Council issuing NTO without issuing PCN

[spellboy]

Very true but you have got the sequence wrong HG22165816 is followed by HG22165827 so asking for HG22165817 is pointless.

So the PCN before mine would be HG22165805?

That's strange numbering but very good to know.

Thanks for that.

I think I covered myself anyway because I also asked for the PCN's issued immediately before and after mine by that CEO without giving any numbers.

Edited August 4, 2009 by spellboy

[Jamberson]

I would call them tomorrow and enquire whether they have yet repsonded to your representation (specifically the challenge to the PCN, not the FOI request). If the answer is no, they are almost certainly now out of time and will have to cancel the charge.

 

If the answer is yes, you'll need to find out when, and what the outcome was, and what stage it's at now, in order to prepare your next move.

[green_and_mean]

So the PCN before mine would be HG22165805?

That's strange numbering but very good to know.

Thanks for that.

I think I covered myself anyway because I also asked for the PCN's issued immediately before and after mine by that CEO without giving a number.

 

Yes the last two digits go up 11 at a time so you have asked for completely different info to what you wanted.

[spellboy]

Yes the last two digits go up 11 at a time so you have asked for completely different info to what you wanted.

 

As I said

 

"I think I covered myself anyway because I also asked for the PCN's issued immediately before and after mine by that CEO without giving any numbers."

 

See item 7 on page 2 of my representation letter dated 28/05/2009 in post no. 22.

 

So I did ask for the info I wanted. They did give it to me in their fashion and it proves that the CEO could not have issued the PCN at the time he states in his log. Incidentally the time stated in his log is different from the time stated on the PCN.

Edited August 4, 2009 by spellboy
clarity

[green_and_mean]

As I said

 

"I think I covered myself anyway because I also asked for the PCN's issued immediately before and after mine by that CEO without giving any numbers."

 

So I did ask for the info I wanted. They did give it to me in their fashion and it proves that the CEO could not have issued the PCN at the time he states in his log. Incidentally the time stated in his log is different from the time stated on the PCN.

 

The information provided also disproves your theory that the PCN was issued later since the PCN numbers are generated by the computer programe when the PCN was issued. The next PCN in sequence was issued approx 5 mins later at 12.05 the previous one at 11.43. If the PCN was issued later as you insist the PCN numbers would be out of sequence which they are not so you original accusation is false.

[spellboy]

The information provided also disproves your theory that the PCN was issued later since the PCN numbers are generated by the computer programe when the PCN was issued. The next PCN in sequence was issued approx 5 mins later at 12.05 the previous one at 11.43. If the PCN was issued later as you insist the PCN numbers would be out of sequence which they are not so you original accusation is false.

As usual you are not correctly quoting anything I have said previously. I had left the area before 12 noon and I can prove that. In fact I had left before 11.57, the time shown on the PCN.

 

My representation is that the PCN was not 'served', not that it was not generated.

 

It's good for me that the CEO log shows 12 noon as the time the PCN was allegedly served because there is no way he could have left my vehicle in the position it was and reached another vehicle in Albert Road, taken photographs and issued another PCN by 12.06 (not 12.05 as you state).

His log shows that he first saw my vehicle at 11.55. So he took 5 minutes to deal with my alleged contravention. It's not unreasonable to assume that it took around 5 minutes to deal with the next vehicle, and he still had to walk to wherever that vehicle was parked (alledgedly in a residents bay). The residents bays in Albert Road are quite some distance from where my car was parked.

That's the reason I asked for the location of the vehicle served with the PCN in Albert Road.

I also have a statement from the shop assistant that the CEO came into the shop after I left.

I asked for details of all PCN's issued by all CEO's between 11.30 and 12.10 in Havering.

The list supplied proves that only one CEO was anywhere near the area of the shop at 11.55. It's therefore very likely that the CEO who entered the shop immediately after I left it was the same CEO who claims to have served my car with a PCN.

This would indicate that the CEO did not walk immediately to the next vehicle that was served with a PCN.

Edited August 4, 2009 by spellboy
clarity

[green_and_mean]

How do you know he was walking? You asked for PCNs issued at that time but that would show CEOs that were working you stated he was off duty?

[spellboy]

How do you know he was walking? You asked for PCNs issued at that time but that would show CEOs that were working you stated he was off duty?

Wrong again....the CEO said he was off-duty, I didn't.

He walked away from my car, past me and into the shop after telling me that I hadn't got a ticket because he was off-duty. So I saw that he was walking.

