Is PCN valid

[bmwman]

Hi green and mean

 

I sent copy of the badge to brighton they then sent me back photos showing the badge as being unreadable this is what they are argueing

 

Many Thanks bmwman

[bmwman]

Hi Every One

 

PE2 And PE3 sent Yesterday to Northampton Now have to wait and hope. In the meantime will do some more research.

 

Still a little confused as to the (as ammended) at the end of road traffic Act 1991 and where I can find information on this

 

Help would be very appreciated.

 

 

Many Thanks bmwman

[bmwman]

Hi Everyone

 

Can anyone tell me if the back of a PCN is actually part of the PCN

 

Many Thanks

[green_and_mean]

Hi Everyone

 

Can anyone tell me if the back of a PCN is actually part of the PCN

 

Many Thanks

 

 

How do you know its the back of the PCN not the front?

[bmwman]

Hi green and mean

 

The front contains most of the the statutory information

 

ie

 

PCN No

Notice date

VRM

Make

Location

Parking attendent No

Signature

Details Of contravention

and

Details of what to pay and When by

 

Two important part are on the back

 

Look at PCN posted

[green_and_mean]

Hi green and mean

 

The front contains most of the the statutory information

 

ie

 

PCN No

Notice date

VRM

Make

Location

Parking attendent No

Signature

Details Of contravention

and

Details of what to pay and When by

 

Two important part are on the back

 

Look at PCN posted

 

I was just being awkward and pointing out that unless labelled as front/back how could you say which items were on the back and which were on the front.

[bmwman]

Hi green and mean

 

There is a vilid reason I ask this question

 

The road traffic act 1991 states the following:

 

(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.

 

this is missing from the front of the PCN ar can it be on the back

 

bmwman

[green_and_mean]

As far as I can recall it says' must contain the following information...' no mention is made of on the front.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Hi Everyone

 

Can anyone tell me if the back of a PCN is actually part of the PCN

 

Many Thanks

 

Hi, I have an appeal pending with a London Authority part of which is based on exactly this point.

 

The adjudicators have ruled that the tear-off slip is not part of the PCN> I can find no authority on the reverse although the judicial review in the Barnet case does give me hope in part.

 

The formatting of "my" PCN does, I think, give me a good case.

 

Will let you know.

[bmwman]

Hi bernie the bolt

 

Just been read through barnet court paper on the net. Ther is a very interesting defence here regurding the "you are required to pay £ witn in 28 days and so on" It states that in one case that the calculation date starts the day after the date of issue thus allowing 29 days and 15 days accrodingly this dejects form section 66 3c,d,e thus rendering the PCN as void. But this has to be contested.

 

Have you read the Als Caf'e V Wandsworth case if PM me and will send copy

 

bmwman

[bmwman]

Hi All

 

TEC recieved PE2 and PE3 Yesterday does any one know if there is a time limit for them to reply

 

Many Thanks

[Guest xipetotec46]

1. No As Amended wording

2. No date given to pay (i.e. From date of issue)

3. Instructions to pay. the wording is on the tear off slip (not part of PCN)

Probably more wrong stuff on the back also.

4. You have a valid blue badge

5. You have a Stat Dec

6. You cannot lose

[bmwman]

Hi All

 

Thank you for your replies.

 

Stiill waiting to here from the TEC hoping they will allow Stat Decs.

 

Going to fight it on the grounds that that have allowed an extra day for payment in contravention of the road traffic act 1991 (see Als caf'e and resturant - V - Wandsworth Council) also that the part about notice to owner does not appear on the PCN or who to pay. They how ever do appear on the back there for is the back part of the PCN

 

Will keep you posted

[bmwman]

Hi All

 

Just to keep you up to date. Phone TEC as had not heard anything:-

 

Sat Decs Posted Recorded Delivery Friday 07/09/2007 Received TEC 10/09/2007 Phone today 14/09/2007

Told had not received them so not processed gave them tracking number

told sorry appear to have gone astray can you fax copies.

Faxed copies to them now processed and return to Brighton

Brighton have until 11/10/2007 to reply.

 

Will keep you Posted

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Hi All

 

Thank you for your replies.

 

Stiill waiting to here from the TEC hoping they will allow Stat Decs.

 

Going to fight it on the grounds that that have allowed an extra day for payment in contravention of the road traffic act 1991 (see Als caf'e and resturant - V - Wandsworth Council) also that the part about notice to owner does not appear on the PCN or who to pay. They how ever do appear on the back there for is the back part of the PCN

 

Will keep you posted

 

 

This post may be of some assistance to you.

[bmwman]

Hi Bernie the bolt

 

Thank you for the link this will come in very handy I will have to make a few small ammendments to suit my case.

 

On Stat Dec Put NTO not received I take it that Brighton will either send new NTO or challange. I beleave NTOs are sent in standard post therefore thay have to prove service.

 

Your comment very much appreciated

 

bmwman

[bmwman]

Hello Everyone

 

Received NtO today I cannot see any problems with it but your advice would be appreciated.

 

 

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I'll not answer the time issue (ie the length of time it has taken to get the NTO to you after the alleged contravention) because I have not researched that sufficiently.

 

But, I would contest the NTO because it does not give to the option to state that "you were never the owner of the vehicle". It has also changed the ground that "the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner" to "the vehicle had been taken without my consent" which is not the same thing.

 

On a separate post on this thread I linked to the argument.

 

My view is that you have a legitimate argument that both the PCN and the NTO are invalid and potentially that the NTO has been served out of time.

 

You have absoloutely nothing to lose by following both stages of the appeal process. The penalty cannot increase and all it costs is time and a stamp.

[bmwman]

Hi Bernie the Bolt

 

Thankyou for your reply I missed this one.

 

Should I fill In NtO along the following lines

 

Tick Other Representations

 

PCN is invalid does not meet Staturory Guide lines as layed down in the Road Traffic Act 1991 as Amended

 

NtO Does not meet Statutory Guide line as layed down in the Road Traffic Act 1991 Schedule 6 as amended

 

Your help would be gratefully received

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Tick that the penalty exceeded the relevant amount. The reason being that if either or both of the pcn and the nto are invalid the applicable penalty is £0.

 

Ignore "other representations" that is not a statutory basis for appeal.

[bmwman]

Hi Bernie the Bolt

 

Thankyou for your guidence very much appreciated

 

bmwman

[bmwman]

Hi All

 

Should I also supply info as to why these are invalid or keep it until notice of rejection then hit them with parking adjudicator with all guns blazing

 

Many Thanks

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Hi All

 

Should I also supply info as to why these are invalid or keep it until notice of rejection then hit them with parking adjudicator with all guns blazing

 

Many Thanks

 

Different schools of thought:

 

I personally think you should be reasonably specific. I think that you need to give the authority directions and clues as to where you are coming from.

 

Others would say just say it does not comply.

 

Rather depends, perhaps, on whether you care on whether you win at LA appeal stage or independent adjudicator.

[bmwman]

Hi Bernie the Bolt

 

Would prefer independant Adjudicator carries more clout aspecially after a letter I received from Brighton and Hove City Council

 

 

Then go to press

[patdavies]

BMWMAN, you've completely lost me here.

 

You have a letter dated 31/08/2007 telling you that the matter has been passed to Bailiffs and a Notice to Owner referring to the same PCN (BH30070655) date 2 days ago (17/9/2007.

 

Are you saying that they have issued a Charge Certificate and instructed bailiffs before issuing the NtO? Or have they re-issued the NtO following a stat. dec.

 

I also object to his attitude that sites like this (and Pepipoo) don't know what they are talking about