PCN representation out of time - video of contravention not made available by council

[kkpc0703]

Hello Everyone. Please advise me in relation to the PCN with following details:

Date of alleged contravention: 16/03/2014

Date of PCN: 25/03/2014

Contravention: Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle (code 23L) in a loading place for goods vehicle only

I made a number of requests to view video recording of the evidence. This was not made available. Instead a charge certificate was sent. I then made the representation without seeing the evidence and without ascertaining whether the contravention occurred or not on grounds of procedural impropriety. Please see the attached representation letter for further details of the case. Now I have received the letter from the council stating that my appeal is out of time. I don’t even have the option of going to the adjudication.

In a similar situation for the same code, I was allowed to go into adjudication and my appeal was allowed. Please see details of the other PCN on this link

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?423738-PCN-through-CCTV-camera-for-parking-in-a-loading-place-for-goods-vehicle-only-%28Code-23L%29-**PATAS-Appeal-Allowed**

Any advice please.

[Michael Browne]

Wait for the Order for Recovery and then file a Witness Statement at the Traffic Enforcement Centre. I think it's form TE9, but phone TEC to check

TEC on 0300 123 1059 / 01604 619450.

 

If accepted, this will set the PCN back to the NTO stage and you can then appeal to adjudication.

[Jamberson]

Totally correct. That's the way the system works in these situations.

[kkpc0703]

Is it worth writing to the Council again before order of recovery is issued requesting them to reconsider their decision especially referring them to the adjudicator's decision on the separate PCN dated 15/03/2014?

 

Please note the difference between the two cases is that the council considered my video request for PCN of 15/03 as the formal representation and sent NoR. In this case of 16/03 the video requests (that were in time) were not considered as the representation and the Charge certificate was sent. I made the appeal after the issue of charge certificate which was then considered out of time.

 

Please advise on the ground(s) for the TE9 also.

[Jamberson]

I wouldn't enter into correspondence with them now. Just wait for the Order for Recovery and fill in the form. Keeps it simple. The grounds are that you made representations but did not receive a reply.

 

Next time you get an NTO you can appeal on the grounds of impropriety.

[green_and_mean]

I wouldn't enter into correspondence with them now. Just wait for the Order for Recovery and fill in the form. Keeps it simple. The grounds are that you made representations but did not receive a reply.

 

Next time you get an NTO you can appeal on the grounds of impropriety.

 

He appealled out of time so there is no grounds for a statutory declaration, he should have appealled within the 28 days on the grounds of PI which he failed to do.

[Jamberson]

He said "I made a number of requests to view video recording of the evidence. This was not made available. Instead a charge certificate was sent", so I think he can go ahead. They might disagree that he made a representation, but the stat dec will be accepted anyway.

 

If this were by the book, what recourse would someone have, if they were served a CC without a response to their request?

[green_and_mean]

He said "I made a number of requests to view video recording of the evidence. This was not made available. Instead a charge certificate was sent", so I think he can go ahead. They might disagree that he made a representation, but the stat dec will be accepted anyway.

 

If this were by the book, what recourse would someone have, if they were served a CC without a response to their request?

 

Asking for footage is either a 'representation' or it isn't! You do not get a letter of rejection normally if you ask for cctv footage so it clearly isn't, you cannot have cake and eat it. I would also point out its a criminal offence to lie on a declaration so stating he made reps within time is not exactly true.

[kkpc0703]

Asking for footage is either a 'representation' or it isn't! You do not get a letter of rejection normally if you ask for cctv footage so it clearly isn't, you cannot have cake and eat it. I would also point out its a criminal offence to lie on a declaration so stating he made reps within time is not exactly true.

 

I am quite confused now. I would like to believe that the representation may be a single letter or a series of letters. In this case I initiated my representation by asking for video footage a number of times and expected the council to make arrangements for its viewing and to suspend progress until such time. Instead I received CC. Equally it would have been premature on part of the council to send NoR without the footage. My appeal to the council was out of time but was the last step of the overall representation which had been initiated in time.

 

The question is whether the council should or should not have considered my video request as a representation especially when they had decided to send charge certificate. Please note in exactly the same situation for the PCN dated 15/03 they considered it my representation and now adopting a different strategy.

[green_and_mean]

A request for footage is NOT a representation, its a request for footage it cannot be both unless you include a challenge with it, eg I was loading at the time of the offence if you do not cancel the PCN please can I view the cctv. Even the Adjudicator confirms this in the previous case when he stated that a notice of rejection had been sent prematurely in response to a request for footage.

[Jamberson]

There has to be some means of defending the errant Charge Certificate, and the stat dec is the only way. You can choose to consider your request as a representation if you want - let them disagree if they want - but the stat dec will go through, provided it's filed in time.

[kkpc0703]

A request for footage is NOT a representation, its a request for footage it cannot be both unless you include a challenge with it, eg I was loading at the time of the offence if you do not cancel the PCN please can I view the cctv. Even the Adjudicator confirms this in the previous case when he stated that a notice of rejection had been sent prematurely in response to a request for footage.

A request for footage is not a FULL representation. I raised this point to the adjudicator in the previous case and the response confirms this. The council has now gone from one extreme to the other and missed the central point. I needed to view the footage in order to be able to make a FULL representation and to ascertain if the contravention occurred. But let me also say that eventually when the footage was made available for adjudication key details on the PCN were found incorrect.

[green_and_mean]

There has to be some means of defending the errant Charge Certificate, and the stat dec is the only way. You can choose to consider your request as a representation if you want - let them disagree if they want - but the stat dec will go through, provided it's filed in time.

