IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.
Advent-ures in the MSE Forum... Our Advent calendar is live, helping you discover a new corner of the community each day. Visit the homepage and scroll down

Paid via phone parking, PCN and Towed

edited 31 May 2010 at 4:22PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking
1 reply 1.1K views
orangeman01orangeman01 Forumite
1 Post
I made a stupid error. I work all over London and use different pay by phone parking systems. I recently parked in Southwark in a resident/pay, display bay, paid via phone and received a text stating expiry time etc.
90 minutes later I came out to find no van. My van had been towed and I discovered I had paid the wrong phone parking company. :mad: (they are all programed into my phone)

This honest error cost me £200 Towing fee +£60 PCN.
Our company does not pay our tickets. I would take it on the chin if it was £60 but £260 is a bit much to swallow for a genuine mistake.

I have an online receipt (from the wrong company) that shows I paid the parking number for the street over the time period.

I will be appealing but need to know

1. Can they tow me so quickly even though I was not causing an obstruction? As far as I can see the tow fee is just extra revenue.

2. Because it was paid via phone can I argue that the wrong ticket was issued (PCN 12) when should have been PCN 19 because of the fact I did pay, but the "ticket" is invalid. (Long shot)

3. As I made a genuine mistake, is appealing for mitigating circumstances the best way to go.

Any other tips APART from how to use pay by phone parking :D correctly, would be greatfully received.

Replies

  • I and others believe there are legal discrepencies where removal occurs. You appeal will be strengthened by using the template below. The letter can be amended to include any other points you feel worth making.

    Dear Sirs

    Prior to the removal of my vehicle a CEO served a regulation 9 PCN. Once a regulation 9 PCN is served then the law gives the recipient the statutory right to submit an informal appeal that must be considered and a statutory 28 day period in which to pay the penalty charge should they not want to appeal informally or formally.

    When I collected my vehicle, the Council insisted the penalty charge be paid immediately. I do not consider that the regulation 9 penalty charge was “payable” at the time I paid it, since I wanted to informally appeal with the possibility, should my informal appeal fail, of paying it later at the re-offered discounted rate or proceeding to adjudication. Section 101A of the RTRA 1984 requires “any penalty charge payable” to be paid on recovery of a vehicle. If a person has no intention of appealing then a regulation 9 PCN is not immediately “payable” but can be paid at any time no later than 28 days from the date of service. This is a statutory provision. However, where a person does wish to appeal, then a regulation 9 PCN only becomes “payable” by virtue of regulation 4 of the 2007 General Regulations once all appeal stages have been exhausted and an adjudicator has established the contravention and dismissed the appeal. This principle is commonly emphasised on many council PCN’s that warn the recipient that they must not pay the PCN if they want to challenge it, (in other words the PCN is not considered “payable” if you intend to appeal). Therefore I believe the Council acted ultra vires in demanding payment of the regulation 9 PCN immediately on recovery of my vehicle, contrary to what statute provides and contrary to what the PCN advised were my rights.

    In addition, I was given no opportunity to submit an informal appeal. Being able to submit an informal appeal following receipt of a regulation 9 PCN is a statutory right. The PCN confirms this right. Although I was given information on how to appeal this was only in regard to a formal appeal. There was nothing given to me that advised that any right to an informal appeal as advised by the PCN was lost or had been revoked. At the pound, I was given both the PCN and formal appeal documents and these items gave conflicting information as to what my legal rights were. This was and is confusing and prejudicial.

    It should also be noted that where a regulation 9 PCN is served then statute provides that any formal appeal against the PCN (not the removal costs) should be in response to receiving a Notice to Owner. The formal appeal document given to me was not a Notice to Owner but simply appeared to be a document served by virtue of regulation 11 of the 2007 Appeal Regulations informing me that I could make representations against removal. This gave me fewer and differing grounds for appeal than a Notice to Owner. Although my vehicle was removed it seems irregular and unjust to give me fewer grounds and more restrictive grounds for appeal than any other situation where a regulation 9 PCN is served. I believe such unfair restrictions and limitations to be contrary to the general principles of law.

    The Traffic Management Act 2004 and its associated regulations as well as the RTRA 1984 do not stipulate that the statutory rights, provisions and procedures relating to the service of a regulation 9 PCN are revoked and void where that vehicle is later removed by virtue of s.99 RTRA 1984. Therefore I believe the Council has acted ultra vires and is guilty of procedural improprieties.

    In addition “The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986” (S.I. 1986/183) do not prescribe the method of removal used in regard to my vehicle.

    With the commencement of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the introduction of Civil Enforcement Officers, S.I. 1986/183 was amended by “The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment)(England) Regulations 2007” (S.I. 2007/3484) to include new regulation 5C.

    However, regulation 6 of S.I. 1986/183 has not been amended to take into consideration the newly inserted 5C regulation. As such there is no prescribed method of removal for vehicles that are removed by arrangement of a Civil Enforcement Officer. Without the methods of removal available to Civil Enforcement Officers being prescribed it cannot be certain that the method used was lawful and therefore the Council needs to establish that the method of removal was lawful.

    Under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 I am entitled to a submit an appeal that you have a duty to consider and to which you have a duty, should you reject my appeal, to provide me with clear and full reasons in reply to my points of appeal. This duty is set down in the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance and the Traffic Management Act 2004 under section 87 clearly advises that local authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance. Therefore should you fail to reply specifically to each point and substantiate any reason for rejection then I will bring this failure to the attention of the adjudicator.

    Yours with love, hugs and kisses.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Is your local HSBC closing?

114 branches to shut in 2023

MSE News

Advent Competitions

The countdown is on

MSE Forum

Baileys £10 for 1L at Tesco

When you scan your Clubcard

MSE Deals