Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Camden 1 Date PCNs ruled unenforcable at PATAS

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4897 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...