#parking : PCN contravention code 30 "Parked for longer than permitted"

[markjdmcquade]

Hello. I have been issued with a PCN (Edinburgh) with the contravention "parked for longer than permitted". I plan to appeal the PCN (as I always do, as you stand to lose nothing) but thought I would check to see if anyone has any advise on what grounds to appeal on.

 

My car was parked in a bay that is (from 7:30 to 18:30 Mon - Fri) free for one hour, with no return within 90 minutes. I have included a photograph of the PCN (link below) but the picture size is small and therefor it is hard to read. The PCN reads as follows:

 

PCN number: XXXXXXXXXXX

Issue date: 07/04/2011

Vehicle Registration Number XXXXXXXXX

Make: BMW Colour: Silver

Was seen at location: Haddington Place

 

Greenway. OUTSIDE 24

 

At: 09:20:41 On 07/04/2011

By Parking Attendant: E1204

 

Would I be correct in thinking that the PCN has failed to specify the difference between an observation time and a contravention time? Being 'seen' in this location at this time is NOT an offence; it is only an offence if the vehicle is observed in this location for more than an hour.

 

The only photographs taken are of the car with the ticket on the window (at 09:20:41). There are no photographs of the car being observed at the same location prior to the ticket being issued.

 

Any help would be greatly appriciated!

 

Thanks, Mark

 

[green_and_mean]

Did you park longer than 1 hour?

[markjdmcquade]

Unfortunately yes, I did.

[green_and_mean]

They wont have any photos of your car when it was first observed as it was parked legally then. The normal procedure is to note down your registration on the hand held computer they carry or in a note book and then issue a ticket if you are still there after the maximum stay. There is no legal requirement to have a record of the first observation on the PCN.

[nero12]

Edinburgh PCN's are faulty AFAIK, worth scanning up minus your personal details

[nero12]

Apologies, you have scanned but the quality is not good.

 

we need all of it front and back, make sure you can read it.

[markjdmcquade]

Hi guys. Thanks for the interest shown so far. For some reason the upload manager reduces my pictures of the PCN to a really small size making it impossible to read. I have uploaded the photos elsewhere and they can both be viewed on the following link:

 

I am not allowed to include a link in this post as I am a new user with fewer than 20 posts! Please include w*w. to the beginning of the following link....

 

4shared.com/photo/49WD9kjN/DSCN2292.html

 

 

The detachable payment slip had come off, I did not include it in the photo as it is my understanding that it is not part of the PCN, please correct me if I am wrong!

 

Thanks, Mark

[nero12]

Can see one, cant see the other

 

When describing the time frames deos the |PCN use the word 'within' IE pay 'within' 14 days and 'within' 28 days starting with the date it was issued on the back.

 

Im sure this fails there

[markjdmcquade]

Hi nero12. You should be able to see both the front and the back photographs by toggling between them (underneath the photo there are arrows indicating if you are viewing photo '1 of 2' or '2 of 2'. They can also be enlarged for easier reading). The back of the PCN does use the wording 'within' to describe the time scales too. Mark

Edited April 14, 2011 by markjdmcquade

[nero12]

Ok tenuous argument as this PCN does give a start time to count from however section 66 3© and (d) of the RTA 1991 states the following

 

©that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(d)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

 

it could be argued that the PCN doesnt comply and the word 'within' may cause confusion as to when to start counting as the term MAY exclude the first day , (even tho it states when you got it )

 

I have used this argument with one of these PCN's in conjunction with the traffic order

Which BTW you realy want to get hold of.

 

Another little mistake

 

The PCN does not clearly state who will be sending the NTO. The regs state that the authority will be doing so, the PCN misses this as it states 'we' will send the nto to the owner

 

One more minor one, the regs state the NTO will be issued to the person appearing to be the owner, the PCN does not state this.

 

 

The PCN clearly says we will send the NTO to the owner.

 

 

They may send this to the registered keeper which may not be the owner, if that makes sense

Edited April 14, 2011 by nero12

[markjdmcquade]

Good work! Thats 3 pretty solid points that worst case scenario will waste their time and buy me some. I'll start typing up a letter of appeal to them. Many thanks for the information, its really good to have people on here willing to spend their time on a complete strangers problems. I will let you know how it goes, cheers Mark

[nero12]

Make sure you post up here what you intend to go in with.

