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.
Hi everyone, wondering if there's someone who can shed some light on my pcn and attempt to contest it. Any and all thoughts welcome please.
The council operates a 'first 30 minutes free' policy. I obtained a ticket for the free period but overran it by a few minutes. I received a ticket with a contravention code 83 (Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket) which I consider to be incorrect. IMO, it should be code 82 (Parked after the expiry of time paid for in a pay & display car park).
I believe that even though I'd paid £0.00, the ticket was valid up to the time it expired, as if some 'payment', albeit zero, had been made, otherwise the code 83 would have applied BEFORE the free 30 minutes had elapsed. The ticket was clearly displayed on top of the dash (it can be seen on their picture).
I have already made an informal appeal and the council say 82 "would not be correct as you obtained a free 30 minute ticket (no fee was paid) therefore the vehicle could not be parked after the expiry time paid for".
Can anyone help because these codes seem to be illogical and ambiguous?
There's a lot of info here and I've read quite a bit, and I'm still unclear as to what the ticket should state on both the main part and stub. Must it state "Date of Issue", because mine reads "Date of Notice"?
The council's letter also states that I will now have to wait for the NTO and "This will be sent no less than 28 days from the issue of the PCN". I was given the ticket on 7 April and it's now 21 May and I haven't received the NTO. Can I claim a statute of limitations, he said with tongue in cheek!
I intend to formally contest on other grounds too regarding LCC's Code of Practice.
The pcn is required to state the grounds on which the PCN was issued - the code numbers are not required by statute and are irrelevant - the Parking Attendant could put any numbers he likes there without invalidating the PCN.
However, the RTA 1991 S.66 states that a PCN must state
(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.
(a) and (b) exist on the PCN. Everything else is on the reverse face and I don't think this is allowed.
The only time constraint within the RTA for a notice to owner is that a council may issue
The notice to owner 1.—(1) Where—
(a) a penalty charge notice has been issued with respect to a vehicle under section 66 of this Act; and
(b) the period of 28 days for payment of the penalty charge has expired without that charge being paid,
the London authority concerned may serve a notice ("a notice to owner") on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.
(2) A notice to owner must state—
(a) the amount of the penalty charge payable;
(b) the grounds on which the parking attendant who issued the penalty charge notice believed that a penalty charge was payable with respect to the vehicle;
(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;
(d) that failure to pay the penalty charge may lead to an increased charge being payable;
(e) the amount of that increased charge;
(f) that the person on whom the notice is served ("the recipient") may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 2 below; and
Yes I believe you are correct the payment/tear off slip does not form part of the pcn, so it could be ruled to be invalid. I have not seen this before so don't know of any ruling.
How is it ambiguous?? You cannot pay for free parking so cannot have parked beyond the time you paid for? I guess if you had got an 82 you would be the first to point out you had not in fact paid anything! You admit you stayed longer than permited so why don't you pay up and stop trying to avoid the fact that you parked in contravention of the parking regs.
How is it ambiguous?? You cannot pay for free parking so cannot have parked beyond the time you paid for? I guess if you had got an 82 you would be the first to point out you had not in fact paid anything! You admit you stayed longer than permited so why don't you pay up and stop trying to avoid the fact that you parked in contravention of the parking regs.
Because the purported pcn is in contravention of the law perhaps.
so why don't you pay up and stop trying to avoid the fact that you parked in contravention of the parking regs.
Well said Pat. I think maybe I_H_A_P_J is a PA or a Traffic Warden hence the blinkered comments, the pcn does appear to be invalid as some of the RTA 1991 is on the payment slip which is not part of the PCN.. any comments about this I_H_A_P_J
Because the purported pcn is in contravention of the law perhaps
On what grounds? All the required details are on the PCN the law does not state the front or back of the ticket and since the PCN is not labelled as such how would you know what was the front or back? The information on the tear off slip is also on the body of the PCN (except cc details bit) so it is valid.
The OP had not paid a penny so cannot claim the code used was not valid. Even if he had paid for a ticket the minute it expires technically it is not a valid ticket so either contravention code could be used.
[quote=I_have_a_proper_job ;898328]Because the purported pcn is in contravention of the law perhaps
Pat is correct if any of the details on the PCN are invalid then it is a nullity if the PCN is non compliant then it is invalid, therefore the Contravention did not occur despite the contravention code, the front of the PCN if you did not know is the side with the PCN number printed on plus the date of issue and date of contravention.
Thanks for the responses, all very welcome and helpful.
The OP had not paid a penny so cannot claim the code used was not valid. Even if he had paid for a ticket the minute it expires technically it is not a valid ticket so either contravention code could be used
I take this as proving my point about ambiguity. There is only one contravention to apply, but which one? The fact is the fee paid was £0.00 and it is still an 'act of payment'. Therefore the wording of the contraventions is ambiguous.
