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

[Jamberson]

The appeals process. The council are apparently at fault, yes. The thing to do is make a formal rep alleging impropriety - not start pinging off more letters. If it fails at the rep stage, the adjudicator will uphold it.

 

At present he hasn't followed the appeals route, so it's a little silly talking about the ombudsman. The appeals framework can accommodate this situation.

[HYMN AND MI]

The appeals process. The council are apparently at fault, yes. The thing to do is make a formal rep alleging impropriety - not start pinging off more letters. If it fails at the rep stage, the adjudicator will uphold it.

 

At present he hasn't followed the appeals route, so it's a little silly talking about the ombudsman. The appeals framework can accommodate this situation.

 

I have never stated that the OP should not follow the process, which is to complete an NtO. The council then have 56 days in which to reply: allow or reject. If the latter, the OP has 28 days in which to appeal to the adjudicator.

 

You have already advised to phone the council again so why can't the OP write again? How is is it a little silly to write to the council simply stating that, unless the PCN is revoked immediately, the LGO will be contacted and a complaint made to him re maladministration.

 

In my experience, when the LGO is mentioned, councils do not like it one bit. Why? Because they then lose control over the very appeals process which they use and abuse. I recently represented an appellant who was sent - prematurely - a Charge Certificate. Do you think I advised him to sit back and wait for the process to unfold? No. I simply wrote a letter giving the council 7 days to cancel or the LGO would be informed. And that is exactly what they did, and within th 7 days. That was a reg 10 PCN but the council in that case also failed to consider the reps. They didn't even send a NOR.

 

If the OP wishes to endure further the ineptitudes of this council, then he should realise what is the timetable as outlibed above and follow your advice. If he wants it over and done with now, then he shoud write again. There are no rules which state that he cannot. And the council can cancel the PCN at any time - even if an adjudicator refuses his appeal.

 

Oh well, I guess we are in for more cups of tea.

[green_and_mean]

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.

 

What relevance is this case it deals with an appeal to the NTO the OP hasn't even got an NTO yet??

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

[green_and_mean]

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.

 

I repeat my question what has this got to do with the OPs case? Regulation 3 (5) deals with regulation 10 CCTV PCNs and the case deals with representations against a postal PCN/NTO. It makes no reference to informal challenges to a reg 9 PCN or how they should be considered. We have never seen the wording of the first email so have no idea if it was wrongly treated as a challenge or not. Councils have no duty to provide anything at the informal pre NTO stage and its common for correspondance such as 'I didn't park there please send me photos', are Councils now meant to treat any request for photos, notes TMO etc as not being part of a challenge and let the clock keep running? Just because you don't like the way you are dealt with by a Council doesn't make it wrong.

[CjKit]

This is the exact wording of my original email:

To whom it may concern,

 

I was issued with the above PCN on 20/02/2012. Earlier today (29/02/2012) I tried to challenge it using the online service as suggested on the reverse of the ticket. However, after entering the PCN number and the vehicle's registration number, I received the following message: "This notice is not at a stage where a challenge can be made. If you believe this is incorrect, please contact us."

 

I have attached a screen shot of the webpage, showing the above message.

 

Could you please explain why I am unable to challenge the PCN, and find a solution asap. If no solution is found within the next few days then I request that the 14 day period allowed to lodge a challenge will be extended until the issue is resolved?

 

Regards,

[HYMN AND MI]

I repeat my question what has this got to do with the OPs case? Regulation 3 (5) deals with regulation 10 CCTV PCNs and the case deals with representations against a postal PCN/NTO. It makes no reference to informal challenges to a reg 9 PCN or how they should be considered. We have never seen the wording of the first email so have no idea if it was wrongly treated as a challenge or not. Councils have no duty to provide anything at the informal pre NTO stage and its common for correspondance such as 'I didn't park there please send me photos', are Councils now meant to treat any request for photos, notes TMO etc as not being part of a challenge and let the clock keep running? Just because you don't like the way you are dealt with by a Council doesn't make it wrong.

 

Where does it state in the Statutory or Operational Guidance that councils have no duty to provide anything at the informal pre NTO stage? According to your logic, therefore, the appellant's informal challenge would have to be rejected before he receives any evidence. That is absurd. this is not a question of liking a council, rather one of natural justice and discovery so that one can make a decsion as to pay at the discounted rate or continue. To answer you first question, it seems self-explanatory to me and a natural corollary.

[HYMN AND MI]

This is the exact wording of my original email:

 

This is quite reasonable and their response will prove to be fatal.

[green_and_mean]

Where does it state in the Statutory or Operational Guidance that councils have no duty to provide anything at the informal pre NTO stage? According to your logic, therefore, the appellant's informal challenge would have to be rejected before he receives any evidence. That is absurd. this is not a question of liking a council, rather one of natural justice and discovery so that one can make a decsion as to pay at the discounted rate or continue. To answer you first question, it seems self-explanatory to me and a natural corollary.

