DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 16725--------------------------------------------------
Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Vike
Date: March 3, 2024, 1:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, my first PCN in years, my last one was appealed and won
with the help of Pepipoo. I have used this road for over 40
years but there has been a restriction put in place by Haringey
recently which I admit I completely failed to notice. A short
stretch of this road has recently had a No Vehicles restriction
put in place by Haringey definitely since Feb 2022 as it does
not appear on Google Maps. I don't know how I missed it,
probably as I have used this road for so long without this
restriction. In fact when I went back to check what the PCN was
all about I was only there for 15 minutes and saw three cars go
through and that was on a Sunday. In my mind this was put in
place for revenue.
I admit I went through the two planters and failed to spot the
sign. Here is the link to the PCN:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/RiIFm3T
My Question to the forum is:
1) Isn't the council photo supposed to show the signage of the
restriction together with my VRN so that I know exactly what I
failed to comply with, rather than just the enigmatic 52(M)
code? And
2) Is not the PCN supposed to tell the owner that if they make
an informal appeal and fail, they still have ANOTHER 14 days to
pay the discounted penalty from the date of the rejection?
Many thanks to all who reply.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/vG1I14U.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/dghDKEn.png
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 16727--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 3, 2024, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN is unenforceable as per other threads. They cannot
serve a charge certificate 28 days from the date of notice. Back
later.
#Post#: 16728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 3, 2024, 1:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> 1) Isn't the council photo supposed to show the signage of the
restriction together with my VRN so that I know exactly what I
failed to comply with, rather than just the enigmatic 52(M)
code? And
--- End Quote ---
There is no legal requirement for any photographs at all on the
PCN. Any photographs you might see on their website are stills
from the video. It is commonplace, though, to see photos on the
PCN of the car at the relevant location, but often the camera is
not positioned to show the sign and the car going past it.
--- Quote ---
> 2) Is not the PCN supposed to tell the owner that if they make
an informal appeal and fail, they still have ANOTHER 14 days to
pay the discounted penalty from the date of the rejection?
--- End Quote ---
The reoffer of the discount when rejecting informal challenges
is not a legal right, funnily enough, but most councils to
commit to re-offering it, but there is no legal requirement to
put anything about this on a Regulation 9 PCN (one served to car
or driver at the roadside), nor on a Regulation 10 PCN, (one
served to the keeper on the V5 )
However, your's is a postal PCN, so there is only one
opportunity to submit representations. These are formal reps,
there is no informal challenge stage. The discount period
remains extant until its end date, but some councils play
hard-ball and refuse to re-offer the discount if their rejection
is past the discount end-date. Most councils do, howver,
re-offer the discount. If they didn't, they'd make a rod for
their own back, because with no discount re-offer, it is then a
total no-brainer to take the council to adjudication, the
penalty does not increase, nor are there any additional costs.
The council, though, have to prepare an evidence pack.
#Post#: 16729--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 3, 2024, 1:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear London Borough of Haringey,
I bring a collateral challenge against this PCN, on the ground
that it does not comply with the mandatory requirement of
section 4(8)(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to
the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
It follows that the penalty charge notice is invalid and must be
cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
**************
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-haringey-council-52(m)-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-types/msg9338/#msg9338
This case was won as they adduced no evidence. 2230567864
Costs application to follow.
#Post#: 16734--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Vike
Date: March 3, 2024, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi OP here. Thank you all for your replies.
If I have understood correctly, you say that I should appeal on
the grounds that the PCN does not comply with the mandatory
requirement of section 4(8)(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of
Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for
London Act 2003.
By looking at your link to the other thread, I understand this
to be that they said that:
"If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the period
of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice, an increased
charge £195.00 may be payable. We may then send you a Charge
Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount."
Please can you explain to a newbie, why that does not comply
with the mandatory requirement of section 4(8)(a)(v) of, and
paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities
and Transport for London Act 2003. Is it that they should have
said the date of SERVICE of this notice? Or is it something
else.
My other concern, now is that if they reject, which knowing
Haringey is very likely, there is no guarantee that the reduced
penalty will still apply.
Thanks again for the help.
#Post#: 16749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 4, 2024, 4:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1318]Vike[/member]. Please trust us and no worries for
asking. We all started in this game from nothing. I use the
epithet "game" deliberately because this is what councils rely
on - peoples' inexperience and fears re the discount.
The issue, itself, truncates the period in which a Charge
Certificate may be served and the Tribunal is consistent in its
decisions on this legal point. They can only serve a C.C. 28
days from the date of service.
cpa8759, Mr Mustard and I have won all our cases on this issue.
Just keep going. If they continue, I offer to represent you for
free.
In my opinion, the legal argument is incontrovertibly correct
thus making the PCN substantially non-complaint.
#Post#: 16753--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Vike
Date: March 4, 2024, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much, Hippocrates. I know that councils play the
game, with the expectation that the accused would give up and
pay, but I'm now, myself wondering if the time to go to Tribunal
and the stress involved is worth it for £65. May I ask whether,
if this went to Tribunal, I would need to go in person? I am
still working and am already on a warning for too much leave of
absence.What are the chances of winning on a remote appeal at
Tribunal?
#Post#: 16764--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: taffer87
Date: March 4, 2024, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Vike link ---
>
> Thank you so much, Hippocrates. I know that councils play the
game, with the expectation that the accused would give up and
pay, but I'm now, myself wondering if the time to go to Tribunal
and the stress involved is worth it for £65. May I ask whether,
if this went to Tribunal, I would need to go in person? I am
still working and am already on a warning for too much leave of
absence.What are the chances of winning on a remote appeal at
Tribunal?
>
--- End Quote ---
you can do a telephone hearing - also if you are being offered
representation for free by experienced members then you should
take it as will reduce your workload significantly and you can
if you choose even not attend the actual hearing by phone. Of
course, no one can guarantee anything but this seems as close to
that as possible with a clear legal error which has been tested
at the Tribunal many times already.
#Post#: 16769--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 4, 2024, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Vike link ---
>
> Thank you so much, Hippocrates. I know that councils play the
game, with the expectation that the accused would give up and
pay, but I'm now, myself wondering if the time to go to Tribunal
and the stress involved is worth it for £65. May I ask whether,
if this went to Tribunal, I would need to go in person? I am
still working and am already on a warning for too much leave of
absence.What are the chances of winning on a remote appeal at
Tribunal?
>
--- End Quote ---
We are not at Tribunal time as they need to reply first. I
would attend in person and you by phone. As stated, in the other
case they rejected but dodged the issue and filed no evidence.
A costs application has just been filed this morning for wasting
everyone's time.
Bexley and Bromley have similar issues and one was won by me a
few weeks ago.
************************
Revised draft:
Dear Haringey Council
Ref: PCN ZN11391338 VRM LP16JDK
I make the following representations against the said PCN.
1. I bring a collateral challenge on the ground that it does not
comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(a)(v) of, and
paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities
and Transport for London Act 2003.
2. I bring a further collateral challenge since the taken
without consent ground clearly limits/fetters to theft by its
very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this
inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into
account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle
without the owner’s permission so that the owner would not
necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such
circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim.
In light of the above the penalty charge notice is invalid and
must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully
Name (Registered keeper)
Address
#Post#: 16790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Vike
Date: March 4, 2024, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Should I clarify point 1 that the reason it does not comply is
that they put date of notice rather than date of service?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page