Your parking ticket may be unlawful

[callumsgran]

Thanks guys!!!!

[rogerebaker]

bristol city council, it only says date of notice on it, not issue anywhere!

 

Be a bit careful

 

If it states date of notice and also has a date of contravention the fact that it states date of notice instead of date of issue may not be so clear cut.

 

The main issue is it has got to have two dates one must be the date of notice / issue

 

the other the date of contravention

[callumsgran]

Hi roger it doesnt have a date of contravention on it

just says under the wardens signature, quote who had reasonable cause to believe that the following parking contravention had occurred

[dax]

Ive got so many paid previously, some that went to bailiffs and incured further costs, that I dont know where to start.

 

Firstly, how far back in time can you go and secondly, if I reclaim these charges, do I go to the bailiffs or the so called authorities that gave me the tickets?

 

A further dilema, is the fact I now live abroad although still have post redirection.

 

Wish I knew all this earlier

[rogerebaker]

There one or two on the site reclaiming PCN paid. I think you can only go back 6 years due to statute of limitations.

 

have a look at this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-wardens/30762-beboii-reclaiming-his-parking.html

 

personally I wouldnt hesitate to try and reclaim old tickets and any associated costs. I dont think they have a leg to stand on but its a bit untested at the moment.

 

Lets be honest if it kept in the small claims court your liability to costs is limited so you havnt got alot to lose.

[rogerebaker]

secondly

 

I would go for the council not the debt collectors

 

They are the ones at fault

[rogerebaker]

Hi roger it doesnt have a date of contravention on it

just says under the wardens signature, quote who had reasonable cause to believe that the following parking contravention had occurred

 

Does it say at the top of the ticket something about the 1991 Road Traffic Act

[callumsgran]

Yes Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 66 and schedule 6 as amended

[callumsgran]

Is it still unlawful?

[MondeoST24]

I was at a hearing on Wednesday with NPAS (the national parking adjudication service) They conduct the parking ticket appeals. They claim to be independant despite being funded by 60p for every parking ticket issues....but thats another story.

 

I won my appeal no problem. To conform to s66 of the RTA 1991 the ticket MUST have two dates, date of contravention and date of issue/date of notice.

 

This has always been NPAS's view however a few months ago Barnet council disagreed and applied to the high court for judicial review on the matter. Justice Jackson held that NPAS were right and that a ticket without two dates was a NULLITY and that NO FINANCIAL LIABILITY arises from a ticket which is non-confirmant.

 

This has become known as the Barnett -v- Mosis judgement.

 

The adjudicator said that despite the high court saying it is so, certain local authorities still do not accept it and will reject any representations based on the point. He said any appeals on this point will succeed. But, if you are past the appeals stage, i.e. you have paid the ticket then a county court route will work also. Then your only limited by the 6 year statute barred rule.

 

My advice is go for it. Its a dead cert as they say!

[rogerebaker]

Is it still unlawful?

 

Most certainly is.

 

More unenforcable than unlawfull but same result

 

You cant really lose on appeal especially after the moses case

 

Good luck

[ecobabe]

i've got a parking ticket recently, issued via one of these machines parking attendants carry, it only has notice no., date and time, so would that mean it's null & void? if so then they're in deep doo doo, cos all the tickets they issue are like this..............

[callumsgran]

Thanks mondeo and roger, will get letter drafted tomorrow, thanks again chaps X

[modifydirect]

sorry everyone, but could you have a look at my ticket? It's different from the other tickets described here. First off, it was issued by the Police, not a local council which is worrying.

 

Also, they got the car colour wrong (The car is quite obviously green, not blue). I received this ticket parked on double yellow lines in a small market town centre. People always park in this spot and have done for years, and no-one has to my knowledge been penalised in this way.

 

Any comments would be much appreciated

 

[micia]

I have a ticket which has "date of notice" 08/06/2006 in the top right corner then again on the payment slip attached, it has the time of said contravention but not the date just a notice. I am already appealing, am waiting for my NTO on the grounds that I was advised I could park in the bay(residents only) with a disabled badge and have done so without hassle each week for the past 11 months.