 

Make sure you ask for the traffic order for this restriction . Was it on road or off road BTW

[markjdmcquade]

Hi Nero12. Sorry its been a while, I have been working abroad flat out and have only just found the time to write up a letter... Here we go:

 

 

Dear Sir / Madam, I am writing to dispute penalty charge notice number EHxxxxxxxx, issued on 07/04/2011. My grounds for disputing the penalty charge notice are as follows:

 

The penalty charge notice does not clearly state who will be sending the Notice to Owner. The road traffic act 1991 states that the authority should do so, however the penalty charge notice states “we will send a Notice to Owner”.

 

The penalty charge notice states that it will “send a Notice to Owner to the owner of the vehicle”. This does not comply with the road traffic act of 1991, which states that the authority will send a Notice to Owner to the person appearing to be the owner of the vehicle.

 

In addition to this, I would also request to be sent the traffic order for this restriction.

 

Yours sincerely, Mark McQuade

 

Does that sound OK to you?

[nero12]

You missed out the 14 and 28 day time frame argument

 

this bit

©that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(d)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

 

Your PCN has the word 'within' included .

[markjdmcquade]

Included the above argument too and I have mailed Edinburgh council my dispute of the PCN. I will post up here when I get a reply... Thanks again for the help, Mark

[nero12]

It will be intersting to see what they send. Also I have a copy of one of thier notice to owners -- this deffo fails on the 28 day time frame as it gives no date to start counting from it just says pay up 'within 28 days'. ( was a very common fault on rta 1991 tickets pre 2006) If you get one of these you can deffo take it to tribunal.

[markjdmcquade]

Hi Nero12. Arrived back from a work trip to a reply from Edinburgh council. Unfortunately the reply from them is dated 9th May, so I only have today to make the decision of either paying the reduced £30 rate, or continuing to contest the ticket.. Needless to say they stated that they are unable to cancel the parking ticket. They have responded to all of my points, stating that they are satisfied that all the wording on the parking ticket meets the requirements of the road traffic act. Is your advice still to wait for a notice to owner on the premise that it does not comply with the RTA 1991? How old is the copy of the notice to owner you have?

 

Thanks in advance, Mark

[nero12]

They will say its compliant as they wont readily admit deffects Did they send you the traffic order ???

Edited May 23, 2011 by nero12

[nero12]

How old is the copy of the notice to owner you have?

 

 

Issued 6-1-2010 and it fails with the 28 day time frame twice and the tick box 'taken without consent'

[markjdmcquade]

Yeah they sent the traffic order.

[markjdmcquade]

Hi, I have now received the notice to owner - decided to go for the gamble! Below is a link to a photo of the notice to owner. Is this the same as the one you have a copy of?

 

Cheers Mark

 

4shared.com/photo/_fLo3Nq0/DSCN2322.html (again, please include w*w to the start of the link, I can still not include full link in a post)

[nero12]

Same as the one I had.

 

It fails to comply with the RTA 1991 shcedule 6 paragraphs 1 and 2. where the time frames are concerned and part 6 where the charge certificate is concerned

If you look under the heading ''do not ignore this notice''

It clearly states ''within 28 days, you must either pay the charge if you doniether then CHARGE CERTIFICATE wil be sent''

OK you have 28 days to pay begining from when --- this doesnt give a date tostart counting from

The regs state you start counting from the dateyou were served.

It goes on to state a CC WILL be served -- this is incorrect -- a CC MaY be served.

I think it fails elsewhere can you post up the rest of the NTO please.

[markjdmcquade]

Hi, sorry for the late response. Been away at work abroad again. I seem to have lost / mislaid the other 2 sections of the notice to owner, I am trying to dig them out now. Based on the failures to comply listed above as seen on the top part of the notice to owner, what would your advise be with regards to putting my case to them? Just write directly stating the flaws in the wording? Thanks again for all the help. I will try and look out the rest of the NTO.

