Notice of Rejection of Representation

[ejaaro]

I have been appealing against a PCN contravention code 12 to no avail since February. My only offence was to scratch the wrong day on my Visitors Permit when parked at a "Pay & Display or Resident Permit holders bay". My Representation Appeal cited mitigating circumstance as reason ticket should be cancelled. I wonder if anyone could advice on this....

[Dragons Dennis]

Not a chance. Give up and pay.

[letsmakeamark]

Very easy to do. Take this to the ajudicator. Did you have any reasons like you had a bereavment or somthing or you were not mentally there or something ? Although you may still be lumped with paying this pcn you will have the chance to have your say at the tribunal. Also still not everybody knows this when a pcn is taken to a tribunal it costs the issuing authority upto £175 for the privledge. So even if you have to pay the £120 in the end you have still cost the authority upto £175 and you may also win as well. Worth taking a pot.

[Dragons Dennis]

And I wondered why the council tax was so blasted high.

[letsmakeamark]

Its a well known fact that a every time a pcn goes up to a tribunal or goes to a adjudicator the issuing authority are charged a fee for the hearing. This varies from £65.00 per pcn to £175 per pcn depending on the location etc. so for example you could have recieved a pcn in medway and appealed it in london. Medway then would have to pay up to £175 for the privlidge regardless of the out come. If every ticket weather issued correctly or incorrectly was taken to a tribunal then it would crash the system.

[Jamberson]

Agree with DD. If they allowed this, it would open up the system to deliberate misuse as people would use their vouchers over and over - "it was only the wrong date" "it was only the wrong month" "it was only the wrong year" etc. They won't allow this.

 

If you go to a tribunal in order to "have your say" you will be costing the council money alright - but what use is that to you or anyone else? Maybe some old lady somewhere is having her meals on wheels withdrawn because money's so tight now.

[TheBogsDollocks]

If you so wish you can use the appeal below. A similar worded appeal has found success at informal and formal appeal stage and you never know it may be enough to make the council consider not contesting. You've nothing to lose. Keep the italics and underlining in for emphasis.

 

Dear Adjudicator

 

I would like to appeal the penalty charge served upon me.

 

The photographic evidence gathered by the council’s officer clearly identifies a visitor permit as being on display and that all the relevant sections were completed as required. I accept that I made a very minor error by putting the date as 03/02/2011 rather than 04/02/2011 but surely any reasonable person would consider such a slight error to be “de minimis”.

 

I believe that for the council to penalise me for such a minor error to be contrary to the advice of the DfT and the Secretary of State.

 

Paragraph 85 from the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities advises;

 

85. An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point

throughout the CPE process. It can do this even when an undoubted

contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the

circumstances of the case. Under general principles of public law, authorities

have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise

discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest

 

 

This statutory guidance is given legal authority by section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 whereby statute instructs that the council must have regard to this guidance. Any failure to have regard to this guidance is a procedural impropriety as defined by regulation 4(5) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007;

 

4(5) In these Regulations “procedural impropriety” means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 Act, by the General Regulations or by these Regulations in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum and includes in particular—

 

It is clear to any reasonable person that it would not be in the public interest to penalise a person who made an easy and harmless error and did nothing to the detriment of the public interest. I cannot think of a more appropriate situation where paragraph 85 applies than this. The council however has not demonstrated that they have had regard to this statutory guidance and I believe it to be appropriate for the council to at least demonstrate that they did have regard to the guidance and to explain why they decided to act contrary to this guidance.

 

Regardless of the above it seems that the contravention description used on the PCN is incorrect. The permit on display was issued for that parking place and so the correct contravention should be that as given under code 19.

 

19 Parked in a residents’ or shared use parking place or zone displaying an invalid permit, an invalid voucher or an invalid pay-and-display ticket.

 

In adition, I also consider it appropriate to bring to the adjudicator's attention the provisions of regulation 18(1)(a) of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

 

18. — (1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—

(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;

 

The traffic sign placed simply indicates that the bay is for permit holder’s and makes no demand upon any holder that they display their permit. The requirement to display a permit is an effect of the traffic order and therefore this effect needs to be adequately conveyed. Clearly it is not and the council should not penalise people for failing to display when no traffic sign gives any such instruction. I accept that instruction is given on the permit itself but the law requires any instruction to be conveyed by a traffic sign, clearly the permit is not a traffic sign. It is my belief that the effects of the traffic order that I am alleged to have contravened are not signed in accordance with regulation 18 and thus the council should not penalise me when their own actions are questionable.

