Thread: Westminster PCN: Can they do this?

Hi

I wonder if anyone can tell me if City of Westminster are in breach of any regulations:

I have just received a Charge Certificate Notice, but no previous correspondence (including a pcn).
It claimed that:
Parked in a Restricted Street etc
In London Street (no postcoded so I have no idea where that is!)
'Observed by: civil enforcement officer ...' ... on 24/05/2008.

At the top it says Penalty Charge Notice Issue Date 02/06/2008

It claims that 'A Notice to Owner (which experession includes a Penalty Charge Notice served by post) 02/06/2008'

I have a number of questions:

Are they allowed to issue a PCN and NTO at the same time?
As I understand it, postal PCN's must allow 21 days at the discounted rate. Surely there must be a further period at the full rate before issuing a charge certificate?
Can Westminster really issue a charge certificate with an additional £60 on 8th July ... just over one month after issuing the PCN.

Suffice to say that I will be making a Stat Dec as I didn't get the NTO and making an appeal.

Any information would be much appreciated.

thanks

Mark

Similar Threads:

• Double Yellow Line: Camera Operator PCN (City of Westminster)
• Westminster CCTV PCN
• City of Westminster PCN help please

If its a dual pcn/NTO it will (should) be a reg 10 PCN under TMA 2004.

Thanks for the reply. But what does that mean in terms of my rights? Can they issue a charge certificate so quickly?

thanks

mark

Originally Posted by diveboy

Thanks for the reply. But what does that mean in terms of my rights? Can they issue a charge certificate so quickly?

thanks

mark

it seems you may have had a ticket via cctv. These double up as pcn's/nto's AFAIK. you have 21 days to appeal to keep tha 50% reduction.
Or 28 days to pay the full amount.

If you havent had the pcn the write a to the la and complain

Thanks again for the info.

The pcn was apparently issued by CEO no. XXXX, so it clearly wasn't a CCTV PCN.
The CEO wasn't actually visible to me, so I find the whole thing rather sneaky (and presumably the PCN is invalid). As I understand it they have to have either attempted to hand it to me, or at least started to issue the PCN. I was actually dropping off a passenger (on a single yellow line) so I was in my vehicle for the whole period of around 1 minute.

The problem, however, is that they have now issued a Charge Certificate. Am I correct in thinking that my only option is to make a Satutory Declaration then appeal it from there?

thanks

Mark

I'll be dropping by the CC tomorrow to make my declaration, as that looks like the only way forward. Thanks again for everyone's help.

On a more general issue, I think this represents a real problem for motorists. Bascially I wasn't parked (contrary to what the pcn states), however because the CEO 'observed' parking they saw fit to issue a PCN in my absence, no matter how spurious. In this case I was simply dropping off a passenger and was clearly NOT parking.
I am, however, put in a position where I have to question the honesty of the CEO involved.
This is now the third time in less than a year that a Westminster PA/CEO has basically lied about what happened - on the previous two occasions they claimed that they handed me the PCN (pre March 2008). On one occasion I had a witness and none on the other. In spite of making a formal complaint,
Westminster saw in favour of the PA, even though one of the PCNs was cancelled on appeal.
What's more, Westminster appear to have a policy of issuing NTO's and charge certificates as rapidly as possible, thus making as difficult as possible for motorists to dispute PCN's.

So my question is this: how are we going to deal with dishonest CEOs combined with an over-zealous authority who seem to support these CEOs?

Originally Posted by diveboy

What's more, Westminster appear to have a policy of issuing NTO's and charge certificates as rapidly as possible, thus making as difficult as possible for motorists to dispute pcn's.

The time frame for issuing documents is set down in law if they are sent too early or too late they are invalid. You can appeal an NTO (that is one of the primary reasons for issuing it) so getting one promptly does not prejudice your right to appeal.
Your original post does not make sense in respect of the times and the wording can you post a photo or scan of the documents you have received.

I've attached a scan of the Charge Certificate (blurred a few bits to project the innocent!)

I spoke to Westminster today and they said that they would consider my appeal, which is fair of them, at least.

I have downloaded the video from the Westminster website, and observes my vehicle for just over 1 minute, where I was stopped on a yellow line with my indicator on.
I was dropping someone off, so my engine was running and I didn't leave the car. As the contravention is for parking, then I presume the pcn is invalid. To have parked there would have meant turning off the engine and leaving the vehicle, for which there is no evidence.
Is that a reasonable basis for an appeal?

thanks

Mark

[IMG]file:///scan0002.jpg[/IMG]

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

The time frame for issuing documents is set down in law if they are sent too early or too late they are invalid. You can appeal an NTO (that is one of the primary reasons for issuing it) so getting one promptly does not prejudice your right to appeal.

Is it possible to send an NTO too early? Westminster seems to have sent mine within a week of the contravention. Is this allowed?

Originally Posted by diveboy

Is it possible to send an NTO too early? Westminster seems to have sent mine within a week of the contravention. Is this allowed?

Looking at the paper work it seems you got sent a combined NTO/pcn which would mean it was a CCTV observed contravention (which is why you didn't see the CEO). The options are now to either pay up or send in a statutary declaration stating you didn't get the NTO and then if it is accepted you can appeal.

Having the engine running has no bearing on a contravention, neither does not leaving the car. However if the video clearly shows someone getting out of the car and not returning then the alighting exemtion would apply.

If it is accepted. upon filing a stat dec with the TEC the TEC then contacts the LA and tells it to cease (current) enforcement. How can the LA refuse the stat dec ?

The fact is that I was dropping someone off. However the video is too short to show someone exitting the car. There is less than a minute where the video is on my vehicle. That was not enough time to gather her bags and leave.
Surely the fact that my car was observed for such a short period of time means that there is insufficient evidence?
I would be happy, for example to provide two witness statements from my passengers to say that I was dropping off.

for ordinary yellow lines you are allowed to stop for passengers to alight.
Ask for the rest of the video.

Westminster - there are 41 million stories in the naked (greed) city, this is one of them...

Thanks for the suggestion. I will do that.

Mark

Originally Posted by lamma

If it is accepted. upon filing a stat dec with the TEC the TEC then contacts the LA and tells it to cease (current) enforcement. How can the LA refuse the stat dec ?

If it is not completed properly or for the wrong reason it will not be accepted.

accepted by the TEC or the LA ?
"wrong reason" ?

Originally Posted by lamma

"wrong reason" ?

You have not received the notice to owner or enforcement notice;

You made representations to the Local Authority but you did not receive a rejection notice; and

You made an appeal to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator (following the rejection, by the Local Authority, of your representation) and you received no response.

are the only grounds to file a declaration, if you for example file saying you got a NTO but forgot to deal with it your application will be refused.