DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 53874--------------------------------------------------
Re: Imperial Road - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
DIR By: hussainash
Date: January 17, 2025, 4:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> You can make it shorter. I've added a couple of things
(underlined).
>
> --------
>
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I kindly request that you consider my case for discretion, as
I was unaware of the Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN)
restrictions in the area. I am not local to the borough and was
visiting the area during the school Christmas holidays to take
my children to the Gambado Chelsea soft play center in STREET
NAME, and so was accessing a local facility and not using the
route as a cut-through.
>
> I have attached receipts from Gambado as evidence of my visit.
>
> At the time, I did not see any signs indicating the
restrictions. Had I been aware of the LTN or seen clear signage,
I would have avoided entering Imperial Road entirely.
Additionally, I did not take a shortcut to avoid traffic, as the
roads were quiet due to the holiday season.
>
> This is my first PCN for this area and road, and I sincerely
apologise for this inadvertent mistake. I assure you that I had
no intention of violating any restrictions and understand the
importance of adhering to all local traffic regulations.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to consider my representation,
and I look forward to your response.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for this, I will submit and keep you posted.
#Post#: 54165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Imperial Road - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
DIR By: hussainash
Date: January 20, 2025, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am just about to make a representation. Which option would be
best to choose from this list? Feels like none of them apply.
Please select your grounds for Representation:
- I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged
contravention
- The vehicle had been taken without my consent
- The contravention did not occur
- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the
circumstances
- We are a hire firm and have supplied the name of the hirer
along with a signed hire agreement
#Post#: 54175--------------------------------------------------
Re: Imperial Road - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 20, 2025, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN limits to one ground. The law states one or other of the
grounds.
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph
21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007, as applicable
Case Reference:
Appellant:
Authority:
VRM:
PCN:
Contravention Date:
Contravention Time:
Contravention Location:
Penalty Amount:
Contravention:
prohibited turn
Decision Date:
Adjudicator:
Appeal Decision:
Direction:
Reasons:
accordance with Paragraph 12 of Part 2 to the Schedule of The
Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England)
Representations And Appeals Regulations 2007 to review an
Adjudicator's decision of 24th March 2012 in refusing his
appeal.
The grounds for review are:
There was an error by administrative staff;
The appellant failed to appear or be represented at the hearing
for good and sufficient reason;
After the hearing new evidence had become available since the
conclusion of the hearing the existence of which could not have
been reasonably known or foreseen;
The interests of justice require a review.
The appellant, who appeared on 9 th June 2012 with Mr. Herbert,
relied on the last criterion, asserting that the Adjudicator had
misdirected himself. The appellant produced a previous decision
of the Adjudicator-appeal 211070709A. The appellant also
produced other judgments by other Adjudicators. I have caused
all these to be scanned onto the system as evidence.
I reserved judgment in accordance with paragraph 11(1) of the
Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England)
Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.
The penalty notice in this case was issued under Section 6 of
the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for
London act 2003 says that the penalty notice must state:
1 the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be,
Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable
with respect to the vehicle;
2 the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
3 that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
4 that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the
period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the
amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified
proportion;
5 that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
6 the amount of the increased charge;
7 the address to which the penalty charge must be sent;
8 that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled
to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the
Act; and
9 specify the form in which such representations are made.
Paragraph 1(3) to the Schedule states, "The enforcing authority
may disregard any such representations which are received by
them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the
date on which the penalty notice in question was served."
The penalty notice in this case is silent on that.
The original Adjudicator stated this in his judgment.
As stated above, the legislation at Section 4(8) says that the
penalty notice "must" state it.
In the High Court case of Barnet v The Parking Adjudicator, Mr.
Justice Jackson in paragraph 37 of his judgment said that if the
legislation says that something "must" be stated then "that
suggests that the exact words are not mandatory but the pcn must
accurately convey the information set out in the subsections."
The original Adjudicator has said that, "Absolutely no prejudice
has been suffered by the appellant."
At paragraph 41 of his judgment in the Barnet case Mr. Justice
Jackson stated that prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to
be established.
In the same paragraph Mr. Justice Jackson said if statutory
conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not
arise.
In this case the penalty notice, on its first page, says that
the penalty/reduced amount must be paid not later than 28 or 14
days from the beginning of the date of the notice, "Or the
person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make
representations."
On the second page of the penalty notice there are instructions
to the recipient how to make representations and the grounds of
appeal available. The penalty notice invites the recipient to
select one ground whereas the legislation states that
representations may be made on "one or other of the grounds"
As stated above the penalty notice is silent as to paragraph
1(3) to the Schedule in that there is no mention that the local
authority may disregard representations served on the local
authority after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with
the date on which the penalty notice is served.
It was accepted in the Barnet Case that substantial compliance
with statutory requirements will render the penalty notice
valid.
I find that the message contained in paragraph 1(3) is an
important warning to the recipient of a penalty notice issued
under the London Local Authorities act 2003. Without it I cannot
find that the penalty notice is substantially compliant.
I will therefore allow the review and allow the appeal.
Original Decision Subsequently Reviewed Under Regulation 11 of
The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations
1993
Decision Date
Previous Decision
Adjudicator
Direction
Reasons
appeal before me. He had received a Penalty Charge Notice after
performing a prohibited right turn in Forest Road. He accepted
that such a turn had been made and that the contravention had
been proved. He argued, however, that the Penalty Charge Notice
was invalid as it did not state on it that representations
should be made within 28 days of the receipt of the notice, but
28 days of the notice itself. Mr Bikatov claimed that the notice
foreshortened the time in which he was able to make
representations and was thus invalid. He referred me to
decisions made by two other adjudicators - those decisions being
Tuttle v Camden (Ref: 2080721804) and Stubbs v Westminster (Ref:
2090397156).
