QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 21 May 2014 - 23:02)
Hippo Old Beansprout.
That is stretching it abit.
They ask you request in writing to view at one of their offices. During working hours. And state they will respond within 2 weeks and put the case on hold until viewing is complete.
I reckon any adjudicator is going to find that substantially compliant. I hope you can prove me wrong but ???
The PCN does not inform the recipient of the highlighted parts of the law. I advise the OP gets on with making the request as per the law, not as per the PCN: He stipulates the
time and office and they must
comply. Respond is meaningless: they could say sorry mate, no can do!
OK then: let a High Court judge decide if respond and comply mean the same thing!
Mandatory info missing from Reg. 10 PCN
The PCN does not contain mandatory information re viewing the evidence. Case Nos.: 2120293222, 2130089798, 2130149029, 2130034162, 2130397290,
2130011644, 2130430807, 2140026692, 2140006797, 2140068320. 213009616A, 2120473279
Possibly:
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: 2130011644
Declarant: Mr James Reilly
Authority: Newham
VRM: USF8
PCN: PN0643484A
Contravention Date: 03 May 2012
Contravention Time: 07:13
Contravention Location: Barking Road
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Footway parking (one - four wheels on footway)
Referral Date: 09 Jan 2013
Adjudicator: Neeti Haria
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: The appellant appeared at the hearing. He admitted the vehicle was parked at the location but he explained that it was an emergency as he has a stoma and the bag had leaked and he needed to change the pouch and his clothes. He has produced evidence in support of the condition and also a letter from the Stoma Care Sister to support the fact that he struggles to cope with changing the pouch. He explained that there are no public toilets locally and it was just after 7am, he stated that they know the owner of the café where they stopped and his son (the driver of the vehicle) holds keys to the café and so was able to open it to access the toilets. He has produced a letter from the café owner in support.
Having heard from the appellant I find him to be honest and credible and it is clear that the appellant is struggling to cope with his condition, he is very distressed at having to admit he struggles to cope
In addition the appellant raised several other issues. He contends that the owner of the café over the last 15 years has regularly put out table and chairs on the area concerned and that it is private land and so contends that the Authority cannot issue a Penalty Charge Notice. He produced a letter from the owner of the café in support.
He also relies on the principle of legitimate expectation and has produced copies of the decisions of other adjudicators in support. The Authority has not addressed this issue.
He also contends that the camera used by the Authority to issue the Penalty Charge Notice is not an approved device and although the Authority has produced a certificate he contends that the certificate does not relate to the camera used to issue the Penalty Charge Notice. He has produced a photograph showing the camera and claims that there is no number on the post to identify the camera and that the camera has subsequently been removed. The Authority has addressed this point and has produced a copy of an email showing the camera has the necessary approval.
The points raised by the appellant at the hearing are new points which the Authority has not had the chance to consider. I adjourned the appeal and requested that the Authority consider the issues raised by the appellant and make submissions on the points. In addition I requested that the Authority consider the exercise of its discretion as it is my opinion that the circumstances amount to compelling mitigation.
The Authority has produced photographs as well as an aerial photograph marked up to show the location where the vehicle was parked compared with the location of St Johns car park where there are public conveniences that they say he could have used. The Authority has reconsidered the exercise of it's discretion and they do not accept the circumstances and although they accept the medical condition, they state they do not accept the circumstances amount to a medical emergency.
The appellant also appeals on the ground of procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority as he claims that the Authority has failed to comply with Regulation 3(5) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 which provides:
(5) 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's opinion, establish the contravention. .
(6) 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."
The appellant wrote to the Authority on the 10 June requesting an appointment to view the CCTV footage at the offices of the Authority in Dockside Road. He states that the Authority refused his request and he states that Penalty Charge Notice states the CCTV footage can only be viewed at one office.
I find the failure by the Authority to comply with Regulation 3(5) to be a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority. The Regulation clearly states the recipient of a Penalty Charge Notice is entitled to have made available the record of the contravention at one of the offices of the Authority specified by the recipient of the Penalty Charge Notice. The limitation of this right to the office stated in the Penalty Charge Notice amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.
Accordingly I allow the appeal.
Since I am able to determine the appeal on the above point it is not necessary or proportionate for me to address the other points raised by the appellant.