Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: LB of BROMLEY - Parking Ticket
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
LDMax
Dear all,

I have received a parking ticket on 20/06/2013. The time expired at 13:55 and the ticket was issued at 13:59. The Date of Service is 20/06/2013 and the date of contravention is 20/06/2013.

The amount payable is £80 and I have until the end of 14 days, (that's on or before 03 July 2013), to pay the fine at the reduced rate of £40 or make informal representations.

Please follow this link HERE to view the PDF file of the PCN, Ticket and additional "Information about this Penalty Charge Notice".

The things which must be included on a PCN are specified in S.I. 2007/3483, Schedule, Paragraph 1, and S.I. 2007/3482, Regulation 3(2)

Representations to the owner are given HERE

On first sight I think the PCN is defective because it states on p.2:

QUOTE
Failure to submit representations or pay the penalty charge in full before the end of the 28 days beginning with the date of service of the Notice to Owner will result in an increased charge and recovery action.

1) I believe the correct phrase (underlined by me), should be, "may serve a charge certificate", in accordance with S.I. 2007/3483, Regulation 21(1).

2) The representations on the PCN include, "c: that the vehicle was being used without the owner's consent". In fact since the contravention refers to a parked vehicle, it could not possibly be described as "being used" by anyone. The legislation is therefore rather more specific:

QUOTE
c) that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the place in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

The appropriate wording should therefore perhaps be, "c: that the vehicle was parked without the owner's consent".

3) Also "d: that the vehicle was on hire", does not fully cover the legislative provision that the hirer MUST have also signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice.

4) Representations H and I do not apply to the PCN ('H' is for PCNs served by post and 'I' is only in relation to the issue of a Notice to Owner), and therefore these should not be included as a ground for challenging the PCN before the end of the 28 day period.

I don't see anything else on the PCN itself that is immediately obvious, but I would welcome your considered opinion in comparison with the legislation referred to.

However the additional "Information" leaflet seems to be a new trick! On the reverse, under the section "Making an appeal", it states:

QUOTE
We will consider an appeal made on statutory grounds. However, unless other compelling reasons have been established, we would not normally consider the following:

'I was only there for a few minutes'
'I went to get change'
'There were other cars parked there'

If you still wish to make an appeal, go to www.bromley.gov.uk/parking. Please ensure you attach any documentary evidence that supports your appeal.

I think this may constitute a breach of the regulations as it actively discourages some possibly legitimate representations, e.g. for de-minimis on the PCN. Also, it apparently limits the recipient to making representations only via their online services, rather than by post.

This "additional information" leaflet was stuffed inside the same weatherproof sticker as the PCN and attached to the windscreen. Accordingly I believe it should be regarded as part of the PCN and -if so- then it is quite severely non-compliant. The argument is that the PCN should contain all of the information that the recipient is required to be given in accordance with the legislation. It would seem, therefore, that the council are seeking to actively discourage recipients from freely making representations against the notice by implying that certain representations are not "compelling" enough to be considered. That is directly contrary to the legislation which clearly states: (emphasis mine)

QUOTE
3(2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information—
(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and

(b)that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served—
(i)those representations will be considered;

and
QUOTE
4(b)be to either or both of the following effects—.
(i)that, in relation to the alleged contravention on account of which the notice to owner was served, one or more of the grounds specified in paragraph (4) applies; or

(ii)that, whether or not any of those grounds apply, there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the enforcement authority should cancel the penalty charge and refund any sum paid to it on account of the penalty charge.

However, being a separate document from the PCN, I suppose the council believe they can say what they like without invalidating the PCN itself. The question is, are they correct?

Another question is, when browsing the website specified in the PCN, recipients can check the amount of the penalty charge payable . I immediately noted that the authority use less formal language on their website than is required in the PCN by stating near the bottom of the page:

QUOTE
Please Note: These charges will be discounted by 50% if paid within 14 days of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) being issued.

This, of course, adds an extra day - but I don't know if an adjudicator would consider a procedural impropriety on their website as sufficient grounds to cancel the PCN, even though the PCN directs users to it.

Your expert views would be sincerely appreciated.

Kind regards

LD Max
Hippocrates
Good observations. Even better if you posted it up. Please.
LDMax
Hi Hippocrates.

The link is in there near the top.

For some reason the forum won't let me embed anything now. Here is the full URL to the PDF file:

http://pbx.check-flight.com:6730/downloads..._BY35073502.pdf

Cheers.
Hippocrates
The paragraph above Data Protection is flawed as it uses non-mandated "will".

2130236316: applies to NOR but same principle as :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...ulation/19/made

The relevant part of the NOR reads
"I am therefore formally rejecting your representations. This means that your options are either to pay the penalty charge or to appeal to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service. Whichever one you chose you should do this before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice of rejection. If no action is taken by that time, the next step will be for us to serve a charge certificate notifying you that the right to appeal will have expired and that the charge will be increased to £195"
The Appellant refers me to a previous decision of my learned colleague Neeti Haria in the case of City of London v McMurrough (2013) PATAS 2130049862 allowing the appeal on this ( and other) grounds. That decision refers to an number of other decisions by different Adjudicators coming to the same conclusion. Although the wording in the various rejection notices in these case was not identical they all stated that charge certificate ( or in one case an enforcement notice) will be issued rather than may be issued. The Council in the present case states that the next step will be for us to serve a charge certificate - and this is not what the regulations require it to state. I share the view of my colleagues that it is not substantially compliant with a requirement to state only that something may be done, to state that it definitely will be done. It seems to me that the NOR in this case does not comply with the requirements of regulation 6 and its issue is also a procedural impropriety.


**************************
2110072817, 2100649871, 2110415753, 2120021652, 2130049862, 2120448511, 212058885A, 2130236316

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/
LDMax
Many thanks again Hippocrates.

I will get the letter out tomorrow.

Any further thoughts on that other matter re: the YBJ? Please PM or email me perhaps?

Regards. A
LDMax
Representation letter sent today.

PDF copy for your information here: http://pbx.check-flight.com:6730/downloads...35073502_PP.pdf

Many thanks again for your help Hippocrates,

Andy Woolford
Hippocrates
That should keep them happy!
Claudine23
What happened to this please?
Incandescent
QUOTE (Claudine23 @ Wed, 11 Mar 2015 - 14:38) *
What happened to this please?

OP did not respond further, so we don't know.
LDMax
QUOTE (Claudine23 @ Wed, 11 Mar 2015 - 15:38) *
What happened to this please?

So long ago I had almost forgotten about it... but not quite smile.gif

I am very please to report that Bromley council did cancel the ticket a short time later. As I recall, they stated that the letter raised a number of legal issues which would take them sometime to refer to their legal department. Therefore the ticket was cancelled.

It would be interesting to know if their practice or wording has changed since.
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.