I have looked at the relevant piece of legislation which is the
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Section 4(8) of the Act lists what must be included in a PCN. It
reads as follows:
(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must-
(a) state-
(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be,
Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable
with respect to the vehicle;
(ii) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of
the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the
period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the
amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified
proportion;
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of
the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi) the amount of the increased charge;
(vii) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must
be sent; and
(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be
entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1
to this Act; and
(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to
be made.
It will be noted that it is stated there that for payment of the
PCN, the relevant date is the date 28 (or 14) days beginning
with the date of the notice. However, Schedule 1 paragraph 1(3),
dealing with representations, reads as follows:
(3) The enforcing authority may disregard any such
representations which are received by them after the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty
charge notice in question was served.
It will be noted here that the relevant date for consideration
of representations is here given as being 28 days beginning with
the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was
served.
Mr Bikatov argued that the PCN was invalid as it did not make
clear that representations could be considered up to 28 days
after the service of the notice.
I do not agree. The PCN in this instance correctly tells the
recipient that he has 28 days to pay at the full rate (or 14
days at the reduced rate). That is in accordance with section
4(8) of the Act. It also tells him that he can make
representations. It is correct that the PCN is silent as to the
permitted time in which representations can be made, but this
does not appear to be a requirement of section 4(8)(b) which
merely says that the PCN must specify the "form in which any
such representations are to be made". What is clear, I would
suggest, from the PCN, is that representations should be made
within 28 days. The legislation permits a certain latitude to
the appellant by indicating that the authority should only
disregard submissions made more than 28 days after service.
However, I do not see that this needs be indicated on the PCN
itself.
In any event, on the facts of this case, absolutely no prejudice
has been suffered by the appellant. The PCN was issued on
28/11/12. The appellant responded on 12/12/12. In an email sent
on that day, he pointed out the alleged failings of the PCN. The
authority responded on 20 December rejecting those submissions,
and granting the appellant a further 14 days to pay at the
reduced rate. He did not accept that offer, and as a result the
full amount of £130 is now correctly demanded.
The appeal is thus refused.
#Post#: 54212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Imperial Road - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 20, 2025, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN/website should offer an 'any other ground you wish to
raise' option shouldn't it?
#Post#: 55606--------------------------------------------------
Re: Imperial Road - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
DIR By: hussainash
Date: January 28, 2025, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> The PCN/website should offer an 'any other ground you wish to
raise' option shouldn't it?
>
--- End Quote ---
That was the option I was looking for an feel none of the ones
in the list apply to me, I've managed to take a screenshot:
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 55654--------------------------------------------------
Re: Imperial Road - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 28, 2025, 4:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well pick 'the penalty charge exceeded...' and add at the start:
Please note you have not provided the ground of "Any other
ground you wish to raise" so I have picked one of your other
options to make this challenge for discretion.
#Post#: 56567--------------------------------------------------
Re: Imperial Road - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
DIR By: hussainash
Date: February 4, 2025, 8:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've just had an e-mail replay (letter will be in the post) and
they have not cancelled the PCN :( (Just my luck!)
Should I just pay the discounted rate or are there any
technicalities that I can argue?
Could the sign have been show which road in the roundabout is
restricted? (screenshot)
Attaching the PDF response letter.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 56587--------------------------------------------------
Re: Imperial Road - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: February 4, 2025, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All I can say is they've probably decided that enough time has
gone by to not cancel for first time contraventions here, which
is a shame but not unexpected.
To win an appeal we'd have to find something wrong with the
signs or PCN wording etc.
Not sure that the lack go 'any other grounds' would work.
#Post#: 56708--------------------------------------------------
Re: Imperial Road - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
DIR By: Johnsmith86
Date: February 5, 2025, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am in the same situation and have also received a PCN for the
same alleged contravention on the same road. I was having a look
online and found the below:
"Home » Contraventions for Moving Traffic » Contravention Code
52
Contravention Code 52
Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on
certain types of vehicles – Contravention Code 52
Specific grounds of appeal for this contravention:
Was the PCN sufficiently clear as to the contravention. In one
case the PCN stated failing to comply with a sign indicating a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle, however the signage at
the location stated motor vehicles prohibited. The adjudicator
said the PCN should have referred to “motor vehicles” rather
than “certain types of vehicle”. Certain types of vehicles is
too general. The contraventions have various suffixes. The
correct suffix must be used and the contravention stated must be
the exact one that relates to the stated contravention code.
Does anyone think i have a grounds for an appeal based on the
above? Unfortunately I couldn't find reference to the above case
where the adjudicator cancelled the PCN.
#Post#: 56729--------------------------------------------------
Re: Imperial Road - Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 5, 2025, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Johnsmith86 link ---
>
> I am in the same situation and have also received a PCN for
the same alleged contravention on the same road. I was having a
look online and found the below:
>
>
> "Home » Contraventions for Moving Traffic » Contravention Code
52
> Contravention Code 52
> Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on
certain types of vehicles – Contravention Code 52
>
>
> Specific grounds of appeal for this contravention:
>
> Was the PCN sufficiently clear as to the contravention. In one
case the PCN stated failing to comply with a sign indicating a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle, however the signage at
the location stated motor vehicles prohibited. The adjudicator
said the PCN should have referred to “motor vehicles” rather
than “certain types of vehicle”. Certain types of vehicles is
too general. The contraventions have various suffixes. The
correct suffix must be used and the contravention stated must be
the exact one that relates to the stated contravention code.
>
> Does anyone think i have a grounds for an appeal based on the
above? Unfortunately I couldn't find reference to the above case
where the adjudicator cancelled the PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
The rule for posting is one OP per thread, so please start your
own thread.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page