DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 65184--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Warden put wrong location
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 1, 2025, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> The OP's posted their photos and VRM. The location is as
stated i.e. o/s 56 Gant's Hill Crescent.
>
--- End Quote ---
Ah yes - not near the other road.
The yellow lines there have inadequate signage - I think it also
may be in a CPZ which as I recall is large and has no permit
bays and so is not on Redbridge's CPZ map.
#Post#: 65208--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Warden put wrong location
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 1, 2025, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=5733.msg64818#msg64818
date=1743292715]
> As you will be aware, a PCN served by your parking officers is
legally obliged to state the location of the contravention.
>
--- End Quote ---
Actually unless the regulation has changed, location is not
mandatory on a reg 9 PCN. In practice it is intrinsic to
enforcement to convey to a registered keeper the full grounds on
which a contravention is alleged.
As the OP hasn't given the VRM we can't check this - the two
roads adjoin so this may be a close call.
[/quote]
As you say, it has to be part of the grounds on which a
contravention is alleged. So if location was not given at all,
is the allegation complete ? I think not.
#Post#: 65235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Warden put wrong location
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: April 1, 2025, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We may be splitting hairs a bit here. The OP will win because
the allegation is that a specific vehicle was at a specific
location at a specific time, and the OP can prove it was not. I
can't see that it matters if the location, VRM or time are
legally required to be part of the allegation or not, they are
present and and the OP can therefore win by disproving them.
#Post#: 65246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Warden put wrong location
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 1, 2025, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Grant Urismo link ---
>
> We may be splitting hairs a bit here. The OP will win because
the allegation is that a specific vehicle was at a specific
location at a specific time, and the OP can prove it was not. I
can't see that it matters if the location, VRM or time are
legally required to be part of the allegation or not, they are
present and and the OP can therefore win by disproving them.
>
--- End Quote ---
I pointed it out because we need to be accurate in what we say.
#Post#: 65278--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Warden put wrong location
DIR By: T.kukadia
Date: April 1, 2025, 3:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you everyone. Justa couple of questions
If there is no mandatory requirement for location of the tickey,
then can they say therefore that you still have wheels on the
kerb anyhow, and you still need to pay?
Also, How should I write the representation?
#Post#: 65301--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Warden put wrong location
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 1, 2025, 6:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: T.kukadia link ---
>
> Thank you everyone. Justa couple of questions
> If there is no mandatory requirement for location of the
tickey, then can they say therefore that you still have wheels
on the kerb anyhow, and you still need to pay?
>
> Also, How should I write the representation?
>
--- End Quote ---
They have said on the PCN that you committed a parking
contravention on a named street, but their own photos and you
knowing where you parked prove that the contravention cannot
possibly have occurred on that street. So the PCN is invalid,
and they cannot issue another one.
#Post#: 65306--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Warden put wrong location
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: April 1, 2025, 6:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> I pointed it out because we need to be accurate in what we
say.
>
--- End Quote ---
Indeed - I just wanted to be sure the OP wasn't getting the
wrong message about their (very, very high) chances of winning
because the regulars were having a technical discussion.
On the subject o helping the OP... as Incandescent says, all you
need to do is prove this particular PCN isn't valid. There's a
pretty rigid legal process for PCNs, Councils have to be precise
when issuing them, in the same way you have to be precise about
responding in time. If both sides carry with the process (you
not paying and them not accepting your argument), eventually the
case goes to an independent adjudicator who will make a ruling,
and they won't let councils get away with any sloppiness like
getting the location wrong or reissuing a ticket because they
messed up.
It doesn't really matter how you write the representation as
long as you get the key point across, which is that their own
photos prove you were not parked in Warehead Road at the time
stated on the PCN. It's unlikely the council will reject this
(I wouldn't be surprised if the warden gets a bit of a telling
off actually, as their mistake cost the council a few quid!). If
they do reject you'll just have to stick with the process until
either they fold or an adjudicator tells them off on your
behalf.
#Post#: 65307--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Warden put wrong location
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 1, 2025, 11:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
See para. 31 of one of the reference High Court decisions on PCN
compliance:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Barnet%20Judicial%20Review%20Judgment%20-%202%20August%202006.pdf
IMO, Wrong location = invalid PCN and we should avoid conducting
excessive exegesis in the matter.
#Post#: 65340--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Warden put wrong location
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 2, 2025, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course I agree wrong (or missing) location invalidates a PCN
and there are numerous adjudicated examples, especially in
moving traffic PCNs which may include traffic orders that
specify a different location.
The London Tribunals register is constructed with location as a
search field.
It is a fault with the legislation that it is not specified as
mandatory and it is has to a large extent been adopted as
mandatory in the enforcement and appeal system.
Yesterday there was a funny case (for two PCNs) where one of the
more friendly adjudicators took the location at its exact
wording.
Would be good though to see the reasoning for "if a precise
location is identified, it must be the correct one".
-------
2240331128
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being
parked in a permit holder only parking place in Stanhope Gardens
outside No.111. The photographs from the CEO show that Mr
Livingstone's car was not parked outside No.111 Stanhope
Gardens. Mr Livingstone's car was, in fact, parked at the far
end of a bay which he has confirmed is outside his own property,
No.115 Stanhope Gardens. This is the white painted property in
the images. There clearly was no contravention at the location
cited on the PCN and I allow the appeal for that reason. The
identification of the precise location of an alleged
contravention can often be critical and, if a precise location
is identified, it must be the correct one.
#Post#: 66519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Warden put wrong location
DIR By: T.kukadia
Date: April 10, 2025, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Folks, I have bad news, Redbridge rejected my representation,
they say they note my comments about the wrong street, but that
I still have to pay because the car was still parked on the
footway. Dunno what to do.
It is as if they are saying, you are probably right, but you
still committed a contravention.
I have attached an image of the scanned letter reply. Any input
would be great.
Thanks so much
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page