DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 27515--------------------------------------------------
Re: Motorbike 52m PCN Lambeth
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: June 25, 2024, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hippocrates
Good detective work. Let me make sure I am clear on this:
PCN issued 20 June (this is a Thursday). The 14 and 28 day
periods start running. If we take the generous view (to the LA)
that the 20th is Day 1 and not Day 0 then 30 June is Day 11, 1
July is Day 12 and 17 July is Day 28. 17 July is a Wednesday and
it does seem logical that a 28 day period that starts on a
Thursday should finish on a Wednesday but to have the benefit of
all 28 days it seems to me it finishes at one second to midnight
on the 28th day. Now you may say that is still Weds 17 July but
in practice unless staff were in the office at midnight the
first day on which they could levy an increased charge would be
Thursday 18th. But it's certainly not Tuesday 16th. [But see
final para about what actually happens on Day 28].
To come to the next point, you are quoting from the Lambeth
website where one can view one's PCN. It shows that date (Day
28) as 16 July and we believe that is wrong. BUT that date is
not shown on the PCN itself so does it have legal standing? In
other words, can we cry foul on the PCN because another document
which makes reference thereto contains an error? Suppose we put
in an appeal and the council just says "the PCN as a standalone
document is correct. We recognise an error on the website and we
have corrected it. Thanks for drawing it to our attention. You
still owe us the money."
Do I assume that with this sort of CCTV offence you only get one
shot at a formal appeal i.e. there is no informal challenge and
"please put the discount on hold" stage? In which case I must
decide by 3 July whether to pay at a discount or risk the full
sum? So I am going to ask you for a view on whether the appeal
you have suggested is a slam dunk or a 50-50?
Finally I am confused about when the charge goes up to £130.
Doesn't it go up to this amount on Day 15 (4 July) if the PCN
has not by then been paid at the discount and then up again (to
£195) when a Charge Certificate is issued assuming the 28 day
period has expired with the ticket unpaid? The ticket is charged
at £130 ab initio, but with a discount being offered for early
payment - which expires on 3 July - surely?
,
#Post#: 27525--------------------------------------------------
Re: Motorbike 52m PCN Lambeth
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 26, 2024, 2:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/moving-traffic-pcns-and-disconnect-between-the-pcn-and-councils'-website/msg27456/#msg27456
Day one is the date of the PCN as the law states. They have
curtailed by one day.
I would simply state they are playing fast and loose with the
statutory scheme and are setting up a course of events which is
not only wrong but also prejudicial, not that prejudice is
relevant.
#Post#: 27536--------------------------------------------------
Re: Motorbike 52m PCN Lambeth
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: June 26, 2024, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But does the charge go up to £130 if I don't pay at the discount
rate in the first 14 days, or does it only go up at the end of
the 28 day period where they may be a day out? It seems to me
that I am already in for the £130 on day 15. Secondly, is there
no scope for an informal challenge preserving the discount with
this ticket?
#Post#: 27537--------------------------------------------------
Re: Motorbike 52m PCN Lambeth
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 26, 2024, 3:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No informal challenge in this legislation as you know. I would
just stick it in and let's see what they say - rather what AI
Barbour Logic says!
#Post#: 27562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Motorbike 52m PCN Lambeth
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 26, 2024, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
By all means pursue this avenue, after all according to what we
know you don't have another argument.
But I am of the same view as you which is that the Act simply
places obligations on the council as regards the contents of the
PCN, it doesn't refer to extraneous sources/guides. Even the
Statutory Guidance doesn't address this issue.
To give you an analogy, the tribunal websites(both TPT and ETA)
are wrong in several parts regarding such matters as deadlines
for submitting an appeal, but this can't be used as an argument
unless this info is the only info upon which the council rely
and they fail to use the mandatory references. So IMO it is
here, but let's see how this plays out.
If a notice from the council includes such incorrect info then
that's a different matter as would if the council platform
refused to accept the correct penalty.
#Post#: 27577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Motorbike 52m PCN Lambeth
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 26, 2024, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If a notice from the council includes such incorrect info then
that's a different matter as would if the council platform
refused to accept the correct penalty.
This is not a new issue. Please check the cases. The issue is
that the website contradicts what the paperwork says and, to cap
it all, the latter directs you to the website! ( A few years ago
Merton took down from their website that no London council
needed approval for their bus lane cameras. Imagine the effect
of that. They removed it at my insistence.)
#Post#: 27640--------------------------------------------------
Re: Motorbike 52m PCN Lambeth
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 26, 2024, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Chaseman link ---
>
> Yes but they have not seen the arguments we might be advancing
unless they can link the VRN/PCN number to the thread.
>
--- End Quote ---
They're not going to find the thread as they don't have time,
and even if they did they could only find it if it's typed, if
the PCN number is only shown as a scanned image it won't come up
in a search. We've been advising people to share PCN numbers and
VRMs with us for years and we've not seen a single case where a
council has found the thread. Even if the council did find it,
they typically won't find anything on here that would help them.
#Post#: 27650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Motorbike 52m PCN Lambeth
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: June 26, 2024, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have bunged in representations on the Lambeth website - which
I describe as requests for clarification -in the following form:
--- Quote ---
> When I went on to your website to view the photographic
evidence supporting the issue of this PCN I noted that it said
words to the effect of "pay £65 now or else the charge will go
up to £130 on 16 July". I seek two points of clarification here:
>
> 1. I thought I had 14 days from issue of the PCN to pay at the
discounted rate of £65. This would take us to 3 July. Yet you
seem to be saying that the charge only reverts to the full £130
on 16 July. Is that correct?
>
> 2. If you are saying that 16 July represents the day 28 days
after issue of the PCN for payment in full, then I must
disagree. The 28th day after issue of the PCN is 17 July. The
PCN was issued on a Thursday (in this case 20 June). Therefore a
28 day period following must end on a Wednesday (in this case 17
July). It would appear you are not acting in accordance with
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 Part
2 Section 4 para 8 (a) (iv) and (v).
>
> I will request that you put the PCN on hold, preserving the
opportunity to pay at the discounted rate, pending your
clarification on these points.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 27651--------------------------------------------------
Re: Motorbike 52m PCN Lambeth
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 27, 2024, 12:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would not have written this, sorry to state. You should have
requested cancellation, not provided them with a list of
provisional questions so that they can put the matter on hold. I
would rescind and spell it out to them as previously advised.
#Post#: 27973--------------------------------------------------
Re: Motorbike 52m PCN Lambeth
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 30, 2024, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Chaseman link ---
>
> I have bunged in representations on the Lambeth website
>
--- End Quote ---
It's not a representation because of the way it's worded. If
they ignore it and issue a charge certificate, you won't have
any grounds to file a statutory declaration because you have not
advanced the proposition that any of the statutory grounds of
appeal are made out, nor have you asked them to cancel the PCN.
If you make a statutory declaration anyway (which would be a
criminal offence so I would urge you not to go down that route),
you'll end up at the tribunal where the adjudicator will likely
issue a direction to pay on the ground that representations were
never made.
You need to make a proper representation that must advance the
proposition that one of the statutory grounds of appeal is made
out.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page