PCN Date served beyond 28 days..tottenham court rd bus lane contravention.

[1manteam]

Hello,

I'd very much appreciate your help with this.

I had a courtesy car provided recorded on a camera in Camden on 20/12/22.

 

The courtesy claims management company have forwarded me the PCN, but the dates indicated seem to be beyond the 28 day window. Can I contest on this basis?

 

Secondly, whilst Camden have regularly reset road layouts and directions of travel in central London, I saw no sign indicating I couldn't travel down this road as I have done on many occasions.

 

If the PCN is not valid, are there further grounds for me to challenge.

 

I haven't viewed the footage or checked signage in the area since receiving this.

 

Thank you

 

PCN 1.pdf

[dx100uk]

i dont think that is what should happen .

the keeper the hire co. should inform the council you were the driver

then you get one in your name

 

it even says so on the pcn!!

[1manteam]

Thanks, but they were late issuing the notice so can it not be rejected on this basis? The hire company are charging me £36 for the privilege of informing me!

[Michael Browne]

Who is the pcn addressed to the hire company or you?

[1manteam]

To the hire company who wrote the following.

 

I haven’t received anything yet but would clearly like to have a reason not to pay. What are my options please?

 

I write in reference to the attached Penalty Charge Notice received on your behalf whilst you were in possession of our hire vehicle.

 

We have now sent representations to the authority to transfer liability from (car hire company). The authority will contact you in due course to arrange payments in respect of the fine.

 

You will note that signed the Car Hire Agreement, agreeing to pay for any Administration Fees received during your hire period. I have enclosed an invoice detailing these charges have attached all supporting documentation and request that you arrange to make payment within 14 days.

[Michael Browne]

Wait for the pcn in your name, then make representations that the original pcn (enclosing copy)  was served  out of time.

[1manteam]

Ok. Thank you. So they were out of time and don’t have a loophole?

[Michael Browne]

No. Where a hire car co. transfers liability to the hirer the council are allowed to serve a second pcn to the hirer beyond 28days, but there is no excuse for the council not to have served the original pcn to the hire co. within 28 days

[1manteam]

Thankyou, so no excuse, irrespective of when I get the second one, and I don’t need to look for other reasons?

[Manxman in exile]

1 hour ago, Michael Browne said:

No. Where a hire car co. transfers liability to the hirer the council are allowed to serve a second pcn to the hirer beyond 28days, but there is no excuse for the council not to have served the original pcn to the hire co. within 28 days

 

Sorry if I've missed it, but do we know that the original PCN was the one served on the hire company?  Isn't it at least possible that the RK is a finance company and not the hire company?

[Michael Browne]

You're right, that is a possibility

[1manteam]

The original pcn was served on the claims management company that provided me with the car. 
irrespective is it not date of contravention and date of notice that are at issue within the stipulated timeframe?

[dx100uk]

nothing overrides a pcn being out of time as MB says.

[Michael Browne]

11 hours ago, 1manteam said:

The original pcn was served on the claims management company that provided me with the car. 
 

What manxman is saying is that the claims management company might lease the vehicle and that the RK is a finance company and they would have received the original pcn.

 

They would have transferred liability to the claims management company, who in turn have transferred liability to you.  That would explain the extended timescale and the council would legitimatey be able to serve beyond the 28 day deadline.

 

 

[1manteam]

Thanks. So I’m back to square 1. Next steps would be to review the footage and check for signs I may have missed?

[Manxman in exile]

13 hours ago, dx100uk said:

nothing overrides a pcn being out of time as MB says.

 

We don't know it is out of time, do we...?

[Manxman in exile]

2 hours ago, 1manteam said:

Thanks. So I’m back to square 1. Next steps would be to review the footage and check for signs I may have missed?

 

Yes.

 

But I think you should also check who the registered keeper is and ask them to confirm when they received the original (ie first) PCN. 

 

Why don't you contact the car hire firm who alerted you to the PCN and ask them if they are the registered keeper?  If they are, fine and it might be out of time, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are not the RK and that the PCN they received and copied to you was not the first one.  [Edit:  If they just blithely say that they are the RK, politely ask them if they are sure they are, and ask them to confirm it is their name shown as RK on the car's V5C]

 

As others have said, it isn't technically your ticket to deal with until you receive one addressed to you.  You could then find out what the history of the ticket was and when it was first issued.

 

AIUI councils are meant to follow a prescribed procedure when re-issuing pcns in respect of hire cars, and they sometimes get this wrong, thus invalidating the ticket.  So come back to this thread when you get your own ticket.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Manxman in exile

[dx100uk]

My statement is factually correct .

 

I'd also doubt a financial institution funding hire/courtesy car to a company would be a registered keeper 

 

P'haps a quick call to the hire company to ensure they did receive a previous PCN in their name 

 

Then followed the guidelines by naming the driver to the issuer is in order simply to negate any recently introduced scepticism.

 

Dx

 

 

 

 

[1manteam]

That’s great. Thanks everyone. I’ll do those things and then wait to hear.

[Manxman in exile]

8 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

My statement is factually correct .

 

 

 

Sorry.  I read your post to be confirming to the OP that this PCN was out of date rather than just a comment about PCNs in general.

 

I think the OP would be best advised to check who the RK actually is and when they received their PCN before assuming it's out of date on the basis of what the hire company has sent him

 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Manxman in exile

[dx100uk]

Well that's what happens when you join any thread, you 'think' and 'assume' this or that,  no matter where you go, you always introduce speculation and additional confusion or doubt .

 

It took me many years to learn not to do that here. I had to learn the golden rule, if you don't know the answer...don't post!!

 

Dx

[1manteam]

 I now have my own ticket, which arrived yesterday.

 

I have attached this one below along with a couple of the screenshots.

 

On Google Maps the street is still marked for permitted travel through this section.

I had no idea of the changes and have travelled down that section of road many times before.

 

I'm not sure the signage is that helpful and it was 9:03am when traffic is apparently prohibited from 9:00am.

Unsurprisingly this feels like just another attempt to stitch up motorists.

Can anyone help please?

 

To respond to the earlier question about the RK,

the claims management company (previous PCN) are not the RK so would have had the originally submitted PCN forwarded to them from the RK.

 

 

new pcn + pix.pdf

[1manteam]

Hello,

I'd very much appreciate your help with this.

 

I had a courtesy car provided recorded on a camera in Camden on 20/12/22. The courtesy claims management company have forwarded me the PCN.

 

I now have my received my own ticket, which arrived yesterday.

 

On Google Maps the street is still marked for permitted travel through this section. I had no idea of the changes and have travelled down that section of road many times before.

 

I'm not sure the signage (indicated on screenshot) is that helpful and it was 9:03am when traffic is apparently prohibited from 9:00am. Unsurprisingly this feels like just another attempt to stitch up motorists.

Can anyone help please? I note the main signage is also beyond the junction, i.e. after the direction to turn, if that is of any consequence?

 

The claims management company (previous PCN) are not the RK so would have had the originally submitted PCN forwarded to them from the RK.

 

If the PCN is valid, are there further grounds for me to challenge?

 

Thank you

 

[honeybee13]

Is this connected with your other thread at all?

 

 

HB

[1manteam]

Yes,

I wasn't sure whether the original request from earlier in the month to come back once I'd received the PCN to my address required a new thread?