Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Station Parade 53j Barking and Dagenham PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Demi
hi guys,
Thanks for the thread responses in the past by EDW, Enceladus, SchoolRunMUm and many other guys, they have been very useful. I got a similar PCN entering Station Parade pedestrian zone from the other end, not ripple road but approaching from barking station. View sign on google map below:

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

My PCN photos and exact wordings are attached below

Here is the draft i have culled from past responses by the lovely guys on this forum dated back from 2011 on similar issues, can anyone please comment ,

Should i include the TWOC claim or will the video footage catch me out as i and my younger brother who was driving at the time look very much alike as it was or is the draft enough to get a cancellation of this ticket?
thanks in anticipation guys:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Penalty Charge Notice Number xxxxx

Firstly, the ground on the PCN limits the case to the vehicle being “used” and not “in control of” as prescribed in law. The law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted) states “that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner”. On this basis my rights have been fettered; the PCN does not meet the statutory requirements and therefore cannot be enforced.

Secondly I would like to bring into your attention the PCN which you have issued doesn’t comply with the law and is not fit for purpose.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

SCHEDULE 1

Penalty charge notices etc. under section 4 (penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act

Representations against penalty charge notice

1 (1)Where it appears to a person on whom a penalty charge notice has been served under section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as “the recipient”) that one or other of the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below is satisfied, he may make representations to that effect to the enforcing authority.

On the PCN which you have served on page 3 it is stated “The legal grounds for making representation are also listed here. If you think one of these applies, please indicate which one by ticking the box and give details below.
The notice doesn’t allow my legal right for representation on any grounds other than the one which are listed on the PCN.



I would like to bring another case to your attention from the Parking And Traffic Appeal Services Register, where the appeal was allowed as the PCN inaccurately reflects the statutory ground.


Case Reference: 2110212199
Appellant: Mr Chidi Egenti
Authority: Islington
VRM: EA02WFR
PCN: IS2284987A
Contravention Date: 12 Feb 2011



Furthermore, it is noted that the penalty charge has been imposed under the provisions of section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”).

It is necessary to make the council aware that section 1(2) of the 2003 Act advises that the powers of section 4 of the 2003 Act will only apply from the “appointed day”. Section 3 gives direction as to what constitutes the “appointed day” and it directs in relation to a borough council that it is such a day as may be fixed by resolution of the borough council. It is important to note that any such resolution is subject to and must be in full accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the 2003 Act.

Section 3(5) of the 2003 Act requires that the resolution of the council fixing the “appointed day” and the general effect of the provisions of the 2003 Act coming into operation as from that day must be published in a local newspaper and in the London Gazette at least 3 months before the commencement of the “appointed day”.

Considering the above, I require the council to provide evidence that the council has passed, in regard to section 4 of the 2003 Act, such a resolution fixing the “appointed day”. In addition, I require evidence that a notice was published in both a local newspaper and the London Gazette. Section 3(6) of the 2003 Act details what specific items the council should provide as evidence.

3(6) Either a photostatic or other reproduction certified by the officer appointed for that purpose by the borough council or by Transport for London to be a reproduction of a page or part of a page of any such newspaper or the London Gazette bearing the date of its publication and containing any such notice shall be evidence of the publication of the notice, and of the date of publication.

I must advise the council that the contravention can only be enforced if it has been correctly enabled in accordance with the law and therefore I need to establish whether it has been. I will remind the council that in the key case between Terence Chase v Westminster City Council, the adjudicator emphasised that a council has a legal duty to provide all evidence at the earliest opportunity to an appellant. An appellant requesting access to the evidence when an allegation is made against them is a reasonable act and not to provide the evidence when asked is an unreasonable act since any failure by the council to provide any evidence will prejudice an appellant’s ability to consider whether they have reasonable grounds to continue to adjudication.

Further, by serving the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the council are alleging that I contravened section 4(5) of the 2003 Act by either failing to comply with a prescribed order or failing to comply with a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. However, the PCN does not inform me which one these two applies. Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act requires a PCN to state the grounds on which they believe a penalty charge is payable. According to section 4(5) of the 2003 Act there are only two grounds and the contravention description given on the PCN, although it makes reference to a particular traffic sign, it does not tell me whether that particular traffic sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign or whether I contravened a prescribed order that the traffic sign simply gives effect to. This information is important as it is required to enable me to learn whether I breached the ground (whereby a penalty charge is payable) given under section 4(5)(a) or 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act. Withholding this information may be considered prejudicial by the courts since an appellant may spend time trying to obtain a prescribed order in preparation for an appeal when in fact the relevant traffic sign may not be regulated by a prescribed order but by some other statutory provision, as scheduled section 36 traffic signs often are. It is critical to remember that on receipt of a PCN a person has no more than 28 days to prepare an appeal and an appellant can ill afford to waste time on establishing whether they contravened a prescribed order or a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. It is my belief that section 4(8) of the 2003 Act requires this information to be stated on the PCN and the failure of the council to do so raises doubt on the lawfulness of the PCN served.

