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:2110494261Appellant:Mercedes Benz CharterwayAuthority:Transport for LondonVRM:SF05BKYPCN:GF47615134Contravention Date:21 Jul 2011Contravention Time:09:17Contravention Location:Tower Bridge Road SE1Penalty Amount:£130.00Contravention:stopped where prohibitedDecision Date:11 Oct 2011Adjudicator:Anthony ChanAppeal Decision:AllowedDirection:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.Reasons:The Appellant Company complained about the pre-mature issue of the PCN. They argued that they were merely making a request pursuant to Regulation 3 (5) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 for stills images of the contravention. I am reasonably familiar with this argument and I, and I am sure other Adjudicators, have sought to make the position clear. When the Appellant Company started this approach, their letters to the Authority were in deed no more than request for stills images. The Authority may disagree with the Appellant's assertion as to what information they are entitled to, and this was the point taken in the decision of the Adjudicator Mr Edward Houghton, but it must not however treat the letter as representations. This was confirmed in the decisions of Mr Christopher Rayner to which the Appellant has also referred. The Appellant's letters of requests then started to include assertions that the vehicle was not there or that the signage was not present. As far as I am concerned, these assertions amount to representations and the Authority must deal with them as such, in addition to complying with its duties under Regulation 3(5). I have pointed out in my decision that a failure to do so would allow the Appellant an argument that representations were not considered within the 56 days period. I have therefore rejected the argument where the letters contain denials of the contravention. The Appellant's letter in relation to this PCN does not contain any denial. The Authority said that it stated that the letter contained such a denial. It is incorrect. I am satisfied that a procedural impropriety has occurred. I am allowing the appeal.

It will count against them: will post a decision within 15 minutes or so.

Case won today on the 14 day wording; but, of course, they have now changed it.

I saw a decision yesterday where a PATAS adjudicator direcrlty quoted a TSM in response to the council'c usual argument that it is merely guidance! the appeal was allowed. Will dig it out later.

I would go with TSRGD 2002 and Bus Priority: the way ahead. And the decisions, of course. Though TSMs do have introductory clauses re councils better have good reasons as to why they do not follow guidelines contained therein.

Correct re PATAS but the Stautory Guidance refers to Traffic Management Act.

I am not the OP. You know my style by now.

And, before anyone wants to knock the Guidance, more adjudicators are quoting it in their decisions, particularly at the TPT, in order to allow an appeal.

Any chance to see what play you wrote?

How do you know that? For all we know, that statement may well be a systemic attitude prevalent in the parking department? I am becoming bored with this thread and somewhat frustrated by the lack of aggressive advice. This is a council: they want the OP's money and they will use every means to obtain it.

Why is it pointless to directly cite an officer of an authority who states that as above? That statement is incredulous, fettering and wholly contrary to the Secretary of State's Operational Guidance, March 2008, for which the authority must have regard. Also, it further explains why they rejected/cocked up the original enquiry or appeal as they deemed it to be. That statement may also be proven to be prejudicial to how they will respond to the OP's real representation.

Apologies re "intentional" spelling. Actually, I have quoted nothing from the internet but do forget that some people think they are omniscient. If you cae to study the case supplied and the legislation supplied - got from the internet.

I never advise phoning. However, I would get that lady to say that again and record it or ask her to put in writing. That is incredibly damning to state they automatically reject! Quite incredulous. I would certainly get her name.

All the more reason for claiming costs at PATAS in that case. Oops, I just used "case" - not an inteional pun!

Always communicate in writing.

Serendipity rules OK. I did ask for the date of the PCN? Time may be running out.

Good luck.

(5) A penalty charge notice must state— (a)the registration mark of the vehicle involved in the alleged contravention; (b)the detection date and the time at which the alleged contravention occurred; ©the reasons why the authority believe that a penalty charge is payable; (d)the amount of the penalty charge; (e)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the 28 day period; (f)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, the penalty charge will be reduced by one half; (g)that representations may be made, on any of the statutory grounds of appeal, to the authority against the imposition of the penalty charge but that representations made outside the 28 day period may be disregarded; (h)what are the statutory grounds of appeal; (i)the postal address to which representations are to be sent; (j)any electronic mail address or FAX number to which representations may be sent as an alternative to the postal address; (k)that if at the end of the 28 day period— (i)no representations have been made; and (ii)the penalty charge has not been paid, the authority may increase the penalty charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;(l)the manner in which the penalty charge may be paid; (m)that if the representations are rejected an appeal may be made on any of the statutory grounds of appeal may be made to an adjudicator in respect of a penalty charge; and (n)that the recipient may, by notice in writing to the authority, request them— (i)to make available at an office of theirs specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him and by his representative (if any), the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or (ii)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 notice makes a request under paragraph (5)(m), the authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time.

No worries, I am having a long day. Look, I have pointed out one error on which you should make a representation. If you study what must be contained on the PCN according to the link above http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2757/regulation/8/made and compare with your PCN, you may discover some more faults; however, I do believe what I have found so far is enough on which to make an appeal. If you need help formulating this, I am happy to do so. Regards Hymn and Mi

Cases: http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/ Click on Search and type the number in and then click on underlined number at top left of page. 2110072817 and 2100649871. BTW, I was heavily involved in the latter and it was my case which was mentioned in the decision i.e. it was pointed out to the authority that the wording was non-compliant in May 2010. Nevertheless, they refused to cancel others on the same basis or refund. They then changed the wording in June 2010 and pursued this case in the full knowledge that they had cancelled mine previously. (The said lkane was eventually declared "unlawful" when PATAS sent an adjudicator to inspect for himself!) Even the one in the latter case was wrong re the signage! Rest of the pcn???????????

If you refer to the legislation link above, there is a problem with the wording @ 8(5)(k): the use of the word "will" as opposed to "may". You may think this insignificant but I have got my son off on the same issue and that similar wording has been ruled upon at PATAS in London. Cases to follow. The rest of the PCN, please. All of it.

We need all of it. ?: were the date of notice and posting the same? envelope?

They are learning and have changed it. OK, please post up the PCN less any details which would identify you.

Too bad you didn't have a "heavily pregnant" passenger or, according to this case, were not so yourself: http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=211069220A

What they mean is that the legislation does not afford the right to make representations before the EN is issued, which is correct; however, they state that they only give more weight to reps against EN so, therefore, they are practically making a statement which amounts to fettering of their responsibilities to consider. As you are in a certain profession, why not attach some paracetamol with yours they are sure as hell going to need some! I would e-mail it.