IS PCN correct?

[kbdavies]

Help! Someone i know received a PCN by Dartford Borough Council. It was given in a pay and display car park. He received a visit from a bailiff and had to fill out a Stat Dec/Out of Time as he could not remember getting it.

A copy of the PCN to be sent to him by the council, and when he received it, he remembered that he had bought a ticket, and it had blown down when he closed the door. He intended to appeal, but had lost the ticket and had simpy forgotten all about it.

Is there any way i can avoid paying this fine? Are there any irregularities in the PCN? He did have a valid ticket on the day, but cannot prove it.

Pictures of the PCN attached. Also pic of car with PCN attached.

 

 

 

[Jamberson]

The Council will almost certainly have pictures of the car at the time, which will show what was displayed on the windscreen.

 

See if you can get copies, by email or post. They will probably be happy to send them out. Depending on what they show, you can decide whether to appeal or pay.

[green_and_mean]

If the PCN was issued in a car park as stated its invalid as its an 'on street' contravention.

[kbdavies]

@ Jamberson - here is the pic

[kbdavies]

If the PCN was issued in a car park as stated its invalid as its an 'on street' contravention.

It is indeed a car park, though its administered by Dartford City Council.

Is this enough grounds for appeal? What would the wording of the appeal letter be?

[kbdavies]

If the PCN was issued in a car park as stated its invalid as its an 'on street' contravention.

What do you mean by this?

[green_and_mean]

06 is the on street code and contravention description, it should be 83 parked in a car park without displaying a ticket.

[Jamberson]

Good spot, G&M.

 

Off-street means car parks not forming part of the public highway. So, if that was the case when this PCN was incurred, it should be possible to successfully challenge it on the basis that the contravention [ie the one stated on the PCN] did not occur.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

This is a February 2009 contravention. If an NTO has not been received yet the LA are well out of time!

 

I would see the owner as being off the hook on this one whatever the contravention code.

 

EDIT - Sorry missed the point about visit from bailiff as posts stretch left to right!

[kbdavies]

Hello,

I now have some more info relating to this.

The driver HAD actually signed a witness statement on 25th of June that the driver had made representation but received no reply (he had sent off info stating he wasnt the driver). As he didnt hear anything back, he forgot about it.

When the bailiff arrived in Dec, thinking it was for a different PCN, he sent a OoT Declaration stating he had never received the PCN in order to stop proceedings thinking it was for a different PCN (unaware it was for the same PCN earlier in June- he had no way of knowing or connecting them together).

This OoT Declaration was then refused. When he challenged the LA, they informed him the OOT Dec was inconsistent with the Witness Statement he had signed in June, so it was refused on that basis. He asked for copies to be sent with actual PCN.

Facts are:

- Contravention occured in 11 Feb 09

- Witness Statement sent 25 June 09

- Nothing heard back until bailiff attends in Dec 09

What shd he do?. Shd he fill out N244? Will court believe why he signed witness statement stating something different from later OoT Dec?

[Jamberson]

This is a bit confusing. Can you clarify a couple of things:

 

The driver HAD actually signed a witness statement on 25th of June that the driver had made representation but received no reply (he had sent off info stating he wasnt the driver). As he didnt hear anything back, he forgot about it.

 

What does that mean? It says the driver stated he wasn't the driver! Can you be precise about who did what - it's important to the case.

 

And, who did he send the witness statement to?

 

This OoT Declaration was then refused. When he challenged the LA, they informed him the OOT Dec was inconsistent with the Witness Statement he had signed in June, so it was refused on that basis.

 

Shd he fill out N244? Will court believe why he signed witness statement stating something different from later OoT Dec?

 

N244 is a realistic option. His grounds for filing out of time were stated as something like "no knowledge of the PCN" but this has been refuted - however as a result of the info which he received after the event, he now realises it is in fact Out of Time because he made an in time stat dec and did not receive a response. It's certainly arguable on that basis, but not cut and dried, because of the details on the stat dec. He made the error when he filled it out. It's a gamble, but probably worth it.

[lamma]

A gamble I would take, personal N244 hearings get granted in the vast majority of cases and the cause here is understandable, its part of 'the case' after all.

[kbdavies]

What does that mean? It says the driver stated he wasn't the driver! Can you be precise about who did what - it's important to the case.

Apologies for the confusion. I meant to say "registered keeper". He is the registered keeper of the vehicle and the "usual" driver. On this occasion though, he DID not drive the vehicle. He sent a letter to Parking Services at Dartford Council stating he was not the driver, and furnished them with the name /address of the driver, but never received a reply.

[green_and_mean]

Apologies for the confusion. I meant to say "registered keeper". He is the registered keeper of the vehicle and the "usual" driver. On this occasion though, he DID not drive the vehicle. He sent a letter to Parking Services at Dartford Council stating he was not the driver, and furnished them with the name /address of the driver, but never received a reply.

 

Who was driving is not relevant for PCNs however they should still have accepted it as an appeal and given you a rejection notice.

[kbdavies]

The point is that he filled out the OoT in good faith, as he had no way of knowing the bailiff visit was related to the PCN he received in Feb.Also, he had received no reply to his letter in Feb, and after he fillled the Witness Statement in June informing the Council of this, he received no reply either.

