DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18554--------------------------------------------------
PCN issued contravention Failing to comply with a restriction
53J occurred when the vehicle was given to a garage
DIR By: ziran
Date: March 29, 2024, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A couple of days back I have got a PCN from the London Borough
of Brent, the first page of the notice which goes something
like this
--- Quote ---
> The London Borough of Brent believes that you are liable to
pay a penalty charge with respect to the above vehicle, for the
following alleged Contravention Code 53J .
> Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone
>
> In XXXXXX HA3 on 18/03/2024 of 15:XX hours The alleged
contravention was noted by an enforcement officer who was
observing real time pictures from a roadside camera at the time
stated
>
> DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE You are legally responsible for
dealing with this notice. Do not pass this notice to the driver
>
> A PCN of £130.00 is now payable and must be paid before the
end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this
notice (Date of service is considered to be 2 working days from
the date of the Notice.) If it is paid before end of the period
of 14 days beginning with the date of this notice the amount
payable is reduced to £65.00 Payment should be sent to London
Borough of Brent (Parking Services), PO Box 210, Sheffield, S98
1NE (See overleaf for more details of how to pay).
>
> OR, if you believe you have a good reason not to pay the PCN,
you should write to us explaining why (see the Representations
section overleaf). Although there are specific legal grounds for
making representations, we will consider exercising our
discretion and may cancel the notice if there are suitable
mitigating circumstances (i.e. if we believe that there is a
good enough reason). We may disregard any representations
received after the period of 28 days beginning with the date of
service of this PCN. We may then send you a Charge Certificate
seeking payment of this increase amount
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Now the vehicle was handed over to the garage on the 13thMarch
as the engine light was lighting up amber. They suggested that
the timing chain has to be replaced and some other aspects. I
collected the car at around 17:00 hrs on 18/03/2024 from the
garage and have TFL proof about the travel to the garage for the
same. In short I wasn't the person driving it at the time of the
incident . I haven't informed the garage yet about it as the
next page of the notice is a bit confusing .
The 2nd page of the notice says
--- Quote ---
> Representations:
> As mentioned above, if there is any reason why you think you
should not have to pay the PCN, please tell us and give details
in the space provided below. You may make representations to us
against the issuing of the PCN online at
www.brent.gov.uk/parking or by post to London Borough of Brent
(Parking Services), Box 210, Sheffield, S98 1NE or via email
parking.reps@brent.gov.uk. Please include any available
supporting evidence. Representations must include the name,
postal address and signature of the person making them. If
representations are made online then the name of the person
making them must be entered, and will be taken to be the
signature of that person. The London Borough of Brent may
disregard any representations received outside the period of 28
days beginning with the date of service of the PCN. The
statutory grounds for making representations are listed below.
Whether or not any of the statutory grounds apply, you may also
give other compelling reasons why we should cancel the penalty
charge or refund any sum paid on account of the penalty charge.
>
> The statutory grounds for representation are:
>
> option A> I was never the owner of the vehicle in question,
or had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the
penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or became its
owner after that date if you sold the vehicle before the date of
the contravention or bought it after the date, you must tell us
the name and address of the person who bought it from you or
sold it to you, if you know it. Please supply whatever evidence
of the sale you may have (e.g. a sales receipt).
>
> option B> There was no contravention of a prescribed order, or
failure to comply with an indication-please explain why you
think there was no contravention of a traffic order or why there
was no failure to drive the vehicle in the way shown on the
sign.
>
> option C>At the time the alleged contravention or failure took
place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in
control of the vehicle without my consent-if the vehicle had
been stolen, please provide details of the police crime
reference number.
>
> option D>We are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle in
question was at the material time hired from that firm under a
vehicle hiring agreement; and the person hiring it had signed a
statement of liability acknowledging their liability in respect
of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle
during the currency of the hiring agreement-please supply a copy
of the signed agreement including the name and address of the
hirer.
>
> option E>The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in
the circumstances of the case - if you think you are being asked
to pay more than you should legally pay.
--- End Quote ---
To me option C> seems the closest. However the vehicle was not
stolen but handed over to the garage, though I don't think that
gives consent to drive around ( not sure if it was test-drive
or whatever ) .
As I haven't contacted the garage yet, I would like to know
the thoughts of the forum members before I approach the garage
and reply to this notice.
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 18561--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued contravention Failing to comply with a
restriction 53J occurred when the vehicle was given to a garage
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 29, 2024, 7:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The law for issue of PCNs for various traffic and parking
contraventions makes the owner of the vehicle responsible for
payment or appeal, not the driver.
So you are responsible and cannot pass the matter to the garage.
Option C is not available to you because you passed the vehicle
to the garage and this will have been under the terms of an
agreement. This garage may have needed to undertake a test drive
and their mechanic has inadvertantly driven past a "Flying
Motorbike" sign
The situation is a bit like letting one's son or daughter drive
one's car and they do the same thing as this garage seem to have
done. If you lose an appeal you have to pay, and deal with your
son or daughter regarding the money. So it's between you and the
garage, and I suggest you need to contact them urgently to find
out what has gone on. In all fairness the garage should
reimburse you if they accept the offence occurred.
