Appeal to Croydon Council Rejected

[zedox]

Afternoon people,
This is my first post here so... hello!

Basically received PCN 29/08/2007 10:07 for...
"Parked without clearly dispalying a valid pay and display ticket"

However I had purchased a ticket and the supposed contravention happened between the times my ticket WAS valid.

The Pay and Display ticket did not have a sticky label, there was no way of sticking the ticket to anything inside the windscreen. Therefore the ticket had fallen off the dashboard.

I wrote to Croydon Council stating...

Dear Whom it may concern,

I received a Penalty charge notice on Wednesday the 29th of August, 2007 (PCN No. ########)
However I did have a pay-and-display ticket but it fell off the dashboard.
I have enclosed a copy of my pay-and-display ticket.

I hope this will resolve my Penalty Charge.

Yours Sincerely,

... and enclosed a copy of my Pay and Display ticket.

I did not receive a reply for well over a month, the address on the letter was incorrect (I still received it however), the reply stated my appeal has been rejected and the ticket will still need to be paid. Also i'm unsure as to whether the wording on the actual ticket is correct... It says Issued at Date/Time rather than guidelined... "Date of Issue".

The way I see it there are 3 things wrong...
1. Incorrect Text
2. Reply to appeal took near enough 7 weeks.
3. Address on reply was incorrect.

I have until the 1st of November to pay the discounted amount of £40 or I can wait for "Notice to Owner" and appeal to an independent Parking Adjudicator.

I plan on waiting for the notice to owner and fighting this to the end...

Any advice for me? Has anyone appealed to an Independent adjudicator, do you guys think I have a leg to stand on?

[green_and_mean]

APCOA have just taken over running parking in croydon from the local authority team with the promise of increasing income by £2.7m per year so I guess they wont be letting too many people off?

Not sure about the timescale point but the PCN wording and address are not grounds for appeal. Adjudicator has ruled before its the drivers responsibility to display ticket so not much mileage in that either sadly.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

All may not be lost, particularly if Croydon does not count as a London Council.

Take a look here.

There may well of course be other reasons to contest. Scan and post it here.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by Bernie_the_Bolt

All may not be lost, particularly if Croydon does not count as a London Council.

Take a look here.

There may well of course be other reasons to contest. Scan and post it here.

Croydon is a London Council and there have been key cases in London that went in favour of Councils but I guess it may be worth a gamble.

[CrispDust]

Am I missing a point here? Surely if you have a valid ticket for said period and can produce it as evidence then what contravention has been committed?
Or is the contravention not displaying the ticket rather than not actually having one?
If so, how stupid. Fined the same for not having a ticket as not displaying it to partially sighted parking attendents whose employers can't afford sticky labels.

[green_and_mean]

Not displaying is the contravention implemented to avoid dishonest drivers getting a ticket from another driver once a PCN has been issued. Also if you think about it if you didnt need to display it no one would bother and the Council would have to either issue to everyone and make them write in with the ticket or issue to no one making buying a ticket pointless.

[zedox]

I can't scan a copy of the ticket but here is the EXACT wording as it is on the ticket...

London Borough Of Croydon
Penalty Charge Notice
Road Traffic Act 1991 (amended) and London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003

PCN no. : ##########

Reg no. : #######
Make : #####
Colour : #####

Was seen in:
College Rd, Croydon+ Opposite PD063

Contravention Date/Time
29/08/2007 10:07

Issued at Date/Time:
29/08/2007 10:07

Has reasonable cause to belive that the following contravention has occurred:
PARKED WITHOUT CLEARLY DISPLAYING A VALID PAY AND DISPLAY TICKET

A Penalty Charge of £80 must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this Notice or a reduced amount of £40 will be accepted if payment is received before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of this Notice.

PA: ####
Attendant signature

I have 2 days left before the amount goes to £80 now...

What do I do, suck it up and pay or gamble?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

zedox,

What you are posting gives ample reason to contest. There's a stack of stuff that the law requires which you are saying isn't there.

Before you get too excited, check the back, what is there? Does the front draw your attention to the back?

[zedox]

There is nothing on the ticket that draws my attention to the back.
The text on the ticket is actually pretty faded.

The text on the back is bright noticable pink and reads...
(once again, word for word)

vehicle may receive a Notice to Owner asking for payment. That notice will aslo describe how the owner may make formal representations objecting to the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice.

Removed or Clamped Vehicles
For vehicles that have been removed or clamped by Croydon Council, a payment for the accompanying Penalty Charge Notice, in addition to the release fee and any storage charges, must be received before the vehicle is released.

How and where to pay
details are enclosed with this Penalty Charge Notice.

Send Payment To:
LBC Parking Services,
PO BOX 1462, Croydon, CR9 1WX

Croydon Council
Penalty Charge Notice

Payment must be made within 28 days of the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice, but if it is received within 14 days, payment of the reduced charge shown will be accepted in full and final settlement.

If payment is not made within 28 days, the registered keeper or the person who Croydon Council belives to be the owner of the vehicle may receive a Notice to Owner asking for payment. That notice will also describe how the owner may make formal

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

It may well come down to whether you can argue successfully that what is on the back is not part of the PCN.

Section 66 (3) of the Road Traffic Act sets out the information that must appear on a penalty charge notice.

(3) A penalty charge notice must state—
(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d) 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;
(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.

