No PCN received and Notice to Owner received after 3 months of aleged ticket

[debt_mountain]

I received a nitoce to owner yesteday saying I was given a ticket on the 12/9/07.

What is the best line of attack?

1 - Never got the ticket in the first place but I can confirm from my business recipts that I was in the area they mentioned.

2 - Is there a time limit on when the Notice to Customer MUST be issued? There was an apology with the NTO saying "...The council obtains the owner/keeper details relating to unpaid penalty charge notices from the DVLA. Unfortunately these details have only just been supplied. Please accept my apologies for the delay in issuing this Notice to Owner."

Thanks

[patdavies]

There is a minimum time before an NtO can be issued, but no real maximum.

If you did not get a PCN, then challenge the fine on those grounds. Unless this is in London and issued from CCTV, the PCN must be affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver.

In all this, I am assuming that this is a council ticket and not a private one.

If you can, scan, remove personal details and post the NtO on here for the 'experts' to have a look at and see if it is defective in itself.

[debt_mountain]

I have attached the info below,

I went down to the offices today and got a copy of the ticket, so that is enclosed too.

I am just going down to take some photos of the signing etc and it is a residential area and only has a small sign when you enter this estate saying it is permit holders only but then in other areas within the estate it also has further permit holder signs, very confusing.

ticket front



ticket back



notice to owner front



notice to owner back



additional slip

[debt_mountain]

I have detailed some of the curcumstances of the event.

since revisiting and surveying the area I now see that they have marked all entrances to this estate (probably around 2 square miles in total) with a permit holders only sign,




the entrance I used was sign posted right at the junction from the busy main road, you were then watching for pedestrians and traffic entering/exiting the church and Kwik Fit just at the other side of the signs, so very difficult to see as you watch all this other stuff.



I then parked about 0.5 miles into the estate outside another smaller restricted car park at a block of flats.


There were no other signs in the road or on any sign posts, exept at the busy junction about 400 yards away (at the post box I walked to to post my letters).


On the way to the post box I walk past a further small carpark with another permit holders sign.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I cannot see the front of the PCN.

I don't know how it would work in Scotland, anyone know if the same defences apply in Scotland as they would in England?

I reckon the NTO is fatally flawed in its drafting. Will expand if someone can answer the question above - and the answer is yes!

[debt_mountain]

I get the feeling that the law is the same in Scotland, they quote the same road traffic act 1991 section 66,76 and shedule 6 stuff .

Can you see the fron tof the ticket now? works ok for me.

I look forward to your breakdown of their failings.

I plan to appeal nicely first stating that the signage was poor, the warden was over zealous and I never got the ticket at the time. then when/if they reject that I will hit them with the "oh by the way your paper work is flawed".

Is that the correct way to go about it?

Thanks

[patdavies]

The law is the same in Scotland

[debt_mountain]

Thanks for confirming, now we just need someone to pick holes in the paperwork.

[battyboomboom]

Post over on FightBack Forums -> Parking Tickets for more specialist advice.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by battyboomboom

Post over on FightBack Forums -> Parking Tickets for more specialist advice.

If pepipoo is so great why do you bother posting here? The info on this site is just as accurate and 'specialist' so stop using it to plug other forums!!

[battyboomboom]

Ah, good old green and mean, eh. Having been at pepipoo for a while, and recently been here, I've found that pepipoo does offer specialist advice, since afterall, this was primarily setup to reclaim bank charges, and is not a motoring forum, although there are some people here who know what they are talking about.

Surely anyone who wants help would be better off posting in both forums, to maximise their responses?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

My objections to this NTO are:

(1) that it attempts to attach liability to the keeper. Liability attaches to the owner. There is a reasonable presumption that the keeper is the owner but this is rebuttable. There is a realistic possibility that motorists who have no liability for the charge will be duped into payment.

(2) that it appears unlawfully to fetter the statutory rights of the motorist to appeal against PCNs and NTOs.

In two places it states that you may only make representations on one of the statutory grounds. In one place it adds emphasis to one by putting it in bold and in capitals. The RTA makes no such restriction.

Schedule 6 Paragraph 2 (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 sets out the grounds for appeal. This paragraph states:

(4) The grounds are—
(a) that the recipient—
(i) never was the owner of the vehicle in question;
(ii) had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the alleged contravention occurred; or
(iii) became its owner after that date;
(b) that the alleged contravention did not occur;
(c) that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;
(d) that the relevant designation order is invalid;
(e) that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i) the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and
(ii) the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice fixed to the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;
(f) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

This NTO does not allow appeal under ground (a) (i). The way that the NTO is drafted only permits appeal if the vehicle was bought subsequent to the date of PCN or sold prior to it.

It states that a delivery note is required for loading or unloading. This is not true. Proof of loading or unloading requires evidence of which a delivery note may be part, but other evidence may be equally compelling.

Ground (c) has been badly and misleadingly re-phrased. The circumstances contemplated by this ground are not confined to stolen vehicles. This case refers.