PCN Appeal Help - Sutton Council

jazzyb123_2

Hello all,

I received a PCN from Sutton council; I think it is unfair and not valid for a number of reasons. I purchased a pay-and-display ticket from the machine within 20m of the bay I was parked in. However the ticket was issued because it was a “permit bay” and not a “pay-and-display bay”. Why was there a pay-display machine so close? It was a genuine mistake, if I wanted to park illegally – I wouldn’t have brought a ticket.

Below is a picture of the Front/Back of the ticket:
Front: hxxp://img248.imageshack.us/img248/464/editpost.jpg
Back: hxxp://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6046/img1015zr.jpg

I decided to appeal for 2 reasons below and wrote a letter:

1. "the contravention is wrong, it's neither a resident's bay nor shared use, so 12 cannot apply" - It should have been contravention 16. Picture of the bays sign:

hxxp://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4314/permit.png


2. PNC does not comply with the "Traffic Management Act 2004" - SCHEDULE 4B Section 95A with regards to the Contents of fixed penalty notice - - "(2) A fixed penalty notice must also state—" "c. the person to whom and the address at which payment may be made;" . There is no postal payment option given on the PCN, only an appeals address.


I have now received a reply to my letter from Sutton council. They are saying 12 is the correct contravention, but they are not responsible for the wording. This doesn't make sense to me.

They also say that the ticket complies with the “Traffic Management Act 2004”, although they do not back this up with why the postal payment option is missing on the ticket.
Is this just a generic copy/paste letter they send to everyone that appeals?

Anyway, below are the scans of the letter and also more pages of black/white photos.

I have combined the two page letter and photo pages for easier reading:
The Letter: hxxp://img812.imageshack.us/img812/1848/scanletter.png
The Photos: hxxp://img828.imageshack.us/img828/3251/scanphotos.jpg

I still think they are wrong for both reasons, should I continue to fight? They are saying that if I continue to appeal they will then charge the full amount of £110.

I thank you all again for your help.

Trebor16

Your best bet is to go to www.pepipoo.com and post this in their council ticket forum. They are the guys to give you good advise on this issue.

titch2k6

Unfortunately, you already have the answer in your pictures of the road signage. The picture found at hxxp://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4314/permit.png clearly shows the signage stating "Pay & Display Ticket Not Valid". It also very clearly states "Permit Holders Only" with hours of operation.

Contravention Code 12 states:

"Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place without clearly displaying either a permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place"

As both of these are covered by the road signage, the contravention code is correct and your reasons stated would not form reasonable grounds for an appeal. A court, if it ever reached that far, would most definately find in favour of the Council.......

As for whether the PCN is actually valid or not under Traffic Management Act (2004) and the information that is required to be presented on a PCN with regards the person to whom, and payment address for, payment to be made, follow Trebor16's advice and post up on Pepioo.

taffy056

titch, can I just say that it will never go to court, it will go to the adjudicator ! And there are problems with the PCN itself from what I can see, so don't give the advice that they will find in favour of the council as clearly you don't know that!

Jazzy just follow trebor's advice, and go to pepipoo, here is the direct link to the forum you need

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

Coupon-mad

titch2k6 wrote: »

Unfortunately, you already have the answer in your pictures of the road signage. The picture found at hxxp://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4314/permit.png clearly shows the signage stating "Pay & Display Ticket Not Valid". It also very clearly states "Permit Holders Only" with hours of operation.

Contravention Code 12 states:

"Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place without clearly displaying either a permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place"

As both of these are covered by the road signage, the contravention code is correct and your reasons stated would not form reasonable grounds for an appeal. A court, if it ever reached that far, would most definitely find in favour of the Council.......

As for whether the PCN is actually valid or not under Traffic Management Act (2004) and the information that is required to be presented on a PCN with regards the person to whom, and payment address for, payment to be made, follow Trebor16's advice and post up on Pepioo.

As taffy says, Council PCNs do not go to Court. They just go to an adjudicator and as long as the appellant meets all appeal/response deadlines they would never have to pay more than the full penalty(non-discounted). Most appellants by that stage actually end up paying nothing.

