PCN my car but lent to someone else.

[Patma]

Hi, I'd be grateful for any suggestions as to how to deal with a PCN which arrived addressed to me yesterday. The car is registered to me, but I wasn't using it when the PCN was issued.

 

It states The following contravention has occurred. Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force"

"The alleged contravention was captured at the time by Civil Enforcement Officer X who was monitoring real time pictures from the mobile camera unit Mobile XXX at the time stated above. This alleged contravention is supported by video evidence."

 

Below that is a picture of the car, but it's impossible to tell whether it's moving or stationary. Also it's not possible to see the driver.

 

I've read the stickies about what needs to be on PCN's and it seems to say that if the PCN is posted, as this was, it must state why it wasn't issued at the time. I don't know if I've read that right though. This PCN doesn't mention why it wasn't issued on the spot.Can anyone clarify if I've read this right please?

 

Also am I obliged to reveal the name and address of the driver as I was thinking of just writing back and stating that I was not using the vehicle on that day?

 

Any advice much appreciated.

[ForestChav]

It's a parking notice so the registered keeper is responsible not the driver (though of course, you can pay the fine and get the driver to reimburse you ).

 

If you want to post pictures (via photobucket or whatever) of the pcn, signage at the location etc, then there may be some non-compliance which can be found, if you wish to go down that route.

 

Also, I don't see how they could do anything but post the NTO if it has been observed using CCTV...

[green_and_mean]

Hi, I'd be grateful for any suggestions as to how to deal with a PCN which arrived addressed to me yesterday. The car is registered to me, but I wasn't using it when the PCN was issued.

 

It states The following contravention has occurred. Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force"

"The alleged contravention was captured at the time by Civil Enforcement Officer X who was monitoring real time pictures from the mobile camera unit Mobile XXX at the time stated above. This alleged contravention is supported by video evidence."

 

Below that is a picture of the car, but it's impossible to tell whether it's moving or stationary. Also it's not possible to see the driver.

 

I've read the stickies about what needs to be on PCN's and it seems to say that if the PCN is posted, as this was, it must state why it wasn't issued at the time. I don't know if I've read that right though. This PCN doesn't mention why it wasn't issued on the spot.Can anyone clarify if I've read this right please?

 

Also am I obliged to reveal the name and address of the driver as I was thinking of just writing back and stating that I was not using the vehicle on that day?

 

Any advice much appreciated.

 

As stated above in post #2 the keeper/owner is liable for all Council parking/bus lane/moving traffic penalties.

If the PCN is issued by CCTV that is why it is sent by post and is perfectly legal under the Traffic Management Act.

The PCN is also the NTO (notice to owner) so you will not get another chance to deal with this once the deadline has passed.

The paperwork may be flawed but often with 'loading restrictions' the kerb markings or roadside signs are a bit iffy so its worth looking at that to.

[Patma]

Ok thanks ForestChav and green_and_mean,

That gives me a much better idea of how things stand. Think I'll just get the driver to pay up then.

He tells me he was just loading up at the time. It's a pedestrianised area where cars and taxis frequently stop to load/unload passengers and shopping etc. It was a mobile cctv camera which snapped the pics, so I guess they must have decided to clampdown.

[green_and_mean]

The PCN is actually invalid from what you have said but if your friend is willing to pay then you may as well let him/her.

[Patma]

The PCN is actually invalid from what you have said but if your friend is willing to pay then you may as well let him/her.

 

After checking out the area for signs, my relative has found that there is one stating that loading/unloading is not permitted at any time.

As I mentioned however this is regularly flouted by taxis and other people picking up outside a Tesco for instance.

I've now checked out the cctv and it does show the car without any driver in it, so although it doesn't show it moving, it obviously was.

Do you still say it may be invalid, green_and_mean?

[green_and_mean]

If its worded as you have yes it is technically invalid, it should say 'the PCN was issued on the basis if evidence provided by an approved device' whilst the cctv mobile unit may be approved that is not what it says on the PCN and that is what is required.

[Patma]

If its worded as you have yes it is technically invalid, it should say 'the PCN was issued on the basis if evidence provided by an approved device' whilst the cctv mobile unit may be approved that is not what it says on the PCN and that is what is required.

 

Thankyou for that green_and_mean, that's very helpful. Having scrutinised the cctv images again, I was wrong in saying that there's no driver visible as my son has shown me that his arm is visible. This means he was definitely in the driver's seat when the footage was taken and as it's impossible to tell from the footage whether the car is moving or not.

 

With your latest info about the lack of reference to an approved device, we'll get an appeal in.

[green_and_mean]

Contents of a regulation 10 penalty charge notice

2. A regulation 10 penalty charge notice, in addition to the matters required to be included in it

by regulation 3(4) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, must state—

(a) the date of the notice, which must be the date on which it is posted;

(b) the matters specified in paragraphs 1(b), ©, (d), (f) and (i);

© the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that a penalty charge is payable;

(d) that the penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days

beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;

(e) that if the penalty charge is paid not later than the applicable date, the penalty charge will

be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount;

(f) that if after the last day of the period referred to in subparagraph (d)—

(i) no representations have been made in accordance with regulation 4 of the

Representations and Appeals Regulations; and

(ii) the penalty charge has not been paid,

the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge by the amount of any

applicable surcharge and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;

(g) the amount of the increased penalty charge; and

(h) that the penalty charge notice is being served by post for whichever of the following

reasons applies—

(i) that the penalty charge notice is being served by post on the basis of a record

produced by an approved device;

(ii) that it is being so served, because a civil enforcement officer attempted to serve a

penalty charge notice by affixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person in charge

of the vehicle but was prevented from doing so by some person; or

(iii) that it is being so served because a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a

penalty charge notice for service in accordance with regulation 9, but the vehicle was

driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement

officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or had served it in

accordance with regulation 9.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/schedule/made

[Patma]

Thankyou green_and_mean, that's good enough for me. It doesn't say anything about an approved device.

I'll let you know how the objection goes.