Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Has any one ever reclaimed a Penalty Charge that has been paid then found out that the pcn was invalid.
About 2 years ago I picked up a PCN due to other personnal factors this PCN was not paid or challanged. Also did not have access to internet.
Any how during a challange to a Brighton PCN I found the old Hastings PCN. Talk about Illegal See Below
I have not written to Hastings as yet but will be doing so
You obviously thought it was legal at the time you paid it or you would have appealed? I doubt if you plead guilty in court you would pop back a year later and say you had changed your mind? When you get a pcn you have the opportunity to appeal you declined that opportunity.
only paid this to an enforcement company under duress. At the time I did not have the means or knowlage to research defective PCNs and was tied up in another nasty civil court case. Like 90% of the population I relied on the Honesty of Councils to do things correctly but on seeing this I guess there all as B**t as 9 B** Notes how many people do you know that could tell you what the road traffic act 1991 says
only paid this to an enforcement company under duress. At the time I did not have the means or knowlage to research defective PCNs and was tied up in another nasty civil court case. Like 90% of the population I relied on the Honesty of Councils to do things correctly but on seeing this I guess there all as B**t as 9 B** Notes how many people do you know that could tell you what the road traffic act 1991 says
Please do not think I am being rude
bmwman
Not being rude either but a poorly worded pcn is not exactly being dishonest is it? What do the Council have to gain by only putting one date on a PCN how many are actually issued on a different day to the date of contravention? At the time it was thought to be correct until the ruling which is why most councils had PCNs of this format and had to change them after the ruling. If you had a permit for the bay or it wasn't signed properly you should have appealed at the time its not rocket science, if not stop trying to blame the Council for your own stupidity.
The truth of the matter is that you cannot simply reclaim, as payment closed the matter for the Council and there is now no route to appeal.
What you can do is claim via the SCC for restitution (and the word restitution is important; do not use refund) for monies paid in error to the Council in the belief that the pcn was valid. With the benefit of a High Court ruling (Barnet), you now know the PCN to be void and ab initio a nullity
If you just ask the Court for a refund, the Council will, quite validly, claim that the CC is not the legal forum for parking appeals. It is however, the correct forum for claiming because of maladministration by the Council has resulted in you suffering an loss via an improperly induced payment.
London Borough of Wandsworth v Al’s Bar and Restaurant
Case Number: 2020106430 Penalty Charge Notice: WA04516186 Review Decision dated 28 October 2002
Councils should have changed the format of there PCNs to comply with the road traffic act and to this day I know of one council that is still issueing None Compliant PCNs and members of the public are blindly still paying them.
I have a case for restitution listed at county court on 14th September. Its against Transport for London. I paid the pcn in 2005. The PCN is non compliant in accordance with Moses v Barnet (1 date).
What Pat says about small claims court is what I thought to be the case. In my case TFL applied to have my case struck out but failed.
However, on the pepipoo site there are recent suggestions that if you have paid a PCN and now believe it to be a mistake and you can request the council to issue a NTO and then go to PATAS or NAPAS. If they refuse the feeling is that you can go direct to PATAS or NAPAS.
I have 2 other PCN's paid and non compliant and I will see if I can go the PATAS route rather than Court
I wrote to Hasting Council reguard very dodggy pcn here's a copy of the letter
Parking Services
Century House
100 Menzies Road
St Leonards on Sea
East Sussex
TN37 9BB Date 12/09/2007
Dear Sir or Madam
On the 29/10/2005 I acquired a Penalty Charge Notice (Number HS55046555) a Copy Supplied. During the course of appealing a PCN from Brighton
I came across your PCN.
As park control Authority you have very specific guidelines that have to be adhered to these include the correct wording on the PCN under the Road Traffic Act 1991 as amended
These are as follows:- Section 66 Parking penalties in London
(1) Where, in the case of a stationary vehicle in a designated parking place, a parking attendant has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle, he may—
(a) fix a penalty charge notice to the vehicle; or
(b) give such a notice to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the vehicle.
(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle, if—
(a) the vehicle has been left—
(i) otherwise than as authorised by or under any order relating to the designated parking place; or
(ii) beyond the period of parking which has been paid for;
(b) no parking charge payable with respect to the vehicle has been paid; or
(c) there has, with respect to the vehicle, been a contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision made by or under any order relating to the designated parking place.
(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.
(4) In subsection (3)(d) above “specified proportion” means such proportion, applicable to all cases, as may be determined by the London authorities acting through the Joint Committee.
(5) A penalty charge notice fixed to a vehicle in accordance with this section shall not be removed or interfered with except by or under the authority of—
(a) the owner, or person in charge, of the vehicle; or
(b) the London authority for the place in which the vehicle in question was found.
(6) A person contravening subsection (5) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(7) Schedule 6 to this Act shall have effect with respect to penalty charges, notices to owners and other matters supplementing the provisions of this section.
On closer study of the PCN I find that it does not comply with the above and therefore unenforceable and the action to recover the PCN through the TEC and Recovery Agency where therefore unlawful.
