Hi All,

I have received a PCN today from Croydon Council for doing a 50R - Performing a prohibited turn (No right turn). I have checked the wording regarding the dates and representation wordings which appear correct.

However, it does not mention the right to view evidence and there are no pictures on the PCN. Could this invalidate the PCN?

Assuming this would be the case, and I were to reply to them within the next few days, could they re-issue the PCN, this time stating where/how I can view the evidence? Should I wait a bit before submitting this to them?

Your opinions are, as ever, greatly appreciated.

Pippaki

There is no mandatory requirement for them to add viewing info on London Acts PCNs.
Doesn't mean you cannot ask and indeed should do if there is any doubt in your mind over circumstances.

OK, thanks for that. I assumed that they would include some sort of evidence of the contravention. The driver has taken this route to work for over a year so this comes a bit as a surprise.

So, who do I write to, to get some pictures or the video? The only address on there is where I should send them the payment. No details on where to send my representation to either.

Ah and one more question, looking at some other members PCN I have noticed the Data Protection statement. On my ticket it says "..in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998." but others on here say 2003? What would be the difference? Could it help?

Thanks Pippaki

Hello, sorry I have one more question regarding this PCN, it doesn't give me an address, email address or telephone number to tell me where I should send my representation to (once I have seen the evidence). Could I add this as procedural error on their part as they failed to mention this? And it doesn't include procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority as one of the representation options?

Thanks Pippaki

That's definitely the whole of the PCN you have posted up? I can't see an address or phone number either in the documentation posted up. I haven't come across this issue before but it most certainly prejudices the motorist's ability to appeal. Sounds like a PI to me!

There is no Procedural Impropriety ground with London Acts

Claim that as the PCN fails to notify where to send representations, it fetters your rights to make reps and therefore fails to adequately meet mandatory requirements.
As it does not, there can be no penalty therefore the penalty charge exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case

I cannot see where in legislation a PCN must show the address for reps BTW, perhaps someone else can point you to correct legislation

This was the whole of the PCN, nothing else. I find it hard to believe that and unfair that procedural impropriety is not part of the transport for london act. I mean, you make a mistake they will get you, they make a mistake they will get you. Seems unfair. Wouldn't there be some supplementary guidelines they must follow?

Unfortunately, much as we would like legislation deemed necessary by Traffic Management Act 2004 to apply to all other legislation, it does not work that way.
But that doesn't mean that errors by councils go unpunished. There was no PI ground on previous 1991 traffic act and adjudicators used the penalty exceeds ground.
Reasoning being that if a council did something they shouldn't, the enforcement was no longer fair (in law) so there was no penalty.
While we stress that you cannot claim a PI, as some adjudicators and all councils will simply say it is a ground that does not exist so can be disregarded, you can use the grounds provided.

I'm still trying to find the bit that says a council MUST provide an address BTW. Anyone ?
Certainly says they must tell you that you can make reps and what the grounds are so inherently there must be an address to make those reps to... but far nicer if we can point to Act ??? S??? says there must be an address

I have searched through the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 but it doesn't say in there that they need to provide an address. The only thing I can see is:
(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

I am not sure if this means, make representation via email/mail etc...but either way the PCN I have doesn't tell me any of those things.

That'll do it.
Form by necessity must include an address

Perhaps it is just so obvious that in order to make representations that there has to be an address or e-mail address to send them to, that the draughtsman of the legislation never thought to provide for it. Even if no-one can come up with the Act/clause I can't see a PATAS adjudicator dismissing an appeal where the motorist says "they told me how to make representations but gave me no address to send them to".

Well they haven't told you how to make representations have they? For all you know you are supposed to put them on the back of a McDonalds wrapper delivered to the Mayor's office. They maybe have told what grounds you can use in representations, but not what "form".

My guess is that there is a missing page(s).

I have found the below link:
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policylob...nfdocuments.htm

The last link downloads a template PCN which looks similar to the one I received which also hasn't got any information as to where to see the evidence or where to make your representations to.

Bizzare. Any suggestions as to how to proceed?
Pippaki

Why?

http://www.croydon.gov.uk/transportandstre...g/movingvehicle

says that:

Moving or bus route contraventions
To appeal or make a representation against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for a moving contravention, (for example failing to drive in the correct direction, or using a route restricted to certain vehicles such as a bus route) you can do so within 14 days of the PCN being issued, by using our new 'PCN appeals' service.

new PCN appeals service?

