DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 17923--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hull City Council, code 21 Parked in a suspended bay, Market
Place
DIR By: ttn48
Date: March 21, 2024, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> In addition to the above, the PCN is non-compliant with
regulation 3 in the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022 : -
> [quote]
> 3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the
following information—
>
> (a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in
accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the
enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those
representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;
> (b)that if, before a notice to owner is served,
representations against the penalty charge are received at such
address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those
representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;
> (c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the
representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations
against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement
authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in
the notice to owner.
--- End Quote ---
Can you see anything that looks like 3 (1)(c) ? No, thought not.
[/quote]
Actually, [Incandescent], I think I can see language to the
effect of 3 (1)(c). Specifically, from the PCN (2nd page,
penultimate paragraph)..
".. The NTO will explain ... how to appeal and the period of
entitlement to appeal against it and the form that appeal must
take. .."
#Post#: 17930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hull City Council, code 21 Parked in a suspended bay, Market
Place
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 21, 2024, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, does it ?The whole point of (c) is to warn the PCN
recipient that if he submits representations and gets a Notice
to Owner before any response to his reps, that he MUST respond
to the NtO. People getting an NtO having submitted previous
reps, may think "well, I don't need to do anything, because I've
already made representations"
#Post#: 17934--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hull City Council, code 21 Parked in a suspended bay, Market
Place
DIR By: ttn48
Date: March 21, 2024, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You may be right, but it's pretty nuanced. I don't think it is
obviously the case that "The whole point of (c)" is as you state
- although I can see it is a possibility that that is its
motivation.
I get the point that the means of submitting representations
changes, or at least could change, before and after the issuance
of the NTO, but the PCN says that the NTO will tell you how to
appeal it.
I think your argument points at the vagueness of regulation
3(1)(a-c) as much as it does about inaccuracies in the PCN, and
I only have an opportunity to challenge the PCN, not regulation
3(1)(a-c).
I may well still include this in my representation to the NTO,
but I think it's nowhere near as strong as the "The alleged
contravention did not occur" due to the lack of authorised (or
any) parking suspension signs.
Still, every little helps, and I'm grateful for the time you've
taken to make your suggestions and offer up valuable advice and
detailed information.
#Post#: 17942--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hull City Council, code 21 Parked in a suspended bay, Market
Place
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 21, 2024, 8:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post up your draft first.
Incandescent is correct. There is also another issue with the
PCN too.
If you were a lawyer, you would be aware of the scattergun
approach: stick everything in.
The wording of the PCN in terms of the 28 days period is wrong
since it does not comply with Schedule 2 para. 2 @
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28
days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention
occurred,
#Post#: 18190--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hull City Council, code 21 Parked in a suspended bay, Market
Place
DIR By: ttn48
Date: March 24, 2024, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks very much for all the advice. It is very much
appreciated.
For my draft response to the NTO, the online form only allows
one of the 'specified grounds' boxes to be ticked, so I shall
reply by post - using the Royal Mail 'Signed for' service to
ensure it is received.
On a photocopy of page 3 of the NTO I will tick The Specified
Grounds boxes against:
* The alleged contravention did not occur.
and
* There has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement
authority.
On a photocopy of page 4 of the NTO I will write:
The alleged contravention did not occur.
Penalty charges can only be imposed by signs authorised under
section 64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, this
means either signs authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations
2016, or by signs specifically authorised by the Secretary of
State.
The Traffic Signs Regulations 2016 do not authorise any parking
suspension signs, and a search of the Department for Transport
website at
HTML https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/
indicates that
Hull City Council has not obtained a special authorisation from
the Secretary of State for the use of any parking suspension
signs.
In the absence of a lawful parking suspension sign, the
contravention alleged cannot have occurred.
There has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement
authority.
PCN KH13981341 is non-compliant with regulation 3 in the Civil
Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and
Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022
(
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/regulation/3)<br
/>which state:
"3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the
following information—
(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in
accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the
enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those
representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;
(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations
against the penalty charge are received at such address as may
be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations
will be considered by the enforcement authority;
(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the
representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations
against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement
authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in
the notice to owner."