 

Do I have a case with the wording if my notice to owner appeal is rejected?

 

Update on this : NTO cancelled as "notice issued incorrectly"

 

Thanks for all the advice!

[dax]

I have contacted the bailiff watchdog as linked on this forum who tells me there is recourse even if tickets were paid and or went to bailiff, so will keep you updated about my claim.

I have about 16 tickets that were paid.

[rogerebaker]

sorry everyone, but could you have a look at my ticket? It's different from the other tickets described here. First off, it was issued by the Police, not a local council which is worrying.

 

Also, they got the car colour wrong (The car is quite obviously green, not blue). I received this ticket parked on double yellow lines in a small market town centre. People always park in this spot and have done for years, and no-one has to my knowledge been penalised in this way.

 

Any comments would be much appreciated

 

court.

 

As you rightly point out these are tickets issued by the police or traffic wardens and are different. your right of appeal is to a local magistrates court who will hear the case if you dispute it.

 

The fact that the colour is wrong is poor but would a magistrate cancel the ticket on that basis. Its a toss of a coin on that one.

 

Have a look at the road markings and the signage. Personally I think the chances of that been correct are slim to nil look at the link below has the Road markings as they should be.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_610051.pdf

 

Letter to the police highlighting the mistakes may get it cancelled before

[kopite71]

Parkwise Lancashire PCN's are not compliant as I went before Npas on the 25/10/06, and contested my case. The reason being there was only 1 date on the ticket with the words 'Date of Issue' in brackets beside it.

 

Outcome: I Won.

 

Oh Dear!

 

Below is the letter i used.

 

NPAS

Barlow House

Minshull Street

Manchester

M1 3DZ

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I wish to appeal the PCN BE******** issued by Burnley Borough Council on the 29th March 2006. It is my contention that the contravention never occurred.

 

The reason is that there isn’t a date of contravention on the ticket. You will see on the enclosed copy there is a date of issue at the top of the ticket. Also at the bottom of the ticket, on the tear off slip, the date of issue is again listed.

 

You may notice that there are no further dates and it is my contention that for the ticket to comply with the Road Traffic Act 1991 section 66 3 (a) ‘the grounds on which the Parking Attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle’. The ticket requires a date of contravention. The appellant may be aware of the date of issue, but how is one to know when the actual contravention was committed?

 

I would like to refer you to the text contained within Circular MacArthur V Bury (NPAS 04/05). No doubt you will be aware of this Circular, and that within this document, the text states:

 

‘To comply with section 66 (3) ©, a PCN must have a date. The date of contravention is not the date of notice even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention’.

Although this text is in relation to the date of notice, it is my view the same text could also refer to the fact that there is no date of contravention. I accept that in Bury, no notices are issued after the event. Nevertheless, the absence of the date of notice is a serious problem because a motorist is not always sufficiently au fait with the act to appreciate that as a matter of practice (but not as a matter of law) the date of the contravention will be the same as the date of notice.

 

It is perhaps worth remarking, by way of example, that in certain circumstances in London, contraventions can be photographed and then subsequently followed up with a PCN issued on a completely different date. May I also refer you to an extract from Al’s Bar & Restaurant V London Borough of Wandsworth hearing? The decision states:

 

‘paragraph © requires the notice to bear its date. The date 20/11/01 appears twice in the PCN. It appears about half way down where it is stated that the vehicle was seen in Lockington Road SW8 at 09.24 on 20/11/01. That is in fact part of the grounds in which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle required by paragraph (a)’.

If fact Al’s Bar & Restaurant V LB of Wandsworth also states:

 

‘The PCN as drafted would in my view still not be adequate even of the date of the alleged contravention and the date of notice were always the same. But in any event this is not the case. A PCN may be served by post where enforcement is carried out remotely by camera and where the parking attendant has been prevented from serving a PCN on the street. In such cases the date of notice will be different from the date of the alleged contravention. Again, therefore the PCN fails the compliance test’.

