Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Hopeless appeal - council PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
CouncilFraud
Hello Everyone,

I got a council PCN last year which I appealed with Bogsy's hopeless appeal letter (long story short theres nothing doing with appealing it on any grounds other than going for the hopeless appeal). So the council came back with a stock response of rejecting it. But they did not provide any of the info requested under the freedom of information act or even acknowledge the FOI request.

So I've emailed the FOI office at the council to dob the council parking department in for not processing the request in time or providing any of the requested info. So I'm wondering what the next action is, wait for NTO? Write back to them to say wheres my photos and other info?

Here is what I asked for, as per standard Bogsy goodness ;-)

1) Please provide all notes and photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer in regard to this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2) Please provide a print out of the case summary /log history in regard to this PCN from your PCN processing system.
3) Please provide the full title of the traffic order I am alleged to have contravened in regard to this PCN.
4) Please confirm if the traffic order named above has been amended. If it has, then please confirm on how many occasions and provide the full title of each amending order and the date each one came in to force.
5) Where traffic orders are named in reply to 3 and 4 above, please provide copies of the Notice of Proposal and Notice of Making in each case and confirm in each case where and when these notices were advertised.
6) Please confirm the number of council employees or contracted staff whose duty it is to consider parking appeals.
7) Please confirm the number of staff that have attended accredited training courses on the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or any other parking related courses.
8) Where courses have been attended then please give the date of attendance and indicate how many staff attended and provide the course title and the full name and address of the training providers.
9) Please confirm whether the council obtain registered keeper details direct from the DVLA or whether the council use a third party to do so. If the council use a third party then please name the third party.
10) If a third party is used then please provide details on how this third party satisfies regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.

The council responded with (note there were no photos in the email even though they say they are enclosed):

Thank you for writing to us. Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your correspondence.


We have carefully considered your points but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

You were issued a PCN for parking on a single yellow line at a time when you were not allowed to park there. Single yellow lines mean no parking, except to load or unload. However, the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed your vehicle and saw no loading or unloading taking place.

The rule applies during the times shown on the sign. The signs governing single yellow lines are not always nearby. Inside a Controlled Zone, the information may be on Controlled Zone signs instead. Controlled Zone signs are like border-crossing signs: you will have passed one as you entered the zone.

The enclosed photo helps to show why your PCN was issued.

You have these choices:
You can pay the discount charge of £35.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of the date of this letter being served (delivered). (This is taken to be 2 days after the date shown on the letter unless you can show that it was not delivered by that date.)
You can pay £70.00.
You can formally challenge your PCN by using a Notice to Owner form. The vehicle's owner will automatically receive the form if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days of being issued. The form offers you the chance to formally challenge your PCN or pay the full £70.00. If you decide to formally challenge your PCN, please do not write to us again but wait until the Notice to Owner form arrives.

How to pay
Online at www under the heading "Do it online" click "Pay" and follow the instructions.
24hr payment line Payments can be made on the automated payment line using a debit or credit card. Please telephone xxx
At a Post Office Payments can be made at a Post Office by cash, cheque or debit card. You must have the barcode that was printed on the original Penalty Charge Notice. The barcode will also be on any Notice to Owner / Charge Certificate / Order for Recovery that may have been posted to you after the Penalty Charge Notice was issued.
At a Paypoint outlet Payments can be made at a Paypoint outlet by cash only. You must have the barcode that was printed on the original Penalty Charge Notice. The barcode will also be on any Notice to Owner / Charge Certificate / Order for Recovery that may have been posted to you after the Penalty Charge Notice was issued.



Do you think I have enough to let the NTO come, make representation that they mucked up by not supplying any information or photos that I requested? Any thoughts?

TIA
Incandescent
An appeal is an appeal; a request for information is a request for info, and putting the two together doesn't mean they have to respond to the information request at the same time as rejecting your appeal. I can't see anything in your post to make it worth waiting for the NtO except if the discount period has expired in which case there is no point in paying-up now. However to respond in strength to a NtO, (and also at adjudication), you need something directly related to the alleged contravention. Not responding to an FOI request is outside the CPE process, so you could not put this down as a procedural impropriety, for instance.

