CCTV PCN CHALANGE in LONDON - Code 62

[anonimowy]

Hi,

 

I have received an PCN on 02/02/2009 for a contravention that happened on 17/04/2008.

 

WHAT HAPPENED:

I have drop-off my girlfriend next to Paddington Train Station. I have pulled over, told here bla...bla...bla, we kissed (you can see her leaning toward me on the CCTV photo), she got off and I drove away.

 

My engine was running all that time, my head lamps were on all the time, my wheels where not even straight because i was going to drive away.

 

After all that time I have received a PCN asking me to pay. (Code 62)

)

 

I have Challenge it using website form:

Dear Madam/Sir

 

This PCN has been issued on 02/02/2009 whilst the date of contravention is 17/04/2008. I believe that this PCN is out of date as councils can serve PCNs up to 28 days after the alleged offence and not over 300 days. This car is not a company car, a hire car or leased and my address has been kept up to date with the DVLA. Further more I was unable to watch the CCTV footage. I have tried to access it more than three times on different dates. When I have tried to download the file I was informed that probably is was out of date and was removed. This is crucial because as far as I remember I did not park on that occasion. There was a second person in the car (which is visible on photos) and will testify before court if necessary. On the photos we are both in the car, lights are on, car is turning right (wheels would be straight if the car was parked). It has been over a year since that situation happened so it makes it more difficult to challenge it for me and ask my witness if she remembers that situation. It is unnecessary delay to deliver the PCN after 300 days as my address has not change since the day of the alleged contravention.

Therefore I am asking to cancel that PCN or otherwise I would like to be provided with CCTV footage as I will be making formal representation.

 

Yours truly,

*************

 

PS. Please use the above address for sending me your reply as I want my friend lawer to deal with this case and I will be away during next 3 weeks. Thank you.

I have received a Notice of Rejection.

 

PAGE 1

 

 

 

 

PAGE 2

 

 

I have also received a form to be used for appeal. The problem is they filled the field on the last page and put my Surname with a typo last part shoud be KAJLO and it is KAJILO. They have also ticked the option - ISSUED ON THE STREET and it is a CCTV PCN:

 

LAST PAGE

 

My question is: Do I have any background for appeal? If yes which option I should select out of those 5 they are giving me in above form?

 

Or shall I just pay the reduced £60 fee.

 

My english is not good enought to state everything I want so I am worried I will fail in court.

 

Many thanks for any help and your time.

Anonimowy

Edited March 12, 2009 by anonimowy
had to add one fact

[BankFodder]

You were stopped on the footpath. Not only that, form the photo, your other two wheels were on a cyclepath.

You haven't addressed any of this in your letter.

I don't think that you have any basis for challenging this pcn.

The only country I know where they think that this kind of thing is OK is France

[lamma]

PCN is well out of date (time expired) is it not ? And the rejection failed to address this point from the appeal. Who would expect that sort of thing from Westminster ? (nearly all of us I expect) If it was me I would be preparing the case for adjudication, expecting Westminster to back down and I would ask fro costs as Westminter have obviously acted wholly unreasonably (and outside statute). Any other opinions ?

[anonimowy]

Is it illegal to stop to drop somebody off? I did not park there.

 

Thank you.

[lamma]

don't worry about that. see my post above.

[anonimowy]

The question is under what grounds shall I appeal as there is not such a thing as out of date PCN notice?

[lamma]

what ?? what makes you say that. have you checked all the legislation ? of course there is such a thing. Check out the Statutory Instrument for reg 10 PCNs The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 No. 3483 also have a look at THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S STATUTORY GUIDANCE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ON THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTRAVENTIONS

[crem]

The question is under what grounds shall I appeal as there is not such a thing as out of date PCN notice?

 

What lamma is saying here is that the PCN has not been issued within the legally accepted timeframe. The callenge you would make therefore is on the basis of "procedural impropriatey" i.e. the council have not adhered to the rules governing the issue of PCNs.

