PCN - Representations Info

[Don-e]

Hi,

 

Just a quick question.

 

On the actual PCN (Borough Council), should there be clear and explicit details outlining the proceedure for making formal representations?

 

Should it be included with the methods of payment and should it state the FULL address?

 

Even if they supply details of representations on the Notice to Owner - shouldnt this info be displayed on the actual ticket?

 

 

Cheers,

 

James

[rogerebaker]

Hi,

 

Just a quick question.

 

On the actual PCN (Borough Council), should there be clear and explicit details outlining the proceedure for making formal representations?

 

Should it be included with the methods of payment and should it state the FULL address?

 

Even if they supply details of representations on the Notice to Owner - shouldnt this info be displayed on the actual ticket?

 

 

Cheers,

 

James

 

It must have details of where to make informal representations and where to send the payment.

[Don-e]

Cheers for the reply. Could they term Informal as an "Enquiry"? "Enquiries regarding this Penalty Charge Notice ......"

 

sorry for harping on, I'm really unclear on how precise the terming needs tobe with this aspect of the PCN.

 

James

[redkat74]

Hi James

 

Mine says enqires regarding this parking ticket as well and i have sent my letter refusing to accept it as lawful today to the address on this section of the ticket.

 

the wording is very ambiguious

 

Esther

[rogerebaker]

Cheers for the reply. Could they term Informal as an "Enquiry"? "Enquiries regarding this Penalty Charge Notice ......"

 

sorry for harping on, I'm really unclear on how precise the terming needs tobe with this aspect of the PCN.

 

James

 

Just to make things clear here is the actual wording of S66(3) RTA 1991

 

(3) A penalty charge notice must state—

(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

© 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;

(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.

The Dept. of transport guidlines which were issued to give giudance on how to administer the scheme can be found on the following link

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_027631.pdf

 

If the PCn dosnt comply with the RTA Act it is non complient.

 

If it ignores the advice of the Dept. for transport it is liable to be challanged by the motorist.

 

Not having details about where to send informal representations and recording colour of car are contained in the guidlines and therefor render the PCN liable to challange but they do not make them automatically non complient as the RTA 1991 dosnt state they must contain them.

[Don-e]

All, I'm now in recipt of all 4 of the Notice to Owners that I was due, all dont comply with the RTA 1991 (ref: appeals process, "your right to appeal a councils decision to reject).

 

Fingers crossed these will all get struck out round about the same time as each other and the council wont re-issue a load of correct ones!

 

 

I'll keep you posted!

 

Cheers for the guidance

 

James

[rogerebaker]

All, I'm now in recipt of all 4 of the Notice to Owners that I was due, all dont comply with the RTA 1991 (ref: appeals process, "your right to appeal a councils decision to reject).

 

Fingers crossed these will all get struck out round about the same time as each other and the council wont re-issue a load of correct ones!

 

 

I'll keep you posted!

 

Cheers for the guidance

 

James

 

There is always the risk that they will re issue a correct NTO. In other forums on this topic some just ignore the NTO and when they get the notice that the debt has been registered make a statutory declaration using the NTO as evidence. This would take at least 4 or 5 months making the re issuing of another NTO even more dubious.

 

I personally dont like the idea. I have just had a non compliant NTO and have just sent it back appealing on the grounds that the contravention didnt occur as the NTO was not a proper NTO as it didnt comply with the RTA 1991. I didnt enlarge on it more than that. Hopefully they will reject this and I can follow the appeal procedure and the PCN will be struck out by the ajudicators and then they cannot re issue the NTO.

 

Ive just received another cancellation of a PCN 6 months after the formal representation stage as the PCN didnt have a Date of issue.

 

Admin error apparently.

[Don-e]

Fella's I'm in difficulty here with my NtO/PCN appeal. So I contested the tickets and kicked off the NPAS procedure, sighting the NtO as being non-compliant with the RTA1991.

 

Now NPAS have written to me saying that they have sent the Council details of my argument and that the case will be heard a soon after 06/02/07

 

I have 3 tickets tied up in this at the moment. Basically the council appear to have re-issued the NtO adding on the missing info. (issuing after NPAS had recieved the evidence.

 

Firstly they issued an NtO for a contravention dated back in 30/08/2006 - the repsonse due date is 13/02/2007. the wording is still incorrect in respect to infomation on the Adjudicator.

 

My question is this: Isnt their a time table that they should adhere to?

Also, is it best to wait until the debt is registered and then use this as evidence? (Providing they dont change the wording)

 

 

Okay, now the real problem:

 

I have received 2 re-issues of the 3 PCN/NtO's that are with NPAS. They have changed the wording. Alleged Contravention on 25/08/2006 they want the response by 16/02/2007

 

And another Alleged contravention date 26/09/2006 - Repsond by 16/02/2007.