As the PCN fails to confirm whether it is being served on the ground given under section 4(5)(a) or section 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act, I hereby require the council to confirm this point. Where the council claim it is under section 4(5)(a) then I require the council to provide me with a full copy of the prescribed order that they believe has been contravened and I require the council to explain fully what article or articles they believe were contravened and to direct me to the specific entry for the location concerned within the relevant schedule. If the prescribed order has been amended then it is necessary that these amendments are also provided in full. Where the council claim that the PCN was served under the provision of section 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act then I require the council to provide evidence that the traffic sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. It is a requirement of section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the 1988 Act) that a section 36 traffic sign be “lawfully placed”. Section 36(2) of the 1988 Act provides that a section 36 traffic sign is lawfully placed only if the indication given by the sign is an indication of a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement, or it is expressly provided by or under any provision of the “Traffic Acts” that section 36 of the 1988 Act shall apply to the sign or to signs of a type of which the sign is one. Considering this, it is necessary for me to establish whether the scheduled section 36 traffic sign has been lawfully placed. Therefore, I ask the council to confirm what legal provision gives effect to any scheduled section 36 traffic sign that I am alleged to have contravened.

As the contravention is that of “failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone”, in order to prove this contravention the onus falls on the enforcing authority to show the vehicle in question passing the sign during restricted hours and subsequent movement by the vehicle including whether it parks, stops or traverses the restricted length/area. It is not sufficient to simply show the vehicle in or entering a pedestrian zone.

A photo of my vehicle against the backdrop of a traffic sign is not proof of a contravention. I will remind the council that where they serve a PCN then the burden of proof in regard to any alleged contravention remains with them. As such, I will only be satisfied that a contravention occurred if the evidence requested provides unequivocal proof of a contravention.

Please refer to cases Mr Roger Emeric vs Camden and Mr Ronald Lambert vs Camden which both had their appeals allowed as the PCN in both cases referred to ‘vehicles’ rather than ‘motor vehicles’ as statutorily defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

Based on all the points outlined above, I require you to cancel the PCN forthwith and with immediate effect. If you do not cancel, I am prepared to take the matter further. Please know I will expect a full and conclusive rejection answering all points, including all evidence you will be relying on to prove I passed signage telling me of a pedestrian zone along with evidence of me in a pedestrian zone.

Yours sincerely


Any suggestions about this draft, additions or subtraction is welcomed, sorry its quite long but its intended to put thee guys at the council off as well.
thanks guys, waiting on your replies.
EDW
Case Reference: 2130308596
Appellant: Mr Henry Andrew Owens
Authority: Barking and Dagenham
VRM: GD12FFO
PCN: BZ94124272
Contravention Date: 23 Apr 2013
Contravention Time: 22:21
Contravention Location: Station Parade
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating restrictions on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone
Decision Date: 31 Jul 2013
Adjudicator: Jane Anderson
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: I have heard Mr Cuffley and Mrs Owens on behalf of the appellant. Mrs Owens is the mother of the appellant and was with Mr Cuffley in the vehicle on the day in question. She explains that her son has learning difficulties and she was attending with Mr Cuffley on her son's behalf.

The Enforcement Authority has provided DVD evidence along with additional photographs of signage. The footage does not show the vehicle pass a sign in to the pedestrian zone. It is not possible to read the wording on the additional photographs as they are taken at some distance and are of poor quality. The Enforcement Authority has provided a Traffic Management Order (TMO) and sample signage.

Mr Cuffley points out that the DVD evidence does not show any signage passed by the vehicle in to the zone. He maintains that he did not make representations on 13 May 2013 but simply made a request for images and that the case should have been put on hold until after the images had been provided. The Enforcement Authority sent a notice of rejection. He refers to the sample copies of signage and claims that signage was not clear.

