way street. There was no signage to indicate this from my parked position and I did check for any arrows on the road before turning my car around.

Is this something I can appeal against?

Many thanks in advance!






Added streetview link. Thanks

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=neville+ro...,258.24,,0,8.36
Hippocrates
The PCN is non-compliant ......................

My mistake! Sorry. However, the TWOC limits to theft only.
Incandescent
Very poor signage on entry with the one-way arrows just above the very prominent 20mph signs. So presumably you missed these as you turned into the street. The signs are quite high up and you'd be looking out for pedestrians. I'm not sure what repeater signs there should be. The street is quite long, and I tracked along in Google and saw nothing except 20 mph markings.

So you have a defective PCN, and a poorly signed traffic restriction. Good enough for a PATAS appeal I'd say.
EDW
Slow down, this is moving traffic, there is no right to view images.





QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 29 May 2013 - 17:23) *
The PCN is non-compliant as it is missing mandatory wording re viewing the evidence:

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

Case Reference: 2120293222
Appellant: Mr K Cocelli
Authority: Newham
VRM: SD09UUG
PCN: PN06158899
Contravention Date: 18 Mar 2012
Contravention Time: 05:04
Contravention Location: Barking Road
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Stopped on a restricted bus stop
Decision Date: 16 Jul 2012
Adjudicator: Teresa Brennan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: Mr Solomon attended today on behalf of Mr Cocelli. He argues that the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of theCivil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.

Section 3 (4) of Part 2 of the Regulations states that a penalty charge notice served under regulation 10 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 2 of the Schedule to those Regulations, include the following information-
(e)where the penalty charge notice is served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations (evidence produced by an approved device), the effect of paragraphs (5) and (6).
Paragraph 5 states:
The recipient of a penalty charge notice served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations may, by notice in writing to the enforcement authority, request it-
(a)to make available at one of its offices specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him or by his representative, the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(b)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority'sopinion, establish the contravention.
Paragraph 6 states
Where the recipient of the penalty charge notice makes a request under paragraph (5), the enforcement authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time.

Mr Cocelli states that the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with paragraph 6. I agree. I find that there is nothing in the Penalty Charge Notice to give effect to paragraph 6. The recipient of the Penalty Charge Notice is not told that if they ask to see the footage or further photographs the local authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time. The issue was raised by Mr Cocelli in his first representation. The local authority in its case summary refers to the information provided to give effect to paragraph 5 but not to paragraph 6.

I find that the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the strict requirements of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. I find that there has been a procedural impropriety and I allow the appeal on that basis.

I would add that the Penalty Charge Notice also does not inform the recipient that the CCTV footage will be made available at one of the offices of the local authority as specified by the recipient. The Penalty Charge Notice refers only to East Ham Local Service Centre.

I allow this appeal.


Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

Case Reference: 2130149029
Appellant: Mr Mark Janssen
Authority: Newham
VRM: PE12LNM
PCN: PN07809303
Contravention Date: 21 Dec 2012
Contravention Time: 00:33
Contravention Location: St Johns Road E6
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Vehicle parked more than 50 cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place
Decision Date: 29 Apr 2013
Adjudicator: Edward Houghton
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: Having heard Mr Janssen for the Appellants in person I see no reason at all to doubt that the vehicle was waiting for the gates to be opened; however as there is no exemption in the legislation ( s85 Traffic Management Act 2004) for that purpose the vehicle was in contravention.


It seems to me , however , that the Appellants' submission that the PCN is defective is correct The PCN is required to state the effect of Para 3(6) The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 ( see Para 3(4)(e)). The PCN in this case is completely silent on this point, and is therefore non-compliant. . As the Appeal falls to be allowed on this ground alone it is unnecessary to decide whether the Council has "had regard to " the Secretary of State's guidance - though it has to be said that the Council's evidence on this looks a little thin.


Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

Case Reference: 2130089798
Appellant: Mr Muhabi Balaj
Authority: Ealing
VRM: LC55VBV
PCN: EA90851910
Contravention Date: 21 Dec 2012
Contravention Time: 19:57
Contravention Location: Greenford Road Greenford
Penalty Amount: £110.00
Contravention: Parked on a taxi rank
Decision Date: 25 Mar 2013
Adjudicator: Edward Houghton
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: Mr Solomon, for the Appellant submits that the wording of the PCN relating to the entitlement to view the CCTV evidence or obtain still images is defective in that it fails to state that any such request must ne be complied with in a reasonable time. It seems to me that he is correct. Regulation 3(4)(e) The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires a PCN to include information as to the effect "of paragraphs (5) and (6)". Although the PCN clearly includes information as to paragraph (5) it is silent as to paragraph (6). The issue of a PCN which does not comply with the legislation is a procedural impropriety ( indeed it is arguably not a PCN in law at all) ; and although the point may have little practical merit the Appeal must be allowed. The Council might be well advised to look again at the wording of its PCN.