 

You were stopped on the footpath. Not only that, form the photo, your other two wheels were on a cyclepath.

You haven't addressed any of this in your letter.

I don't think that you have any basis for challenging this pcn.

The only country I know where they think that this kind of thing is OK is France

 

This post from BankFodder seems to be amazingly unhelpful when there is clearly grounds for appeal!

[jasmin2008]

Typical Westminster behaviour tbh.

Also typical CAG behaviour also. Would you pay an out of date PCN?

[green_and_mean]

Typical Westminster behaviour tbh.

Also typical CAG behaviour also. Would you pay an out of date PCN?

 

Who has said it should be paid?? One person unaware it was out of time said the car was parked in contravention which it was but no one has suggested paying. Maybe you should pop back over to pepipoo if you have nothing contructive to add.

[benn133]

There are 8 grounds for a appeal of a PCN in westminster, two of them are applicable in this case

 

1. The Traffic Order was invalid i.e. the Council did not comply with the statutory requirements when making the Order.

 

2. There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Council.

 

Use these as the basis for your appeal in that it has taken a year for the PCN to be issued.

 

Do not challenge it on the basis of i only stopped to drop girlfirend off because the contravention is 2 wheels on the footpath, which you did.

[jasmin2008]

See you there Clark.

[crem]

You were stopped on the footpath. Not only that, form the photo, your other two wheels were on a cyclepath.

You haven't addressed any of this in your letter.

I don't think that you have any basis for challenging this pcn.

The only country I know where they think that this kind of thing is OK is France

 

Who has said it should be paid?? One person unaware it was out of time said the car was parked in contravention which it was but no one has suggested paying. Maybe you should pop back over to pepipoo if you have nothing contructive to add.

 

BankFodder did!

[lamma]

the applicable dates are in the first line of the first post. flanked by blanks lines for clarity. I though plenty of people here knew the regs well enough to spot the glaring error on the part of Westminster. make sure your appeal includes mention for costs from the outset.

[anonimowy]

Lamma, great argumentation supported with specific paragrafs. Thank you.

 

Guys, please.... it is not a competiotion to quote others and spot who said what in his or her previous post. We are looking for facts. We all have to beat the system otherwise they will charge as for walking to fast or to slow. Its a business for them.

 

Lamma, so I will quote this in my appeal:

 

Penalty charge notices — service by post

 

Evidence of contravention

 

6. A penalty charge shall not be imposed except on the basis of—

(a) a record produced by an approved device; or

(b) information given by a civil enforcement officer as to conduct observed by him.

(...)

(...)

10.—(1) An enforcement authority may serve a penalty charge notice by post where—

(...)

(...)

(4) Subject to paragraph (6), a regulation 10 penalty charge notice may not be served later than the expiration of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which, according to a record produced by an approved device, or information given by a civil enforcement officer, the contravention to which the penalty charge notice relates occurred (in these Regulations called “the 28-day period”).

 

What am I quoting? is this a guidence or legal requirements?

 

And I am sorry but do not understand what "costs from the outset" means. Could you explain it using different words? Or is there some standard sentence that I should include in my appeal to ask for it?

 

Big thanks to everybody. I am amazed how fast you guys reply. Great work.

 

Thank you.

Anonimowy

 

PS. Lamma if you need any graphic design help (ie new LOGO) I am more than happy to help you that way as thats something I specialise in. (Free of charge of course)

Edited March 13, 2009 by anonimowy

[lamma]

tick the boxes as described above - looks a good quote of the relevant part of the Statutory Instrument (which I linked to). An S.I. is Secondary Legislation. It is called that because of the way it is 'passed' by parliament. from this you may conclude that yes it is the law. also mention you will be claiming for costs as the council has acted "wholly unreasonably" - which they clearly have. they will withdraw, though they may wait until a day or two before the adjudication as they like to wait in case your nerve breaks and you pay up. they play a percentage game even when they know they are clearly in the wrong.