The above is my understanding but see what others say.
CouncilFraud
Thanks Incandescent, they've left another 14 days to pay at half rate. From what I read I thought the aim of the hopeless appeal was for them to trip up by not providing all the requested info like photos, traffic orders, log book entries, proof of CEOs in uniform etc? Then this failure to provide they info was grounds for a tribunal to squash the ticket?

Or is the hopeless appeal in the hope that the council get bamboozled with the long letter and take the path of least resistance and kick the ticket?

The ticket itself was for contravening a CPZ, so as much as the signs are miles away, theres not a leg for me to stand on, hence the hopeless appeal.
Incandescent
I really do sympathise with those who live and drive in London. It is a money-making game, we know that, the councils know that, the Mayor knows that, the Government knows that, but nothing is ever done to stop the cash flowing in. ONe does have to wonder why.
hcandersen
What is the date of the authority's response letter?
CouncilFraud
Hello folks, yes Incandescent its legalised racketeering, if someone in the street tries to rob you then at least you have a chance to defend yourself, these lot are parasites who only work with the threat of criminalising everyday folk.

HCAndersen, I got the ticket on 30/11/14, I did an informal appeal on 07/12/14 and just got a reply from the council dated 04/02/15 (they stipulate theres no time limit for them to respond to informal appeals. Interestingly the FOI officer at the council has come back saying they will remind parking services of their obligations and investigate the breach of them taking too long to respond, if nothing else parking services may get a snottogram from their FOI colleagues, immature little me.
Incandescent
QUOTE (CouncilFraud @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 19:44) *
Hello folks, yes Incandescent its legalised racketeering, if someone in the street tries to rob you then at least you have a chance to defend yourself, these lot are parasites who only work with the threat of criminalising everyday folk.

HCAndersen, I got the ticket on 30/11/14, I did an informal appeal on 07/12/14 and just got a reply from the council dated 04/02/15 (they stipulate theres no time limit for them to respond to informal appeals. Interestingly the FOI officer at the council has come back saying they will remind parking services of their obligations and investigate the breach of them taking too long to respond, if nothing else parking services may get a snottogram from their FOI colleagues, immature little me.

There may be no statutory limit within the CPE legislation about replying to informal reps, but there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do, so assuming you have yet to receive the Notice to Owner, you should wait for this and appeal under "the penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case".

Of course, you can always fold and pay-up the discounted amount, of course, as their letter offers. It is up to you. However, I suspect doing this will leave you with a feeling of seething resentment, so if it were me, I'd take them all the way, but it is your money, not mine.
hcandersen
So, you're gambling the discount against what exactly? What substantive argument do you have now or are you simply hoping that you can trip up the authority and succeed at adj on this point?

As said, it's your money and if you wish to risk it in this way, that's your choice.

southpaw82
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?
Hippocrates
For details pertaining to your PCN you should not have made a Freedom of Information request. Or indeed a traffic order. If you want proper help with we need to see the PCN and council evidence.
DancingDad
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?

Statutory time limit for an NTO (in the normal run of things) is 6 months. This can be extended if the process is reset. For instance following a successful appeal to TEC.
But Incandescent is right in that some adjudicators will look at how reasonable a council have been in the process and could see three months as unfair.
I'm looking for one case where this has happened at the moment though to be fair, it was a succession of delays IIRC.

Failing to provide information requested has also won but no guarantee every adjudicator will see this as valid.
Hippocrates
I make it two months: I did an informal appeal on 07/12/14 and just got a reply from the council dated 04/02/15
DancingDad
Doubt any adjudicator would worry about 2 months, it is more or less the 56 days allowed for formal appeals
CouncilFraud
Yes its a gamble I would be annoyed to pay up now but doubly annoyed to pay full jack on a lost appeal. Not got a leg on ticket itself, original thread is here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=95154

I am so useless with accounts I forgot my old login and even the email I used to register it, embarrassed ;-)

I thought I would use Bogsy's hopeless appeal letter including these requests under FOI to parking services as part of my response to the ticket, in the hope they tripped up, I must admit I don't know the exact significance of any leverage given they didn't even enclose photos in their response when the letter said please see enclosed photos.

So the basis of my appeal seems to be:

1)Information requested not provided and FOI deadline of 20 working days has elapsed
2)Their letter said see enclosed photos, no photos were enclosed
3)As suggested by Incandescent they have taken a long time
southpaw82
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?

