PCN - do I have an appeal leg to stand on?

[reactiv]

Hello,

 

I recently got sent a PCN for parking on a red route parking spot outside of the time (18:32). The offence was recorded by a camera operator.

 

My problem is that the clock in my car was set incorrectly (after 7pm) and there was already two vehicles parked up. When I saw this I didn't even think about being in the wrong (after all - time was okay and people were also parking in the allocated spaces).

 

Frustratingly I moved from the wide loading spot where i had initially parked to the actual car spot thinking that I would get in trouble for being in the space for delivery vans. Doing this put me right in view of the camera operator!

 

Would I have any grounds to argue my case? I'm considering doing an FOI to find out if the other two vehicles (clearly parked in the images) were also fined. I was parked for approx 5 minutes in which time both vehicles were there before and after i left.

 

If they have not also been fined would I be right to argue the whoe 'one rule for one and one for another' case?

 

Technically I did commit a traffice offence but when I went back I did also notice that one of the signs is quite clearly obscured by a large tree and didnt help that a van was also up against it.

 

Just want to see what opinions are on whether I have any chance of appeal.

 

Many thanks!

[ForestChav]

I would imagine some leeway would probably be allowed for different clock settings, but probably that goodwill would only extend for a few minutes.

 

The onus is probably on you to check the time is right, and as you were parked on a restricted street during prescribed hours I don't see how you could use "my clock was wrong" as an excuse.

 

I'd say your best hope was to hope there was some non-compliance in the paperwork or the location which would probably get your PCN quashed on appeal rather than pleading the "clock wrong" line.

 

As for others being ticketed or not I don't see how this matters; the relevant point was that you were parked there at the time and you were not meant to be, and by the same logic you could say you should get off murdering someone because there are some unsolved murders so some people have killed someone and got away with it.

[Jamberson]

 

As for others being ticketed or not I don't see how this matters; the relevant point was that you were parked there at the time and you were not meant to be, and by the same logic you could say you should get off murdering someone because there are some unsolved murders so some people have killed someone and got away with it.

 

I agree with this. I would also say that FOI would not cover this sort of info - it's probably covered by the Data Protection Act if at all, but even so, you don't have a right to see data belonging to someone else.

 

You did the deed - albeit accidentally, so I think you're looking for leniency.

[Al27]

Forget the clock being wrong (that's your problem) and the other vehicles. Whether anybody else gets fined or not is completely irrelevant.

 

Obscurred signage and errors in the PCN are the important ones. Can you show us a photo and scan of the paperwork?

[reactiv]

I 'll scan the images tonight.

 

I'm not trying to cry 'injustice!' as I realise I didnt help myself. But for me it was a series of instances (wrong clock and vehicles in place) that led me to think it was fine to park there. I went back to the spot and certainly the original sign i was looking at was obscured. but where i then parked i think there is a sign that is a bit clearer.

 

As for FOI - i didn't necesessarily expect drivers details. More just "between 18:20 and 18:35 three vehicles were issued a PCN" then I'll know that theres limited chance of me getting let off.

 

I woudl be able to FOI what information they [TFL] have on me though, right?

 

Cheers guys.

 

I've seen posts refering to looking for faults on the PCN what sort of things am I looking out for?

[ForestChav]

Don't look for them. Scan the PCN and other paperwork, or any photos you have, and put them on photobucket or something making sure you remove any registration/pcn numbers, maybe even give us a google streetview of the location or something.

 

There are enough people who know of the common flaws in the signage/paperwork though there are a few caveats with signage (e.g. if they have special dispensation to install non-compliant signage) to be aware of. You'd never spot them but enough people on here know enough between them to.

[reactiv]

Hi guys,

 

As requested:

 

Google map street view of incident:

 

You'll have to excuse me on the PCN images - they are camera shots (couldnt get the scanner to work - sods law!)

 

Image 1 - car 36 seconds after i parked

Image 2 - getting out of the car

PCN page1

PCN page2

PCN page3

PCN page4

 

This is everything I have in the imterests of completeness. Looking at the google streetmap view I suspect I have little space for arguing this. In any case I will hope to see what you guys come back with.

 

ForestChav - let me know if you think I should block our ALL the numbers on the PCN ( i didn't know if those were of use).

