Are Copies exact replicas of the originals?

[lookinforinfo]

A friend of mine has received copies of the NTO and Charge certificate relating to an earlier parking ticket and subsequent documents.

 

On the NTO with "Copy" printed on it, the top part of the document refers to the PCN being issued to the owner of the vehicle. But further down the document it states "the driver of the vehicle was allowed 14 days to pay a discounted sum". This is not something I have seen on an NTO before and would like to know if it invalidates the original NTO if that wording on the copy is wrong. Or of the wording was on the original NTO does that invalidate it. It also states that payment must be made within 28 days beginning with the date on which this notice was served.

 

Moving on to the Copy of the Charge Certificate that states that payment is to be made with 14 days of the isuue of this certificate. Should this not be

within 14 days from when the certificate was served?

[nero12]

A friend of mine has received copies of the NTO and Charge certificate relating to an earlier parking ticket and subsequent documents.

 

On the NTO with "Copy" printed on it, the top part of the document refers to the PCN being issued to the owner of the vehicle. But further down the document it states "the driver of the vehicle was allowed 14 days to pay a discounted sum". This is not something I have seen on an NTO before and would like to know if it invalidates the original NTO if that wording on the copy is wrong. Or of the wording was on the original NTO does that invalidate it. It also states that payment must be made within 28 days beginning with the date on which this notice was served.

 

Moving on to the Copy of the Charge Certificate that states that payment is to be made with 14 days of the isuue of this certificate. Should this not be

within 14 days from when the certificate was served?

 

 

 

hi all new to the forum

 

just been looking at this charge certificate question

 

It seems that the charge certificate is wrongly worded effectively shortening the time period the owner has to pay. This creates a case for appeal with no obligation to pay as the charge certificate is non compliant.

 

Paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act states:

"Where a Charge Certificate has been served on any person and the increased penalty charge provided for in the certificate is not paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the certificate is served."

 

Therefore the Charge Certificate does not comply with Paragraph 7.

 

The Lukha v Aylesbury Vale set precedent for this

 

see this link

Parking Ticket Appeals: Lukha v Aylesbury Vale District Council

 

hope this helps

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for that Nero. The main thing I was querying though was whether the copy was an exact replica of the original. However I have just found another

NTO [not a copy] which is worded in exactly the same way.

It would seem stupid I guess, to make a copy of a document then word it in different way from the original when it would be so much easier just to take an actual original document and stamp "Copy" on it.

[nero12]

Thanks for that Nero. The main thing I was querying though was whether the copy was an exact replica of the original. However I have just found another

NTO [not a copy] which is worded in exactly the same way.

It would seem stupid I guess, to make a copy of a document then word it in different way from the original when it would be so much easier just to take an actual original document and stamp "Copy" on it.

 

 

If the nto and charge certificate are worded in the exact same way then the whole ticket is invalid and you should write to the issuing authority and quote the Lukha v Aylesbury Vale adjudication and get it cancellled!!!