Because Form is a general word used quite a lot in legislation... often Form and Manner.
And would normally include how the reps must be made, ie, in writing to..., By email to ???
So they are welcome to say reps must written in blood, or more generally "you can use this form or write to..."
But it is all encompassing, written, email, in blood during the full moon and really has to include an address or they cannot show the complete form that representations must take.

So, how are you going to convince an adjudicator that you are constrained by a lack of an address?

I was kind of hoping that they would say that the ticket hasn't been issued correctly and therefore would be invalid? I am also going to try and see some evidence of the alleged contravention as I wasn't the driver and for all I know someone could have used the number plates that were stolen about a year ago? What annoys me is the lack of information on the ticket and I feel somewhat discriminated (probably not the right word for it) that london transport act doesn't contain the same options as the other act (sorry can't remember the name of it just now).

I am most likely clutching at straws here but I have nothing to lose to get the relevant information I think.

Kind Regards,
Pippaki

In which case their new appeals service has one handy feature,
you can use it to answer that question, if it is your vehicle can you
add the photographs to your thread, thanks.
You can use this facility to:
View details and photographs of your PCN
https://croydon.xrxpsc.com/CroydonOCM/Default.aspx

It's that stated on the PCN that counts. Why would or should the recipient even check the website?
The PCN should accurately convey the allegation and the options open to the recipient.
A website that a person might not even have access to is a secondary issue.
Does the PCN even mention making representations online? (The posted images are too low resolution and too small for me to read.)

The Council and many an adjudicator will simply state that they have given an address for payment. Anyway, Croydon will be having a field day as they watch this forum on a regular basis and sometimes quote advice given in appeals.

However:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry730713

That version clearly gives the information.

So what is OP going to do? Not make representations and risk a charge certificate? Surely not. Or write to the address given and then a PATAS adjudicator will not agree OP has been constrained or prejudiced?

If OP wins on this argument, this will have global repercussions for Croydon.

I was thinking of emailing the general croydon contact us and ask them first to provide me with any evidence (pictures or video), or a link where I can see the information and ask them to stop time running out for the reduced payment time as without having all the information how am I supposed to make a representation? One needs all the facts. Based on their reply and evidence I will make a representation (either sending it to contact croydon email or whatever they have provided).

I don't think there would be "global repercussions" for Croydon as the adjudicator just deal with each case and its circumstances and although someone may refer to a certain case, they don't have to consider it?

My point is, that the way this ticket is being issued is wrong and should be addressed and maybe an adjudicator would see it the same way.

Pippaki

Well if no reps are submitted then there is no right of appeal. So reps need to be submitted.
If the OP wants to make a point of it then I suppose he could write to the council's head office.

That said, I cannot properly read the docs posted as they are reduced resolution. So for all I know the PCN says that reps are to be written on a McDonalds wrapper and delivered to the mayor's office.

@Pippaki
Please proceed in the tried and tested manner. Please re-post scrubbed scans of all sides of all pages of the entirety of the PCN.

Scrubbed = obscure or redact your name & address (if applicable), the PCN number and the vehicle reg. Please leave visible all times, dates, location and council info.
Create a free account on a third party hosting service. I use http://tinypic.com with no complaints, there are plenty of other choices. Scan at the scanner default of 150 or 300 dpi. Please do not attempt to manipulate the image size in any way, shape form or fashion, the forum software will take there of that where necessary. Upload your scans/photos etc to the hosting site and simply copy and paste the provided IMG links that will be provided into your posts on here. Et voilà, the images appear on the forum. Some judiciously placed pieces of cut up Post-it notes are good for obscuring if you don't want to edit the scan with Microsoft Paint or Photoshop Elements or whatever. Easy as falling of a bike once you have done the first one.

I would play it this way. Ring them, get a name and record it. Tell them their PCNs have no details of whom to make representations and tell them to cancel the ticket. Then phone the press. Their PCNs - all of them - fail this:

(b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

Sorry, coming round to the general consensus of this PCN. Tell them you will not accept any information given to you by phone and that the fact that this information is not on the PCN invalidates it and has caused you inconvenience, and very possibly prejudice if you had not contacted them by phone. Also, explain to them that they have had historic difficulties with their PCNs and it is only after them "spying" on here that they have got their act together. Do not let them attempt to wriggle out and take no prisoners.

Hi Croydon. I am prepared to bet £130 you will change your PCNs yet again after these observations.

