Parking ticket challenged 113 days ago

maa299

Hi - I've just received a letter dated yesterday for a parking ticket from Barnet Council dating back to 15 November 2008. I challenged this (informally) by email on 17 November, and still have my original email and the automated acknowledgement email from them.

This letter is the first correspondence I've had from them. It's 113 days from the date of my challenge, or just over 16 weeks. It doesn't reference my email at all (full charge of PCN applied).

In their "how to challenge" section, they say "within the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which we receive your representations, we will consider them and serve a notice on you of our decision...".

Are they too late in writing to me?

Neil_B

maa299 wrote: »

Are they too late in writing to me?

No. You made an informal challenge and no time limit applies. it only applies, as they describe, in respect of formal representations.

there is no requirement for them to respond to informal challenges at all - apart from by implication.
There IS a requirement for them to consider informal challenges though. Now you have to prove they didn't! It appears so through the implication of no response but somewhere in your formal reps you will have to ask specifically. i.e. Which officer dealt with the matter and how did he/she reach a conclusion?
To make that work DO NOT send them a copy of your informal challenge - you already have proof they received it - and you need to get them to answer the above question or concede.

Do you understand my thinking on that?

---

Plus - all the other details/circumstances may get you more help.
-

maa299

Thanks Neil - I see what you say, but this is daft. If they don't respond to informal appeals, they forfeit my chance (if found responsible) to pay the 50% fee.

I don't think the ticket was fair, but if I don't succeed, is it fair for them to charge me the full fee? After all, I wrote to them the very next working day!

Anyway, I'll do as you say and simply ask them who dealt with my previous challenge.

One more point though: I took a photo, but didn't attach it to my informal email challenge. In the email, I asked them if they wanted to receive it electronically or by post (and they never got back to me). I guess I should send them the photo now by recorded post, right?

Neil_B

Hold fire. More to do yet!

just on your point of not responding and you losing the discount. yes indeed and that is why a 'failure to consider' is obviously wrong.

To be fair, they and most Councils do normally respond anyway. The fact that they haven't seems like a good indication they just lost it or something.

Also. It isn't entirely their fault. The law was a bit poorly drawn up. Put very simply they remembered to write 'must consider' but forgot to write 'must reply'.
This has been debated a few times elsewhere and what really defines it is a comparison. In respect of 'formal representations' the law directly states they MUST advise you of their decision.

---

reason to hang on is that you shouldn't go in with just that. You still need to explain what your original point of appeal was, yes include the photo if relevant but explain here what your point is.

we also need to see the Notice to Owner which you appear to have received. Think I remember a flaw on Barnet ones.
-

maa299

OK, this is what was in my original email:

"I received a parking ticket on 15 November 2008 but I believe the ticket was wrongly issued and I would like to submit an appeal for the following reason:

• There was insufficient signage

I was unable to determine what the relevant parking restrictions were because there was no clear signage to explain what they were. This relates specifically to the single yellow line I was parked on, which was completely obscured by the fallen tree leaves.

One normally looks at the road markings first to ascertain the suitability of a parking location; in this instance, I had no prior knowledge of the street’s parking restrictions and could see several cars parked on the same side (only part of which has the single yellow line). There were no visible road markings in any section of that side, so I did not go further in checking for any relevant parking signs.

As proof, I took a photo of the obscured yellow line at the time of my return to my vehicle (approximately 6:30pm); if you require this, please advise if I should send this by email to this same address.

As additional information, there were several vacant spaces in the de-restricted portion of the street. Had I been able to identify the restriction at the time, I would have parked in one of those spaces. Needless to say, this incident will not occur again (I have recently joined the nearby LA Fitness gym and will be parking again in Approach Rd ).

I would be grateful if you would consider the above and respond favourably to me in this instance."


And yes, what I received today is a "Notice to Owner".

Neil_B

maa299 wrote: »

And yes, what I received today is a "Notice to Owner".

As I said, need to see that - ALL of it.

On your appeal - yes I see the relevance of the picture. Unfortunately I believe past adjudications are against you on that matter.

One thing that would make a difference is the presence of any time plates next to the line. If there are some it is worse for you.
If it is in a CPZ then there may not be any and that might help a lttle bit.
-

maa299

Here's the full text:

"Notice to Owner - Traffic Management Act 2004

This Notice is issued by the London Borough of Barnet ('the Council') under the above Act.

The Council believes that a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is payable with respect to the above vehicle for the following alleged traffic contravention: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours in Approach Rd EN5 on 15/11/08 at 18:14.

DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE

You are legally responsible for dealing with this notice.
Do not pass this notice to the driver.

The penalty charge has not been paid:

The full amount of the penalty charge is £100.00.
So far £0.00 has been paid.
Payment of £100.00 is now due.

The penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice. If you have not paid fully or made representations within this period then the charge may increase by 50% to £150.00 and a Charge Certificate may be served seeking payment of the increased charge.

You may make representations, indicating the reasons why you think you should not have to pay (see How to Challenge section). Any representations received by the authority outside the 28-day period mentioned above may be disregarded.

Please do not make any payment if you wish to challenge this PCN."

Do you also want me to include the standard "How to Challenge" section on the reverse? The letter's dated 10 March 2009, and the date if service of the notice is 13 March 2009.

Neil_B

I normally wouldn't respond to typed versions of documents - only to images.

However, the error I was looking for is there - I'll explain when i get a mo (why does yours have to have all the more complex issues LOL)
-

Neil_B

Ok here we go.
Another one to wrap your head around! LOL

It's the dates. Date of notice 10/3, Date of service 13/3.

Stoooopid. They cannot possibly know the date of service - the date you receive it. They are stating that they are presuming one? This is potentially prejudicial to a recipient.

The time period for payment or reps re an NtO are clearly stated in the legislation and are fixed - '28 days beginning with the date of service'.

In law you have that period - no matter what. By stating a 'presumed' date of service Barnet are moving the goal posts and contradicting the law - and hence misadvising you of your true legal position.

Now, the regs do actually contain a section that defines when service may be 'deemed to have been effected' - but also that it may be refuted.
IMO that Reg exists only to guide the Council on a timescale for progressing the enforcement process.
- and the funny thing - they get it wrong anyway? regs say 2 working days, Barnet are using 3.

---

Right - now I pre-empt the obvious questions!

How is that prejudicial? For you it isn't but that is not the point. It's the document that is flawed and hence invalid IMO, irrespective of your particular circumstances. Prejudice does not have to be proven to have occurred.
That document must be suitable for ANY recipient. If there was a postal strike it would seriuosly disadvantage someone. Ditto a holiday period like Christmas.

But it ends up with OP getting two extra days? How is that prejudicial. Again as above, the document itself is flawed. there is no provision in law to allow extra days. The Regs only require it to state the correct period and nothing more. They cannot effectively change it.

Analogy - order a nice built in wardrobe to a set size. When delivered it is too big - "oh we thought as you were a new customer you might like one a bit bigger - sorry it doesn't fit now"
Not acceptable is it!

---

hey, don't blame me!LOL I didn't confuse the issue, they did!!
-

maa299

OK Neil - thanks for all your help so far. Now what's my plan of action? Formal appeal?

Neil_B

nearly there.

i mentioned above the possibility of time plates being present.

Were there any or have you established if this is a CPZ or not yet? Website is best first port of call for that.
-