1 That a PCN must state the date of contravention and date of issue: Ruling on Validity of Parking Tickets Affects Thousands
The High Court has just given an important public law decision in the case of R (London Borough of Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator, on the validity of penalty charge notices (commonly known as parking tickets), of which over 5 million are issued annually in London alone. This case deals with the consequences for local authorities who fail to observe the statutory requirements imposed on them by the decriminalised parking enforcement system which covers all London local authorities and many other authorities across England and Wales.
Some 10,000 challenges to tickets issued by the London Borough of Barnet are directly affected, but it is likely that the decision will now be applied to many other challenges to parking tickets across the country, which have been stayed pending the determination of Barnet's judicial review application. Barnet applied to the High Court for a declaration that, contrary to the decision of The Parking Adjudicator, the form of words used by Barnet in their standard form parking ticket did comply with section 66 of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
The High Court dismissed Barnet's application following an expedited hearing. Endorsing the policy of The Parking Adjudicator over many years, Mr Justice Jackson held that a parking ticket must state the date of the contravention and the date of the notice, so that people may work out the time within which they may pay the reduced and full penalties with certainty. Barnet's parking ticket only stated the date of the contravention and therefore failed to comply substantially with the statute. The Judge went on to decide that persons challenging the Barnet parking ticket do not need to show that prejudice resulted from the invalidity of the ticket and that the adjudicator had been correct to hold that the parking tickets were invalid and could not be enforced.
Ian Rogers appeared for The Parking Adjudicator.
Yours fails to comply with not stating the date of contravention. Therefore no contravention took place
2 Your PCN states
You are therefore required to pay a penalty charge of £60 within 28 days. The charge will be reduced to £30 pounds if payment is received with 14 days.
Therefore this allows an extra day for payment. This is not allowed
See case London Borough of Wandsworth v Al’s Bar and Restaurant
Case Number: 2020106430 Penalty Charge Notice: WA04516186 Review Decision dated 28 October 2002
3 The following is missing from the PCN
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
Therefore contravenes section 66 paragraph 3 sub paragraph (e)
4 The address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent
This only appears on the payment slip which is NOT part of the PCN and therefore contravenes section 66 paragraph 3 sub paragraph (f)
Therefore it occurs to me that you have not complied with the (Road Traffic Act 1991 as Amended) or the guidelines set down.
I look forward to your reply on this matter so I can conceder my options in this matter
Yours Faithfully
As I had not herd from them I phoned them to day to enquire which baliff service was used so I could get a copy Recept.
Had a very interesting talk with the parking manager she has informed me that Hastings and a few other Councils are seeking a judicial review over the 28 day ruling as in the barnet case has any one else herd this.
She told me they will pass my letter on to there legal department nd I should here in a few days. Will post reply
Still not herd from Hasting as to my letter dated 12/09/2007 posted above. Some advice please is it possible to file Stat Decs on PCNs already paid to force the issue back to NtO stage and get a rulling from an adjudicaator as to the validity of the pcn then to CC for restitution.
Still no reply from Hasting Council to my Letter Dated 12/09/2007 so I think its time to take control of time scales. Does any one have a template SARs letter I could use. To force them to supply all the information I require i.e copy of original NtO and collection agency used
I think I have been resonnable in the time I have given them to reply but have not even have an acknollagemant of my letter from them. But this will make them look bad when it goes to CC. Going to seek restitution on missing two dates. But also ging to ask about other defects.
It was ruled in front of Judge Edgington on 10th Nov 2006. Probably the first.
Details are here, origination from pepipoo - tabitha.
Several others have tried with varied results.
In general the thrust is thwarted by the argument for preventing a floodgate. It's a fallacious argument, and only the strong have, can, and will find the ways to combat it.
Winter V Camden took them to court for harassment, they lost their costs of just under £4000.
Still an open case. http://www.iamtony.co.uk/synopsis.html
They breached 17 statutes, then were forced to back down. 700 page case being mounted for public consumption in the next quarter or so.
A question regarding SARs Letter I sent Hastings Council a SARs letter on the 3rd November 2007 received by them on the 5th November 2007 They have not had acknowleged receipt or presented the cheque to my bank of payment they have I beleave until the 15/12/2007 to comply. Should I chase them or just sit back and wait for them to breach yet another statute.
Have not forgotten you all just been waiting for a reply from a SARs letter I sent to Hastings on the 3/11/2007 and received by them on the 5/11/2007. Well as I acspected not only do Hastings like to issue non complient PCNs and NtOs but they also seem to think that the freedom of information act does not apply to them either. Does anyone know who I write to to complain about Hastings non complience.
A SAR has nothing to do with Freedom of Information Act.
It is a letter asking for disclosure under S.7 of the Data Protection Act. A maximum fee of £10 may be charged.
If you have sent your SAR correctly, with a cheque for £10 and have recieved no response within the statutary time period, then you can either go to the county court to get a court order for them to comply, or complain to the Information Commissioner.
Has Anyone Reclaimed Paid PCN
was invalid.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by bmwman
