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.
In my opinion, it's invalid - based on the scan, that is. It has to state certain things and it appears not to - for example the description of the contravention is not legible.
There is nothing to lose by appealing it. The worst that can happen is they say no. If you appeal within 14 days, then you should be given the option of paying at the reduced rate - so nothing to lose bar a stamp.
In my opinion, it's invalid - based on the scan, that is. It has to state certain things and it appears not to - for example the description of the contravention is not legible.
There is nothing to lose by appealing it. The worst that can happen is they say no. If you appeal within 14 days, then you should be given the option of paying at the reduced rate - so nothing to lose bar a stamp.
Thank you. What could i perhaps write to say the above mentioned, that looks like i know what im talking about? Is there any acts i can quote etc? There was a disabled badge in the car aswell, although i now realise, it didnt mean anything, but the parking attendant said it would be fine and then when i turned the corner, slapped it on, but id rather quote stuff that i know will work, rather than rely on them giving me the benfit of the dougbt. And yes, the actual copy is as bad as the scan.
I believe (and someone can correct me here) that the format and wording of a pcn is not strictly defined by an Act of parliament - it is prescribed by the Department of Transport as a "guideline". Hence, PCNs vary a little from authority to authority, but all should adhere to the same basic principles - or the authority would be open to challenges.
With this in mind, and unless anyone knows different, a draft letter would be as follows:
Dear Sir/Madam
On xxxxx I was issued a PCN, a copy of which I enclose [NB enclose a COPY - keep the original, unless they specifically ask you to submit it].
I consider that I have a case for challenging the PCN, and initially intended to do so. However I believe this may be unnecessary since the condition of the PCN is such that it is legally invalid on several counts, and so I consider it unnecessary to appeal the particulars of the case, which I will not go into here.
The PCN falls outside of the Department of Transport's guidelines, since it omits several key pieces of information. Similarly, as you will be aware, a stream of adjudication rulings over the years have served to define what must be accurately printed on the PCN.
As served, this PCN does not include:
- A statement clearly indicating whether the date visible near the top is the date of contravention or the date of issue
- A clear statement of the time of the alleged contavention
- A coherent desciption of the nature of the contravention
- A description of the make, model and colour of the vehicle
- A clear statement instructing me as to the relevant timescales for payment
It seems likely that the PCN is in this unenforceable condition due to the failure of the issuing officer's equipment; however this does not imply that such a document becomes valid, and the issuing officer could have elected to issue a valid one had he been inclined.
I trust you will agree with me that the PCN may not be enforced, and agree to revoke it on the basis that it is invalid.
As per Lamma's links (cheers), you could insert "I refer you to sections 8.40 and 8.41 of the Department for Transport's Operational Guidelines on Parking Policy and the TMA, 2008" - perhaps after sentence which starts "The pcn falls outside of the..."
You could also use the wording from that document for the bullet points, rather than my own wording.
Re: Matts Dad's advice, it certainly would do no harm to add that statement in as well for clarity.
I would use the statutory requirements then the statutory guidance and then the operational guidance in that order. (that why I posted the links in that order, it a hierarchy) be aware of where in the latter two it says ''must' and 'should' - huge difference. of course in legislation the word 'may' means 'must'. If all you have is a a 'should' in the Operational guidance that isn't backed up by a firmer statement on the higher level documents then you may be on thin ice. If the pcn goes against the musts in the S.Is then its much much stronger. Another very useful document http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals....ruary_2009.doc
To be clear though, this case is at the informal stage. I would hope that whoever deals with the appeal will realise it's a no-hoper from a legal point of view and agree to cancel.
If they don't then all the legal and procedural matters can be cited and brought to bear, but I would hope it won't go that far.
Thank you to everyone thyat has participated, i drafted a letter earlier on and sent it off. Rep left for everyone that participated in this thread. Thanks.
Thank you to everyone thyat has participated, i drafted a letter earlier on and sent it off. Rep left for everyone that participated in this thread. Thanks.
Wasnt there a tribunal on an ilegable pcn, failure to convey the required statutory information.
As per Lamma's links (cheers), you could insert "I refer you to sections 8.40 and 8.41 of the Department for Transport's Operational Guidelines on Parking Policy and the TMA, 2008"
Traffic Management Act 2004 - there is no TMA 2008.
You are correct but the date was intended to refer to the date the guidelines were published, rather than to the Act itself - but it's not clear the way I worded it.
You are correct but the date was intended to refer to the date the guidelines were published, rather than to the Act itself - but it's not clear the way I worded it.
Superceded by 2008 guidelines? Lamma's link above goes to a page which says "published 25 March 2008", and links to a pdf of the document also dated 2008 on the cover.
Anyway, I'm sure it won't affect the outcome of this case.
guidelines do not supersede the regulations, the guidelines were updated in 2008. you need to get the hierarchy right in your mind. As an ancillary for the general reade rmany of the words you see in 'law' documents do you mean what you think they mean.
Cheers. I realise that. Pat commented that the regulations were published in 2007, in response to my comment about the guidelines being 2008. So I inferred from that, that guidelines were published at the same time as the regs - 2007.
What I originally said was to quote guidelines dated 2008, which is correct. Guidelines don't supercede regulations, but updated guidelines suprecede earlier ones.
im just wondering if it is possible to challenge the pcn on the basis that the PCN is not signed. Looking at the scans it is clear, that the parking officer has not signed the ticket, so could he not appeal/challenge on that basis?
im just wondering if it is possible to challenge the pcn on the basis that the PCN is not signed. Looking at the scans it is clear, that the parking officer has not signed the ticket, so could he not appeal/challenge on that basis?
Is this PCN enforceable?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Jamberson
