Jump to content


Camden 1 Date PCNs ruled unenforcable at PATAS


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5452 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Franklin Price, solicitor of Jeffrey Green Russell and legal advisor to LMAG, acting on behalf of Ms. Lisa Hyams has had Camden’s manually issued Penalty Charge Notices (i.e. PCN or parking tickets) declared illegal by an adjudicator of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service on 15 December 2006 (Case No. 206045033A).

 

The Adjudicator drew on a recent High Court decision against the London Borough of Barnet (v Parking Adjudicator, CO/3355/2006) where Mr. Justice Jackson ruled on that “It seems to me that Section 66 [of the Road Traffic Act 1991] requires two dates to be shown on a PCN. These are the date of contravention and the date of the notice…If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 66 were not satisfied and no financial liability was triggered either by the PCN or by any subsequent stage in the process such as the notice to owner”.

 

The Adjudicator found that Camden’s “PCN does not comply with Section 66 of the Road Traffic Act and cannot be enforced”. This comment applies to all PCNs manually (as opposed to camera) issued before 11 August 2006, when Camden changed the ticket. Camden should immediately stop any enforcement action relating to all PCNs issued before 11/8/06 – anyone with such a PCN should write immediately to the council and tell it to desist. We also recommend that motorists who received PCNs before 11/8/06 consider whether to seek restitution based on Judge Jackson’s clear view that “If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise”. We have done that, and will go to the small claims court if the council is obtuse.

 

Case No. 206045033A

 

London Motorists Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...