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

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.

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!

The law is the same in Scotland

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

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!!

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?

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.