The fact that he booked someone before and after alledgedly 'serving' me with a PCN suggests that he was on-duty. I have no idea why he said he wasn't.

The reason that I asked for a photo of the CEO was to establish that the CEO claiming to have served the PCN was the same CEO who spoke to me and who entered the shop.

The fact that the LA do not want to give me his photo for "health and safety reasons" is a little ridiculous. Do they think I am going to attack him? I already know what he looks like.

Edited August 4, 2009 by spellboy
clarity

[Jamberson]

This thread is getting bogged down with unnecessary details.

 

One step at a time. You made representations but haven't heard the outcome. For all you know, they've cancelled it already.

 

Find out from them what became of your rep. They definitely received it because they actioned the FOI aspect of same letter. So what was the decision on the rep, if any - and bear in mind if they haven't dealt with it yet, they're out of time and you win by default.

 

Only if they have written back rejecting your rep (which for whatever reason wasn't received by you) do you need to concern yourself with particulars of times, places, PCN numbers etc. As I advised above, give them a bell and see what the state of play is.

[patdavies]

Good advice there from Jamberson.

 

They are now out of time to reject your appeal; you win by default.

 

Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007

5.—(1) The enforcement authority may disregard any representations which are received by it after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the relevant notice to owner was served.

(2) Where representations are made to an enforcement authority by virtue of regulation 4(1) and in accordance with regulation 4(2), it shall subject to paragraph (1) be the duty of the enforcement authority—

(a) to consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

(b) within the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which the representations were served on it, to serve on that person notice of its decision as to whether or not it accepts that—

(i) one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 4(4) applies; or

(ii) there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the notice to owner should be cancelled and any sum paid in respect of it should be refunded.

(3) Where the enforcement authority accepts that a ground specified in regulation 4(4) applies or that there are such compelling reasons it shall—

(a) cancel the notice to owner; and

(b) state in the notice served under paragraph (2)(b) that the notice to owner has been cancelled and at the same time refund any sum paid in relation to the notice.

(4) The cancellation of a notice to owner under this regulation shall not be taken to prevent the enforcement authority from serving, in accordance with the General Regulations, a fresh notice to owner on another person.

(5) If the enforcement authority fails to comply with paragraph (2)(b) within the period of 56 days there specified, it shall be deemed for the purposes of these Regulations to have accepted—

(a) that such of the grounds referred to in paragraph (2)(b)(i) as were relied upon in the representations apply; or

(b) in a case where paragraph (2)(b)(ii) is relied upon, that there are compelling reasons of the kind referred to in that paragraph,

and paragraph (3) shall apply accordingly.

 

It is worth a phone call just to check that any Notice of Rejection has not gone astray. It's not an uncommon tactic for Councils who know they won't win at adjudication; they just let it time out and eventually blame 'clerical error' or 'pressure of work' if challenged.

[green_and_mean]

The fact that the LA do not want to give me his photo for "health and safety reasons" is a little ridiculous. Do they think I am going to attack him? I already know what he looks like.

 

a) It is against the law to do so Data Protection Act

b) How do you know what he looks like you have not seen the photo?

[lamma]

S.35 exemption from the DPA. prospective legal proceedings or to get legal advice. Decriminalised parking is a legal process (when its done properly )

[spellboy]

Good advice there from Jamberson.

 

They are now out of time to reject your appeal; you win by default.

 

Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007

 

It is worth a phone call just to check that any Notice of Rejection has not gone astray. It's not an uncommon tactic for Councils who know they won't win at adjudication; they just let it time out and eventually blame 'clerical error' or 'pressure of work' if challenged.

As suggested by Jamberson and patdavies I contacted the Parking Services dept of my LA. The woman I spoke to stated that she only had two items of correspondence on file. These were the NtO sent to me by the LA on 07/05/09 and my letter of representations dated 28/05/09, which was hand delivered on 01/06/09.

The woman asked if I had had a reply from the dept dealing with providing the info I asked for under Freedom of Info Act. I said I had had some correspondence with them and was awaiting more info as what had been provided was insufficient.

The woman then said “I referred your case to them and I have heard nothing from them since. I wondered what was happening because your case in on hold until I hear from them. Then I can reply to your letter”.

I asked if I could come into the offices and view what was on file. She said that I could not come in. However she said all correspondence was scanned into a PC file. I asked if she would email that to me and she agreed to do so.

