Jump to content
blooo

PCN received for wrong contravention

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3643 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi

I received a PCN for allegedly turning left in a no left turn road. I was sure I didn't commit this offence so went to see the CCTV.

When viewing this I could see that I did not turn left, and so should not have got a PCN. Even the person who was showing me the video agreed.

However, they said I should have got one for 'proceeding in the wrong direction'. Basically it was 2 lanes and the left lane is straight ahead only (no left turn) and the right lane is to turn right only. I was in the right lane and then moved into the left lane and went straight ahead (didn't tuern left or right).

 

The person showing me the video said to write in and say it should have been proceeding in the wrong direction and not 'no left turn' and they will cancel it. But if I wite in sayign this, couldn't they come back and charge me for 'proceeding in the wrong direction'....??

Should I therefore just say having reviewed the video, I didn't turn left and so the contrvaention did not occur...?

 

Thanks very much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might, but your issue is a much simpler one. You did NOT do the manouver you were charged with. So, it's a 'NOT GUILTY' on that score. As they will then have to review the CCTV. and discover you hadn;t actually done what they've charged you with, that's an end to the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not matter what you DID do, as long as you DID NOT do what they are accusing you of. You do not need to appeal saying "you did not do x because you did y" you simply state "I did not do x" by ticking the box for "the contravention did not occur".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the contravention did not occur"

 

and

 

"the amount exceeds"

 

expect the council to fight it all the way to adjudication and then drop out at the very end. thats normal behaviour for councils now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, appealing on the 'Amount Exceeds' is both erroneous and liable to be misinterpretated? This latter ground is only when you agree to the ticket as issued, but challenge the fee of it as being incorrect. It would be perverse to be declaring you did not do thew manuever AND appeal against the cost of the ticket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when you contest the PCN as not being valid the amounts always exceeds that payable. your stance is that nothing is payable. Indeed if the PCN in unenforceable any amount does exceed that payable - zero..

 

The full text of the ground is "that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;"

 

It is not restricted to when you agree that the ticket is valid and only the amount is wrong, it encompasses all the circumstances of the case..

 

In the circumstance that the PCN is unenforceable then clearly the amount exceeds that payable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unconvinced, as I wrestled with this on a case being referred to SPAS (the Scottish Arbiters). They advised that it would be a tautology to complain that the fee was incorrect because there was no admission. It was only used in grounds where the Council claimed £80 was due when it should have been £40, or that there was issues with the incorrect application of a discount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There does not have to be an admission. Its the full circumstances of the case.

 

But I am talking about S.I 3482 and you are talking about Scotland - so quite a difference there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe our version is all that much different, invaraibly a modification with the same sentiments. FRom what you descripe, the elements of appeal are idientical!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case I submit that SPAS was talking rubbish.

 

clearly all the circumstances apply. if they consider the argument was tautological (and where in the regs is that not allowed ?) then it is because the regulations themselves created it and they should take it up with those responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THem take it up...? C'mon! We both know they work with what they are given, and will neither suggest, amend or improve the regulations - which would be like the tail wagging the dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly - which is why they shoudn't come out with such rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You dislike clarifications? I'd welcome any assistance to make my appeal in a competent man net. Not make an additional needless declaration that is superfluous and unprofessional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you contest the PCN as not being valid the amounts always exceeds that payable. your stance is that nothing is payable. Indeed if the PCN in unenforceable any amount does exceed that payable - zero..

 

I agree and so does adjudicator Martin Wood. His words (see paragraph eight)

 

If the PCN was not valid, the penalty payable would be nil and therefore would exceed the penalty claimed by the local authority.

 

 

 

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Elaine%20Patricia%20Lavall%20v%20LB%20of%20Hammersmith%20&%20Fulham.doc

Edited by TheBogsDollocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both perverse and illogical, but then - so's the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" They advised that it would be a tautology to complain that the fee was incorrect because there was no admission."

 

That isn't clarification - its illogical rubbish.

The circumstances of the case - no dependency on admission at all.

 

And it isn't an issue of "incorrect" its a question of "exceeds". If SPAS can't tell the difference between those two things they should be in a different job.

 

If you admit the allegation, and the only way to admit it is to pay, there is no appeal.

 

SPAS were talking rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we differ. On careful consideration, it still is a pointless ground for appeal. Especially as the primary one - that the offence dis not take place, remains of primary importance. The fact you object to the amount of the fine remains a total and utter irrelevance. It appears for what it is, a desperate attempt to load the defence with a nonsensical rejection of a fine. NOT because it is the incorrect amount for the stated PCN (which is what these grounds are for) whereby the single and primary defence on not committing it, is the sole and most important element of the defence.

 

If you feel this is 'talking rubbish' look closely at you support of an untenable position. It shows a desperation and an inability to thing things through. Are you suggesting that, after due consideration, the adjudicator disbelieves the OP and dismisses the primary defence, then moves on to consider the unfairness of the fee charged? Well, that's not going to take long, is it?

 

By all means, play with irrelevancies if you like, but when they serve no useful purpose, whether real or perceived, it's a sideshow of no consequence. Concentrate on the REAL issue at hand, not attempt to bag as many reasons to complain.

Edited by buzby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so we differ.

I have thought it through. Its a simple matter of language.

It is not a side issue, the statute is very clear "that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;"

In the circumstance that the PCN is unenforceable there is no payable amount as there is no liability.

I agree with Martin Wood.. Why not email Martin and tell him his comments are irrelevant and just a sideshow issue ? Let us know what he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tail wagging the dog? I don't know the guy. As you appear to, why not invite him to contribute? This is just another example of a needless and I'll conceived premise, in fact - pretty much like the straw clutching of adding an additional appeal reason where none is required!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear.

I am happy to differ. As are others including Martin Wood.. Shame you don't feel able to bring him to task for his opinion.

Anyone can write to him, that includes you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's entitled to his opinion, surely? If he want's to contribue here I'd be delighted, but I'm certainly not going trawling for views from people not on here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His carries a fair amount of weight. As does the wording of the statute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevance, in relation to the original point - that if you appeal based on not committing the offence, the cost of the fine is immaterial?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Relevance, in relation to the original point - that if you appeal based on not committing the offence, the cost of the fine is immaterial?

 

 

:) Agreed

 

 

:confused: 20 plus posts to tell the OP that he is correct to appeal. :confused:

 

:!: OP had already obtained his own evidence :!:

 

 

 

:)

 

 

dk


:welcome::rofl::welcome:

 

 

 

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

:tea:

 

 

 

most of my knowledge is from the school of hard knocks

 

not based on any legal background

 

As quite a lot fellow caggers state seek Legal Advice

 

 

:ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...