 

Cheers Mark

[markjdmcquade]

Could not fine sections 2 and 3... Must have binned them by accident. I have now written to the council to challenge the notice to owner, for your information a copy of the letter is below... I will get back to you on this thread when I hear back from them. Cheers Mark

 

 

Dear Sir / Madam. Regarding the above mentioned PCN number, I wish to make representations to the council, for the following reasons:

 

The notice to owner I have received does not comply with the Road Traffic Act of 1991, section 66 schedule 6.

 

With regards to a notice to owner, the Road Traffic Act of 1991 states: “that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice to owner is served”.

 

The notice to owner I have received states “Within 28 days, you must either pay this notice or make representations to the council”. This does not comply with the Road Traffic Act of 1991 as it does not make clear what date to start counting from.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the Road Traffic Act of 1991 states: “that failure to pay the penalty charge MAY lead to an increased charge being payable”.

 

The notice to owner I have received continues with “If you do neither, a Charge Certificate WILL be issued. This WILL increase the Penalty Charge by 50% to £90.00”.

 

Again, this does not comply with the Road Traffic Act of 1991. The implications of the wordings used in the notice to owner, and the wordings outlined in the Road Traffic Act of 1991, are entirely different.

 

 

The notice to owner I have received is noncompliant with the Road Traffic Act of 1991 because of the above mentioned reasons, and I would expect the parking fine associated with this notice to owner to be cancelled.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mark

[nero12]

My copy of Part two of this NTO has similar deffects with regard to the time frames - it also fails on other issues.

 

Part 2 documentaion defective - flawed time frames (again)

 

NTO does not comply with section 66 (3) © Of the RTA 1991.

 

On blue section 'You Must Not Ignore this Notice' and section 'Notes for Completion'

 

It specifically states in order of the above

 

'within 28 days you must either pay this notice or make representations to the council'

 

'If neither payment or representations have been received within 28 days of you receiving this notice to owner'

 

The statutory requirement of this legislation is thus

 

© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

 

The effect of disregarding the statutory requirements of the RTA 1991 for time limits were considered in Moulder v Sutton London Borough Council (1994 LPAS 1940113243) . The adjudicator GR Hickinbottom following Sedley J's Judgement in R-v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the Tower Hamlets Combined Traders Association determined that where the Road Traffic Act 1991 stipulated that a Penalty Charge Notice ''must state" certain requirements (section 66(3) those requirements are mandatory

Therefore a Penalty Charge Notice failing to contain each of the requirements set down in section 66(3) is void and unenforceable

 

Since Paragraph 1(2) of schedule 6 of the act sets out requirements to be contained in a NTO in the identical words, namely

 

''A Notice To Owner Must State''

 

It follows that the requirements are mandatory

 

Any Notice to Owner that does not comply with those requirements is void and unenforceable'

 

 

Also

 

Aspire Loft Conversions v Camden PATAS Case No. 2070172175,

 

London Borough of Barnet v. Parking Adjudicator. 2.8.06 High court ruling on non compliant paperwork. No prejudice has to be proved.

 

Tick box issue

 

Taken without consent ------TWOC

 

A vehicle does not have to be stolen to be 'Taken without consent'. Members of family or friends can 'take the vehicle without consent' however there in NO statutory requirement whatsoever to inform the authorities NOR a requirement to obtain a crime number in these situations.

 

FROM TPT website

 

Vehicle taken by a lodger.

 

A vehicle taken by a lodger (BH468)

The appellant, issued with an NTO following a parking contravention, appealed on the ground that the contravention had taken place when the vehicle had been taken by his lodger without his consent. At a personal hearing, the Adjudicator heard from the appellant that the vehicle's keys were kept in a box by the front door, but that there had been no discussion concerning the vehicle's use and the lodger had a car of his own. The Adjudicator found that the owner had given no implied or express consent to the vehicle being used by the lodge, who had thus taken it without the owner's consent and was liable to the penalty.

 

No crime number was asked for nor was any criminality brought into the tribunal.

 

Again, paperwork defective and no prejudice has to be proved.

 

Anyone who has suffered this is prejudiced as the council require a crime number to realise the appeal.

 

I think it also prejudices the appealant into thinking only one appeal point can be used. It states 'tick the relevant box' it should finish with 'tick the relevant boxes'

 

Im sure I post this elsewhere on here but cant remember where LOL