Hippocrates
2110212199 re TWOC. http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(a)state—
(i)the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi)the amount of the increased charge;
(vii)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and
(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and
(b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.


This is wrong on the PCN, even though the law is an ass! That period refers to the payment period only!
EssDotEnn
Thanks for the replies. It appears that I do have a case. I'm just slightly confused as to what the first course of action would be. What would be the best way to respond based on the letter above...i'm wary of the charge doubling if not paid within 14 days. Thanks again
EDW
You appeal by email if possible.

Say the PCN does not have the correct wording and you rely on PATAS case no. 2110212199.


I have something else to add if it goes to appeal.
EssDotEnn
Thanks, I'm still slightly confused!

I'm not quite sure how the PCN is non compliant and where TWOC comes into it or how 2110212199 is relevant dry.gif

Under the 'What happens next?' section of the PCN it mentions that the charge may increase - is this the non complaint part?

Its look like any representations are post or fax only, cant find anything useful on the Newham website either..once I know what I'm writing ill post up a draft too!

Cheers!
Incandescent
QUOTE (EssDotEnn @ Thu, 30 May 2013 - 10:20) *
Thanks, I'm still slightly confused!

I'm not quite sure how the PCN is non compliant and where TWOC comes into it or how 2110212199 is relevant dry.gif

Under the 'What happens next?' section of the PCN it mentions that the charge may increase - is this the non complaint part?

Its look like any representations are post or fax only, cant find anything useful on the Newham website either..once I know what I'm writing ill post up a draft too!

Cheers!

It is not compliant by reasons of (1) only allowing TWOC for the statutory appeal case where the car has been used without the owners consent (2) incorrectly stating the period allowed to pay before the charge will increase (50% on the next document which is the Charge Certificate)

You need to use the link to PATAS on Hippocrates post, and search for the quoted case and read it to familiarise yourself with the appeal argument which is similar to your case.

You sound as if you want to pay up at the discount amount. The trouble is by doing this, (like thousands of others), you assist in perpetuating the money making scam for the couuncils
EssDotEnn
Ok...i think it's starting to make sense, I appreciate your help. It's my first PCN so getting myself familiar with all the statements and terminology!

I fully intend to appeal, just want to make sure I get it correct before posting..my preference is to pay the council nothing...I'll get the letter drafted over the next day or so once I've done some reading. Thanks again.
nimh999
QUOTE (EssDotEnn @ Wed, 29 May 2013 - 22:23) *
...i'm wary of the charge doubling if not paid within 14 days. Thanks again



The deal is that you make representations. The council accept or reject. If they reject you go to the adjudicator at the full penalty. Councils rely on this to frighten you into paying at the reduced rate.

Everyone here has been in exactly the same position. Some have been to the adjudicator dozens of times and there might even be some who have been there hundreds of times.

QUOTE (EssDotEnn @ Thu, 30 May 2013 - 10:20) *
Its look like any representations are post or fax only, cant find anything useful on the Newham website either.

Agreed, Newham seem to have made representations by post or fax only making it more difficult for some.

Their processing centre is in Warrington and I vaguely remember another council using a Warrington address. Is it Westminster?
EDW
I can blow this one up at patas, not hard.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (nimh999 @ Thu, 30 May 2013 - 23:30) *
QUOTE (EssDotEnn @ Wed, 29 May 2013 - 22:23) *
...i'm wary of the charge doubling if not paid within 14 days. Thanks again



The deal is that you make representations. The council accept or reject. If they reject you go to the adjudicator at the full penalty. Councils rely on this to frighten you into paying at the reduced rate.

Everyone here has been in exactly the same position. Some have been to the adjudicator dozens of times and there might even be some who have been there hundreds of times.

QUOTE (EssDotEnn @ Thu, 30 May 2013 - 10:20) *
Its look like any representations are post or fax only, cant find anything useful on the Newham website either.

Agreed, Newham seem to have made representations by post or fax only making it more difficult for some.

Their processing centre is in Warrington and I vaguely remember another council using a Warrington address. Is it Westminster?


I am not that old! cool.gif
EssDotEnn
QUOTE (nimh999 @ Thu, 30 May 2013 - 23:30) *
QUOTE (EssDotEnn @ Wed, 29 May 2013 - 22:23) *
...i'm wary of the charge doubling if not paid within 14 days. Thanks again



The deal is that you make representations. The council accept or reject. If they reject you go to the adjudicator at the full penalty. Councils rely on this to frighten you into paying at the reduced rate.

Everyone here has been in exactly the same position. Some have been to the adjudicator dozens of times and there might even be some who have been there hundreds of times.

QUOTE (EssDotEnn @ Thu, 30 May 2013 - 10:20) *
Its look like any representations are post or fax only, cant find anything useful on the Newham website either.

Agreed, Newham seem to have made representations by post or fax only making it more difficult for some.

Their processing centre is in Warrington and I vaguely remember another council using a Warrington address. Is it Westminster?


Ok...didnt realise it was all or nothing, thanks for clarifying. I'm putting some words together which I will shortly post up for review.

