Notice to Owner/PCN - help please!

Gordon861

I thought they had to stick the ticket on your car anyways. If you drive off whilst they are writing it, it hasn't been served and therefore invalid.

peter_the_piper

Gordon861 wrote: »

I thought they had to stick the ticket on your car anyways. If you drive off whilst they are writing it, it hasn't been served and therefore invalid.

Unfortunately Gordon and his crew put the mockers on that ploy. They can now serve the pcn by post if you just drive off. Leaves it open to abuse by unscrupulous CEO's though.

Neil_B

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Unfortunately Gordon and his crew put the mockers on that ploy. They can now serve the pcn by post if you just drive off. Leaves it open to abuse by unscrupulous CEO's though.

They can indeed - but they haven't. They have sent an NtO when it should have been a postal (Reg 10) PCN. IMV that is a strong issue here.
-

Neil_B

Bong74 wrote: »

I didn't actually mean send the actual documents back, I meant respond to the NtO on the grounds identified so that you are making formal representation against the issue of the PCN. If the markings and signing are incorrect, then the TRO is invalid and the contravention did not occur.

Ok understood - but i just look at it differently - kinda the other way round.
That the 'restriction' is invalid due to the poor signs and lines but quite possibly the TMO is correct. End result is the same though.
-

Neil_B

Ok - sorry forgot to post the comment about the NtO flaw.

This revolves around them stating a 'date of service' - and needs some careful reading.

They should not do so since they cannot possibly know when the NtO was served (delivered). To make such a presumption is prejudicial.

Whilst the Regs do define when service may be deemed to have been effected >>

a) IMO this is intented to guide the Council on a timescale for the enforcement process - only.

b) The Regs also say more. That the date of service may be refuted. By stating a presumed date and not explaining that this may be argued against - again clearly prejudicial.

c) The date they have given of 27/2 bears no relation to the definition of 'deemed' service in the Regs anyway!!! (two working days) they used three?

Plonkers.

Gordon861

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Unfortunately Gordon and his crew put the mockers on that ploy. They can now serve the pcn by post if you just drive off. Leaves it open to abuse by unscrupulous CEO's though.

When I read that first time I thought what the hell have I done now, and then re-read it.

peter_the_piper

Maybe I should have put "our beloved Prime Minister" to save confusion.

Horace

OP, appeal the ticket and quote the Al's Bar Case - it says on your paperwork that the Penalty Charge Notice is payable - you cannot pay a notice only the charge. This is as per the Al's Bar Case who argued this very point. I have successfully used the Al's Bar Case when taking Lambeth Council to PATAS for giving me a dodgy ticket and towing me.

If you google Al's Bar it is the first thing that pops up on Google. It also appears on the Parking and Traffic Appeals Website - look for London Borough of Wandsworth v. Al's Bar - is ia very famous case.

HTH