Statutory time limit for an NTO (in the normal run of things) is 6 months. This can be extended if the process is reset. For instance following a successful appeal to TEC.
But Incandescent is right in that some adjudicators will look at how reasonable a council have been in the process and could see three months as unfair.
I'm looking for one case where this has happened at the moment though to be fair, it was a succession of delays IIRC.

Failing to provide information requested has also won but no guarantee every adjudicator will see this as valid.

That hasn't answered my question though (other than to suggest it's just a guess).
DancingDad
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:03) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?

Statutory time limit for an NTO (in the normal run of things) is 6 months. This can be extended if the process is reset. For instance following a successful appeal to TEC.
But Incandescent is right in that some adjudicators will look at how reasonable a council have been in the process and could see three months as unfair.
I'm looking for one case where this has happened at the moment though to be fair, it was a succession of delays IIRC.

Failing to provide information requested has also won but no guarantee every adjudicator will see this as valid.

That hasn't answered my question though (other than to suggest it's just a guess).


I am looking for one for another thread, not made up.... honest
Hippocrates
As I said, the FOI is a weak point.
hcandersen
According to you you do not have a leg to stand on as regards the contravention, therefore your hopes are pinned on procedural improprieties. At this stage I do not believe that one exists. As I understand it, there is no procedural requirement on the authority to provide the info you've requested to the recipient of a PCN.

Others may know whether this authority tend to re-offer the discount in the event of unsuccessful reps, in which case you could wait for the NTO with no likely downside except the time and effort required to submit reps.

Bogsy
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:03) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?

Statutory time limit for an NTO (in the normal run of things) is 6 months. This can be extended if the process is reset. For instance following a successful appeal to TEC.
But Incandescent is right in that some adjudicators will look at how reasonable a council have been in the process and could see three months as unfair.
I'm looking for one case where this has happened at the moment though to be fair, it was a succession of delays IIRC.

Failing to provide information requested has also won but no guarantee every adjudicator will see this as valid.

That hasn't answered my question though (other than to suggest it's just a guess).


It may possibly be better for the OP to argue that taking 2 months to reply fails to comply with the Secretary of State's statutory guidance where it is recommended that council's should respond to challenges within 14 days. Perhaps the Council should be asked to demonstrate that they had regard to the guidance as required by law and to explain why they did not follow the guidance. Any failure to have regard is a procedural impropriety.

88. It is likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges
against PCNs before they issue the NtO (this does not apply to PCNs issued
by post where the PCN will act as an NtO). They are likely to receive these
within the 14 day discount period. Enforcement authorities should give proper
consideration and respond to these challenges with care and attention, and in
a timely manner in order to foster good customer relations, reduce the number
of NtOs sent and the number of formal representations to be considered. The
Secretary of State suggests that authorities should respond within 14 days.
Enforcement authorities should also have suitably trained staff with the
appropriate authority to deal with these challenges. If the evidence or
circumstances (including mitigating circumstances) provide grounds for
cancelling the PCN, then the enforcement authority should do so and let the
vehicle owner know. If the enforcement authority considers that there are no
grounds for cancellation, it should tell the vehicle owner and explain its
reasons.


QUOTE (CouncilFraud @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 23:09) *
Or is the hopeless appeal in the hope that the council get bamboozled with the long letter and take the path of least resistance and kick the ticket?


The appeal was something I wrote a long long time ago when many councils were still coming to terms with the TMA 2004. It was designed for where there is no obvious appeal point. It was hoped that the council would find it easier to accept the appeal rather than spend the time dealing with it. It did work a few times but councils are now more experienced and less intimidated. I would not recommend using it these days and most certainly would not recommend relying on it if paying the discount is at risk. Pity you did not initially come to us as we could have offered you more hopeful advice.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 10:34) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 23:03) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:31) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 6 Feb 2015 - 22:23) *
there is a Common Law duty on the council to act fairly. By failing to respond for nearly 3 months, this they have signally failed to do

Do you have a source for that? At the back of my mind is a six month "reasonable time" for an NTO so on what basis are you saying three months is unfair?

Statutory time limit for an NTO (in the normal run of things) is 6 months. This can be extended if the process is reset. For instance following a successful appeal to TEC.
But Incandescent is right in that some adjudicators will look at how reasonable a council have been in the process and could see three months as unfair.
I'm looking for one case where this has happened at the moment though to be fair, it was a succession of delays IIRC.