QUOTE (EDW @ Thu, 30 May 2013 - 23:31) *
I can blow this one up at patas, not hard.


Sounds encouraging biggrin.gif
EssDotEnn
Here's my draft.....

I am writing with regards to PCN xxxxxx, received on xx/xx/xxxx.

I wish to make representation against the charge issued on my vehicle, registration xxxxxx, based on the following points. I request that the PCN is cancelled for the reasons stated below.

1. My vehicle was parked a short distance on the left into Neville Street after turning in from Green Street. I then performed a turn in the road and re-joined Green Street. From my parked position, there was no signage to indicate that this was a one-way street. I proceeded to turn my car around and drive the ~50 yards back to Green Street. The correspondence received suggests I drove the whole length of Neville Street in the wrong direction, this is not the case as explained above.

2. Upon receipt of the PCN, I revisited the junction. I note the very poor signage on entry with the one-way arrows just above the very prominent 20mph signs. These were easily missed as the one-way signs are quite high up and my focus was on observing pedestrians and other hazards on the road as well as adhering to the 20mph speed restriction.

3. Furthermore, the PCN is non-compliant - I rely on PATAS case ref 2110212199, highlighting the following;

a. only allowing TWOC for the statutory appeal case where the car has been used without the owner’s consent
b. incorrectly stating the period allowed to pay before the charge will increase (50% on the next document which is the Charge Certificate)

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

------

Any comments appreciated - thanks in advance
SchoolRunMum
a. only allowing TWOC for the statutory appeal case where the car has been used without the owner’s consent. Don't use the acronym 'TWOC'; explain what you mean fully.
b. incorrectly stating the period allowed to pay before the charge will increase (50% on the next document which is the Charge Certificate). This is too short to make sense to me?
EssDotEnn
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 31 May 2013 - 23:14) *
a. only allowing TWOC for the statutory appeal case where the car has been used without the owner’s consent. Don't use the acronym 'TWOC'; explain what you mean fully.
b. incorrectly stating the period allowed to pay before the charge will increase (50% on the next document which is the Charge Certificate). This is too short to make sense to me?


Thanks - i'll update the draft. I gotta be honest and say im still trying to get my head around b. The PCN states that if I dont pay/make representations before the end of the period of 28 days, the charge may increase......

- Is the wording incorrect or the period stated?
EssDotEnn
Any comments on the above? Hoping to get the letter within the next day or so.. Thanks
SchoolRunMum
I can't get my head around 'b' either - that wording looked OK to me!
EssDotEnn
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 5 Jun 2013 - 00:49) *
I can't get my head around 'b' either - that wording looked OK to me!


Glad im not the only one - do you think I should leave that part out and sent the appeal or wait for clarification from one of the experts mellow.gif
EssDotEnn
Any assistance on the above query much appreciated! Thanks
Hippocrates
Have you made reps. yet?
EssDotEnn
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 9 Jun 2013 - 20:39) *
Have you made reps. yet?


Not yet, the 14th day will be Tuesday. Was waiting for some clarification on the statement regarding the 28 day period. My draft letter is above, just feel I need to make point b clearer but not quite sure how...

Thanks again.
Incandescent
The dealine is much more important so don't miss it.
EssDotEnn
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sun, 9 Jun 2013 - 23:00) *
The dealine is much more important so don't miss it.


Agreed, is it worth leaving out b) do you think? Cheers
PCNFighter
Hey EssdotEn Ive had the same PCN from them 3 days ago? any luck...can you give some update so i can have a idea what to do
Hippocrates
Start your own thread would be a good idea.
EssDotEnn
My representations have been rejected by Newham... i'll upload the letter shortly. They have given me 14 days to make a reduced payment. The letter seems to imply i dont really have a case..
EssDotEnn
EssDotEnn
Any thoughts on the above? Or possible next steps. Thanks
EssDotEnn
OK an update to this - not sure where to go from here of even if I have a case... in summary...

- I did not receive a letter of rejection after I made my representations. The scan in the above post is a duplicate sent out by Newham after I questioned why a charge certificate had been issued. At this stage I also rang Newham (as I was within 14 days of receipt of the (duplicate) notice of rejection and offered to pay the £65. They did not let me and advised that I have to wait for the Order for recovery.
- When I received the order for recovery, I made the Stat Dec stating that I did not received notice of rejection.
- Didnt hear anything for a few months, but have now received a copy of evidence pack, which appears to have gone to PATAS. It states I do not have to take any action, it is just for information.

Please advise? Can I also make my case?

The CCTV footage starts from when I am driving the wrong way so does not show the turn in the road. It looks as if I have driven the whole length of the road against the traffic!

HELP! Thanks smile.gif
EssDotEnn
Another update on this - any feedback appreciated..

Received a letter from PATAS asking for my evidence for a hearing. Also gave the option to attend in person. Any advice for what to include?
EssDotEnn
Anyone?! huh.gif
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.