 

Thanks guys, appreciate it!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

If you want to get technical TFL say that reps must be "received" by them within 28 days. I don't think they can do this. This shortens the time you have to make reps as you have to allow for postage and potentially to prove receipt. I don't think that the legislation provides for this and it just refers to reps being "made". You should simply be able to rely on the Interpretation Act and a free proof of postage.

 

Appeals have been won on issues such as this.

[reactiv]

If you want to get technical TFL say that reps must be "received" by them within 28 days. I don't think they can do this. This shortens the time you have to make reps as you have to allow for postage and potentially to prove receipt. I don't think that the legislation provides for this and it just refers to reps being "made". You should simply be able to rely on the Interpretation Act and a free proof of postage.

 

Appeals have been won on issues such as this.

 

Hi Bernie,

 

Thanks for the response. Could you elaborate on this a bit more. I'm not sure I understand what the solution is???

 

Do you mean for me to say - "I'm not paying this because I can't appeal it in 28days"?. So actually arguing over the requirements of appeal rather than the fine itself?

 

Thanks!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

You still have to rely on at least one of the statutory grounds for appeal.

 

In your position I would argue: 1) That the contravention did not occur, 2) The penalty exceeds the applicable amount and, 3) There has been a procedural impropriety.

 

I would do so because of the unlawful wording of the PCN/NTO for the reasons I gave.

I would also be prepared to argue this at a personal hearing at PATAS and to pull out every little bit of potential argument I could spot.

 

It is important to remember that as well as there having to be lawful reasons to issue a PCN in the first place (and in your case it appears to me that there may well have been - but I haven't, in all honesty, considered them too deeply) but the follow-up process once a PCN has been issued must also be lawful.

 

There is nothing to be ashamed of in pursuing a technical argument. It is an argument that the law permits. The LAs could avoid them all if they put in place proper procedures and templates and followed them. The fact that they don't is their problem not ours if the motorists use them to their advantage.

 

However, I would also urge you to wait and see what others say, they may throw up other issues or even highlight short-comings in my argument.

 

If you do pursue this line, we can help with the precise argument for PATAS as TFL will not (I'm pretty sure) concede this themselves - they may chose not to defend at PATAS though.

[Jamberson]

I don't think incorrect wording - if it actually is incorrect - would substantiate a claim that the contravention did not occur. The PCN is served after the contravention so has no bearing on the question of whether it occured.

 

I also think this issue of receiving reps needs to be clarified. To me it is illogical to say reps can be made but not received in a certain time period - eg, you could "make" a rep today but just not bother posting it for six months. Logically making a rep must involve it being received, so I am not confident that this will hold up. Perhaps someone can quote chapter and verse on the issue?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I don't think incorrect wording - if it actually is incorrect - would substantiate a claim that the contravention did not occur.

 

I have had PATAS cancel PCNs and NTOs for incorrect wording on NTOs and given the reason that the contravention did not occur. It's odd but it happens!

[reactiv]

Hmm, interesting. Any other takers?

 

If I challenge the terminology of the PCN am I then opening myself up for being charged £120 should they say I still have no grounds of appeal?

 

The letter is served as 28/09 so I don't really have much time left to ponder.

 

But it would seem that the argument of wrong time, other cars and hoping for leniency would be a futile one?

[Jamberson]

I don't follow the logic. I wonder if Bernie's cases hinge on the way the contravention is described? The issue of receiving reps still looks flimsy to me. I wouldn't risk it if it were me. Maybe if Bernie has details of a similar case which was won?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Oh ye of little faith. I have asked PATAS to send me a duplicate of the decision and I will post it up so please bear with me. (I have mislaid the original.)

[reactiv]

I'm a bit worried about going down this angle. What would be the stages after doing this? I suspect TFL won't take it lying down and would want to persue through the courts. That is something that I'd rather pay £60 to avoid!

 

I'm not sure the info will come through before I have to respond. So I will prep a letter asking for leniency and hope that your info comes through so that I might understand a little more how I can avoid this PCN on a technicality.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

You have 21 days after you received the combined PCN/NTO to pay at the discounted rate. After that you have nothing to lose other than time and effort provided you follow the correct procedures.

 

The correct procedures may ultimately see this as a postal or personal hearing at PATAS. Although this is a judicial process it is not a court and risk of costs is low (you must have been wholly unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous - which I cannot see as being the case here, so far!). The actual hearing procedure is nothing to worry about.

 

If you want to limit your exposure to £60 pay now and be certain. If you want to have the chance of paying nothing but the risk of £120 then appeal. I will help all I can.