 

I therefore believe that PCN BE ******** issued on 29th March 2006 by Burnley Borough Council does not comply with the Road Traffic Act 1991, and is therefore unenforceable.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours Faithfully

[GRUMPY1]

gooooooood morning all, just had a wonderful victory against blackpool council!!!! :grin: had a PCN issued in september and on the payment slip it said date of offence!! so i wrote to them and said i had not committed an offence and wanted the ticket cancelling. yesterday i got a letter from blackpool council stating "although we do not agree with the parking adjudicator, it is not in the public interest for us to pursue this PCN" so i did not have to pay, also i have been into radio wave this morning and it has made headline news. thanks to neil herron at "thepeoplesnocampaign" for the advice, and i strongly suggest that if yours states date of offence anywhere on it that you refuse "politely" to pay.

if you wish to contact me the please do [email protected]

[seylectric]

Well done, that's absolutely fantastic and as a Blackpool resident is exactly what I have been telling everybody on this thread for months. I have written to Blackpool council time and time again over the illegality of their parking tickets for the same reason, most of the time they don't even bother to reply.

 

I "owe", with bailiffs fees etc, over £2000 (according to the council) and my next letter will be to the council asking them for a not inconsiderable amount for harrassment from the bailiffs, incluidng trying to take my car away.

 

I heard the radio report and as you said it's a matter of principle, for me not just because of the illegality of the tickets but becuase of the manner in which Blackpool council operate, namely painting double yellow lines everywhere making it virtually impossible to park legally then sending an army or traffic wardens to catch everybody out.

 

The only downside of course is that problem remians, they'll just chnge the wording now but WELL DONE, THIS IS A MAJOR VICTORY AND THE SAME PRINCIPLE MUST APPLY TO EVERY TICKET THEY HAVE ISSUED.

 

If anyone wants to hear the radio report it should be on all morning every half hour, listen at * Radio Wave 96.5FM - Across Blackpool, Wyre & Fylde *, click on "Listen Live" at the top of the screen

[dax]

well done kopite 71

[seylectric]

Lytham St. Annes use Parkwise too, I've contested two tickets on this basis and also on the basis that there were no clear signs stating that the area, just off the main street in St. Annes On Sea (by the shops), was a pay and display car park - there is a ticket machine with a large sign but because there are no signs at the entrance I didn't look for a machine. Signs should be clearly marked, you should have to look for them!

 

On the first occasion it was a hot day and the glue on the ticket envelope left a residue on my windscreen directly in my line of vision. I have presented them with an invoice for cleaning the windscreen (which will double if not paid within 14 days :grin: ) and told them that I may yet prosecute for defacing my vehicle and placing me in a postion where i could not legally or safely drive it - the glue left quite a sticky mess and was directly in my line of vision.

 

Their reply, if I get one, should be interesting!

[PTP]

Hi All,

 

This is a great post and reading it has encouraged me to fight rather than give in. I have recently recieved a PCN and was wandering if anyone is able to help. Below is the PCN I received from Newham Council. Is it legal? Also are any of my points good?

Front Looks like

And my points are:

1.The PCN may not be lawful as it refers to a "penalty" & not simply a "charge" being payable.

2.If the PCN does not say "date of issue" anywhere on the ticket but it states “date of notice” is this enforceable? – Grey area I know.

3.Wording is: “alleged contravention” as apposed to “date of contravention”. Does this matter?

4.Also its seem a bit weird as the first paragraph says “The London Borough of Newham believes that you are liable to pay a Penalty Charge with respect to the above for the following alleged contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (then it jumps to a new line with no full stop before it) The vehicle was seen in (MC) Park Avenue Jct of Flanders Road at 12.32.00 on 14/10/2006 (then jumps into another new line without a full stop) The alleged contravention was noted at the time by…..” I can see 3 mistakes here. Firstly: it states “of Flanders Road” as apposed to “off Flanders Road”. Does that not give a new meaning to the location therefore making the ticket unenforceable? After all there is no road named “Park Avenue Jct of Flanders Road”. 2nd point: PCN states that the parking attendant/enforcement officer saw my car at exactly 12:32:00but the photo they took of my car clearly shows the time of 12:32:53, that is a good 53 seconds later so how could he have seen my car before it was actually there????? Is he psychic? Also some people might say its only 53 seconds BUT if that is the case but if that is the case why not populate the two zero’s to say “53” instead? Thirdly are they allowed to jump to new paragraphs without full stops? It seems confusing. PCN states “The alleged contravention was noted at the time” but what time is that??? Would it not be more correct to say “The alleged contravention was noted at 12.32.00 on 14/10/2006”???