PCN KH13981341 does not include the information set out in 3 (1)
(c).
There has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement
authority.
The wording of PCN KH13981341 in terms of the 28 days period is
wrong since it does not comply with Schedule 2 para. 2 in the
Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved
Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England)
Regulations 2022
(
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2)
which
state
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28
days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention
occurred,
and I will sign and date the form as instructed.
Please let me know if I've missed anything.
#Post#: 18679--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hull City Council, code 21 Parked in a suspended bay, Market
Place
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: March 31, 2024, 2:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ttn48 link ---
>
> Thanks very much for all the advice. It is very much
appreciated.
>
> For my draft response to the NTO, the online form only allows
one of the 'specified grounds' boxes to be ticked, so I shall
reply by post - using the Royal Mail 'Signed for' service to
ensure it is received.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=1258]ttn48[/member] I would strongly recommend you make
representations online. The website might limit what you can say
or what boxes you can tick, but the solution is to stick
everything into a PDF file and upload it as an attachment.
Sending something signed-for is no guarantee of delivery, it
simply creates a (somewhat hit and miss) record of whether it
has actually been delivered. The only guaranteed service is
special delivery, but that costs almost £7 nowadays.
I'd suggest putting the representation in a PDF and getting a
screenshot of the confirmation page is the way to go. Other than
that your representation is amongst the best I've seen from a
new member.
In the meantime I'll request the traffic order.
#Post#: 19090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hull City Council, code 21 Parked in a suspended bay, Market
Place
DIR By: ttn48
Date: April 5, 2024, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In fact I had already sent in my representation when I read your
last post, [member=1]cp8759[/member], and this was the
representation I made:-
HTML https://i.imgur.com/erFWA5V.jpeg
.
I have today received the notice of rejection.
.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/pQ8jZZd.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/fYfuWwR.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/9OCNzrF.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/mzITCKV.jpeg
This is my summary of their responses to the three points in the
representation.
1) The contravention did not occur
- they say it did because a traffic cone is enough.
2) Procedural impropriety (A regulation 9 PCN must include
wording that representations "must be made to the enforcement
authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in
the notice to owner.")
- This confused them, I think, and me.
An additional piece of maybe relevant information is that before
they had sent the NTO I had (foolishly) submitted a 2nd informal
representation with points 1 and 2 in. They replied at that
point (21 Feb) to say 'a further attempt at an informal
challenge is not possible', and 'The second challenge you
submitted will be held on file until you have submitted your
formal representation'.
They seemed to think I was complaining about them not
considering my 2nd informal representation - but of course I
wasn't.
3) Procedural impropriety (28 day period wrong) - they kinda
disagree.
#Post#: 19102--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hull City Council, code 21 Parked in a suspended bay, Market
Place
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 5, 2024, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I can imagine them saying in the office, "who is this guy !"
Good luck and hope you win, BTW
#Post#: 19107--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hull City Council, code 21 Parked in a suspended bay, Market
Place
DIR By: Phantomcrusader
Date: April 5, 2024, 1:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The suspended parking is pay and display parking which requires
an order made under sections 45 and 46 of the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 and therefore I don't think they've quoted
the correct Traffic Regulation Order in their notice of
rejection since they don't quote these sections. No waiting
cones are for use where a temporary traffic order or notice
imposes a temporary no waiting restriction (a code 01 PCN),
they're not a traffic sign authorised to convey a parking place
suspension. If they were, there would be no need for the DfT to
authorise applications from councils seeking authority to place
parking suspension signs.
#Post#: 19151--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hull City Council, code 21 Parked in a suspended bay, Market
Place
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: April 6, 2024, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think they'd lose on the first point. That being said, they've
not reoffered the discount so there's no reason not to go the
full distance.
These two cases come to mind:
Richard Mills v Transport for London (2180309331, 15 September
2018)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gdnVicBTpZT77MyViJoqXvfBoT9VBBY8/view
James Cox v West Sussex County Council (with Mid Sussex DC)
(XS00001-2101, 19 February 2021)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zJJTmiX5NFWwRGB9w_jAXAnalytI-hyC/view
I'm going to drop you a PM in case you would prefer to be
represented.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page