That's why everyone should always appeal any Council PCN, with pepipoo's help. That and the fact that most people win who go as far as adjudication, or the Council folds without fighting when they realise their usual fob-off replies have not worked. It's just an all or nothing gamble with the odds in the motorist's favour, no Court, no costs, nothing scary.

taffy056

I can see you have already posted this over on pepipoo

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=66919

titch2k6

taffy056 wrote: »

titch, can I just say that it will never go to court, it will go to the adjudicator !

Chances are it will never go to court, I agree, but if you look into the Traffic Management Act (2004) there are provisions so IT CAN be taken to court for enforcement. I did clearly state in my post "if it ever got that far" and at no point did I say it would go to court:

"Traffic Management Act (2004)
Part 6
82 Enforcement of penalty charges.

(1)The Lord Chancellor may make regulations for or in connection with the enforcement of penalty charges.

(2)The regulations may include provision— .
(a)creating criminal offences to be triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such lower amount as may be specified; .
(b)for amounts payable under or by virtue of any provision of this Part to be recoverable, if a county court so orders, as if they were payable under a county court order.

An amount to which paragraph (b) applies that is so recoverable is referred to below as a “traffic contravention debt”.

(3)The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision— .
(a)for warrants of execution in respect of traffic contravention debts, or such class or classes of traffic contravention debts as may be specified in the order, to be executed by certificated bailiffs; .
(b)as to the requirements that must be satisfied before a person takes any other step of a kind specified in the order, with a view to enforcing the payment of— .
(i)a traffic contravention debt, or .
(ii)such class or classes of traffic contravention debts as may be so specified.

(4)Any such order may make such incidental and supplementary provision (including modifications of any enactment other than this Act) as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of the provision made by the order.

(5)Any order in force immediately before the commencement of this Part under section 78(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40) shall have effect after that commencement as if made under the corresponding provisions of this section and shall apply in relation to the enforcement of any traffic contravention debt."

taffy056 wrote: »

don't give the advice that they will find in favour of the council as clearly you don't know that!

To state that a court would probably find in favour of the Council was wrong and I apologise for that comment.

sarahg1969

titch2k6 wrote: »

Chances are it will never go to court, I agree, but if you look into the Traffic Management Act (2004) there are provisions so IT CAN be taken to court for enforcement. I did clearly state in my post "if it ever got that far" and at no point did I say it would go to court:

"Traffic Management Act (2004)
Part 6
82 Enforcement of penalty charges.

(1)The Lord Chancellor may make regulations for or in connection with the enforcement of penalty charges.

(2)The regulations may include provision— .
(a)creating criminal offences to be triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such lower amount as may be specified; .
(b)for amounts payable under or by virtue of any provision of this Part to be recoverable, if a county court so orders, as if they were payable under a county court order.

An amount to which paragraph (b) applies that is so recoverable is referred to below as a “traffic contravention debt”.

(3)The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision— .
(a)for warrants of execution in respect of traffic contravention debts, or such class or classes of traffic contravention debts as may be specified in the order, to be executed by certificated bailiffs; .
(b)as to the requirements that must be satisfied before a person takes any other step of a kind specified in the order, with a view to enforcing the payment of— .
(i)a traffic contravention debt, or .
(ii)such class or classes of traffic contravention debts as may be so specified.

(4)Any such order may make such incidental and supplementary provision (including modifications of any enactment other than this Act) as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of the provision made by the order.

(5)Any order in force immediately before the commencement of this Part under section 78(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40) shall have effect after that commencement as if made under the corresponding provisions of this section and shall apply in relation to the enforcement of any traffic contravention debt."



To state that a court would probably find in favour of the Council was wrong and I apologise for that comment.

The above relates to non-payment of penalty charges, and not appeals in relation to penalty charges. The apepal would be heard by an adjudicator. If the adjudicator upheld the penalty, and the OP failed to pay, at that stage, it would be passed to the courts to enforce.

jazzyb123_2

Hello,
Thank you all for your help. I am going to fight it out and see how I get on.
Thanks again.