Failing to provide information requested has also won but no guarantee every adjudicator will see this as valid.

That hasn't answered my question though (other than to suggest it's just a guess).


It may possibly be better for the OP to argue that taking 2 months to reply fails to comply with the Secretary of State's statutory guidance where it is recommended that council's should respond to challenges within 14 days. Perhaps the Council should be asked to demonstrate that they had regard to the guidance as required by law and to explain why they did not follow the guidance. Any failure to have regard is a procedural impropriety.

88. It is likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges
against PCNs before they issue the NtO (this does not apply to PCNs issued
by post where the PCN will act as an NtO). They are likely to receive these
within the 14 day discount period. Enforcement authorities should give proper
consideration and respond to these challenges with care and attention, and in
a timely manner in order to foster good customer relations, reduce the number
of NtOs sent and the number of formal representations to be considered. The
Secretary of State suggests that authorities should respond within 14 days.
Enforcement authorities should also have suitably trained staff with the
appropriate authority to deal with these challenges. If the evidence or
circumstances (including mitigating circumstances) provide grounds for
cancelling the PCN, then the enforcement authority should do so and let the
vehicle owner know. If the enforcement authority considers that there are no
grounds for cancellation, it should tell the vehicle owner and explain its
reasons.


QUOTE (CouncilFraud @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 23:09) *
Or is the hopeless appeal in the hope that the council get bamboozled with the long letter and take the path of least resistance and kick the ticket?


The appeal was something I wrote a long long time ago when many councils were still coming to terms with the TMA 2004. It was designed for where there is no obvious appeal point. It was hoped that the council would find it easier to accept the appeal rather than spend the time dealing with it. It did work a few times but councils are now more experienced and less intimidated. I would not recommend using it these days and most certainly would not recommend relying on it if paying the discount is at risk. Pity you did not initially come to us as we could have offered you more hopeful advice.

I go with that: failure to have regard and see Incandescent's thread for cases.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://forums....zcaCFDP8GFIbe6A
CouncilFraud
Thanks all for the advice I think I will go for them not complying with statutory guidance there. Do you think it might be seen by the adjudicator as clutching at straws/baiting for procedural impropriety and lessen the credibility of an appeal?

Interesting read here about 56 days and Sheffield:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/offici...peals-1-4729849

From their appeals process here:

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/travel/d.../procedure.html

Unsuccessful appeals
If your appeal is rejected, we will send you a Notice of Rejection letter and ask you to pay the full charge. We will also include an appeal form (see below).
We will re-apply the discounted charge if your representation against a postal fine was received within the discount period.


Do you read this as we will discount all tickets gain (including those nasty yellow packets attached to windscreens that I got) or just ones that were posted without ever begin stuck to a windscreen? I'm unclear if the notice of rejection acts as a postal fine (and probably being daft).

On another note Bogsy, that hopeless appeal letter is an absolute corker, had me in stitches at the thought of parking services people tearing their hair out at it, I'm glad it got some tickets kicked!
Hippocrates
2110237531 http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/
Bogsy
QUOTE (CouncilFraud @ Sat, 7 Feb 2015 - 21:35) *
On another note Bogsy, that hopeless appeal letter is an absolute corker, had me in stitches at the thought of parking services people tearing their hair out at it, I'm glad it got some tickets kicked!


It still has use in hopeless cases. If only to make the appellant feel better. The Freedom of Information angle tagged onto it was a bit devious. Most councils have to reply free of charge to FOI requests that don't exceed a cost to them of £600. You would think that it is a no brainer for a council to cancel a penalty charge rather than go to the expense of a costly FOI request. Why spend £600 to obtain (in many cases)a penalty charge paid at discount which may be as little as £25? Also, FOI requests involving parking information will be passed to parking staff to gather. If they're doing this then they can't be issuing PCN's or considering appeals. It might be a devious tactic but it is legal.
CouncilFraud
Thanks Hippocrates, in that case I will await the NTO, they definitely did not attach a photograph to the email but said the attached photograph will explain why we are thieving.

The FOI bit is great Bogsy, it exploits the fact that Councils have no common sense and like to throw good money after bad.
Bogsy
Just to clarify, is paying the discounted charge still an option?
CouncilFraud
Hi Bogsy,

Yes they reset the clock on the discount so its still and option for another 11 days
Bogsy
OK. I'll be honest and say that so far I see nothing that is an absolute winner for you. It seems the strongest point thus far is the fact that the council failed to comply with statutory guidance and reply to your challenge within 14 days. I fear that the council may say that they do give regard but the xmas period contributed to the delay and that an adjudicator will accept this as a valid reason.