Head of services details:

Anne.Harman@croydon.gov.uk

Customer Services Team Leader
Parking Services Division
3rd Floor Davis House
Robert Street
CROYDON
CR0 1QQ

Tel: 020 8726 6000 (ext 60804)
Fax: 020 8667 1066

Here the scanned copies. The PCN is basically one piece of paper written on both sides. Hope it is more readable.

Do Croydon have any local public offices? Maybe deliver it to one of them and obtain a receipt. There's a good chance they will loose it in the internal mail and you will have copper bottomed proof of delivery.

So here below the response I have drafted. Is it ok to go? I will be sending it to the head office or possibly hand delivery it tomorrow. Another point to note is that back in 2011 our number plates were stolen and I still have a crime reference number. In my opinion the london transport act is clearly lacking the bits about evidence, especially as cloning number plate crimes are on the up and it should be challenged.

And of goes the letter, which I addressed to the councils head office. Lets see how long it will take for a response.

Hi All,
So below the rejection from Croydon Council to my letter above. I have now to prepare to take this to the adjudicator. Will be reading a few of the decisions on the patas site to familiarise with how this all works.







Pippaki

28 days period is mis-stated. Within adds another day. High Court precedent.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

Rejection of representations against penalty charge notice

3. Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—

(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—

(i)the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and

(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,

and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.



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: 2100433329
Appellant:
Authority: Enfield
VRM:
PCN: EF22490495
Contravention Date: 21 Jun 2010
Contravention Time: 11:02
Contravention Location: Riversfield Road EN1
Penalty Amount: £100.00
Contravention: Parked adjacent to a dropped footway
Decision Date: 27 Oct 2010
Adjudicator: Carl Teper
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund the penalty charge and the release charges paid.
Reasons: The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a dropped footway when in Riversdale Road on 21 June 2010 at 11.02.

The Appellant's case is that there has been a procedural impropriety in relation to the period of time expressed by the authority in relation to the consideration of representations following the removal of a vehicle. The Appellant argues the authority mis-states the Appellant's true legal position because it adds a day to the time prescribed in law for the authority to respond to the representations.

The removal representation form issued by the authority reads as follows:

'Upon receipt The London Borough of Enfield will investigate your representations and inform you whether they have been accepted or rejected within 56 days of the service of representations.'

Regulations 12(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 reads in relation to vehicles that have been removed as follows:

(2) Subject to paragraph (1), if representations are made in accordance with regulation 11(4), it shall be the duty of the enforcement authority, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which it receives the representations -

I find that the period of time as expressed by the authority in its removal representation form mis-states the time for consideration of the representations by adding one day, which is not permitted by the regulations.

The fact that this Appellant may or may not have been prejudiced by this is not a 'cure' to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. In the well-known decision of R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin), relating to a Penalty Charge Notice issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991, the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation was emphasised. Mr. Justice Jackson said in that case:

"Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."

I am satisfied that the judgment in the Barnet case is applicable to the Road Traffic Management Act 2004 as it was to the Road Traffic Act 1991.

All the legislation pertaining to decriminalised traffic enforcement is based around a sequence of actions. Each action must be completed within a specified time limit otherwise there are consequences. Any variation to one of these time limits has a knock-on effect on the subsequent actions and it effectively destroys the overall framework of the legislation. For reasons of coherence and consistency individual local authorities cannot be permitted to vary time limits

I find the Penalty Charge Notice to be defective and unenforceable.

In relation to other matters relied on by the Appellant I have decided that in light of my ruling on the first issue raised I am not required to resolve any other issues.

The appeal is allowed.

The trouble I am having is how to establish procedural impropriety when it isn't in the transport for london traffic act?

No need to use that phrase: just state that the NOR is defective and non-compliant with the law as it plays fast and loose with the time frame.

We need to see the date of the NOR.

Date of the NOR is 10/09.

So, please tell us when the law states your last day is to register your appeal. Then compare with what the NOR states. BTW the legal date of service is today.

Hi Hippocrates, thanks for your input. This may sound stupid or maybe my lack of understanding English (being German myself). How does "within 28 days" add another day to it?

Also, by legal day of service I presume you refer to the last day that the rejection should have been received? Bit unlucky for me I guess.
I have 28 days from receiving the notice to rejection to appeal to the adjudicator.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t13542.html

2060543532
2060096740

Please separate the link and case as it will not open.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

2060543532

An old case but relevant.

Have done so now...trying to collate PATAS decisions based on my circumstances.

Those two and the Barnet will suffice.

You have 28 days beginning with the date of service which is today. From adds another day too. So, what day do you make it?

