DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bromley council. Charge Certif. PCN code 27, parked on
Albemarle road blocked with flower pot.no sig
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: January 24, 2025, 4:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Easy peasy lemon squeezy:
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Bromley,
I challenge liability on the basis of a procedural impropriety:
no regulation 9 PCN was served, so the council was not
authorised to serve a Notice to Owner.
I did see the CEO when I returned to my car, I started to move
the car from that spot while the officer was still preparing and
printing the ticket. While I was moving the car, he tried to
stick the envelope on my moving car’s windscreen but he was
unable to do so and I drove off.
In the circumstances a postal PCN could have been served under
regulation 10, but a Notice to Owner cannot be served in these
circumstances.
It follows that the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
Send this online and take a dated & timed screenshot of the
confirmation page.
#Post#: 55028--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bromley council. Charge Certif. PCN code 27, parked on
Albemarle road blocked with flower pot.no sig
DIR By: Justicenow
Date: January 25, 2025, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this advice. I appreciate it very much and
understand that for the PCN to be considered served in person at
the spot, it should have been attached on a stationary car and
stay on it. But as it wasn’t the council should have posted the
PCN to my address before issuing the NTO. The CEO should not
throw himself on a moving vehicle risking an injury. I submit my
appeal as suggested on the basis that the PCN wasn’t served
properly. Let’s see what the council will respond with.
However, [member=428]H C Andersen[/member], in your comment you
are asking if my car was parked less than 50 cm to the dropped
kerb in a special enforcement area? And if it was then it’s a
contravention? There are no signs there to say it’s a special
enforcement area, shouldn’t it be clearly signposted? That part
of the road is not a functioning carriageway anymore, at least
in that little bit of the island, since they blocked it, would
this regulation still apply here? Just curious to know. Thank
you very much once again.
#Post#: 55038--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bromley council. Charge Certif. PCN code 27, parked on
Albemarle road blocked with flower pot.no sig
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 25, 2025, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, that's not my point. Rather, the issue for me is that IMO
you were clearly in contravention of one of two mutually
exclusive statutory prohibitions i.e. if you were >50cm then
this is a contravention in itself, and if you weren't then this
is being 'parked adjacent to'.
IMO, you were >50cm therefore you would be fortunate in that the
CEO's grounds won't fly.
I highlighted the relevant part of the statutory* prohibition.
cp's reasoning is predicated on your account and that there
aren't photos of the PCN having been affixed to the car. The
rules regarding service are:
a)fixing a penalty charge notice to the vehicle, or
(b)giving a penalty charge notice to the person appearing to the
civil enforcement officer to be in charge of the vehicle.
We haven't seen the CEO's notes, but if they do not support
(b)(which wouldn't need photos) then there is no reason why the
procedural grounds should not succeed. My argument, if accepted
by an adjudicator, doesn't rely upon a PCN being served anyway.
But even if you were to succeed on the narrow point of procedure
in this case, IMO you were in contravention of one of two
statutory prohibitions and subject to the yellow line waiting
restriction if this was in effect at the time.
In short, don't park there because for any competent CEO this
would be open house.
*- being statutory it doesn't require signs nor an understanding
of SEAs on the part of the motorist.
#Post#: 55067--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bromley council. Charge Certif. PCN code 27, parked on
Albemarle road blocked with flower pot.no sig
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: January 25, 2025, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> No, that's not my point. Rather, the issue for me is that IMO
you were clearly in contravention of one of two mutually
exclusive statutory prohibitions i.e. if you were >50cm then
this is a contravention in itself, and if you weren't then this
is being 'parked adjacent to'.
>
--- End Quote ---
You're giving a very, very narrow reading to the words "parked
adjacent to", it is pretty obvious that on a purposive
interpretation this means on the side of the road where the
dropped kerb is. Honestly I would be concerned in advancing this
argument because the adjudicator might think the appellant is
taking the proverbial.
#Post#: 55069--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bromley council. Charge Certif. PCN code 27, parked on
Albemarle road blocked with flower pot.no sig
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: January 25, 2025, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Justicenow link ---
>
> That part of the road is not a functioning carriageway
anymore, at least in that little bit of the island, since they
blocked it, would this regulation still apply here? Just curious
to know. Thank you very much once again.
>
--- End Quote ---
As far as I'm aware any vehicle that isn't mechanically
propelled (i.e. a bicycle, pedestrian operated vehicle) and any
animal (horses, ponies) can still use that carriageway, and I'm
sure an exempt motor vehicle can as well (such as a police
motorcyclist). If it isn't a carriageway at all then you'd
commit a different contravention of being parked on a part of a
road other than a carriageway, which is also a statutory
contravention.
The long and the short of it remains that while we can almost
certainly get this PCN cancelled on procedural grounds, it is
actually illegal to park there and if you park there again and
the council does everything by the book, you might not be able
to get out of it.
#Post#: 55086--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bromley council. Charge Certif. PCN code 27, parked on
Albemarle road blocked with flower pot.no sig
DIR By: Justicenow
Date: January 25, 2025, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, understood, so it does appear that I am skating on a very
thin ice here. The CEO might have put in the notes that the PCN
was served, as it says exactly that in the NTO letter that I
received recently. He might say that I prevented him from
giving me the PCN when he tried to put it on my moving car.
Will definitely avoid this kind of traps in future, it will be a
very good lesson to learn (and potentially expensive). Thank you
for the explanations.
#Post#: 55087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bromley council. Charge Certif. PCN code 27, parked on
Albemarle road blocked with flower pot.no sig
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: January 25, 2025, 11:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Justicenow link ---
>
> The CEO might have put in the notes that the PCN was served,
as it says exactly that in the NTO letter that I received
recently.
>
--- End Quote ---
I wouldn't worry about that, at the end of the day the NTO is
just a standard templated document, and the CEO isn't going to
come to any tribunal hearing to give oral evidence.
#Post#: 55088--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bromley council. Charge Certif. PCN code 27, parked on
Albemarle road blocked with flower pot.no sig
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 25, 2025, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I posited that >50 means not adjacent which if advanced should
of course be caveated with a recognition that they should not
have parked there. But just as it's a very technical argument to
distinguish between the contraventions of a raised carriageway
and a dropped kerb, then IMO so it is here, but nonetheless
could be advanced at least at the NTO stage to test the
authority's position.
OP, you misunderstand the point that's being made:
He might say that I prevented him from giving me the PCN when
he tried to put it on my moving car.
Let's hope the notes DO say this because if so it prevents them
serving a NTO. This is procedural.
If a regulation 9 PCN is affixed to the car or handed to the
person in control then the next stage is a NTO. However, if the
CEO was prevented then the ONLY course available to the
authority is the serve a PCN by post.
#Post#: 55113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bromley council. Charge Certif. PCN code 27, parked on
Albemarle road blocked with flower pot.no sig
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 25, 2025, 3:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The plain fact here is that as correctly identified by CP8759,
the council failed to follow the legal process after a
"drive-away". They served an NtO, not a Reg 10 PCN, (postal
pcn). By doing this they committed a procedural impropriety and
also robbed the OP of his option to pay the discounted amount.
#Post#: 62731--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bromley council. Charge Certif. PCN code 27, parked on
Albemarle road blocked with flower pot.no sig
DIR By: Justicenow
Date: March 16, 2025, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for all the advice and explanations. Very much
appreciate all your help.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page