DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84439--------------------------------------------------
Moving traffic PCNs missing mandatory information. The London Lo
cal Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By: Hippocrates Date: August 6, 2025, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looking in depth at many of the PCNs currently on our forum, it
seems to me that mandatory information is missing as provided at
Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of
the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
I brought this up at a hearing v Hounslow recently.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mpB3obxgDkbzTrC_YbGNPC7K3vhqqKIt/view
Another point to make is that, when combined with the "old"
conflation argument in which many PCNs state "If you do not pay
the PCN or make representations before the end of 28 days
beginning with the service of the PCN, we may serve you a Charge
Certificate", this means that it adds force to the latter
argument.
I shall try and give examples later.
#Post#: 84468--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic PCNs missing mandatory information. The Londo
n Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By: ivanleo Date: August 6, 2025, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application
of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q62JYdyLdcGx6KIiwj7PccV9XwdN3DDk/view<br
/>say documents only need to be substantially complaint, when re
ad
as a whole?
It seems to me that "If you do not pay the PCN or make
representations before the end of 28 days beginning with the
service of the PCN, we may serve you a Charge Certificate" is
substantially complaint.
If your argument is advanced then the issue of substantial
compliance must be put to the adjudicator together with an
explanation of how / why the case in issue can be somehow
distinguished, otherwise you'd be misleading the tribunal and
any decision would be per-incuriam.
#Post#: 84481--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic PCNs missing mandatory information. The Londo
n Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By: Hippocrates Date: August 6, 2025, 2:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, Hackney Drivers
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mUzdpSgEg7LZ0N9njiuLCbM4aTgVPlfC/view
states there must be clarity. I don't think making a valid
argument re missing information is misleading. It's mandatory.
And one can mention the said case law as part of the argument,
unless the adjudicator knows it already, of course. 8)
It seems to me that "If you do not pay the PCN or make
representations before the end of 28 days beginning with the
service of the PCN, we may serve you a Charge Certificate" is
substantially complaint.
Well, we have both won cases on this as you know. How can it be
compliant whether the "or" is interpreted conjunctively or
disjunctively when the first part is missing? Again, I raised
this in the Harrow case a few weeks back. The adjudicator did
not accuse me of misleading him. I simply made the points.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mpB3obxgDkbzTrC_YbGNPC7K3vhqqKIt/view
#Post#: 84497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic PCNs missing mandatory information. The Londo
n Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By: ivanleo Date: August 6, 2025, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Hippocrates link=topic=7569.msg84481#msg84481
date=1754507718]
Well, we have both won cases on this as you know. How can it be
compliant whether the "or" is interpreted conjunctively or
disjunctively when the first part is missing? Again, I raised
this in the Harrow case a few weeks back. The adjudicator did
not accuse me of misleading him. I simply made the points.
[/quote]
The adjudicator might not know of any contrary authorities, it's
the duty of the representative to draw all relevant authorities,
favourable and unfavourable, to the attention of the tribunal.
In short your argument needs to be "it could be said that I am
wrong because of (substantial compliance etc), but I say that
that is not the case because of (reasons)".
#Post#: 84501--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic PCNs missing mandatory information. The Londo
n Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By: Hippocrates Date: August 6, 2025, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Quite. 8) But we are jumping the gun here. Let's see what the
council says first because this is a novel argument. There is no
reason at all why this cannot form part, at least, of the
initial formal representations. The likelihood is that they will
take some time to consider, if at all. ;D
I will be using it very soon. And have told the powers that
be/who must be obeyed.
#Post#: 86288--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic PCNs missing mandatory information. The Londo
n Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By: Hippocrates Date: August 19, 2025, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Edited.
#Post#: 86653--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic PCNs missing mandatory information. The Londo
n Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By: Hippocrates Date: August 21, 2025, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For future ease of reference:
I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN
as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8
) (v) of
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased
charge may be payable.
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning
with the date of the notice;
Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay
the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a
period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this
notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable” adds to the
lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the
required information was included or not, it is also arguable
that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many
would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the
statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still
no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that
it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.
#Post#: 87378--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic PCNs missing mandatory information. The Londo
n Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By: roythebus Date: August 27, 2025, 3:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to be pedantic,
"It seems to me that "If you do not pay the PCN or make
representations before the end of 28 days beginning with the
service of the PCN, we may serve you a Charge Certificate" is
substantially complaint."
Complaint or compliant?
#Post#: 88030--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic PCNs missing mandatory information. The Londo
n Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By: Hippocrates Date: September 1, 2025, 2:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=roythebus link=topic=7569.msg87378#msg87378
date=1756283213]
Sorry to be pedantic,
"It seems to me that "If you do not pay the PCN or make
representations before the end of 28 days beginning with the
service of the PCN, we may serve you a Charge Certificate" is
substantially complaint."
Complaint or compliant?
[/quote]
De minimis typo. Anyway, I shall be arguing this tomorrow at
10.00 hrs. Merton.
#Post#: 97565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic PCNs missing mandatory information. The Londo
n Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By: Hippocrates Date: November 10, 2025, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Recent case won.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lb-havering-code-31j-entering-and-stopping-in-a-box-junction/msg97394/#msg97394
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page