Tickets without 2 dates

[BikerPaul]

Hi All

 

The High Court has upheld a PATAS judgement that a PCN MUS have 2 dates, a date of issue, and a date of contravention.

 

Most tickets only have one date on the ticket, and the second date is on the payment slip - this is not acceptable.

 

I'm claiming back tickets from Reading and Camden, and one is already summonsed. Here's a standard LBA to get your money back and show them you are serious.

 

Your Address

Your address

Your Town

Your Postcode

 

 

 

Parking Enforcement

That Council

Civic Offices

That Town

That Postcode

 

 

ALSO BY FAX TO Their Fax Number

 

 

Dear Sirs

 

 

 

LETTER BEFORE LEGAL ACTION

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE: AB 1234567890,

 

 

I refer to the above PCN. The PCN issued at that time stated that the date of issue/contravention (delete) was , but did not state a date of contravention/issue (delete).

 

Following the recent Judicial Review in the matter of Moses v Barnet originally referred to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service, I have good grounds to believe that this PCN was not lawfully issued, and thus the £ penalty paid was not, in fact, due.

 

Accordingly, I require the repayment of the sum of £ within seven days of the date of this letter, following which I will issue proceedings in the county court to recover this sum, plus costs and interest, and without further reference to yourselves.

 

I do not wish to take proceedings if they can be avoided and I therefore look forward to your remittance forthwith.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

BikerPaul

 

Most councils will not be in a position to contest the case - it's small-claims, there's a precedent on the matter of 2 dates (in the high court, no less) and they won't get costs even if they try to wheel out the big guns, so it's cheaper for them to pay up.

 

Same principle as with the banks - set your own timetable, do not let them moud you into theirs.

[missbling]

Hi is this still valid I challenged a parking ticket with this and got a reply that this was no longer the law please advise

[lamma]

The Barnet decision stands unless and until struck down.

which council was spinning you this line ? can you post up the text of what they said - suitably washed of your personal details.

[green_and_mean]

The Barnet decision stands unless and until struck down.

which council was spinning you this line ? can you post up the text of what they said - suitably washed of your personal details.

 

The Barnet case ruled on the validity of RTA 1991 PCNs and the interpretation of the wording in the statute. Any PCNs issued since 31/03/08 would if issued in England/Wales not technically be covered by this ruling since they are not issued under the RTA 1991.

[lamma]

What !!

1) not every council is using TMA as you well know - hence my previous post.

We don't even know at this stage it it is england or wales.

2) TMA still specifies two dates !

 

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, require (Regulation 9 ) that the PCN should contain:

(a) The name of the enforcement authority.

(b) The date on which the notice is served.

© The registration mark of vehicle involved in the alleged contravention.

(d) The date and the time at which the alleged contravention occurred.

(e) The grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believed that a penalty charge is payable.

(f) The amount of the penalty charge.

(g) The information that the penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice was served.

(h) The information that, if the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount.

(i) The information that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days a notice to owner may be served by the enforcement authority on the owner of the vehicle.

(j) The manner in which the penalty charge must be paid.

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, require (Regulation 3(2)) that the PCN should contain the information that,

(a) a person on whom a notice to owner is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; and

(b) if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served those representations will be considered; but that, if a notice to owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.

---------------------------

 

Councils are still messing up TMA PCNs - often in a common way, probably a result of their information sharing. Duff info is bad enough but sharing it is crazy. y

[nero12]

The Barnet case ruled on the validity of RTA 1991 PCNs and the interpretation of the wording in the statute. Any PCNs issued since 31/03/08 would if issued in England/Wales not technically be covered by this ruling since they are not issued under the RTA 1991.

Not having two dates on the ticket has already been proved to be predjudicial to the appealant.

It is the prejudice that is set up that is the important factor, Why me thinks would an appealant have to go through the whole rigmarole of judicial review again.

 

rta 1991 or tma 2004 ,the time constraints are the same. Just refer back to moses , start the ball rolling again using judge jacksons ruling Which BTW was denied appeal as the LA would lose, again.

[green_and_mean]

What !!

1) not every council is using TMA as you well know - hence my previous post.