If you cannot afford to gamble paying the higher charge then don't. It's your money at risk so give it some serious thought. I'm not trying to be negative, it's just that none of us can guarantee that you will succeed, it's 50/50 at best.
Hippocrates
Sorry, but I for one need to see all documents to make a final decision on this.
Bogsy
What do you need to decide H? Have you something in mind?
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 00:42) *
What do you need to decide H? Have you something in mind?

Just my advice.
Bogsy
Can't argue with that. Your advice has snatched victory from the jaws of defeat on many occasions.
hcandersen
You challenged. They took 2 months to reply. Although we haven't seen any docs yet, the discount is likely to expire on 18 Feb (14 days after the date of their letter).

IMO, the stat guidance angle is a distraction. The authority could have had regard and given itself an aspirational policy objective of answering within 14 days but IMO in no way would they tie themselves to having to, that would be madness. Just because they've had regard does not mean that the guidance, which itself only makes a recommendation, places a legally binding limit on the authority.

Can we please see the relevant docs, you've got 6 days left.
CouncilFraud
Hello again everyone, I am most appreciative for your continued assistance. I have pulled together the docs.

The original ticket attached.

My response I no longer have the exact copy due to an unfortunate incident with a beverage and computer hardware, but it was pretty much the same as from Bogsy's post here just adapted to my location, asking for standard FOI bits and info on uniforms:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry509013

Attached is the Councils rather lacklustre response with names/address removed (now please tell me if I am being daft but I can see no photos in the doc and this was the only attachment in the email, i've only removed my identifying text and name of the PS person responding).

For what its worth I also emailed the FOI officer to tell them PS did not respond to my FOI request:

Me:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you to you in regards to a FOI request that I made to Sheffield council parking services in response to a penalty charge notice that I was issued on 30/11/14. The PCN reference number is removed

As part of my written informal appeal in December I included a formal written request under the freedom of information act a number of pieces of information pertinent to my appeal. The information I requested was as follows:

1) Please provide all notes and photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer in regard to this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2) Please provide a print out of the case summary /log history in regard to this PCN from your PCN processing system.
3) Please provide the full title of the traffic order I am alleged to have contravened in regard to this PCN.
4) Please confirm if the traffic order named above has been amended. If it has, then please confirm on how many occasions and provide the full title of each amending order and the date each one came in to force.
5) Where traffic orders are named in reply to 3 and 4 above, please provide copies of the Notice of Proposal and Notice of Making in each case and confirm in each case where and when these notices were advertised.
6) Please confirm the number of council employees or contracted staff whose duty it is to consider parking appeals.
7) Please confirm the number of staff that have attended accredited training courses on the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or any other parking related courses.
8) Where courses have been attended then please give the date of attendance and indicate how many staff attended and provide the course title and the full name and address of the training providers.
9) Please confirm whether the council obtain registered keeper details direct from the DVLA or whether the council use a third party to do so. If the council use a third party then please name the third party.
10) If a third party is used then please provide details on how this third party satisfies regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.

I have today received a response from Sheffield council parking services in relation to my appeal. Unfortunately their response is both later than the 20 working days that the FOI act states I should receive a reply and it also contains none of the items of information that I have requested.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could look into why Sheffield council parking services have failed to respond to my FOI request within the timeframe and to provide the information that I have requested. If you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely


FOI response:

Dear removed

Thank you for your recent request for information relating to Request for information re: PCNs, traffic orders and appeals process which we received on 04/02/2015.

In regard to your request to Parking Services, we have contacted them in order to receive clarification of when/if your initial request was received. We will also remind them of the requirement of the Freedom of Information Act and to scan correspondence received in order to see if a request could be considered under the FOI and responded to accordingly.

In respect to specific elements of your request Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 relate to your own PCN and therefore we will be unable to supply information under the Freedom of Information Act as an exemption applies. Where an individual requests their own information this it is generally refused under Section 40 of the Act with a neither confirm or deny response whether we hold the relevant information. This is because the requests are deemed a request for personal data and therefore should be processed under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act. Details of how to make a request under this Act can be found at https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-coun...ss-request.html should you wish to peruse this element of your request.

