Unsuccessful Appeal of PCN - Can I appeal again or do I have to await NTO

[supermonkeys]

Hi All,

 

First post here, although I have browsed for advice in the past.

 

I received a PCN on a bank holiday when car park had temporary signs up stating that parking was free due to it being a bank holiday.

 

My appeal was brief, pointing this out & asking for it be cancelled. This was rejected as the state the vehicle was in a time restricted bay. I have replied the same day with a much more in depth appeal with a number of points (most of which I found on these forums).

 

The question is will they review this second appeal or will they ignore it?

 

I feel very strongly that the PCN is unfair & that my second appeal has several valid points, however I'm getting nervous that if it's rejected I'll no longer be able to pay the reduced fee.

 

My response included the following:

 

• Requested evidence the vehicle was parked in a time restricted bay
  
• Requested evidence that signs clearly stated that such bays were not included on the free bank holiday parking.
  
• Noted that authorities are recommended to use discretion.
  
• That the PCN doesn't comply with regulations
  
• That the PCN refers to policy and appears at an out of date web address.
  

 

Thanks

[ericsbrother]

generally the first appeal is a "soft" appeal by way of email or letter so you can appeal again but you have to use the formal procedures which means that you will go beyond the discount period and wait for the NTO. you can try another email/letter I suppose if you are basically requesting proof of the offence.

[supermonkeys]

Thanks - a very quick reply!

 

Yes, the first appeal was by email - I got the response by email too (PDF letter attached). I then responded to this again by email.

 

So I think you are saying that if they go by the formal procedures, they could ignore this second appeal?

 

I am hoping that I will get a response to it & that I the discounted time will be extended.

 

The reason for the short appeal in the first place was basically to be nice - I thought a politely worded short & sweet appeal might work better than a long winded wordy one that might wind them up!

[Jamberson]

We could only guess what they will do with the second appeal. You'll just have to wait and see. I doubt they will ignore it, but if I were to guess, I'd say you will get a routine reply advising you to wait for the NTO and then make formal representations.

 

Whether it's worth your while I don't know. The points you say you raised don't sound too promising. Requesting evidence of this or that isn't going to help much at this stage (although of course you may unearth something important for later on). Telling them they can use their discretion is not much good either.

 

You also state:

 

• That the PCN refers to policy and appears at an out of date web address.
  

I'm not sure what this means or why it is important

 

 

 

• That the PCN doesn't comply with regulations
  

This IS potentially important if correct, and could be a major factor for you. Can you expand on this and tell us what the issues are.

[supermonkeys]

...if I were to guess, I'd say you will get a routine reply advising you to wait for the NTO and then make formal representations.

Ok, but by doing this, I'm losing the chance to pay the reduced fine? And could I not then make a formal complaint that I did not wish to await the NTO, but was advised to do so?

 

Requesting evidence of this or that isn't going to help much at this stage

I'm not convinced I was parked in a bay with a time restriction - I'd like to see evidence from them that this was definately the case. Surely they can't uphold the PCN if there is no evidence of a contravention?

 

Telling them they can use their discretion is not much good either.

I was trying to show that they have a duty to be reasonable & use discretion.... the PCN is unreasonable!

 

the PCN refers to policy and appears at an out of date web address

Because the appeals process & other information relating to PCN T&Cs etc etc are supposed to be available at that address. Since they are not, I am surely disadvantaged...

 

the PCN doesn't comply with regulations

Can you expand on this and tell us what the issues are.

This is the main bit of advice I found on this forum... The PCN fails to comply with regulation 3(2)(b) contained within Statutory Instrument 2007/3482 and it is therefore my belief that the PCN is not lawful (I then go into more detail)

[Jamberson]

Sorry - I don't really follow. Could you explain the last bit in straight-forward terms. In a nutshell, what is wrong with the PCN which makes it non-compliant?

 

As far as I can see, the section you refer to states:

 

3.

(2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information—

(a) that 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) that, 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—

(i) those representations will be considered;

(ii) 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.

 

 

 

 

It says they must "consider" representations, and that if you get an NTO meantime, then you have to make representations as per the instructions on the NTO. What bearing does this have on the validity of the PCN? Are you saying that because the address detail is wrong, then the PCN is invalid? If so you may have referenced the wrong section.

 

Is it possible to post up a scan of the PCN so we can see the wording?

[Pocket Nines]

What PCN?

 

It's hard to comment on something not seen.

[supermonkeys]

Thanks for the replies, sorry havn't logged in for a while.

 

The PCN fails to comply with regulation 3(2)(b) contained within Statutory Instrument 2007/3482 and it is therefore my belief that the PCN is not lawful:

 

3(2) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the General Regulations, include the following information—

(a) that 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) that, 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—

(i) those representations will be considered;

Although the PCN does say that representations will be considered, it fails to make the recipient aware of the period of time they are lawfully entitled to in which to submit such representations. The lawful period is given by regulation 3(2)(b) and it is given as any time before the NtO is served and as such a PCN must convey this fact to the recipient.

Such failure could prejudice the recipient in that they may only believe they have 28 days to submit an informal representation when the truth is that they have as long as it takes for the authority to serve the NtO. For instance, a person (where the NtO has not yet been served) may only remember about the PCN on the 30th day after service and as the PCN implies you can only challenge within 28 days that person will not appeal. However, that person is lawfully entitled to appeal informally if no NtO has yet been served.

I've uploaded the PCN to imgur, but not allowed to upload here or post links! Edited May 9, 2014 by supermonkeys

[Jamberson]

I can't see a link to the PCN.