I am not satisfied that any signage in place on the day in question was clear and adequate. The footage does not show the relevant signage and the additional photographs are unclear. I find that the appellant requested photographs on 13 May 2013 and that progress of the case should have been suspended until images had been sent to the address. I refer to the wording of the penalty charge notice (pcn).

On both grounds I allow the appeal.
Demi
thanks EDW, would it be wise to follow the same logic that the signage was not clear or proceed to ask for more images and to view the video? hopefully they may send a rejection letter? or do i proceed with the initial arguement i put in my draft as a letter to them and also ask for video and more images of my vehicle going past the signage while reminding them of the case example you have just given me?
Incandescent
Was the signage unclear ? The Google reference doesn't go to the street when I click on it, I jst get a map of the UK.

My own opinion is that one should lead on the primary reason for the contravention occurring, namely unclear/inadequate/missing signs, then go on with the PCN defects as other appeal points. Of course PCN defects have won appeals on their own, so its up to you.

Have you viewed the video ? Does it show you passing a sign, and that sign is clear ? I suspect it doesn't. If the council show library pictures, you then have an opportunity to show the actual physical signs don't match them (if they don't), and show them up as mendacious and venal.
Demi
thanks Incandescent, the signage only shows has the picture of a car and motorcycle with writing that allows access only to Vicarage Fields. How do new motorists to the area know Vicarage fields is not an access road or a location to go through to wherever they are heading to?
Attached is a picture of the signage.
I was thinking to bump them with this very lengthy letter not as a representation but to request to see video and more photos and to encourage them to cancel the PCN with examples why it fetters my rights.

What do you think? Or should i ask for video viewing and send the letter as a representation online instead?....Also if i do it online im not sure i receive an email acknowledgement as they may deny receipt. And making a representation by post is restricted to using the space allocated on the PCN.

Attached is the draft and photo of signage.

Thanks again for your anticipated responses
Incandescent
Sign seems clear enough, but what is meant by "access to" as you have pointed out. As far as I know, access is for residents or visitors to residents only. So this could be an exemption if the condition applies
EDW
if you quote cases you should use the patas case ref.
Hippocrates
PCN limits to one ground: see Schedule 1 of the Act. I have two cases in support. Taken from submissions: you have to select and edit accordingly:

The PCN is unenforceable
1. The number of grounds the Appellant is instructed to choose is limited and fettered to one ground by the following statement on page 2 of the PCN:
Please indicate on which ground you are making the representations by ticking the box.

2. This flies in the face of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Further support for this argument is sought from Case No: 2120030405 where, near the end of the review, the Adjudicator Mr Lane stated:

On the second page of the penalty notice there are instructions to the recipient how to make representations and the grounds of appeal available. The penalty notice invites the recipient to select one ground whereas the legislation states that representations may be made on "one or other of the grounds"

3. The following statement is also objectionable:
You must make representations before the end of 28 days beginning with the date on which this Notice was served on you.
The legislation clearly states:

The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are 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.

4. Further support is sought from Case No: 2130012319 in which Adjudicator Mr Chan stated:

Case Reference: 2130012319
Appellant: Mr Peter Peters
Authority: Harrow
VRM: WU09NTK
PCN: HR84023895
Contravention Date: 18 Oct 2012
Contravention Time: 13:00
Contravention Location: Station Road
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating restrictions on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone
Decision Date: 20 May 2013
Adjudicator: Anthony Chan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: The Appellant did not attend. He was represented by Mr Stephen Davies.

Mr Davies had drawn my attention to many points. I am allowing the appeal for two reasons only and I shall deal with these in detail. I am not persuaded by Mr Davies that his other submissions should enable me to allow the appeal as well.

The two reasons are both related to the contents of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The first is to do with when a motorist may make representations. In the PCN, the Authority stated that motorists must make representations before the end of a period of 28 days commencing with the date of service of the PCN. Paragraph 1 (3) of the Schedule to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 actually provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are 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 difference is significant. A plain reading of the PCN means that late representations cannot be accepted and this is clearly not what the legislation says.

The second issue with the PCN is that it has restricted representations to one ground only. The Authority disagreed. It said that the use of the phrase "one or other" ground indicated that more than one ground is allowed. I am not so sure. I would have thought that the PCN should say "one or more" ground. The Appellant said that the phrase must also be read in conjunction with the next sentence which said: "Please indicate which ground...." in the singular. If there is any doubt, a motorist might wish to check the Authority's website where the grounds are set out and motorists are asked to "select only ONE from the list below that represents the grounds you are challenging this contravention on." The emphasis on one is the Authority's, not mine.

