Thread: Wording of PCNs

I have read a number of threads stating that for a pcn to be a
valid one it must include
"the penalty charge must be paid before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice".
Does that mean from the date of the PCN, or the date when the PCN arrives
at ones address?

Similar Threads:

• pcns validity check this !!!
• Complaints about Bailiff Companies enforcing PCNs
• Islington Cancels PCNs, it is said at pepipoo,
• Stopping on Zigzag lines, 4 PCNs in a week
• Camden 1 Date PCNs ruled unenforcable at PATAS

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

I have read a number of threads stating that for a pcn to be a
valid one it must include
"the penalty charge must be paid before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice".
Does that mean from the date of the PCN, or the date when the PCN arrives
at ones address?

Neither - although it may be the same as the day that it arrives.

If it is posted then service is deemed to have taken place 2 days later for first class post and 5 days later for second class post.

Hi

Can you post the front and back of the pcn after depersonnalizing it will then be able to give you more advice.

Sign upto someome like ImageShack® - Hosting

Originally Posted by patdavies

Neither - although it may be the same as the day that it arrives.

If it is posted then service is deemed to have taken place 2 days later for first class post and 5 days later for second class post.

Interesting. I understood that PCNs had to be sent 1st class or they were
invalid-has the law changed?

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

Interesting. I understood that PCNs had to be sent 1st class or they were
invalid-has the law changed?

My response was based on the law, as it stands, regarding service of documents (Interpretation Act 1978 ).

It does not relate to pcn's in particular. However, I can find nothing in the London Local Authorities Act 2003 that requires use of first class post.

PCNs issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended) may not be served by post

Thanks for that Pat. Though I am sure I have seen on one of the motoring
forums that if the PCNs were delivered by 2nd class mail that they were
unenforceable.

On a separate issue, is it sufficient to give the reason for the ticket ie "parking or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force-camera enforcement in " or does the actual section number of the contravention have to be included.

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

Thanks for that Pat. Though I am sure I have seen on one of the motoring
forums that if the PCNs were delivered by 2nd class mail that they were
unenforceable.

On a separate issue, is it sufficient to give the reason for the ticket ie "parking or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force-camera enforcement in " or does the actual section number of the contravention have to be included.

Perhaps you are being confused by NIPs (Notice of Intended Prosecution). The first of these (to the registered keeper) must be first class post and normally within 14 days of the alleged offence.

As to you second question the answer is yes, it is sufficient. The law requires that the pcn should state the reason.

A penalty charge notice under this section must— (a) state—
(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

There is no additional requirement for any code

In the Ealing Code of Practice for the Operation of Bus Lame CCTV Camera it states that:

"All pcn’s are to be issued in time to reach the owner within 14 days of the contravention. The PCN ‘is deemed to be served’ when posted using first class post".

I believe that the legal framework for this is contained in the London Local Authorities Act 1996 and the RTA 1991

No, the legal framework for service by post is the Interpretation Act 1978.

I knew that there was something that didn't match up -and I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
Two different people -one with a pcn the other with a notice to owner-but both from Lambeth Parking within a month of one another.

The PCN [for failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn] the
Penalty Charge is worded
Amount of penalty charge Payable £xxx
"The Penalty Charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date of the notice[the 28 day notice]"
It goes on to say that a reduced charge is payable if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of this notice [the 28 day period]


On the Notice to Owner for parking with a wheel on the footpath the wording is different.
Penalty Charge Amount £xxx
Amount paid £00.00 Payment due now £xxx
"Before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date this Notice was served [the 28 day notice].

They appear to conflict. Do they or is it different since one is a parking
contravention and the other is a moving traffic contravention.

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

They appear to conflict. Do they or is it different since one is a parking
contravention and the other is a moving traffic contravention.

It is not the actual contravention, but the Act under which each is issued.

The first would be a pcn issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991; the second is under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

Thanks for that Pat. Are you saying therefore that both are correct in their wording?

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

Thanks for that Pat. Are you saying therefore that both are correct in their wording?

Yes. In both cases the pcn must state "...date of notice"

The NtO must state "(c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice to owner is served;"

And yet the pcn is worded "28 days beginning with the date of the notice"-and that is correct too?

Butting in , excuse me. My OH has a pcn for obstructing an empty trolley bay for all of two minutes while he dashed to the external cashpoint at a large local shopping centre. No yellow lines and no-one wanted to put their trolley there at the time. Nice photo of car sent back when we wrote to dispute it. Is it worth fighting or shall we pay them the £20 for the nice photo of the car?

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

And yet the pcn is worded "28 days beginning with the date of the notice"-and that is correct too?

Yes. It is only the NtO and NoR, etc. that use the date of service phrasing.

Originally Posted by Goldlady

Butting in , excuse me. My OH has a pcn for obstructing an empty trolley bay for all of two minutes while he dashed to the external cashpoint at a large local shopping centre. No yellow lines and no-one wanted to put their trolley there at the time. Nice photo of car sent back when we wrote to dispute it. Is it worth fighting or shall we pay them the £20 for the nice photo of the car?

You should really start your own thread.

Yours is obviously a private ticket. Read the other posts about private tickets (including the sticky) - don't pay anybody a penny

Pat I am trying to scan the docs into the computer-but not the foggiest idea how to do it. Can anyone point me in the right direction please.