PCN issued with wrong vehicle details and more than 10 months after alledged offence

[ekoforshow]

Hi,

 

I have a two fold query.

 

I have been issued with a local authority PCN dated a couple of days ago, however referring to an alledged offence at the beginning of April 2008 for

 

Stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zig-zags

[/b]
 

The vehicle registration number referes to a car that I was the owner at the time, however, they got the vehicle make wrong. The car described was manufactured by a different car company.
 

What is the best way to contest this ticket?
 

1. That it is not reasonable to issue a ticket 10 months after the alledged offence as it is impossible to recollect if or not the vehicle was indeed parked at the location or to recollect who was driving the car. Is there a reasonable timeframe guideline to issueing PCN's
 

2. That the PCN issued is flawed as vehicle details do not match my car (even though the VRN is correct).
 

Also, I am thinking of asking for photo's to stretch the time frame to appeal. If the photos correctly identify the car can the local authority change its mind about the car make to correct its error that is contained in its PCN. Should I even bother myself with the photos.
 

Any advice is most welcome.
 

ekoforshow

Edited February 24, 2009 by ekoforshow
spelling mistakes

[Rob S]

The PCN should be issued within 28 days of the alleged contravention but it can be extended to 6 months in certain circumstances, but your PCN is well outside of this. What legislation has the LA used to issue the PCN?

[green_and_mean]

You say issued with a PCN is this a CCTV issued one?

[patdavies]

This is the relevant regulation for service of PCN by post (s.10 PCN)

(5) Paragraph (6) applies where—

(a) within 14 days of the appropriate date the enforcement authority has requested the Secretary of State to supply the relevant particulars in respect of the vehicle involved in the contravention and those particulars have not been supplied before the expiration of the 28-day period;

(b) an earlier regulation 10 penalty charge notice relating to the same contravention has been cancelled under regulation 23(5)©; or

© an earlier regulation 10 penalty charge notice relating to the same contravention has been cancelled under regulation 5 of the Representations and Appeals Regulations.

(6) Where this paragraph applies, notwithstanding the expiration of the 28-day period, an enforcement authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a regulation 10 penalty charge notice—

(a) in a case falling within paragraph (5)(a), for a period of six months beginning with the appropriate date; or

(b) in a case falling within paragraph (5)(b) or ©, for a period of 4 weeks beginning with the appropriate date.

 

So to issue after this amount of time, there must have been a case under (5)(b) or © within the last 4 weeks or the PCN is invalid and will need to be appealed on the grounds of procedural impropriety.

[ekoforshow]

Hi Green and Mean and patdavies,

 

Thanks for your responses.I would assume that this is a CCTV issued PCN as the first I heard of it was when the postman put it through my letter box two days ago. I have not had any contact with a CEO nor had any correspondence from anyone relating to any parking (nor stopping issue).

 

I think it is unreasonable for the council to wait a full 10 months (almost 11 months) after such a minor allegation for the reasons that I have indicated earlier. It will be near impossible to recollect any details especially if there was nothing that seemed out of the ordinary.

 

Also does getting the car make wrong have any bearing. I was playing in my mind with the chance that this presents: that another car with cloned plates may be responsible or that I was not the owner of the car that they stated was involved.

[patdavies]

Getting the car make wrong is not material, for the simple reason that there is no requirement for it anyway.

[green_and_mean]

It should say on the PCN why its been sent thru the post are you sure its not a 'notice to owner'?

[ekoforshow]

Thanks patdavis for clearing up the wrong car details, I can now focus on the impropriety angle.

 

greenandmean, the PCN bears the statement in bold letters:

 

The PCN is being served by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved device.

 

I am sure it is a PCN and not a Notice to owner

 

 

My understanding so far is that I can apeal this PCN under procedural impropriety (as contained in the Traffic Management Act 2004) based on the length of time it has taken to raise the PCN.

 

It is for the council to identify and prove that it has grounds under section 5 (b) or © to pursue this PCN legally

 

ekoforshow

[lamma]

a Reg 10 PCN is also the NTO - though many of them don't state this explicitly. You have the NTO.

[patdavies]

Doesn't change the grounds for appeal though.

 

Procedural impropriety due to the length of time taken to serve without any evidence of issuance under s.5 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007

[ekoforshow]

Hi lamma,

 

Does having an NTO (by default and not explicitly stated) make a difference to my appeal? If this is the case then should I be asking why I did not receive anything earlier as I have not changed address in the last 5 yrs? How does an NTO differ from a PCN?

 

Forgive the questions, just trying to make sure I don't trip over my feet by responding in an inappropriate manner.

[ekoforshow]

Thanks patdavies, seems we were writing at the same time

[lamma]

you okay to progress now ? Pat is right, i was just pointing out that you do have an NTO so you didn't sit and wait for one to arrive and so effectively stuff yourself. In my opinion that may the reason so many councils don't explicitly say that the PCN is also the NTO - a percentage of people will 'wait' for the NTO and so kipper themselves. One line of bold text saying "This document also serves as the Notice to owner (NTO)" wouldn't go amiss.

[ekoforshow]

lamma, thanks and thanks to patdavies and mean_and_green.

 

I am ready to progress. Seems a sneaky ploy by the council not to say that it also serves as a NTO so that they can win the numbers game>