 

Nevertheless, you need to explain what the issue is, as you see it. You said above that "That the PCN doesn't comply with regulations".

 

So - can you expand ... The PCN is non-compliant because...

[supermonkeys]

i can't upload or link as not enough posts!

 

the quoted bit above notes what i think is wrong with the PCN. I got the wording from other threads on here.

[supermonkeys]

i forgot to say as well that I did receive an email response to my second appeal.

 

It says that it has been reviewed along with previous correspondance, but they have nothing further to add. they go on to say they will not respond to any further commication (other than response to the NtO).

 

I am livid, but getting worried that now I'll have to pay the full fine as they are not budging.

[ploddertom]

Thanks for the replies, sorry havn't logged in for a while.

 

I've uploaded the PCN to imgur, but not allowed to upload here or post links!

 

If you convert it to a PDF you can.

[supermonkeys]

Managed to do it now....

 

[ATTACH]50810[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]50809[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]50810[/ATTACH]

Edited May 9, 2014 by supermonkeys

[supermonkeys]

so do i have much chance of being successful?

 

Do they have to prove that I was in a time restricted space?

 

If not, since the NTO hasn't arrived, can I still pay the reduced fine?

 

Thanks.

[Jamberson]

Note: This is an edited reply, as I realised my previous reply was wrong.

 

In a nutshell, whether you can pay the discount depends on the time frame they gave you. If you refer to their replies, they will contain timeframes. If in doubt, phone them and ask.

 

To answer your other question, no they don't have to prove anything. You have to disprove it.

 

As to what your chances are of getting it overturned, you don't appear to have any grounds. All you have offered here is that the PCN is non-compliant, based on something you read on other threads, which of course pertain to other PCNs. As you won't expand on that point, I am guessing it's not actually the case, but someone might spot something in the scans.

[supermonkeys]

thanks, post 8 states what is wrong with the pcn & the pcn itself is attached to post 13.

 

thanks

[supermonkeys]

The PCN states the 50% fee applies if paid with 14 days but that if we challenge the PCN, and the challenge is rejected, the council will extend the period in which the reduced. I would assume this is extended to 14 days from the date of their rejection, which would be today. Their website is showing the full £50 is to be paid.

[Jamberson]

Your original appeal was rejected by email, right? So what did their email tell you about how much was owing, and when it had to be paid?

[green_and_mean]

Where you actually in a car park or in an on street bay?

[supermonkeys]

The car was parked in a car park.

 

The most recent letter states Regretfully, to challenge the Penalty Charge Notice further you must wait until the Registered Keeper of the vehicle receives a Notice to Owner before writing in to make further representations. Please note that the full charge of £50 will be applicable at the Notice to Owner stage.

So this indicates to me that I could just pay the £25 fee, but the online payment doesn't allow me to do so!?

 

below is a link to the mk parking map. They are saying that I was parked in the purple dotted area in the bottom right corner (next to the black & red striped area). The purple area is free for 3 hours only whereas the black & red is pay & display. It was a bank holiday & so the black & red were free, but the restriction still applied to the purple.

https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/16110/CMK%20PARKING%20MAP%20(November%202013).pdf

Edited May 12, 2014 by supermonkeys

[Jamberson]

I asked what their reply to your original appeal said, not what their most recent letter states. It is hard work trying to advise you as you don't seem that willing to provide the necessary answers - as was the case with the non-compliance thing which we never got to the bottom of.

 

Anyway, best thing to do is call them and talk to them. If you are now willing to pay the £25, ask them if they will accept it.

[green_and_mean]

code 30 is only for on street bays

[Pocket Nines]

but that if we challenge the PCN, and the challenge is rejected, the council will extend the period in which the reduced. I would assume this is extended to 14 days from the date of their rejection, which would be today.

 

Stop assumimg and refer to exactly what the rejection letter says -- and how the new 14 days is calculated.

 

So, back to beginning; You ask about Council proving you were parked in contravention but what exactly are you saying? You were or you weren't?

[supermonkeys]

still no nto, is that normal?

[supermonkeys]

sorry, i didn't notice this had gotten to two pages so have only just seen the replies above. I will edit this post shortly with responses to each one:....

 

I asked what their reply to your original appeal said, not what their most recent letter states

 

The rejection dated 28/04/14 states:

You can pay the discount charge of £25.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of the date of this letter.

So I should have been able to pay the reduced fee on 12/05/14.

 

It is hard work trying to advise you as you don't seem that willing to provide the necessary answers - as was the case with the non-compliance thing which we never got to the bottom of.

 

Sorry, I misread your post & checked the wrong letter. But I have explained the non-compliance thing:

 

3(2)(b) that, 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—

(i) those representations will be considered;[/quote

 

Although the PCN does say that representations will be considered, it fails to make the recipient aware of the period of time they are lawfully entitled to in which to submit such representations. The lawful period is given by regulation 3(2)(b) and it is given as any time before the NtO is served and as such a PCN must convey this fact to the recipient.

If you are now willing to pay the £25, ask them if they will accept it.

 

It's ridiculous that I have to pay anything, but if I stand no chance of getting the PCN cancelled, I may as well pay the £25 instead of the £50!

 

code 30 is only for on street bays

 

Thanks - this was a bay in large car park. So are we saying that they have used the wrong code?

 

Stop assumimg and refer to exactly what the rejection letter says -- and how the new 14 days is calculated.

 

Done as noted above.

 

So, back to beginning; You ask about Council proving you were parked in contravention but what exactly are you saying? You were or you weren't?

 

I'm not convinced the space I was parked in had the restriction. But how would I prove that?

Edited May 19, 2014 by supermonkeys