5.Yes fair play there is a date of notice and a date of contravention and they seem to have got Road Traffic Act 66 3(e) correct as they says “You must pay the Penalty Charge of £100.00 before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this Notice”

6.They have only enclosed one picture which shows that I am neither in the road ahead or in the road behind. Surely that is not breaking the law. If anything it shows I am closer to the road ahead which shows more vehicles. I suggest I was performing a U turn? Take that scenario if I was performing a u turn - is it illegal to go on to the midway?

7.I was thinking to ask for more pictures but if there is anything wrong with PCN then I should not bother? Have they issued me with the incorrect PCN? Also is it not my right to ask for more pictures that they have taken of me without my permission? Does the Data Protection Act come in anywhere?

8.Also there is no text describing the colour of my car on there, instead there is a photo. Is this sufficient?

9.The letter states that “You must pay the Penalty Charge of £100 before the end of the period of 28 days…”. This wording fails to acknowledge that the driver / user of the vehicle may not be the owner and is misleading as to whom the Notice to Owner will be sent. It does not convey accurately the statutory information and produces a real possibility of prejudice. Am I correct in assuming that? Got that quote from a court case but don’t know which one. Do you know which one that was?

10.The last paragraph states that “if you do neither of these things, the charge will increase to £150 and the Council will serve a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount. At that stage it would be too late to make representations.” Firstly they are threatening me with a “Charge Certificate” and this is an alleged incident therefore not proven – is that technically legal and would that stand unchallenged in a court of law? Secondly it does not mention at which point they will charge you £150. They just say “if you do neither of these things” quite vague no?? Thirdly they say “At that stage it would be too late to make representations” is this legal? Also at what stage????? They have not made a reference to a date?

11.Looking at The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 of this particular sign posts (please click on link below):

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/02311339.gif

Its says that the item 2 sections as the following Directions: 7, 8, 21(1).

Taking a closer look at numbers 21(1):

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

it clearly states that:

 

“21. - (1) The signs shown in diagrams 560 and 561 shall not be illuminated by the fitting of a means of internal or external lighting.”

 

Diagram 560 and 561 can be found at:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/02311327.gif

 

There were 2 signs which I took pictures of (The theoretical signs can be found at: Moving traffic offences. The sign is number 52.). I went to the location and found 2 signs, they were placed at either side of the road and one of them has the lighting mechanism broken and other has a lighting mechanism on. So because of one of them has a external lighting mechanism above it have they not followed Schedule 21(1) of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002? This can be found here:

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

 

Illumination though can mean 2 things:

 

-Any source of light; lighting.

-The degree of visibility of your environment

 

I guess we have to make clear which of these it is referring to as in my opinion illuminating something is different to lighting it? No?

 

 

BUT SCHEDULE 17 (The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002) contradicts this and sign 519 appears in the table which states which signs need to be illuminated.

12.Direction 17 states that:

 

“Permitted variants of upright signs

17. - (1) This regulation applies to a sign shown in a diagram in a Schedule other than Schedule 6 and such a sign is in this regulation called an "upright sign".

 

This sign (519 which is based from 560) does not seem to appear in schedule 6 and therefore this direction applies to sign 519. “Upright” means:

 

“A vertical structural member as a post or stake”

“In a vertical position; not sloping”

 

The sign which I took a picture of seemed slightly sloped. Does this mean that Direction 17 has not been followed?

 

 

 

Can anyone please tell me if this PCN is valid and if any of my points are too?

 

Any help would be really appriciated. Thanks

[chrismc]

Well done Grumpy and Kopite for fighting back and winning!!

[chrismc]

 

Their reply, if I get one, should be interesting!

 

That will be interesting Seylectric....if everyone did this we might get them to start thinking about what they are doing for a change rather than just sending as you say 'armies' of PA's out grabbing as much cash as they can!!