[Fair-Parking]

Personally I wouldn't complete and sign anybody's self imposed declaration form. It rather suggests that you recognise their right to demand it.

 

I note what everybody has said on this and whilst there are already grounds for appeal, I note that the letter dated 22 February from Westminster tries to drag 'the' county court into this, 'the' being the operative word here. 'The' county court? Have we only got one in this country?

 

City of Westminster more than most councils in this country knows that the whole civil parking enforcement by passes the county court system, thus its pointless and vague reference to 'the' county court rather than a specific court, like the Central London County Court situated on it's own doorstep in Park Crescent, Westminster.

 

City of Westminster knows that it should have said the TEC at Northampton County Court, but then City Of Westminster also knowingly employs fraudulent bailiffs such as JBW or the recent bunch who co-ersed the rather stupid Metropolitan Police force into illegally stopping and detaining motorists for the benefit of private bailiffs on Friday February 6 over civil parking issues.

 

The letter of 22 February is notable in that it attempts to seek pecuniary advantage by the fraudulent claim that the recipient will suffer county court enforcement if he does not pay. That is an offence under Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

You could report it to the police, if only you had the confidence in same irresponsible idiots who were party to the illegal act of February 6.

[lamma]

Westminster is bypassing the TEC in the early stages and using a DCA, saves them over 400k a year in TEC fees.

[green_and_mean]

BankFodder did!

 

No he said he didn't think there was a way to appeal as the vehicle was on he footway he never said they should pay.

[green_and_mean]

City of Westminster more than most councils in this country knows that the whole civil parking enforcement by passes the county court system, thus its pointless and vague reference to 'the' county court rather than a specific court, like the Central London County Court situated on it's own doorstep in Park Crescent, Westminster.

 

If there is no 'The County Court' how can there be 'the County Court system' or doI I assume you mean through the divorce courts since that is part of the County Court 'system'? The TEC is the County Court just as money claims online is, the divorce courts, the small claims court or any other part of the Courts responsibilities.

[lamma]

the TEC is a processing centre and is 'deemed' to be part of the court.

[Fair-Parking]

Well actually...... there are around 220 county courts in England and Wales. Not one is listed as being 'THE' county court.

 

I could put my pin in the list if it would help................

 

As for the continually muddled argument about the TEC being a part of the county court system, it was HMCS itself in censuring JBW in a document prepared in February 2008 that spelt out that the TEC was NOT part of the county court system.

[anonimowy]

The letter of 22 February is notable in that it attempts to seek pecuniary advantage by the fraudulent claim that the recipient will suffer county court enforcement if he does not pay. That is an offence under Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

You could report it to the police, if only you had the confidence in same irresponsible idiots who were party to the illegal act of February 6.

 

I would report it if I knew how to do it and what to say. Unfortunately I don't. I understand that most of you know what to do and what to write. For me constructing an appeal letter is a struggle as I have no idea what to write. I assume that is how they make money. For £60 I won't get the lawyer and I am unable to write it myself. I will try to use some quotes from this thread but won't be abble to add to much myself. I will post here what I am going to put in an appeal. I understand that my chances are very limited to win but am doing it so they have to struggle to get the £120. I will probably choose personal hearing.

 

There is one more thing that nobody has related to. On the last page of the appeal form they ticked the field PCN ISSUED ON THE STREET whilst it was send by POST is that important mistake or irrelevant?

 

Thanks

A

[lamma]

Well actually...... there are around 220 county courts in England and Wales. Not one is listed as being 'THE' county court.

 

I could put my pin in the list if it would help................

 

As for the continually muddled argument about the TEC being a part of the county court system, it was HMCS itself in censuring JBW in a document prepared in February 2008 that spelt out that the TEC was NOT part of the county court system.

 

got a link ?

[Fair-Parking]

At best I'm not very good at figuring how to pass on links. Far too old. However the information was passed on to me by another forum member and I'm not so sure whether it was in confidence.

 

Let me find out.