But I think that an argument here can be formulated. It may be fairly thin but on the reverse of the the PCN it states from what you have quoted that "If payment is not made within 28 days, the registered keeper or the person who Croydon Council belives to be the owner of the vehicle may receive a Notice to Owner asking for payment." The law does not permit the London Authority to serve an NTO on either the registered keeper or "the person who Croydon Council belives to be the owner" (my emphasis). What the law permits is for "a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle". Normally the keeper will be the owner but this is a rebuttable presumption and it is not necessary to show prejudice. What the council absolutely does not have is the choice to select the keeper or the owner for the service of NTO which is one way of reading what they are saying.

If you do chose to wait for the NTO appeal, clearly you throw more at them than this. Including the gact that you bought and paid for a ticket, that it was displayed when you left the car, that it was flimsy and that adjudicators have previously ruled, the 28 day issue and anything else. It may work.

So the question is should you appeal?

Only you can answer that and it comes down to a balance of whether you want the hastle and can you afford the full cost. I can only say what I do. I appeal all tickets I receive if I can find a reason, however tenuous, to do so (and there are some I have paid against my better judgment but the time wasn't right for the aggro). There is always the possibility that the council will screw-up the process and that gives me a get-out. I reckon in the run of things it saves me cash but the effort does not justify it (if you ignore the entertainment factor). I always request personal hearings and I have never lost an appeal that has got to the adjudicator. That said, I don't get that many PCNs is comparison to others I know.

[green_and_mean]

There is nothing to suggest the back is not part of the PCN and besides as I've stated before unless the PCN has front and back printed on either side how would you know without looking at both sides and reading whats there which was which?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

There is nothing to suggest the back is not part of the PCN

That is why I said may and in fact the arguments I have suggested do not revolve around this

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

and besides as I've stated before unless the PCN has front and back printed on either side how would you know without looking at both sides and reading whats there which was which?

In my view, it comes down to what a reasonable interpretation is based on the layout and design of the PCN. I haven't seen the PCN in question I only have zedox's posts to go on. I also think that there was a glitch when zedoc copied the text on the reverse. I think it should read:

Croydon Council
Penalty Charge Notice

Payment must be made within 28 days of the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice, but if it is received within 14 days, payment of the reduced charge shown will be accepted in full and final settlement.

If payment is not made within 28 days, the registered keeper or the person who Croydon Council belives to be the owner of the vehicle may receive a Notice to Owner asking for payment. That notice will also describe how the owner may make formal representations objecting to the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice.

Removed or Clamped Vehicles
For vehicles that have been removed or clamped by Croydon Council, a payment for the accompanying Penalty Charge Notice, in addition to the release fee and any storage charges, must be received before the vehicle is released.

How and where to pay
details are enclosed with this Penalty Charge Notice.

Send Payment To:
LBC Parking Services,
PO BOX 1462, Croydon, CR9 1WX

If I am correct the heading

Croydon Council
Penalty Charge Notice

May make all the difference. This would not stop me seeking to argue that all what I read as the reverse to show is a series of explanatory notes and not part of the PCN. I would do so as part of other challenges and in the knowledge that it may not succeed but also that councils make procedural errors and do have discretion and a whole bunch of other reasons why the law of averages may work in my favour.

[green_and_mean]

The Penalty charge notice is a document as you say the writing is on the back, back of what? It is on the back of the PCN therefore it is on the PCN, not on a tear off slip or the envelope it is on the reverse side of the PCN ticket therefore on the PCN as required by law.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

The Penalty charge notice is a document as you say the writing is on the back, back of what? It is on the back of the PCN therefore it is on the PCN, not on a tear off slip or the envelope it is on the reverse side of the PCN ticket therefore on the PCN as required by law.

You are entitled to your view. However, the London Adjudicators have held that the tear-off slip is not part of the PCN and this view was referred to and not disputed in the Barnet case. The Barnet case judgment also refers to "the back of the PCN". If your argument is correct, what is the difference in the physics of a piece of paper between "a tear-off slip at the foot of the PCN" or "on the reverse of the PCN"? Your point seems to revolve around the words "of the PCN" suggesting that the PCN is the piece of paper while perhaps I am thinking that the PCN is constituted of words rather than the physical paper?

The reality is that it is an unsettled question whether what is on the reverse of the PCN is part of the PCN or forms explanatory notes. Strictly speaking it is also unsettled whether the tear-off slip is part of the PCN but the risk against this is smaller as there are decisions that an adjudicator will find persuausive.

Whilst it remains unsettled I and others are entirely free to make or attempt to make the case. It may be that the argument varies from authority to authority. For example, if an authority's PCNs had, printed above the tear off slip the words to the effect of "please refer to the important information overleaf" that may reduce the strength of the argument (but may not be fatal).

[zedox]

I also think that there was a glitch when zedoc copied the text on the reverse. I think it should read:

Nope, no glitch, how I wrote it is exactly as printed.
Looks like it was pre printed on the roll of paper that the PA would use.

So basically my only argument to the adjudicators would be that the pay and display ticket did not have any means of adhering it to my windscreen/dashboard.

Correct?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by zedox

Nope, no glitch, how I wrote it is exactly as printed.
Looks like it was pre printed on the roll of paper that the PA would use.

So basically my only argument to the adjudicators would be that the pay and display ticket did not have any means of adhering it to my windscreen/dashboard.

Correct?

I see, kinda makes sense now.

As I said I would appeal, in your shoes, on the basis that the contravention did not occur ( you bought a ticket and displayed it) the fact that it was unsuitable for its purpose is down to the council (cite the case I gave you). I would also appeal on the grounds that the charge exceeds the relevant amount because the ticket does not comply with the law for the reasons I gave in post No 10. The fact that you are required to interpret the details on the reverse of the PCN where it is pre-printed, in my view, enhances rather than diminishes the case for it being non-compliant.

grean and mean may disagree. That's fine but it is your decision.