Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Is this PCN enforceable?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5408 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Interesting.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Thank you in advance,

 

Regards etc...

Edited by Jamberson
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

you are incorrect, it is defined by statutory instrument. This then gets included in the statutory guidance (and the Operational Guidelines) Start with this http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmapart6/betterprkstatutoryguid.pdf and you can chase the S.I.s here UK Statutory Instruments and Explanatory Memorandum also see this Department for Transport - Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You should appeal on the grounds that "There has been a procedural impropriety by the council" as this is one of the recognised grounds for appeal according to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, (Parking PCN issued by a Civil Enforcement Officer after 30 March 2008 - Traffic Penalty Tribunal), and then go on to state why you think the PCN is flawed.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.gov.uk/documents/ParkingandTrafficAdjudicatorsatPATASPracticeGuide-February_2009.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another very useful link.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The regulations were published in 2007

 

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 No. 3482

 

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 No. 3483

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello,

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

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?

 

Nope, no requirement for it to be signed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...