We don't even know at this stage it it is england or wales.

2) TMA still specifies two dates !

 

 

I didn't say every Council was using the TMA 2004 I said in England and Wales. The RTA required a date of notice where as the TMA requires a date of service. Although its clear that the TMA issued PCNs require two dates the Barnet case is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the TMA 2004.

[nero12]

I didn't say every Council was using the TMA 2004 I said in England and Wales. The RTA required a date of notice where as the TMA requires a date of service. Although its clear that the TMA issued PCNs require two dates the Barnet case is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the TMA 2004.

It should have some bearing as it was this judgement that proved the prejudice.That is why the two dates exist, and before you start I know its the rta 1991. Its the PREJUDICE we are discussing and not the legislation which btw is almost the same.

[green_and_mean]

The case came about because the RTA 1991 did NOT specify two dates it only stated date of notice, as it was assumed that the date of contravention would be the same. That is the reason Councils (who I might add followed a draft DoT PCN) used one date. The TMA 2004 is a completely different kettle of fish since it actually specifies which dates are required. If the Barnet ruling was still valid as lamma tries to insist it would mean that all PCNs now issued are invalid as they do NOT contain a 'date of notice' as required by the RTA 1991 and the Barnet ruling.

[nero12]

The case came about because the RTA 1991 did NOT specify two dates it only stated date of notice, as it was assumed that the date of contravention would be the same. That is the reason Councils (who I might add followed a draft DoT PCN) used one date. The TMA 2004 is a completely different kettle of fish since it actually specifies which dates are required. If the Barnet ruling was still valid as lamma tries to insist it would mean that all PCNs now issued are invalid as they do NOT contain a 'date of notice' as required by the RTA 1991 and the Barnet ruling.

bowing out of arguments, not helpful

Edited August 24, 2008 by nero12

[green_and_mean]

whatever!

 

very mature!!

[lamma]

I didn't say every Council was using the TMA 2004 I said in England and Wales. The RTA required a date of notice where as the TMA requires a date of service. Although its clear that the TMA issued PCNs require two dates the Barnet case is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the TMA 2004.

 

and not every council in england and wales is using TMA -as you well know.

 

you seem to have an urge to squash any threads that show holes in council paperwork. and there are plenty of holes.

 

the barnet ruling IS still valid (your comments and those of council do NOT overturn a court ruling) - there are plenty of RTA PCNS out there. and TMA specifies two dates. Also nero nailed it very nicely.

 

PCNs need two dates, whether TMA or RTA, end of. TMA conditions posted already. Anyone with a single date PCN should fight it.

Edited August 24, 2008 by lamma

[green_and_mean]

and not every council in england and wales is using TMA -as you well know.

 

you seem to have an urge to squash any threads that show holes in council paperwork. and there are plenty of holes.

 

the bartnmet ruling is still valid - there are plenty of RTA PCNS out there. and TMA specifies two dates. Also nero nailed it.

 

PCNs need two dates, whether TMA or RTA, end of. TMA conditions posted already. Anyone with a single date PCN should fight it.

 

I am not trying to squash any threads just stating fact that if the Barnet Case is used in a TMA 2004 PCN appeal it will fail as it is totally irrelevant for the reasons I have stated.

If a TMA 2004 PCN has only one date the TMA statute itself should be used at appeal as it clearly states two dates are required, unlike the RTA which didn't and needed clarification in the High Court.

Any Council outside Scotland NOT using the TMA 2004 to issue PCNs as you have stated are acting outside the law and ANY PCNs issued after 31/03 are invalid.

The whole point of this forum is to give accurate advice that is legally correct and stating that the Barnet ruling could be used to rule on a TMA 2004 case is incorrect.

[lamma]

"Any Council outside Scotland NOT using the TMA 2004 to issue PCNs as you have stated are acting outside the law and ANY PCNs issued after 31/03 are invalid."err - , not all councils are operating decrim parking. there are ones out there using regs from the 80's - as you well know.

[green_and_mean]

"Any Council outside Scotland NOT using the TMA 2004 to issue PCNs as you have stated are acting outside the law and ANY PCNs issued after 31/03 are invalid."err - , not all councils are operating decrim parking. there are ones out there using regs from the 80's - as you well know.