It seems to me that the LA should have advised me that my case was on hold pending info coming from another department.

Surely 56 days is enough time to get back to me. By my reckoning it’s been 66 days since I handed in my representations.

 

The following message came by email:-

 

Dear Mr XXXXXXX,

I am emailing you regarding the correspondance that you have requested to see. I am unable to send the documents via email, this is due to the software system that we use. I have put the documentation in the post. Kind Regards

Parking Civil Enforcement Officer (Parking)

 

I sent this email by return

 

I did not have a name from the woman that I spoke to earlier today. To save time and cost all I really require is confirmation of the information that she gave me when I telephoned earlier this morning. The information that I was given is that all you currently have on file is your NtO dated 07/05/09 and my letter dated 28/05/09. Futhermore that you have received nothing to date from the department dealing with information I requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If that is correct then a simple email to confirm that is all I require.

regards

KXXXXXXXX

Edited August 6, 2009 by spellboy
correction of typing error

[Jamberson]

Good - seems like you're in the clear then. I would advise sending a final letter or email - make sure you keep a copy, along these lines. You may want to change the wording:

 

Dear sir/madam,

 

Re: PCN number xxxxx

 

On 28/05/09 I made representations in resepct of the above PCN. My letter was clearly marked to the effect that it constituted representations.

 

I received a reply addressing some of my points but as of today [date] I have not received a Notice of Rejection in respect of my representations. Your department has confirmed to me that as of today, no Notice of Rejection has been issued, and my representations appear not to have been considered.

 

Under Secton 5 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, you are required to consider representations and serve your decision within 56 days of receipt of said representations. Failure to do so within the stated timeframe compels you to accept those representations, as prescribed by paragraph 5 of said Regulations.

 

Serving a Notice of Rejection at this late stage would contravene the regulations, and under the circumstances, I would like written confirmation that you have instead cancelled the charge.

 

Yours etc.

[spellboy]

Here is the next email from the LA.

 

Dear Mr XXXXXX,

You spoke to Miss XXXXXX this morning regarding your case.This email address is for representations regarding appeals.If you wish to discuss any of your freedom of information requests, please contact Mrs XXXXXX.

Her email address is [email protected]

Kind Regards

Civil Enforcement Officer (Parking)

Living Ambition - aiming for the highest quality of life in Londonwww.havering.gov.uk/livingambition

 

This is my reply sent around 13.00 hrs

 

Dear Miss XXXXXX

There seems to be some confusion.

I contacted you earlier today to make sure that I was up to date on correspondence with your department only.

You stated that there were only two items on your file i.e. your NtO dated 07/05/09 and my letter dated 28/05/09.

I do not require anything else to be sent to me as I already have those documents.

My email was sent because I was trying to save you time and expense.

Would you please confirm that to date there are only two items of correspondene on your file? i.e. your NtO dated 07/05/09 and my letter dated 28/05/09.

I will contact Mrs XXXXXX about the other items as suggested.

regards XXXXXX

 

I have heard nothing since that email.

Both of my email requests have been ignored.

Is it possible that a Notice of Rejection dated within the 56 day period will now suddenly appear on the file?

Or am I just a cynical old devil?

Edited August 6, 2009 by spellboy
typing

[rickyd]

Interesting thread - I got a ticket for parking half on-half off the pavement when I dropped off a videotape. There were no yellow lines anywhere.

 

I appealed on the basis that there were no restrictions and I was away from my car for 10 minutes max.

 

I received a letter from the police inspector in charge of the traffic enforcement unit at Strathclyde police telling me it was rejected on the basis that I was obstructing the footpath and if I wished I could take the matter to court where the minimum penalty was £30 plus 3 points. I paid up!

 

On this basis I believe the footpath issue is far more relevant than the yellow line or the duration of the "offence".

[Jamberson]

I don't think a notice of rejection will suddenly appear on their records. For good reason, most software has built-in dates and times and when a letter is generated the staff can't adjust these details which show on-screen. Besides, for the sake of the odd out-of-time case like this, the risks to the local authority from fabricating letters would be too great.

 

My advice - just put in writing a letter along the lines I suggested, pointing out that they are now out of time. They should reply with a cancellation letter. If for some reason they do not, they are acting vexatiosly and a threat from you of adjudication with a claim for costs should do the trick.

 

But just now, I would merely point out to them that they are out of time and you expext the charge to be cancelled.

