Wrong reason on council PCN?

stargirl73

Hi all. I've done a quick search as I'm sure others have had the same thing, but I can't immediately find a thread.

I received a council PCN as I was "parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours"

Now where I was parked, it's restricted on one side of the street, but not the other where I was parked.

I thought immediately that they had issued it incorrectly and was just about to drop them a line when I checked the photographic evidence on Gateshead MBC website, and the photo that they're using as evidence shows that I was parked about half an inch onto a double yellow line, which I hadn't realised at the time.

Parking on double yellows isn't parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours, or is it?

Have they made a mistake (ever hopeful!) or do I just pay up?

Sorry if this has been asked over and over!

Many thanks

peter_the_piper

Photo/scan both sides of the ticket and remove personal bits (leave dates) host on tiny pic as per stickies at top. There may be errors on the ticket which you can use, it sounds like the dyl bit is De Minimis but not enough on its own.

TheBogsDollocks

stargirl73 wrote: »

Parking on double yellows isn't parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours, or is it?
Many thanks

This contravention description has niggled me for a long time and I think it is an area worth probing. The fact that you are unsure gives my argument credibility.

Below is some text that deals with why it niggles me and I would appreciate it if you would be willing to add it to your appeal. To be honest, it is likely to be rejected or ignored by the council as it’s too radical but if your appeal goes as far as adjudication then it may be given impartial consideration and this is what I seek. By including it in your appeal it may benefit you as the council may fail to consider the point in the manner required. This will then strengthen any further appeal you submit. You have nothing to lose by including it and you can fit any other appeal points in, either at the beginning or end of the text. The text is below.

Wait for other points to be raised before sending your appeal as we may make it stronger.

Dear Sirs

I believe that the PCN served fails to comply with paragraph 1(e) contained within the Schedule to “The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007”. This paragraph advises that a PCN must include;

1 (e )the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable;

It is commonly agreed amongst adjudicators that the purpose of paragraph 1(e) is so that the PCN conveys to a motorist in comprehensible terms what it is they are alleged to have done wrong. However, the PCN served does not inform a person in a manner whereby they can easily comprehend what it was they allegedly did wrong. The ground on the PCN simply states that a penalty charge must be paid because the vehicle was “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”.

The commonplace definition of “restricted” is thus; “place limits on, confine, restrain”. Therefore, in essence, the PCN informs the recipient that they parked in a street during hours that the street is subject to parking restraints. It does not however inform the recipient of how the vehicle contravened a particular parking restraint or even what parking restraint was contravened. It is highly important to note that not all parking restrictions prohibit parking and so parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours is not a contravention by default since it can be lawful.

A street is often subject to a number of differing parking restrictions. For example, one particular parking bay in a street may be restricted to permit holders only between the prescribed hours of 9am to 6pm while another parking bay may be restricted to Pay & Display between the prescribed hours of 8am to 6pm. However, a person who lawfully parks their vehicle in ether bay during the prescribed hours is doing just as my vehicle was also doing, that being, “parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours”. Quite simply, the ground stated on the PCN is not fit for purpose since it does not distinguish between a vehicle that is lawfully parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours and one that is not.

In the interest of justice a person needs to know why their vehicle was not considered lawfully parked in a restricted street so that they can either avoid doing so again or gather the relevant evidence for any subsequent appeal. It must be remembered that the ground on the PCN will be repeated on the NtO and the owner may not have been the driver. Therefore, unless the NtO is accompanied by adequate photos of the signage the owner will not be able to deduce with certainty what parking restriction the expression “restricted street “concerns and was allegedly contravened. Such knowledge and clarity is absolutely critical to enable the owner to make a reasoned judgement on whether they have grounds to appeal.

In fairness to the council they are using the standard contravention descriptions and codes that are issued by the London Councils. However, just because these descriptions are prescribed by the London Councils and are used nationwide, it does not guarantee that they are without fault. This was highlighted in the key adjudication case between Metrick v Camden (Case no 207034396A) where the adjudicator concluded;

"Whilst it may well be the case, as the local authority points out, that the "wording of the alleged contravention is of a standardised format for use by local authorities throughout the country", this is purely for administrative reasons alone and does not lend any statutory or other legal authority whatsoever to the 'wording': the question for the adjudicator remains whether the PCN complies with the legal requirements”.

The truth is that the standard list of contraventions has not kept up with the fast pace of ever evolving parking regulations and in addition, it does not take into account the fact that traffic orders are not uniform in the manner that they define and prescribe parking restrictions. It must be remembered that the code 01 description was formulated by the London Councils and as such it was specifically structured around how the London Boroughs drafted their traffic orders. It was and still is a common feature in London traffic orders to make explicit reference as to what is and what is not considered “restricted street”. This does not feature often in orders outside London and as such code 01 is not always applicable.

Yours with love, hugs and kisses