I am satisfied that read as a whole and fairly, the PCN does not convey the information as required by the legislation. I am not satisfied that this PCN can be enforced. I am allowing the appeal.
________________________________________

5. In addition to the above, it is also argued that the taken without consent ground clearly limits and fetters to theft only as it is silent with regard to the possibility that a relative or such other family member may have taken the vehicle without consent of the owner. In this instance, both the authority’s ability to make a proper assessment is fettered as well as the appellant’s ability to make a proper representation.

6. Further support is sought from Case No: 2110212199 in which Adjudicator Miss Brennan stated:


Demi
thanks for swift reply Incandescent,
did you have a quick read at my draft attached? should i bump them with that while requesting viewing of video as well?

May be add that ''access to'' meant thru Vicarage fields as well and therefore sign was unclear

thanks EDW and Hippocrates, i shall include the PATAS case reference of the cases i have quoted, the ones you have both given me inclusive. I shall put up another draft

thanks EDW and Hippocrates, i shall include the PATAS case reference of the cases i have quoted, the ones you have both given me inclusive. I shall put up another draft
Hippocrates
I wouldn't bother with citing cases: just use the arguments since they will automatically reject with standard rubbish that they are not bound by these. Far more powerful to ask them, if they reject, why they disagree.

Ironically, they have followed the London Councils template which is wrong. Don't tell them that.

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20...aventionPCN.doc

Some other idiot council (Waltham Forest) recently replied they had to follow it! Bo Locks because they have to follow the law not some ass who drafted that document.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry850659
Demi
thanks Hippocrates, i will use the arguements definitely. Also cited 3 cases because i have just found their references on PATAS. But i'm a bit unclear about what you mean i should ask them for. Did you mean ask them for video viewing ?

Attached is a revised version of the letter i will be sending them

i'm hoping that letter will scare them into no response
Demi
hi guys, asked to view images and video, the Barking and Dagenham council replied saying my representation had been denied. That gave me a additional case to argue, i sent out the appeal attached here and the council chickened out because they never follow the law.

Sincere gratitude to all the guys that replied when i panicked with receiving the PCN, (Hippocrates, Incandescent and EDW)your advice and signposting to references on PATAS won me the appeal.

Keep up the good work guys and anyone who uses help from this forum should come back with feedback to keep up information sharing

Attached is the appeal i sent out and the reply from Barking and Dagenham Council. Below are the attchments





Click to view attachment


Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment


here are the 2 attachments, first the appeal i sent off with 3 reference cases and the next the PCN cancellation
EDW
nice win
Hippocrates
Hang on a minute. When was the hearing to take place?
Demi
Thanks a million EDW, Barking and dagenham council seem never to learn their lesson, i bet they care less as only a very few ever really try contesting and millions of pounds are raked in yearly by preying on the great British public

Hippocrates......the hearing was meant to take place 28days from the day PATAS received my appeal, which was the day after i sent it as i used recorded 1st class delivery.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Demi @ Thu, 10 Oct 2013 - 00:00) *
Thanks a million EDW, Barking and dagenham council seem never to learn their lesson, i bet they care less as only a very few ever really try contesting and millions of pounds are raked in yearly by preying on the great British public

Hippocrates......the hearing was meant to take place 28days from the day PATAS received my appeal, which was the day after i sent it as i used recorded 1st class delivery.


That means nothing to me. How many days before the hearing date did they Do Not Contest?
Demi
Hippocrates....sent out my appeal to PATAS on 14/09 to be price, they should have received it on 15/09 and the hearing was just said to be approximately 28days from 15/09, on the acknowledgement letter from PATAS. No letter for an exact date came before the council sent a no contest on the 03/10 as the letter i uploaded shows. Hope that answers it. Thanks for your input to winning the appeal.

Did you have some input to deduct from the times between hearing and no contest?
Hippocrates
I have seen decisions re costs where a council has dnc eed say two or three days before a hearing.
Demi
Hippocrates.....I doubt if they will as i also just received a letter today from PATAS this time, saying the council have decided not to pursue and if i had made any payment i would be refunded.

I reckon they did not have clear evidence on camera or picture of sign contravention by my vehicle thats why they rejected my request for still images and video and could not produce them to PATAS either coupled with other arguments i put forward from case references you guys handed me which themselves alone have won cases
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.