[spellboy]

I don't think a notice of rejection will suddenly appear on their records. For good reason, most software has built-in dates and times and when a letter is generated the staff can't adjust these details which show on-screen. Besides, for the sake of the odd out-of-time case like this, the risks to the local authority from fabricating letters would be too great.

 

My advice - just put in writing a letter along the lines I suggested, pointing out that they are now out of time. They should reply with a cancellation letter. If for some reason they do not, they are acting vexatiosly and a threat from you of adjudication with a claim for costs should do the trick.

 

But just now, I would merely point out to them that they are out of time and you expext the charge to be cancelled.

 

I sent this letter today by email.

 

 

I have had a letter today from the department dealing with the info I asked for under the FOI Act. However I assume that is not relevant now.

[spellboy]

I don't think a notice of rejection will suddenly appear on their records. For good reason, most software has built-in dates and times and when a letter is generated the staff can't adjust these details which show on-screen. Besides, for the sake of the odd out-of-time case like this, the risks to the local authority from fabricating letters would be too great.

I was not very surprised to receive this notice of rejection today (08/08/09). You will see that it’s dated 06/08/09. The very day that I telephoned and was told by the woman who signed the notice of rejection that the only documents on file were the NtO and my letter of representation dated 28/05/09. It would seem that my call woke her up to the fact that the 56 day period was up and she sent the rejection notice anyway.

 

 

I have a receipt from the LA’s reception that my letter of 28/05/09 was delivered by hand on 01/06/09.

 

 

I also emailed the letter on 03/06/09. I later telephoned Parking and was told the letter had been received.

I made a request for additional information in that letter. The reply regarding information came from a different department to Parking Services. It was dated 12/06/09 and referred to my letter as being received on 11/06/09. At the time I assumed that it had taken 10 days for Parking to pass it over to that department.

I now wonder if Parking are going to wriggle by trying to suggest that my letter was not received until 11/06/09 and therefore, allowing for the 56 day period, a rejection dated 06/08/09 would be the 56th day.

However the NtO states they will ‘serve notice on you of our decision, within the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which we receive your representations’

So even if you begin with 11/06/09 a letter dated 06/08/09 is on the 57th day.

Am I correct in thinking that the notice is ‘served’ on the date when I received it, not the date when it was typed?

If so then it was served on the 59th day.

Can anyone put me at ease on that please?

Edited August 8, 2009 by spellboy

[Jamberson]

You made representations on 28 May, and according to the receipt above, they received your representation on June 1. This is the day it was served on them.

 

You addressed your representation to Parking Services - what they do with it in terms of passing it from office to office is their problem - it doesn't affect where you stand. (They have photocopiers, don't they?)

 

The legislation cited above states that they must "within a period of 56 days beginning with the date on which the representations were served, serve on that person notice of its decision".

 

So you need to receive their decision within 56 days of them receiving your representation, ie by 26 July. Their decision is dated 6 August so they are more than a week out of time, even disregarding time for it to get to you.

[spellboy]

They sent me a form to send in to appeal their notice of rejection.

Do I still have to make an appeal even though their notice is out of time?

[Jamberson]

Yes, I would.

 

It's possible they will cancel it in view of your latest letter which points out that they have timed out. But in case they don't, apply for adjudication, and make sure you claim costs against them as well.

[patdavies]

They sent me a form to send in to appeal their notice of rejection.

Do I still have to make an appeal even though their notice is out of time?

 

That form will be for an appeal to the adjudicator.

 

As the council are not seeing sense, it will take the adjudicator to tell them (although don't be surprised if they simply don't offer any evidence on the day).

 

In your shoes I would also apply for costs as the Council are acting vexatiously and without merit - it's not as though they have made an error ad don't realise that the NoR is out of time; they have been told twice.

[spellboy]

Very true but you have got the sequence wrong HG22165816 is followed by HG22165827 so asking for HG22165817 is pointless.

Would you please advise me on the way PCN's are numbered as from your comments it appears they go up 11 at a time.

I believe that a CEO prints a 'test ticket' at the start of each day/shift.

Therefore if the 'test ticket' prints out as HG22165736 is it correct to assume that the first PCN that the CEO issues will be HG22165747?

What happens when the last digit is a 9?

For example does HG22165769 become HG22165780?

[crem]

Usually with numbering systems like that, the last digit is a check digit, and although it generally looks like it is going up in 11's this is not necessarilly true. Therefore HG22165769 could well be followed by HG22165773 (where 3 could be whatever check digit number was generated based on the main figure)