 

Its not errant, its correctly issued as the reps were made too late and disregarded.They won the previous case because the adjudicator agreed with them and decided that the Council were wrong to consider a request for evidence as an appeal so they can hardly argue the opposite now for this PCN and claim it should have been considered.

[Jamberson]

The CC should not have been issued prior to the request for evidence being dealt with. The case should have been placed on hold until a response was provided. Therefore, it's errant.

[green_and_mean]

The CC should not have been issued prior to the request for evidence being dealt with. The case should have been placed on hold until a response was provided. Therefore, it's errant.

 

A charge certificate can only be issued after the deadline for making an appeal, so what would be the point of waiting for him to view the evidence when its too late to appeal anyway? Its quite simple, if he asked to see the evidence and it was not dealt with in time thaty should have been the basis of his 'in time' appeal (which he failed to make). He failed to stick to the dealine which is there for a reason. You cannot for example wait 27 days and then request to see the cctv and expect to hold up the process, you have 28 days to view the footage and appeal its as simple as that.

[Jamberson]

It's not as simple as that. Any incoming correspondence means the case must be put on hold until it is dealt with. If it arrives with the council on day 27, they wouldn't know whether it was a rep or not until they got around to reading it - of necessity after the 28 days. They cannot issue a CC meantime, until they know what has been submitted.

[green_and_mean]

It's not as simple as that. Any incoming correspondence means the case must be put on hold until it is dealt with. If it arrives with the council on day 27, they wouldn't know whether it was a rep or not until they got around to reading it - of necessity after the 28 days. They cannot issue a CC meantime, until they know what has been submitted.

 

Most Councils employ enough staff to read letters when they arrive, if they Council you worked for just had piles of unopened mail sitting around for days on end its probably best you left.

[Jamberson]

if they Council you worked for just had piles of unopened mail sitting around for days on end its probably best you left.

 

Why is it best I left? The design of the process had nothing to do with me, did it? It was organised (obviously) by logistics people and senior managers, on a cost-effect basis.

 

In any case, that's not how it worked. You seem to be stuck in the dark ages if you picture piles of paper sitting around waiting to be read and replied to by waiting staff!

 

All incoming mail went to an external site where it was opened-scanned open-scanned open-scanned. All scanned correspondence showed as an open case against the relevant PCN on the IT system, which was on auto-hold until the scanned letter had been read and dealt with. The bulk processing office we used was used by several councils. It's clearly the most cost efficient way of dealing with incoming mail.

[kkpc0703]

I have now received NoR from the council to my 'late representation'. They have cancelled the CC. Now I have the option of discount payment or going to the adjudication.

They have sent NoR following my call to the council a couple of days ago as I had a feeling it would not be straightforward after order of recovery. But it is clear that CC should not have been served instead I should have been allowed to go to adjudication albeit by considering my late representation.

They have also sent a CD this time which shows my car staying there for around 5 minutes. Seeing the footage and after confirming this with my wife I can recall it was the day when my young child vomited in the back seat, I parked there, my wife got out with my little daughter and went across the road to buy a pack of towels. All this time my young child can be seen through the car windows out of his child seat as it was not possible to restrain him while he was still soiled. The footage ends before showing my wife getting back to the car.

The question now is whether the contravention occurred. If I go to adjudication, can I now raise any point in relation to the contravention especially when it was not raised at the representation or just stick to PI.

[Jamberson]

They have sent you a Notice of Rejection, along with the footage?

 

If so, then you can take it to adjudication like you did with the other one. They have no business "rejecting" a request for footage, and as before, you should be able to win the case on impropriety.

[kkpc0703]

They have actually not rejected my request for footage. But they have now considered my full representation made after CC and served NoR now. Earlier they did not consider it and replied with a letter saying it was out of time. But I called them and drew their attention to the series of emails for footage request which were not dealt with appropriately and to adjudication decision for the PCN dated 15/03. They have not canceled the PCN but served NoR with the CD of the footage now to allow me to go to adjudication again.

Is it worth raising the contravention in my submission to adjudication or just stick to PI? Because the council will now say they have made CD available albeit late. Remember the above account is based on 'as far as I can reasonably recall' after such a long time.

[kkpc0703]

They have actually rejected my 'late representation' made after their CC. They did not earlier consider it at all and replied with their letter that it was out of time. But I called them two days ago and drew their attention to the series of emails which were not dealt with appropriately and that these were all in time. I also drew their attention to the adjudication decision on the previous PCN. They have now cancelled CC but served NoR with the CD of footage.

Is it worth raising any point in relation to the actual contravention in my submissions to the adjudication (now that I have seen the CD and the council are likely raise it to the adjudication) or to just stick to PI?

[kkpc0703]

They have sent you a Notice of Rejection, along with the footage?

 

If so, then you can take it to adjudication like you did with the other one. They have no business "rejecting" a request for footage, and as before, you should be able to win the case on impropriety.

 

They have actually rejected my 'late representation' made after receiving their CC. They did not earlier consider it at all and replied with their letter that it was out of time. But I called them two days ago and drew their attention to the series of emails which were not dealt with appropriately and that these were all in time. I also drew their attention to the adjudication decision on the previous PCN. They have now cancelled CC but served NoR with the CD of footage.

Is it worth raising any point in relation to the actual contravention in my submissions to the adjudication (now that I have seen the CD and the council are likely raise it to the adjudication) or to just stick to PI?

I think I have duplicated the message after confusing few options on the Thread. My apologies.

[Jamberson]

It's still impropriety, and I think you will still win at adjudication. It wasn't a good idea to write a rep after you had the Charge Certificate, but nonetheless, if they've accepted it and responded, then they've done so in the full knowledge that your request for footage was not actioned until after they rejected your rep. Take it to adjudication and you should win - as you know, they have to provide the footage first, and have fouled up the sequence of events.