DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 16792--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 4, 2024, 1:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Let them do the work. Just simply cut and paste what I
wrote.
#Post#: 16800--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Vike
Date: March 4, 2024, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Representations as per your advice submitted. Thank you.
"
I have just re-read the PCN and strangely, on the first page it
clearly states "...the date of this notice" three times but on
the 2nd page it changes to "with the date on which the penalty
charge was served."
I also notice that where it mentions "without the consent of the
owner" it goes on to qualify this with "if this ground arises
through the vehicle being stolen and if you have documents
related to the theft e.g. a crime reference number or details of
an insurance claim you may wish to supply them as part of your
representations)" I read this as their admitting that it could
have been taken without consent other than it having been
stolen. Or at least Haringey could allege that that is what the
PCN states.
Does this change anything at all?
#Post#: 16805--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 4, 2024, 7:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Probably not. It is a consequence of the LLA & TfL Act 2003
that is flawed and this has never been corrected. The Act sets
the period for payment as 28 days from the PCN date, and the
period in which to submit representations as 28 days from date
of service. So if you submit reps on Day 28 from date of
service, you're now 2 days overdue for payment of the PCN ! So
how come nobody in our wonderful Parliament didn't spot this
when the Bill for the Act was going through Parliament ? Good
question !
#Post#: 16814--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Vike
Date: March 5, 2024, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Incandescent. Now I get it, It's not the council that
has worded the PCN wrong but that the act that they are
following is flawed. In fact that is why on the first page of
the PCN it states from the "date of the notice" when they talk
about payment and on the second it states " from the date of
service" when referring to the representation. They are actually
following the erroneous act of parliament!
Do you have any comment re the taking without consent, please?
#Post#: 16815--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 5, 2024, 4:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Vike link ---
>
> Thank you Incandescent. Now I get it, It's not the council
that has worded the PCN wrong but that the act that they are
following is flawed. In fact that is why on the first page of
the PCN it states from the "date of the notice" when they talk
about payment and on the second it states " from the date of
service" when referring to the representation. They are actually
following the erroneous act of parliament!
>
> Do you have any comment re the taking without consent, please?
>
--- End Quote ---
The main issue is that they misstated the time to serve a charge
certificate. I have added the TWOC ground to test their reply.
See Egenti v Islington. But I would not use it at this stage.
#Post#: 17800--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Vike
Date: March 20, 2024, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought I'd confirmed, but obviously not, I made
representations on Haringey's website exactly as per
Incandescent's advice on 4th. March 2024.I am awaiting their
reply.
Can someone please advise what the cutoff for their response is.
Is it 28 days or 21 days from the service of the reps, in the
case of on-line reps I'm assuming that is the same as the date
of submission. The last PCN I took to tribunal, as well as my
other representations, one of the things that won me the case
was that I did not receive the council's reply till one day
after the statutory period had expired (I remember the
adjudicator counting the days on a calendar!), but I can't
remember whether it was 21 or 28 days. Thanks again.
#Post#: 17803--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 20, 2024, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your PCN was issued under the London Local Authorities &
Transport for London Act 2003. There is no time limit on
responding to formal reps in this legislation as far as I can
see. The Transport Management Act, which is used in London for
parking contraventions, has a limit of 56 days to respond to
formal reps against a Notice to Owner.
There is, of course, their common law duty to act promptly and
fairly as an organisation given penal powers by Parliament.
#Post#: 17820--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 20, 2024, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They failed to produce any evidence in this case which I
represented:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2230567864
Appellant Pavlos Varnavides
Authority London Borough of Haringey
VRM LM15EKY
PCN Details
PCN ZN09894620
Contravention date -
Contravention time -
Contravention location -
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention -
Referral date
Decision Date 20 Feb 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
This appeal is listed for personal hearing later today.
The hearing will not now take place the council not providing
its evidence there thus being no case for the appellant to
answer.
The appeal is allowed.
****************
I have two more pending. The legal argument is sound.
HTML https://bit.ly/2ALghSS
Click on adjudications - key cases 149-161
#Post#: 17900--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Vike
Date: March 21, 2024, 3:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi again, I've made representations exactly as per
Incandescent's advice and am now awaiting a reply. May I ask
what the statutory time for a response is. I remember when I
went to tribunal before (again with the help of Pepipoo, that
apart from my reps the adjudicator found in my favour because
the council did not serve the rejection until a day after the
statutory period, but I can't remember whether that was 21 or 28
days. ( I actually remember the adjudicator counting the days on
a calendar! Thank you.
#Post#: 17905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 21, 2024, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no statutory time. What did you write?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page