If charged with murder and I could avoid conviction on a technicality, I know what I would choose to do.
However, I will appeal on other grounds posted earlier.
I attended the PATAS today for the appeal hearing of this pcn. Afterwards I sat on the tube train on the way home wondering how hard I was going to kick myself on closing my front door!
It occurred to me I could have argued an additional point relating to the parking contravention codes I was disputing which I now think might have added some weight to my contention.
My argument was:-
On or about 1 December 2005 the London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) introduced a '30 minutes free' parking scheme upon obtaining a pay and display ticket from its machines. Prior to this scheme, all parking time was required to be paid for, including the first 30 minutes. As far as I can ascertain no other London borough offers or operates a similar scheme.
On the date in question I obtained a ticket and displayed it correctly and in doing so I believe I had made an "act of payment". If I had not obtained a ticket at all I can understand the contravention "Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher" (83), but I believe the contravention that should have applied is "Parked after the expiry of time paid for in a pay and display car park" (82). The ticket I had obtained was and is deemed to be valid up to end of the time ‘paid for’ and it only became ‘invalid’ at the time that it expired. I assert that I was clearly displaying a valid parking ticket albeit expired.
By introducing the ‘free period’ scheme LBH have made the above-mentioned contraventions ambiguous. Had I obtained the ticket for an additional 30 minutes that then subsequently expired, I assume the contravention would have been the latter stated above and not the first.
By obtaining a ticket I believe I made an act of payment and thus the contravention as indicated on
the PCN did not occur.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So why kick myself? With hindsight it could also be argued that these contraventions were specified long ago (in 1991?), before 'free initial periods' were introduced, and that "Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher" was/is clearly intended to penalise anyone NOT OBTAINING a ticket at all, and on the other hand, "Parked after the expiry of time paid for in a pay and display car park", because ALL TIME previously had to be paid for, was/is clearly intended to penalise time expired tickets.
It seems to me the advent of free initial periods has muddied the water! A free period ticket is valid up to the point its time expires, and tickets issued for 30 minutes and 60 minutes are identical except that one bears a zero payment and the other a positive payment, n.b. 'payment' in each instance.
Well! At least the adjudicator appeared sufficiently curious about my submitted argument and said he would reserve judgement for a day or two, until he'd had a chance to research the matter further.
A faint ray of hope then?! I'll let you know the outcome as and when.
At the end of the day which ever contravention that was used would be correct if a ticket has expired it is no longer valid therefore you are in contravention. The only argument would be if the penalty for each contravention was different but it is not. In essence the PA issued the correct code since you had made no payment. Using your argument one could say resident permits never expire as they will always be valid despite passing the expiry date? A ticket is only valid for the time stated on the ticket. You would not expect to travel on a train with a ticket from the day before despite regulations just stating you must have a valid ticket for the journey? Other Councils do give 'free' p&d tickets and use the same contraventions.
At the end of the day which ever contravention that was used would be correct if a ticket has expired it is no longer valid therefore you are in contravention. The only argument would be if the penalty for each contravention was different but it is not. In essence the PA issued the correct code since you had made no payment. Using your argument one could say resident permits never expire as they will always be valid despite passing the expiry date? A ticket is only valid for the time stated on the ticket. You would not expect to travel on a train with a ticket from the day before despite regulations just stating you must have a valid ticket for the journey? Other Councils do give 'free' p&d tickets and use the same contraventions.
May I suggest you re-read all of the argument. All parking tickets (and permits) will 'time expire' because time is the very basis upon which they work. I obtained and displayed a 'free period' ticket which remained completely valid until its expiry time, exactly as if payment was made and I contend that it should be considered that I paid by 'act of payment'.
To sub-quote, "Using your argument one could say resident permits never expire as they will always be valid despite passing the expiry date", I'm afraid this does not reflect the argument and there is a fundamental difference between a residents long-term permit and a PAD ticket issued at time of payment.
I do not see any logical analogy between a train ticket and a PAD ticket.
May I suggest you re-read all of the argument. All parking tickets (and permits) will 'time expire' because time is the very basis upon which they work. I obtained and displayed a 'free period' ticket which remained completely valid until its expiry time, exactly as if payment was made and I contend that it should be considered that I paid by 'act of payment'.
To sub-quote, "Using your argument one could say resident permits never expire as they will always be valid despite passing the expiry date", I'm afraid this does not reflect the argument and there is a fundamental difference between a residents long-term permit and a PAD ticket issued at time of payment.
I do not see any logical analogy between a train ticket and a PAD ticket.