#Post#: 18576--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued contravention Failing to comply with a
restriction 53J occurred when the vehicle was given to a garage
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: March 30, 2024, 11:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please let us see the pcn itself, cover up only your name and
address. I may have a signage argument
#Post#: 18582--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued contravention Failing to comply with a
restriction 53J occurred when the vehicle was given to a garage
DIR By: guest17
Date: March 30, 2024, 12:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Where is the garage located as regards the contravention point?
Is a test drive necessary or do we have a TWOC argument like
this one:-
2230281180 Sadiq Abubakar v London Borough of Ealing
The Appellant attended in person. The Appellant's friend and
witness Tasnim Hoque also attended. The Enforcement Authority
did not attend and had not been expected.
The Appellant explained that his vehicle was collected for
repairs by 22 Motors, a mechanic, on Monday 24 April 2023. The
Appellant did not get his vehicle back from 22 Motors until 28
April 2023. The Appellant explained that he selected 22 Motors
as they had a service where they collected your vehicle from you
and returned it, after completion of the work, within 24 - 48
hours. The Appellant needed repair to a scratch and the body
work of the vehicle, and a lower bumper to be replaced.
The Appellant told me that he has a tracking device on his
vehicle, and he noticed that after the vehicle was collected
from his then address on 24 April at 12:10 (HA1 4HA) it had been
moved to different locations at 15:35; 18:56;
19:49; 22:25 and 22:48 on that date. The tracking device shows
that it was moved on 25 April 2023 at 12:45; 13:30; 13:57 and
14:08. The Appellant telephoned the mechanic to ask them why
they had been using his vehicle beyond simply driving it to the
garage. The Appellant was told that the mechanic had to collect
paint samples, and supplies for repairs, but that if any charges
were incurred the mechanic would pay for them. The Appellant
told me that he was particularly concerned about the night time
journeys in case the vehicle was damaged.
The Appellant showed me the tracking entries for the week 24
April to 28 April, which showed the above times and entries and
the relevant postcodes. I directed that screenshots of the
complete entries be submitted by email to the Tribunal so that
they could be uploaded to the system. The Appellant explained
that the images from the tracking system that he had already
submitted were copies of the entries sent to 22 Motors, which
were only for the Tuesday 25 April as it was that date which the
PCN was issued. The final entry on 25 April, at 14:08 is for
postcode TW5 9HA, which is where 22 Motors is, on Vicarage Road.
This was supported by a Google search Ms Hoque showed me on her
mobile telephone using that postcode.
The entry for 13:57 on 25 April 2023, shows postcode UB1 1NT as
the starting point. This is the location of the alleged
contravention. I find that the entry shows that the vehicle was
driven from the location of the alleged contravention at about
13:32 to arrive in its next location and park at 13:57. This is
consistent with the Civil Enforcement Officer's photographs,
which show the vehicle being driven away at 13:32 on 25 April.
Ms Hoque gave evidence relating to messages that she received
from the Appellant on the date of the vehicle being collected
and telephone conversations that she had with various
individuals at 22 Motors. Ms Hoque confirmed that the Appellant
told her about discovering on his tracker that the vehicle was
being moved without his consent after collection. Ms Hoque told
me that she interprets for her father and has had a lot of
contact with garages in doing so, so she telephoned 22 Motors on
the Appellant's behalf to ask that they pay the penalty charge.
The Appellant described speaking to different people who
contradicting themselves and each other by telling her that they
were the owner, or the manager.
The Appellant told me that he has also challenged the fee, which
he was required to pay to 22 Motors for release of his car, with
the Motor Ombudsman. The Appellant has submitted a copy of his
complaint to the Ombudsman, which was consistent with his
account of events today. The Appellant mentions in that
statement that he found his sunglasses to have been taken, and
his chewing gum to have been replaced.
I found the Appellant and Ms Hoque to be compelling and reliable
witnesses.
It is normally the case that the registered keeper is liable for
a penalty charge. However, there are some exceptions. One of
these is where the vehicle is taken without the owner's consent.
This is usually the case where a vehicle has been stolen.
Liability does not normally pass, and is not normally avoided,
where a registered keeper has given their vehicle to a mechanic
for repair. However, in the present case, based on the evidence,
I find that the mechanic far exceeded any circumstances of use
of the vehicle which would be expected in the process of
carrying out repairs. I do not find the mechanic's explanation
to the Appellant, that they went to Tesco and to collect a paint
sample, sufficient explanation for nine different trips
including at night time. The evidence from the tracker shows
that the mechanic, or someone on behalf of 22 Motors, for their
own transport, unrelated to the repairs, over the course of 24
and 25 April 2023. I therefore find that at the time of the
alleged contravention the vehicle had been taken without the
Appellant's consent.
I therefore allow this appeal
Mike
#Post#: 18584--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued contravention Failing to comply with a
restriction 53J occurred when the vehicle was given to a garage
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 30, 2024, 12:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We need to see all documents.
#Post#: 18729--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN issued contravention Failing to comply with a
restriction 53J occurred when the vehicle was given to a garage
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: March 31, 2024, 7:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1431]ziran[/member] please post the documents as
requested, see the guidance here
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1