 

Once again you are just making things up as you go along! It is not my logic its fact, the only evidence that is required to be provided is cctv stills. What would be the point of having a discount period if you could wait to day 13 and then ask for photos of the car and expect to get another 14 days, wait until day 13 again make a challenge then get another 14 days when its rejected? Or maybe you have found a regulation that states any request for evidence must be dealt with in time for the appeallant to get a challenge in before day 14??

[CjKit]

This gets better and better.

 

I just went onto the payment page to check what level the payment was now set at (I had a hunch they'd screw this up too) and the system is showing:

Current Outstanding Balance: £110.00

However, the email I received rejecting the 'challenge' I never made said:

Because you wrote to us during the period when you could have paid the Notice at the reduced amount, you can still pay the reduced amount of £55.00, if the payment is received by this office before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of this letter.

Given that I received this email on 16/03/12, surely I should have until tomorrow (30/03/12) to pay at the reduced amount??!

[CjKit]

Just called them again but they won't budge. The lady I spoke to asked the appeals team who said the same thing again: 'they've already rejected my appeal so I must wait for the notice to owner and and appeal it'.

I also asked her to clarify whether PCNs issed in residents parking bays are 'automatically rejected' but she said she didn't know as she's not part of the appeals team.

I asked her why the charge amount had already jumped to £110 but she didn't know that either. She calculated the timing and said 'today is the last day so it's gone up', which makes no sense at all.

[CjKit]

Okay, so it's been a while but today I finally received a rejection to my representations, so I'm going to have to lodge an appeal. They gave no explanation, just said they could see no valid reason why my challenge should be accepted!

 

The thing is that the NTO said that I would receive a decision within 56 days of making the representations. Does that mean 56 working days or just 56 days? If it's the latter then the response came outside of that period, which was up on Thursday last week.

[Jamberson]

It means 56 days, including non-working days.

 

If it is late, then include that with your arguments when you appeal to the adjudicator. I do think you should go for it, and go for a hearing. In your application just run through the sequence of events so they can see how absurd and convoluted it all is. Possibly the council will back down when they see you're going through with it. If not, take them on. I remain sure you will win.

[CjKit]

Thanks,

Yup, I'm going to appeal to the adjudicator but wasn't sure about going for a hearing. I suppose that given the ridiculous way this case has been handled by the council, it would probably be easier to put my case in person.

 

I just re-read the Rejection of Representations letter and it says:

 

The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a resident parking place without clearly displaying any form of permit, voucher or pay and display ticket that allowed it to be parked there. This is an instant contravention.

Where do they get this from? How exactly are you supposed to obtain a visitor's voucher if by parking there for any length of time you are instantly guilty of a contravention??!

It also backs up what I was told about how they "automatically reject" challenges to residents parking area PCNs and why they didn't allow me an initial challenge. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't even give any consideration to the reasoning in my representations.

 

I also double checked the 56 day thing. I sent the representation by email on 03/05/2012, therefore they would also have received it the same day. By my calculations 56 days would have ended on 28/06/2012 and the rejection, which I received yesterday (04/07/2012), is dated 02/07/2012.

[Jamberson]

Definitely go for a hearing in person. The date of their reply alone might win it - so make sure you raise this matter in your application. The council will have to show when they received your representation, and it looks like their reply is out of time. That alone could end the case in your favour.

 

The "instant contravention" comment looks odd. As you say, you would expect a reasonable amount of time to go and get your voucher/ticket/permit - so chuck that in too.

 

It all adds up to a council which is disorganised and unwilling to admit it.

[CjKit]

Cheers,

I may as well go for the full hearing. It can't get any worse as they've already upped the payment to the full £110 anyway!

 

We'll wait and see what happens......

[Jamberson]

Exactly. It can't get worse - the hearing is free, and you have everything to gain. Also, a pretty good case! Post a copy of your application remarks here before you send it, if you want an opinion.

[CjKit]

Thanks, I'll do that! Should hopefully have time to draft something this weekend.

[CjKit]

Success!!!!

 

I just came out of the hearing and he allowed my appeal on three points!

 

Apparently nothing is legally binding until after the Notice to Owner is served, therefore all that stuff about them not allowing my initial challenge, and taking a question in an email to be a challenge, wasn't relevant.

 

However, the points were:

1) I should have been allowed time to retrieve the visitor's voucher from the flat and put it in my car.

2) The authority failed to respond to my representations within the 56 day period from them being served.

3) Some stupid eejit in the Barnet Parking team accidentally included a document in their evidence pack that was nothing to do with my case and had some other motorist's details on!! The adjudicator actually said that this alone would have led him to allow my appeal.

 

So the moral of the story has got to be APPEAL EVERYTHING, as the council is likely to cock up somewhere along the line by the time it gets to the appeal hearing

 

Thanks for everyone's help and support in this. Now what can I spend the £110 I saved on??

[Jamberson]

Well done. At last you can forget about it.

[CjKit]

Yup, it's good to know I won't have to suddenly find £110 from somewhere.

I got the confirmation letter through yesterday!

[vax2002]

The only evidence that can be used is what is on the PCN, if it says 10;02 to 10;02 then they observed the vehicle for a period no greater than 59 seconds including entering the details and printing the ticket.