 

I'm assuming that NPAS will pass judgement on the matter before the expirey of these NtO's, does this mean that the NPAS case is null and void until I fill these revised NtO's in? Or will NPAS view the copies of the NtO's that I have already sent?

 

What should be done?

 

 

In case anyone is interested the council have simply put "If the Council rejects your representations you can appeal against the decision to the adjudicator who acts independently. If your representations are unsuccesful the letter you are sent will explain how to appeal" at the end of the orginal text.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

James

[rogerebaker]

Blimey

 

They arnt taking defeat very well are they.

 

If I was in your position I think I would.

 

1. Complain to NPAS about them re issuing NTO whilst the matter is still in dispute

2. appeal against the new NTO on any techinicality you can find and on the basis that they are abusing the process

3. Make official complaint against the parking manager to the CE of council.

4. Consider the local gvnt. ombudsman. They have been pretty useless when Ive complained but they do stick their noses in and cause a bit of nuisance.

5. If the re-issue NTOs do get to appeal there is one or two cases where an NTO issued late 6 months or so is likely to prejudice the motorist allthough in your case the fact that your fighting the originals probably puts the spanner in that a bit but its worth a go.

 

6. Have you asked for the Trafiic orders just to make sure they comply

 

All in all I think youve got some milage left in this yet and you havnt got a lot to loose really.

[Don-e]

Cheers for the quick reply.

 

As a backup I am putting I am also appealing on the grounds that ticket had no adhesive (your advice), although I could only send them an example (eh-um), not the actual ticket for the day. Expressing that the voucher could not be expected to bbe amintained in the same positon in an exposed carpark over a 24 hour period. That even the opening and lcosing of my car door, or the wind outside could dislodge a cheap peice of pare from a rounded dashboard. Weak, I know, but I thought fight it on two fronts.

 

The PCn istself looks cotia.

 

I'm looking at the Notice of Rejection - which states that "You state that the Notice To Owner failed to comply withthe RTA 1991 , but give no further details. This may have been the case in early May but amendments were made after information provided by the adjudication service and cases sent to the adjudication after this date have been confirmed as correct. You state that the tickets are of poor design but would advise you that they are of standard design and the same as those issued by numerous authorities around the country and can find nothing wrong with them.

 

 

 

I'll complain to the adjudicator today.

 

but what happens with the case. They will look at my NTO that i signed then look at the new version of the NTO issued days after the NPAS notification and see that they sent another correct version. With regard to the appeals process statment, surely this is far to late in the day to notify me of my rights.

 

What would they have me do, fill in the correct one and send it back after the adjudication so they can kick it off again?

 

Is it likely that an adjidicator would look dimly on this behaviour? as it does seem to be a little unfair.

 

Cheers for the guidance, I'll get looking at the 28 day time scales they have given me on things their correspondence.

 

 

James

[rogerebaker]

Re the flimsy ticket.

 

The NPAS case is in this link.

 

If you use this defence I think you are going to have to convince NPAS that you purchased the ticket and it was so flimsy it fell off. may be difficult X 4 but its another possibility.

 

http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/about/cases/MC00227%20Hepworth%20Allowed%20flimsy%20P%20&%20D%20ticket%20-%20identity%20removed.doc

[Don-e]

I'm done for.

 

I use the carpark for work, so I'm using over 200 days a year. So 4 days out of 200 isnt bad, or unreasonable, assuming that they patrol the car parks daily.

 

mmmh, Do they NtO's have to state the Road Traffic acts that they stat on the PCN?

 

Pcn states Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended) sections 43, 66, 76,77 Schedule 3 & schedule 6

 

the NTo, just states Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended)

 

No date of Issue? hahahahaha just Date of Notice at the Top then "was seen in ****** from 15:43 to:15:48 on 26/09/06

 

and another Date of Notice at the botton tear off slip.

 

desperate times!

 

James

[rogerebaker]

Not sure about the date of notice / issue. I was under the opinion that date of notice was sufficient provided there was also a date of contravention which there appears to be.

 

Its probably a good idea to have a good read of justice jacksons judgement on this.

 

Als bar V Wandsworth is also another good read.

 

These can all be found if you use google search.

 

I personally think you have a good chance on the basis that they have abused the process by re issuing before the others have even been to NPAS. The problem with NPAS is they are not a court and make some inconsistant decisions. Just have to take your chance.

[Don-e]

Sorry, I was joking.

 

I'll do as you advise....hopefully the the length of time it took to issue "official" NtO and that the first ones they issued didnt offer the advice with regard to the appeal process they ought to of.

 

 

Cheers for the guidance, I'll let you know how I get on.

 

 

James