DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 26455--------------------------------------------------
Re: London borough of Havering - 31J PCN entering and stopping
in box junction - PCN - Main Road/Upper Brentwood Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 17, 2024, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My advice. ;D
#Post#: 30008--------------------------------------------------
Re: London borough of Havering - 31J PCN entering and stopping
in box junction - PCN - Main Road/Upper Brentwood Road
DIR By: smithakp1
Date: July 16, 2024, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Ah ah! The last bulleted ground is, ironically, invalid. This
ground is not afforded in this legislation. I would make a
collateral challenge on this as it causes confusion.
>
> As per their directions on the PCN:
>
> Dear Havering
>
> Ref: PCN VRM
>
> I make this formal representation against the said PCN:
>
> The PCN is unenforceable because it contains a ground
referring to the traffic order being invalid which does not
belong in this legislation. Therefore, please cancel it
forthwith.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
>
> etc etc.
>
> ****
>
> (Yet another council which cannot simply copy and paste. They
had major problems with their bus lane PCNs until recently.)
> I am more than happy to represent if this goes the full
distance. Let's see what their response will be.
>
--- End Quote ---
My challenge has been rejected. Here is the link to the letter
from Havering Council
HTML https://imgur.com/a/9NVqHks
Please let me know what I can do now.
#Post#: 30015--------------------------------------------------
Re: London borough of Havering - 31J PCN entering and stopping
in box junction - PCN - Main Road/Upper Brentwood Road
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 16, 2024, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Please let me know what I can do now.
--- End Quote ---
Wait for Hippocrates to comment.
Assuming you sent what he had drafted, there is a total failure
by Mr.Playford to address the point Hippocrates was making.
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/dcXZ1Mw.jpeg
HTML https://imgur.kageurufu.net/ExZMxXr.jpeg
#Post#: 30023--------------------------------------------------
Re: London borough of Havering - 31J PCN entering and stopping
in box junction - PCN - Main Road/Upper Brentwood Road
DIR By: smithakp1
Date: July 16, 2024, 7:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I did send exactly what [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] has
mentioned.
#Post#: 30072--------------------------------------------------
Re: London borough of Havering - 31J PCN entering and stopping
in box junction - PCN - Main Road/Upper Brentwood Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 16, 2024, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Tribunal time. NOR also does not state the adjudicator may
extend time. Drop me a PM if you want me to represent you. Total
failure to consider the issue as highlighted.
#Post#: 30149--------------------------------------------------
Re: London borough of Havering - 31J PCN entering and stopping
in box junction - PCN - Main Road/Upper Brentwood Road
DIR By: smithakp1
Date: July 17, 2024, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Tribunal time. NOR also does not state the adjudicator may
extend time. Drop me a PM if you want me to represent you. Total
failure to consider the issue as highlighted.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you. Will do.
#Post#: 30159--------------------------------------------------
Re: London borough of Havering - 31J PCN entering and stopping
in box junction - PCN - Main Road/Upper Brentwood Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 17, 2024, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PM sent with my details.
#Post#: 30169--------------------------------------------------
Re: London borough of Havering - 31J PCN entering and stopping
in box junction - PCN - Main Road/Upper Brentwood Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 17, 2024, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
μολὼν λαβέ
#Post#: 31861--------------------------------------------------
Re: London borough of Havering - 31J PCN entering and stopping
in box junction - PCN - Main Road/Upper Brentwood Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 1, 2024, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Actually there are two grounds on the PCN which should not be
there and similarly their website is equally, if not more,
incorrect.
Representation Reason
A - The alleged Contravention did not occur
B I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of
contravention
- I had sold the vehicle before that date
- I had bought the vehicle after that date
- I have never owned that vehicle
C - The vehicle was taken without my consent
D - We are a hire firm and have supplied details
E - The Penalty Charge exceeds the relevant amount
F - There has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement
Authority
G - The traffic order contravened is invalid
H - The Notice should not have been served because the Penalty
Charge had already been paid
I - Other
#Post#: 34141--------------------------------------------------
Re: London borough of Havering - 31J PCN entering and stopping
in box junction - PCN - Main Road/Upper Brentwood Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 22, 2024, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1. My client raised the issue of an inappropriate ground
appearing on the PCN concerning a traffic order being invalid.
In its NOR, the council failed to consider this important issue.
The following statement in their case summary should have been
included in the NOR: The appellant states in their
representation - The PCN is unenforceable because it contains a
ground referring to the traffic order being invalid which does
not belong in this legislation. The council can confirm that
this does not invalidate the Penalty Charge Notice.
2. Furthermore, there appear on the PCN two lists of grounds,
which clearly do not agree with each other and, indeed, another
wrong ground concerning the TWOC: The vehicle had been permitted
to rest in the place in question by a person who was in control
of the vehicle without the consent of the owner. – Clearly, this
and the aforementioned ground belong to parking legislation.