 

How can a Council issue a PCN if its not decriminalised???

[nero12]

How can a Council issue a PCN if its not decriminalised???

green for god sake, if there is an out then post. Otherwise stop your inane anoying drivel. We are all fed up with it.

[green_and_mean]

green for god sake, if there is an out then post. Otherwise stop your inane anoying drivel. We are all fed up with it.

 

 

Sorry I forgot only you had a right to an opinion and dictated who and what was posted!!

I have a great idea why not all post incorrect information and then slag off anyone who disagrees.......brilliant!!!

[nero12]

Sorry I forgot only you had a right to an opinion and dictated who and what was posted!!

I have a great idea why not all post incorrect information and then slag off anyone who disagrees.......brilliant!!!

right, the idea is this, the op has a problem.

we post up wht we think is the answer. Other people post what they think is an out. we all club together with what we know and suggest an out.

If it works we add this to the knowlge base to be refered to.

You however wish to argue left is right, monday comes after tuesday, and the op walked up the stairs instead of down. In the end there is 53 posts of bollox. Not helpful.

 

If you have an out then post. If there isn one then erm leave it. The op will get the message.

We all want to help, but butting in and hijaking with bollox doesnt help.

[nero12]

right, the idea is this, the op has a problem.

we post up wht we think is the answer. Other people post what they think is an out. we all club together with what we know and suggest an out.

If it works we add this to the knowlge base to be refered to.

You however wish to argue left is right, monday comes after tuesday, and the op walked up the stairs instead of down. In the end there is 53 posts of bollox. Not helpful.

 

If you have an out then post. If there isn one then erm leave it. The op will get the message.

We all want to help, but butting in and hijaking with bollox doesnt help.

BTW i am fully expecting to be moderated and even chucked off this forum for speaking up against your attitude if so ,then so be it.

Edited August 24, 2008 by nero12

[nero12]

BTW i am fully expecting to be moderated and even chucked off this forum for speaking up against your attitude then so be it.

Lammy pm me your email address just incase I get chuked off. I will sort them pdf's out and send.

Best wishes.

[green_and_mean]

right, the idea is this, the op has a problem.

we post up wht we think is the answer. Other people post what they think is an out. we all club together with what we know and suggest an out.

If it works we add this to the knowlge base to be refered to.

You however wish to argue left is right, monday comes after tuesday, and the op walked up the stairs instead of down. In the end there is 53 posts of bollox. Not helpful.

 

If you have an out then post. If there isn one then erm leave it. The op will get the message.

We all want to help, but butting in and hijaking with bollox doesnt help.

 

OP asks if the PATAS ruling that a PCN must have a date of issue and date of contravention is still applicable

 

The reply mentioned it was and the Barnet case still had some relevance....which is untrue

 

If the OP went back to the Council and argued that a ruling on a previous revoked piece of legislation still applied it would have failed.

The law has now changed and a date of notice is no longer required instead a date of service is the legal requirement. My advice to quote the need for a date of service and date of contravention as per TMA 2004 was indeed the correct advice depite what you think, dragging up case law on revoked legislation is of no help at all. Trying to cover up wrong advice by claiming old 1991 PCNs where still about some 6 months after the last got issued is of no help to someone asking if the law is still the same as in Aug 2006. Whilst 2 dates are still required the PATAS reference in Bikerpauls post and any mention of the High Court ruling have nothing to do with current legislation.

Why even bother to throw in the fact that some Councils still issue ECNs when we are discussing PCNs is beyond me especially since the two date saga has absolutely nothing to do with an ECN issued under the 1984 RTA?

Instead of ganging up like a bunch of school yard bullies to try and shout me down maybe you should look at the advice being given and consider what is of more help to the OP, correct or incorrect advice?

Whether you like it or not a legal ruling on one peice of legislation cannot just be transfered to another just because you think it should be or it suits your argument. The RTA 1991 and TMA 2004 although both cover parking are 2 completely seperate pieces of legislation with different wording. The TMA revokes the RTA in England and Wales and as such if it HAD been worded to the effect PCNs did only need a single date, any prior ruling on the RTA 1991 legislation would not and could not over rule that.