 

Yours respectfully

Edited May 31, 2011 by TheBogsDollocks

[nero12]

Can you scan up the back of the PCN and the rest of the NTO. (you left your personal details on them BTW)

 

Can we also see what you appealed on as this may have some value.

 

Deminimis BTW means 'of no real consequence' which in your case i would argue applies as this permit can only be used once.

 

Hey Bogs , nice to see you here . Nics

[TheBogsDollocks]

Can you scan up the back of the PCN and the rest of the NTO. (you left your personal details on them BTW)

 

Can we also see what you appealed on as this may have some value.

 

Deminimis BTW means 'of no real consequence' which in your case i would argue applies as this permit can only be used once.

 

Hey Bogs , nice to see you here . Nics

 

Hello

 

I've just amended the above text as the PCN is for code 12 when I think it should be code 19. If so it should be a straight forward win.

[Jamberson]

 

Deminimis BTW means 'of no real consequence' which in your case i would argue applies as this permit can only be used once.

 

 

If this appeal were upheld, then the voucher which is scratched for 3 Feb 2011 could be used:

 

3 Feb 2010 (de minimis error in year)

3 Jan 2011 (de minimis error in month)

2 Feb 2011 (de minimis error in date)

3 Feb 2011

4 Feb 2011 (de minimis error in date)

3 Mar 2011 (de minimis error in month)

3 Feb 2012 (de minimis error in year)

 

That's why it can't be upheld.

[TheBogsDollocks]

If this appeal were upheld, then the voucher which is scratched for 3 Feb 2011 could be used:

 

3 Feb 2010 (de minimis error in year)

3 Jan 2011 (de minimis error in month)

2 Feb 2011 (de minimis error in date)

3 Feb 2011

4 Feb 2011 (de minimis error in date)

3 Mar 2011 (de minimis error in month)

3 Feb 2012 (de minimis error in year)

 

That's why it can't be upheld.

 

I've seen informal appeals and NtO ones upheld. A council can do so if they want to exercise discretion. What you are advocating is that no discretion is used. I'm sure this PCN should be cancelled anyway for the CEO error.

[green_and_mean]

Provided the permit would have been valid in that bay if scratched properly it is indeed the wrong contravention it should be a 19 invalid permit etc etc.

[TheBogsDollocks]

The NoR says the road is within Wood Green Inner and the permit has this written on it so it seems the OP got lucky.

[Jamberson]

I've seen informal appeals and NtO ones upheld. A council can do so if they want to exercise discretion. What you are advocating is that no discretion is used. I'm sure this PCN should be cancelled anyway for the CEO error.

 

Of course I'm not advocating no discretion. The OP has already tried an informal rep and it's been rejected. He can try again for a formal rep if he likes, but the discussion above about going to adjudication seems to be a waste of everyone's time and money.

 

...Having just seen the apparent error in the contravention code - this looks like a definite appeal! He should go for it!

[TheBogsDollocks]

Of course I'm not advocating no discretion. The OP has already tried an informal rep and it's been rejected. He can try again for a formal rep if he likes, but the discussion above about going to adjudication seems to be a waste of everyone's time and money.

 

Already received an NoR so PATAS is next and it seems it won't be a waste of time at all. In fact the council should not contest.

[Jamberson]

Yep. I now agree!!

[nero12]

Agreed, further more if the authority bin this I would make an aplication for recovery of costs .

[lamma]

the often use different colour vouchers for different years which reduces the de minimis re-use opportunities.

[ejaaro]

Thank you all for your response. I'll let you know the eventual outcome. Big and special thanks to TheBogsDollocks.

[letsmakeamark]

That argument does not stick.The council rather than let it go are trying to recover something for free which will end up costing them.

[letsmakeamark]

Forget what i said earlier on. Have a read of this :

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Parking-Tickets-Drivers-Urged-By-Traffic-Penalty-Tribunal-To-Contest-Tickets-Issued-By-Council/Article/201106116004394?lpos=UK_News_First_UK_News_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_16004394_Parking_Tickets%3A_Drivers_Urged_By_Traffic_Penalty_Tribunal_To_Contest_Tickets_Issued_By_Council

Edited June 3, 2011 by letsmakeamark