The bailiff document did have the PCN number on it, but unless it had been memorised in Feb, there would be no way of knowing its the same.

 

Is the wrong contravention code still a valid defence in this case, or as things have progressed to this stage, is N244 is the best option?

[green_and_mean]

Stat decs are official documents and should not be taken lightly its like swearing on oath in Court, if you were not sure you should have checked the information before 'swearing' something was the truth. If you swore you never reveiced a PCN and then swore you had appealed against it and not got a reply its not surprising it was rejected.

[lamma]

But if he was sure then it was not perjurous, just a mistake. Perjury has to be done knowingly as I am sure you know. He is now correcting that mistake.

[Jamberson]

The point is that he filled out the OoT in good faith, as he had no way of knowing the bailiff visit was related to the PCN he received in Feb.

 

Is answered by...

 

The bailiff document did have the PCN number on it, but unless it had been memorised in Feb, there would be no way of knowing its the same.

 

As a resonsible adult, a car owner should take responsibility for keeping records and checking such things. To say there's no way of knowing will not stand up as an argument.

 

Is the wrong contravention code still a valid defence in this case, or as things have progressed to this stage, is N244 is the best option?

 

It's irrelevant at this stage. N244 is the only way forward.

[Jamberson]

Apologies for the confusion. I meant to say "registered keeper". He is the registered keeper of the vehicle and the "usual" driver. On this occasion though, he DID not drive the vehicle. He sent a letter to Parking Services at Dartford Council stating he was not the driver, and furnished them with the name /address of the driver, but never received a reply.

 

Understood. So he was being held liable and his argument was that he was not driving. As already said above, this is of no relevance and would not have led to cancellation.

 

So the RK submitted the witness statement. This is good - no confusion as to who's doing what.

 

I think N244 is the best bet from here. If it succeeds, than the validity of the PCN can be addressed - but first things first.

[kbdavies]

But if he was sure then it was not perjurous, just a mistake. Perjury has to be done knowingly as I am sure you know. He is now correcting that mistake.

 

This is correct. With all due respect G&M, we need advice, not moral flagellation. The Stat Dec states that "Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against you,if you make, or cause to be made a false statement in an application verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Well, the post clearly show that the OoT Stat Dec was made in an honest belief that the PCN had never been received before. How is one supposed to remember a PCN number received in Feb, than resurfacing on a bailiffs notice almost 12mths later, hand written written inconspicuously in small font in a corner?

[green_and_mean]

This is correct. With all due respect G&M, we need advice, not moral flagellation. The Stat Dec states that "Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against you,if you make, or cause to be made a false statement in an application verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Well, the post clearly show that the OoT Stat Dec was made in an honest belief that the PCN had never been received before. How is one supposed to remember a PCN number received in Feb, than resurfacing on a bailiffs notice almost 12mths later, hand written written inconspicuously in small font in a corner?

 

Unless you are in the habit of getting multiple tickets its not rocket science to assume there may have been a connection. Your friend did not swear the stac dec on the spur of the moment on their front door step when confronted but went away and did it after consideration. If your friend had not appealed or paid the PCN as stated in this thread..Help! Need to challenge PCN - FightBack Forums then I would have thought a visit from the baliff would have been sufficient to jog his memory.

[kbdavies]

Unless you are in the habit of getting multiple tickets its not rocket science to assume there may have been a connection. Your friend did not swear the stac dec on the spur of the moment on their front door step when confronted but went away and did it after consideration. If your friend had not appealed or paid the PCN as stated in this thread..Help! Need to challenge PCN - FightBack Forums then I would have thought a visit from the baliff would have been sufficient to jog his memory.

 

Given the nature of LA's to use PCN's as a license to print money, i don't think anyone would agree with you that getting 1 PCN in Feb, and a Bailiff Notice regarding a PCN in Dec constitutes a "habit"; And why would there be an automatic connection btw 2 events that happen almost a yr apart?

 

With regards to the posts on PePiPoo, i dont understand your comment. They regard the same issue, and both posted this week.Posting on different sites garners more info.

Anyway, I'm not getting into any verbal jousting with you. We need help, and its either you can offer it, or you cant.

[green_and_mean]

Given the nature of LA's to use PCN's as a license to print money, i don't think anyone would agree with you that getting 1 PCN in Feb, and a Bailiff Notice regarding a PCN in Dec constitutes a "habit"; And why would there be an automatic connection btw 2 events that happen almost a yr apart?

 

With regards to the posts on PePiPoo, i dont understand your comment. They regard the same issue, and both posted this week.Posting on different sites garners more info.

Anyway, I'm not getting into any verbal jousting with you. We need help, and its either you can offer it, or you cant.

 

I got 'caught' for not correctly validating my oyster card on the tram about 4 years ago and had to pay a penalty fare. If a baliff came knocking on my door regarding a penalty fare on the tram my first thought would be that I hadn't paid the one 4 years ago. I would not remember the day or month but I'd certainly not be that forgetfull that I would swear a statement I had never in my life received a penalty fare on the tram.

My point about peepipoo was on that thread your friend states he forgot to appeal (very forgetful your friend) yet on this thread you state he did appeal on the grounds he was not the driver, it seems he still suffers from memory loss.