This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act. The reference number for your request can be found above.

The Freedom of Information Act states that we must respond to you within 20 working days, therefore, you should expect to hear a response from us by 04/03/2015.

In the meantime, if you have any queries please contact me on removed

Thank you.
Hippocrates
Their response is bollocks.
CouncilFraud
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 8 Feb 2015 - 19:02) *
Their response is bollocks.


Haha I love it Hippocrates, I guess you think I should relish the the NTO landing on my doormat?
hcandersen
Why?

What statutory grounds of appeal do you have? Were you parked on a SYL when in force without an exemption applying? If so, on what basis would you intend to challenge the NTO?
CouncilFraud
If I'm following these good folks then it seems that not providing the requested info and not enclosing photos that they said were attached could be grounds for procedural impropiety.
Hippocrates
I would say so, i.e. possibly.
hcandersen
I wouldn't put my money on it.
CouncilFraud
Evening all,

Firstly apologies for digging up this time capsule of an old thread, but I got my NtO through recently on this ticket. I've had a go at writing my representations based on the advice that you have all graciously provided me with on this thread and wondered if anyone could please give it a once over and let me know what you think? I wasn't 100% sure on a few things:

1)Is it worth labouring the point about every bit of info they didn't provide or just the photographs and TRO?
2)Is it a good/bad idea to cite the PATAS case ref?
3)Should it be worded a bit more bolshy? i.e look at all these 'mistakes' how can you not throw the ticket

Dear Sir/Madam,

I herewith make the following representations in reference to PCN XXX issued on 30/11/2014.

I believe that a procedural impropriety has occurred in regards to your handling of this PCN. The Traffic Management Act 2004 S87 states that:

"87Guidance to local authorities

(1)The appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local authorities about any matter relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions.
(2)In exercising those functions a local authority must have regard to any such guidance."

The Secretary of State's Traffic Management Act 2004 Operational Guidance to Local Authorities states that:

"11.10 Statutory representations cannot be made until an NtO has been served but many motorists are likely to write to authorities before then if they do not believe that a PCN is merited. These objections are known as informal representations or challenges. They can be made at any time up to the
receipt of the NtO. It is likely that an enforcement authority will receive informal challenges against PCNs before they issue the NtO and authorities must consider them (the concept of informal challenge does not apply to PCNs issued by post where the PCN will act as an NtO). Authorities are likely to receive these within the 14 day discount period. Enforcement authorities should give proper consideration and respond to these challenges with care and attention, and in a timely manner in order to foster good customer relations, reduce the number of NtOs sent and the number of formal representations to be considered. The Secretary of State suggests that authorities should respond within 14 days. Enforcement authorities should also have suitably trained staff with the appropriate authority to deal with these challenges."

As my informal appeal was made within 14 days of the contravention and no response was received until 04/02/2015, I believe that there has been no regard to the Secretary of State's guidance due to the fact that it took nearly 2 full months to receive a response.

I further believe that a procedural impropriety has occurred due to your failure to provide requested information which I requested in order to adequately prepare my appeal. Included in my informal appeal was a request for the full title of the Traffic Management Order of which I am alleged to have contravened. Your correspondence dated 04/02/2015 contained none of the information that I requested. I would refer you to PATAS case ref 2110237531 which establishes that failure to supply requested TRO details amounts to a procedural impropriety.

Furthermore your correspondence dated 04/02/2015 also stated that "The enclosed photo helps to show you why your PCN was issued". Yet there was no photograph enclosed in your correspondance which I believe is yet a further procedural impropriety in your handling of my appeal.

Yours
Bluedart
"87Guidance to local authorities

(1)The appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local authorities about any matter relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions.
(2)In exercising those functions a local authority must have regard to any such guidance."

That will not stick.

At (2) they probably did have regard but they choose to ignore it. There is nothing to say they have to take notice of the guidance- is there? They must have regard for which they did, end of story.
Incandescent
It's in the TMA 2004, S87. Councils "must have regard to" the guidance. For a public body this means they are obliged to follow the guidance except where they consider there is an over-riding need to not follow it, and to be able to explain why.