 

When you have decided to grow up you may learn to respect the views of others something that is clearly lacking here. Whilst I often disagree with the views of other members I have never felt the need to hurl insults just because I don't see eye to eye. The forum is here to offer advice and debate the legality of the issues raised if you cannot discuss matters like an adult please at least refrain from personal abuse.

Edited August 25, 2008 by green_and_mean

[lamma]

I have never seen such rubbish. the TMA does NOT revoke the 1991 RTA.

Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40) - Statute Law Database

 

a simple thought about the offense of causing death by dangerous driving being revoked by the TMA makes it hugely clear that the TMA which is about CPE cannot revoke the RTA.

 

these are the repeals from the TMA

Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) - Statute Law Database

and

Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) - Statute Law Database

and

Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) - Statute Law Database

 

see the full text of TMA here Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) - Statute Law Database

Edited August 25, 2008 by lamma

[green_and_mean]

I have never seen such rubbish. the TMA does NOT revoke the 1991 RTA.

Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40) - Statute Law Database

 

a simple thought about the offense of causing death by dangerous driving being revoked by the TMA makes it hugely clear that the TMA which is about CPE cannot revoke the RTA.

 

these are the repeals from the TMA

Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) - Statute Law Database

and

Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) - Statute Law Database

and

Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) - Statute Law Database

 

see the full text of TMA herehttp://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=traffic+management+act&Year=2004&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1606563&ActiveTextDocId=1606789&filesize=6312

 

Sorry I incorrectly assumed you were intelligent enough to realise I was talking about the sections of both Acts that covered parking. Your link clearly states the TMA now repeals the relevant sections that cover parking maybe you should read the things you post before doing so. What death by dangerous driving has to do with a ruling on a two date PCN eludes me??

[lamma]

yeah right..

"previous revoked piece of legislation"

"The TMA revokes the RTA in England and Wales"

 

just just can't mislead people to that extent and expect not to brought to book on it.

 

glad that you agree that two dates are mandatory under both sets of regs - which is what the OP's post is about. Anyone with a single date PCN (unbder either regs ) should fight it - end of.

The advice to councils re reg 10 TMA PCNs even takes Barnet into account i.e.

 

"Dates and Service

The regulations require that the PCN should be dated and that this should be the date of posting. It will be essential, therefore, that the PCN is actually posted on that date and that Councils should have clear and reliable systems recording the fact and date of postage. However, the time for making representations runs from the date of service of the PCN. It is not a statutory requirement that the date of service be included on the PCN and bearing in mind the rules relating to when service will be deemed to have been served this would prove to be difficult, if not impossible, to include in a computer generated notice. It is, however, considered to be necessary to provide an indication to the Owner as to when the period in which representations may be made will begin. This follows from the logic of the Barnet decision."

this thread back on track now I hope.

Edited August 25, 2008 by lamma

[green_and_mean]

yeah right..

"previous revoked piece of legislation"

"The TMA revokes the RTA in England and Wales"

 

just just can't mislead people to that extent and expect not to brought to book on it.

 

glad that you agree that two dates are mandatory under both sets of regs - which is what the OP's post is about. Anyone with a single date PCN (unbder either regs ) should fight it - end of.

this thread back on track now I hope.

 

Sorry I correct myself the TMA 2004 repeals

 

Section 43.

 

Sections 65 to 67.

 

Section 68(2) and (3)©.

 

Sections 69 to 74A.

 

Sections 76 to 79.

 

Schedule 3.

 

Schedule 6.

 

of the RTA 1991, which are the sections that cover PCNs and DPE in England and Wales any one who read this thread looking for information on 'dangerous cycling' and 'driving whilst under influence of drugs' etc I appologise for misleading you those are still cover by the 1991 act.

I do beleive it was you who took this off track by introducing the Barnet ruling which is now null and void as regards PCNs issued (outside Scotland). The OP actually asked if the initial 2006 post on this thread regarding 1991 statute PCNs was still relevant which it is not. If you had correctly informed them the RTA had now been updated by the TMA regarding PCNs and pointed then in the direction of the curent legislation maybe this thread would not had turned into some childish war of words.