I still fail to see your argument how a ticket past its expiry time whether paid for or not is valid? To park in the place you parked you needed a valid ticket yours had expired therefore was not valid? In what way do you consider your ticket to be valid? A valid ticket is one that is issued for the place you parked for the period your parked. If your ticket was valid you would not have received a pcn. Sometimes it is possible that a driver could be charged for a choice of contraventions, the Council does not have to prove the intention of the driver just the fact that the contravention took place.
Example:
Driver has resident permit for A1 zone but is visiting a friend in A3 so he parks in a shared resident/p&d bay in A3 with a P&D valid til 14.00. When the PA first sees the vehicle its 14.30.
Does the PA issue...
05s for an expired P&D after all the driver may have left at 13.30 and re parked at 14.15 without a ticket?
06s for parking without a valid ticket?
15w parked in wrong zone using A1 permit in A3 bay?
At the end of the day they are all valid contraventions as it is often possible to be in contravention of different 'offences' that are basically the same.
Footway parking in a restricted street in London for example can be a 62 or an 01 neither is any less correct than the other.
Nowhere on the pcn other than the tear off slip does it mention the 14 day discount.
This is a stone bonker winner
The PCN doesnt comply. There are loads of examples of motorist winning on this point alone.
Thanks for this rogerebaker. I did mention this point and the adjudicator insisted the information on the PCN reverse side relating to the 14 day discount was sufficient, unfortunately.
I still fail to see your argument how a ticket past its expiry time whether paid for or not is valid? To park in the place you parked you needed a valid ticket yours had expired therefore was not valid? In what way do you consider your ticket to be valid? A valid ticket is one that is issued for the place you parked for the period your parked. If your ticket was valid you would not have received a pcn. Sometimes it is possible that a driver could be charged for a choice of contraventions, the Council does not have to prove the intention of the driver just the fact that the contravention took place.
Example:
Driver has resident permit for A1 zone but is visiting a friend in A3 so he parks in a shared resident/p&d bay in A3 with a P&D valid til 14.00. When the PA first sees the vehicle its 14.30.
Does the PA issue...
05s for an expired P&D after all the driver may have left at 13.30 and re parked at 14.15 without a ticket?
06s for parking without a valid ticket?
15w parked in wrong zone using A1 permit in A3 bay?
At the end of the day they are all valid contraventions as it is often possible to be in contravention of different 'offences' that are basically the same.
Footway parking in a restricted street in London for example can be a 62 or an 01 neither is any less correct than the other.
Many years ago I was given the following guidance by a dear friend, "You will always miss everything you see but fail to observe".
My argument is not the validity of the ticket, but why it became invalid, given that I contend there is no actual difference between a paid and non-paid for parking ticket. The parking rules changed when the 30 minute free period was introduced. Before that all tickets were paid for and all would time expire, and still do! Had the rules not changed I would have paid 20p for those 30 minutes after which I would rightfully receive a PCN for "Parked after the expiry of time paid for ..."
Contravention explanations as far as I can ascertain are: Parked after the expiry of time paid for in a pay and display car park The time you have paid for has expired as shown on the pay and display ticket, and the car has not been removed.
Parked in a pay & display car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket No pay and display ticket was seen clearly displayed in the vehicle.
I do not see any relevance in your example as my PCN relates to off-street parking covered by (most L.A's, NPAS and PATAS) contravention codes 80 to 96.
Contravention explanations as far as I can ascertain are: Parked after the expiry of time paid for in a pay and display car park The time you have paid for has expired as shown on the pay and display ticket, and the car has not been removed.
Parked in a pay & display car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket No pay and display ticket was seen clearly displayed in the vehicle.
You are clearly missing the point yourself and not only just seeing what you want to see adding bits on, the bits not in bold are to help people understand and not part of the contravention! The whole point is the ticket must be VALID you did not have a valid ticket the reason why it was invalid is totally irrelevant, it could be fake, expired, from another car park who cares its NOT VALID therefore you were in contravention, how hard is that to understand. To prove the contravention did not take place you would have to show you were displaying a valid ticket which you clearly was not. Using your weird logic any car driver who leaves an expired ticket in his car can never get done for code 83 however old the ticket? My analogy is relevant off or on street it still explains how there can be a choice of contravention.
A car parked in a blue badge bay with a wheel clearly out the bay in a CAR PARK without any ticket what contravention is that 83 or 85 or 86?
Just to add another point, if your argument was valid the adjudicators would not turn down appeals for drivers with face down tickets. Even if a driver proves the ticket was valid the contravention is deemed to have taken place despite the valid face down ticket being seen by the PA.
PCN's make money don't they?
and attempt to contest it. Any and all thoughts welcome please.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by patdavies
I'll let you know the outcome as and when.
Re: PCN's make money don't they?