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j....75097201,d.d2s

Sorry, I mean tomorrow.


Sorry, I mean tomorrow is day 1. I previously misread the date of NOR as 9th September.

Ok, I have been trying to figure out the issue with the NOR, specifically the dates. A couple of regulars have pointed out to me that there is something wrong with the dates but I just don't get it.

So, here my understanding:

NOR is dated 10/09/2014
Date of service of the NOR should then be 12/09/2014

In one of the judgments I read the following:

By legal convention, where the “within” formula is deployed, the day upon which the triggering event occurs is excluded from the period.

Croydon Council states the following in the NOR:

“If you are not satisfied with this decision, you may appeal on specific grounds within 28 days of delivery of this rejection notice to the independent adjudicator.”
followed by:
“Unless you make an appeal within 28 days, you must pay the penalty charge of £130 to the London Borough of Croydon. Failure to pay or appeal, may result in the issue of a charge certificate which will increase the charge due to £195.”

The london traffic act states the following, regarding charge certificates:
“…the notice of rejection must state that a charge certificate may be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection.”

and this regarding appeals:
“Where an enforcing authority serve a notice of rejection, the person who made the representations in respect of that notice was served may, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of that notice appeal to a traffic adjudicator against the decision of the enforcing authority.”

I am assuming when it mentions 28 days, it means working days? So here is what I make of it.
Based on the LTA, before the end of the 28th day would mean I have until 23:59:59 on 21/10/2014?
Based on Croydon Council and the "within" rule it would mean I have until 23:59:59 on 20/10/2014 as the "triggering" day would be excluded.
Where Croydon Council states within 28 days, without further reference to a starting point is a bit tricky because I don't know what these 28 days refer to, are these the same 28 days they refer to in the paragraph above or are these 28 days from the date of the NOR, or 28 days from when we received the PCN? Difficult.

If I got the above wrong could someone please explain these to me in really plain English?
Thanks Pippaki

In terms of the "within" issue I believe the MacArthur v Bury case still has relevance

www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/downloads/Wording_of_PCN.pdf

Extending the time for payment will not cause real prejudice therefore where is the OP's wriggle room on this issue?

Mick

You seem to have the right idea except the 28 days are that, not working days.

The regs specifically says beginning with...
The trigger date is day 1. So start counting on day 1 until you get to day 28.
But PCN specifies within 28 days of the date. So if you start counting at midnight at the end of that day, at the end of the 28th day, you are still within 28 days on day 29.
They add a day.
Specific dates are critical so everyone knows exactly where they are, both recipient of the notice and the enforcing authority. Altering those dates, being ambiguous or adding a day creates the potential for cock up. That is prejudicial.

While on the subject, where in the regulations does the date of delivery come into it?
The regulations state date of service and while that may be the date of delivery, it does not have to be.
Another ambiguity and cock up waiting to happen.

Hi Dancing Dad, so which date is the trigger day? It is supposed to be the date of service of the notice and from reading other threads I "assumed" that it was accepted to be 2 days after posting the NOR?
Mad Mick V, I see your point. But what do you make of the below sentence from the NOR?

“Unless you make an appeal within 28 days, you must pay the penalty charge of £130 to the London Borough of Croydon. Failure to pay or appeal, may result in the issue of a charge certificate which will increase the charge due to £195.”

Trigger date is date of service which is the second working day after date of notice and posting (which should be the same)

Sorry, I have another question as I am in the process of drafting my appeal to PATAS. This question relates to evidence held by the council.

The PCN, as previously said, does not contain any still images, links to where I can view the evidence or that I am allowed to view the evidence even.
I have been looking at the Transport for London Act 2003 and there is nothing which states that the authority has to actually provide me with such.

Surely I must be missing something. Who in their right mind would just pay up without any evidence? How would you make your representations, if you do not have all the facts? The only option really available then is to go to the adjudicator but then you would lose out on any discount, which was previously available? Doesn't the council have to prove the alleged contravention occurred? If it does have to prove it, to whom does it have to prove? Shouldn't the Act be amended?

In my case, nothing has been proven as the only thing I have to go on is the date/time and vehicle registration and in our case those plates were stolen a couple of years back.

They only have to prove it at adjudication. The discount is to get you to fold and pay-up just like US plea-bargaining.

Here what I have for my PATAS appeal so far:
Comments and feedback would be greatly appreciated:




Pippaki

My husband thinks we should just pay up now. Got only til midnight to do at the discounted rate. What shall I do?decisions decisions. ...