PCN with only 1 min observation while I went to get visitors permit

[Tony P]

f the PCN says to lodge a challenge either online or by post, it says nothing about email.

 

How can you send an Email other than 'online'?

[HYMN AND MI]

OP states he has had problems with online - pro forma online , I guess. With these clowns, I would send an e-mail cos it sounds as if they well lose a letter! E-mail it and copy to a friend and require an acknowledgement.

[CjKit]

How can you send an Email other than 'online'?

 

When they say 'online' they refer you to their website where you're supposed to fill in a form. Normally these things specifically state email as an option if they will accept correspondence that way; in this instance they only say to use email if you have any queries regarding a parking issue.

 

Anyway I'll get on it today when I get a chance.

[HYMN AND MI]

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

[CjKit]

I've got another 14 days from the date of the reply to pay at the reduced rate so I imagine I'm still able to submit the challenge as apparently the timing was frozen when I sent my original email. Tbh I don't really know any more but I'll get the email in today and see what happens.

[CjKit]

Email sent.

I spoke to them on the phone and they confirmed that you can lodge challenges via email.

 

Interestingly the lady I spoke to said that it was probably initially rejected as they automatically reject challenges to PCNs issued in Residents Parking Areas - until I told her I was issued it whilst retrieving a visitor's voucher. Seems odd.

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

[Jamberson]

Pointless.

 

He just needs to get his appeal in, at long last.

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

[Jamberson]

The best possible outcome will be the member of staff will be rebuked by their manager and advised to be more careful what they divulge to the public. It is of no help to the OP, just another distraction. Finally, he is going to appeal - I just hope he does so now.

[CjKit]

Already done.

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

[HYMN AND MI]

Already done.

 

Any chance to see what play you wrote?

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

 

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.

[CjKit]

So, I got a reply:

 

Dear Mr xxxxxx,

Thank you for your letter, which was received by the Council on20/03/2012.

Our records show that a response was issued on the 16/03/12 and your request to have the penalty charge notice cancelled was rejected.

 

If you are unhappy with this decision and wish to make a formal challenge, please wait for the Notice to Owner form as no further correspondence will be considered at this stage of the recovery process. At Notice to Owner stage you may not be able to pay the reduced amount.

Yours sincerely,

So they ignored my actual challenge and are still maintaining that my first email was a challenge and it was rejected. How can they say 'my request to have the penalty charge notice cancelled was rejected' when the response they refer to was written in response to an email that requested no such thing?

Now, I've got to wait for the Notice To Owner and run the risk of paying the full £110, which I cannot afford.

Is there no-one in the Barnet Parking offices with any sense?!

[CjKit]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the reason I couldn't challenge it online in the first place is because of their supposed 'policy' of automatically rejecting appeals for PCNs issued in resident's parking bays, so they disable the option to challenge any of these PCNs online.

[Jamberson]

They aren't reading and considering your correspondence properly. It is generally standard practice to treat the first incoming letter as an appeal and reject anything which comes in afterwards. It is a shame you wrote to them in the first place about the automated system because that's what has jammed up the process.

 

You have two options I guess - either try yet again to speak to someone and get them to understand and hope that they will look at the details in your appeal - or accept the situation, wait for the NTO then make a formal representation. If you do the latter, their inability to deal with the substance of your initial appeal could count against them and be considered impropriety, so it may actually strengthen your case. On the other hand, you'll lose the discount if it ultimately fails.

[HYMN AND MI]

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

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

[CjKit]

They aren't reading and considering your correspondence properly. It is generally standard practice to treat the first incoming letter as an appeal and reject anything which comes in afterwards. It is a shame you wrote to them in the first place about the automated system because that's what has jammed up the process.

 

You have two options I guess - either try yet again to speak to someone and get them to understand and hope that they will look at the details in your appeal - or accept the situation, wait for the NTO then make a formal representation. If you do the latter, their inability to deal with the substance of your initial appeal could count against them and be considered impropriety, so it may actually strengthen your case. On the other hand, you'll lose the discount if it ultimately fails.

I could understand them rejecting any correspondence after the initial challenge if the first email was actually a challenge. I agree, it is a shame I wrote to them in the first place, but that's what both their website and the person I spoke to on the phone said to do. If the website says to contact them with enquiries then why can't they differentiate between an enquiry and an official challenge??? It's maddening!

What's even more annoying is that before sending my actual email challenge I rang them again to see if the 'rejection' was on file and to ask why and what I should do next. It was on file, but when I explained the issues I'd had the lady said to email again explaining this and sending my actual challenge. She also said she'd put a note on my file to explain why a 'second' challenge was being sent in.

 

I hope, if I do appeal it, that they do take this to be procedural impropriety and cancel the PCN. But they must have read my emails before and just decided not to take any notice, so why would they do so on appeal?

As I said before, I've done everything as I was told to by their own department but they seem, at best totally inept.

[Jamberson]

The difference is, if they reject a formal representation you can refer the case for an independent decision with the adjudicator. Impropriety is a pretty strong hand, regardless of the rest of the case.

[HYMN AND MI]

There is no point in phoning them or going on like this. Just send them the case cited for you and threaten them with the Local Government Ombudsman for maladministration unless they cancel the ticket within 7 working days from the date of service of your letter/e-mail.

[Jamberson]

No!!!

 

Stick to the process!!!!

[HYMN AND MI]

Have you read any decisions where the adjudicator has complimented the appellant'e representative for using a dual attack involving the Local Government Ombudsman? Clearly not.

[HYMN AND MI]

No!!!

 

Stick to the process!!!!

 

What process? The council are abusing it. The OP is perfectly entitled to write again. This thread is really becoming like the tea-drinking scenes in Last of the Summer Wine.