3. This issue is further compounded and exacerbated by the
council’s website which contains further grounds pertaining to
parking legislation and some irrelevant grounds. Please see the
attached screenshots. Their contents are self-explanatory;
however, I would wish to add that the council has had similar
issues with its Code 34 j PCNs as the costs decision in Gar Poon
v London Borough of Havering 223043933 proves. Similarly, in
that case, they included procedural impropriety as a ground and
also in Tal Ofer v London Borough of Havering Case No
2230533614. In the latter case, they did not contest the costs
application.
4. With particular regard to the grounds on the website, I rely
upon the following decisions allowed by the following
adjudicators, some of which agree with other’s decisions:
2230228494; 2180498755; 2230274232; 2230398949; 2230446542;
2230398949; 2230446542; 2230494501; 2230541860; 2230539585;
2230487415; 2230464748; 2230545861; 2230483130; 2230496595;
2230534763; 2240258389; 2240138955. The Adjudicators who
allowed these appeals are in alphabetical order: Miss Alderson,
Ms Brennan, Mr Greenslade, Mr Harman, Mr Styles, Mr Teper and Mr
Walsh. For example, I rely upon Mr Harman’s decision in Case no
2230483130. Mr Murray-Smith, for the appellant company, attended
the hearing today via telephone. The council did not attend the
hearing either in person or via telephone nor did it seek an
adjournment. Mr Murray-Smith made submissions in accordance with
those set out in his skeleton argument uploaded to the case on
17/12/23. I reserved my decision. I accept Mr Murray-Smith's
argument that the grounds upon which representations can be made
were correctly stated on the PCN but not on the council's
website. My noting his submissions on the point supported by the
decisions upon which he relies (one of which is mine) I am not
accordingly satisfied that the council's online system
adequately conveys to motorists the grounds upon which they can
make representations the council thus I find being in breach of
its duty to act fairly. I am satisfied for that reason that
enforcement may not be pursued. That being so I need make no
finding as to any other issue raised by either party to the
proceedings. Of course, in this instance the grounds are not
correctly stated on the PCN as it includes two which are wrong.
It follows, therefore, that this scenario presents an appellant
with a somewhat aleatoric predicament to put it mildly, which is
hardly legally valid.
5. The NOR fails to mention that the Adjudicator can extend time
in which to lodge an appeal. The NOR fails to mention that the
Adjudicator can extend the period of time in which to lodge an
appeal. In this regard I rely upon the following two cases and
respective extracts: David Miller v London Borough of Barnet
Case No: 217024143 in which Mr Chan said: Mr Dishman makes a
further submission in relation to the contents of the Notice of
Rejection. In essence, he complains that it has not advised
motorists contemplating an appeal to the Adjudicator that the
Adjudicator may extend the time limit for an appeal. There is
no requirement that the Notice must spell out the appeal
process. It must however "describe in general terms the form and
manner in which such an appeal must be made". I find that this
must include a reference to the time limit and that it can be
extended." I am not satisfied that the PCN can be upheld. I
allow the appeal. And Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of
Lewisham Case No: 218033612A in which Mr Walsh said with
reference to the aforementioned case: The second alleged
deficiency is that the Notice of Rejection does not expressly
state that an adjudicator may extend the period of 28 days
provided for lodging an appeal, as provided by Regulation
7(1)(b). It is right to say, of course, that Regulation 6 does
not stipulate that it should. It is also right to say that the
Notice of Rejection alludes to the power to extend the period,
in that it states that a person who does not appeal within the
period ‘may’ have missed the opportunity to appeal. I conclude,
however, that a reasonable reader of the Notice of Rejection
would be unlikely to conclude that an adjudicator had the power
to extend the 28 day period. That discretionary power is, in my
view, an important component of the appellate process and a
power of which a potential appellant should be made aware. In
the case of Miller v. London Borough of Barnet (2170241413, 21
June 2017), cited by Mrs Sinclair, my fellow adjudicator Mr.
Chan held that it was essential that a Notice of Rejection
describes the power of potential extension to the 28 day limit.
He held that a Notice of Rejection that does not contains this
detail does not describe in general terms the form and manner in
which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made, in accordance
with Regulation 6(1)(c). For the reasons I have given I agree
with that decision which I consider highly persuasive. In this
instance I refer to Schedule 1, para. 3(b): 3 Where any
representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the
enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been
established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the
said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of
rejection”) must— (b)describe in general terms the form and
manner in which such an appeal must be made,
6. The PCN does not include the option to pay by post as it must
as provided at 4(8)(vii): the address to which payment of the
penalty charge must be sent;
************
I will use the Scrabble metaphor at the hearing. ;)
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page