So ignoring the statutory guidance is not a procedural impropriety, but failing to have regard to it is. This difference is crucial if this is used in an appeal. Councils must be in a position, if challenged, to explain why they have not followed the guidance either wholly or in part. There have been a few appeals that have been won on this point, but much depends on how good a lawyer the adjudicator is. "Having regard to" is a legal concept they should be aware of.

Since the ban on CCTV for parking came in on 1st April, there are likely to be fewer cases, as it was the wanton abuse of CCTV, totally and wilfully against the guidance that caused the change in the law.

So what does "having regard to" mean ? Well, here is an extract from a presentation by the Better Regulation Executive on it in relation to guidance issued in their sphere of work : -

QUOTE
• Any departure from the Code must be:
- properly reasoned and
- based on material (relevant) evidence
• Any factor influencing a departure must be relevant, accurate and up to date.
• The reasoning that informs a decision to depart from any provision of the Code is like to be flawed if it ignores the following logical or rational principles:

• The principles that govern this reasoning process are that a body under a duty to have regard to the Code:
- (1) must not take into account irrelevant factors/consideration, and
- (2) must not refuse or fail to take into account factors which the law requires it to consider
- Recording decisions: - factors influencing the decisions on application of the Code should be recorded. (Given the need for express/explicit consideration, the need to record/document decisions is self evident.)
- Ex post facto rationalisation is bad practice/unlawful
• Exemptions
- The duties to have regard to the Code and the 5 Principles are overridden by:
 other legal requirements affecting the exercise of the regulatory functions
- These “other legal requirements” are:
 a regulator’s primary statute/legislation
 EC law obligations
Bluedart
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Mon, 13 Apr 2015 - 20:30) *
It's in the TMA 2004, S87. Councils "must have regard to" the guidance. For a public body this means they are obliged to follow the guidance except where they consider there is an over-riding need to not follow it, and to be able to explain why.

So ignoring the statutory guidance is not a procedural impropriety, but failing to have regard to it is. This difference is crucial if this is used in an appeal. Councils must be in a position, if challenged, to explain why they have not followed the guidance either wholly or in part. There have been a few appeals that have been won on this point, but much depends on how good a lawyer the adjudicator is. "Having regard to" is a legal concept they should be aware of.

Since the ban on CCTV for parking came in on 1st April, there are likely to be fewer cases, as it was the wanton abuse of CCTV, totally and wilfully against the guidance that caused the change in the law.

So what does "having regard to" mean ? Well, here is an extract from a presentation by the Better Regulation Executive on it in relation to guidance issued in their sphere of work : -

QUOTE
• Any departure from the Code must be:
- properly reasoned and
- based on material (relevant) evidence
• Any factor influencing a departure must be relevant, accurate and up to date.
• The reasoning that informs a decision to depart from any provision of the Code is like to be flawed if it ignores the following logical or rational principles:

• The principles that govern this reasoning process are that a body under a duty to have regard to the Code:
- (1) must not take into account irrelevant factors/consideration, and
- (2) must not refuse or fail to take into account factors which the law requires it to consider
- Recording decisions: - factors influencing the decisions on application of the Code should be recorded. (Given the need for express/explicit consideration, the need to record/document decisions is self evident.)
- Ex post facto rationalisation is bad practice/unlawful
• Exemptions
- The duties to have regard to the Code and the 5 Principles are overridden by:
 other legal requirements affecting the exercise of the regulatory functions
- These “other legal requirements” are:
 a regulator’s primary statute/legislation
 EC law obligations



If it matters at a parking appeal it remains that the enforcement
authority must have "had regard to" the Guidance - which means that they
know the Guidance and , have therefore had regard to it but, for their
own reasons, have decided not to follow it.
hcandersen
At appeal, and this has all the hallmarks of a thread destined for appeal, your defence would be what exactly?

FOI has nothing to do with parking per se. Some of the questions relate to the disclosure of relevant information regarding the specific contravention while the rest are merely fishing. Those to do with the disclosure of relevant info should arguably be responded to, but as no formal demand for payment has yet been made on the owner I don't see the authority's response at this stage being given too much weight. The rest should be dealt with under FOI in respect of which their proper response should be that we hold the info but we are not obliged to provide this free and here's our charge if you would like to pay. How keen would you be on this info if you had to pay for it?

So, pay, wait or write to the council to do which you would need to separate the relevant parking requests from the froth, the latter going to the council's FOI team, the former to the enforcement authority.
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.