PCN 62 Hillingdon, London

Sparkos

Hi,

I have posted my case on PePi Poo but i'm not getting too much advice.

I would post the images of my ticket and the link to the PePi Poo thread but i'm unable to either insert images or post links.

My appeal letter was set out as below.

To Whom It May Concern:

RE: Notice Number HN4*******

I am writing to you in order to challenge the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above.

I would like to contest this PCN for several reasons;

The PCN does not explicitly comply with 1 (d, h) of the Schedule to Regulation 8 of the General Regulations.

1 (d) of Schedule to Regulation 8 of the General Regulations states a PCN must contain:

(d) the date and the time at which the alleged contravention occurred;

The PCN in question merely has an ‘observed’ time and date. This does not necessarily relate to a ‘Date of Contravention’ which makes the details on the PCN misleading and unclear to the recipient.

1 (h) of Schedule to Regulation 8 of the General Regulations states:

(h) that if the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount.

The first reference to the discounted period is on the payment slip, which was found previously not to be part of the PCN (London Borough of Wandsworth v Al’s Bar and Restaurant, case number: 2020106430). Therefore, I am disregarding the first mention of the reduction as it is technically not part of the PCN.

The only remaining mention of any discount is in small print on the reverse and in a proportionate/percentage reduction. Were I to miss the discount paragraph in small lettering on the reverse of the ticket, I would assume I have to pay the full £110 amount on the front of the PCN which is deliberately marked in bold. Any available discount is not clear to the recipient of the PCN.

Furthermore, nowhere does the PCN mention the amount of reduction. It merely mentions a proportionate reduction of 50%. 1 (h) of Schedule to Regulation 8 of the General Regulations clearly states an amount should be held within the contents of a penalty charge notice. The PCN in question does not show the amount saved when the 50% is implemented. My research shows almost every other council appear to state the exact AMOUNT payable on their PCNs – if penalty charge is paid within 14 days a reduced amount of £** is payable.

I ask why almost every other council goes to great lengths to clearly define the amount payable, yet Hillingdon does not. This is inconsistent for the motorist and therefore more difficult to ascertain just how much is payable.

I refer you to the adjudicator’s remarks in the McArthur V Bury case when he states that “a penal notice should be unequivocal and clear” including “the sum of money required”.

I suggest that if I opted to pay off my credit card minimum payment with a cheque marked as a percentage of the required full payment, it would be ridiculously misleading and far from being ‘unequivocal and clear’.

There is a further grammatical error on the PCN itself which I would like to challenge. The PCN served in this instance states on the front that ‘a penalty charge of £110 is now due in accordance with the details overleaf’. This is an incorrect statement. A penalty charge of £110 is not due now as there is a reduced charge for the first 14 days. Therefore, to be factually correct the PCN should state ‘a penalty charge of £55 is now due in accordance with the details overleaf’. A charge of £110 is due only after 14 days. The word ‘now’ concerns the present at which £110 is not due as payment.

I would also like to question further content on the PCN itself. There is an unlabelled element on the PCN which should be correctly labelled and explained. Under the ‘location’ element of my ticket is a bizarre reference OPP LP 1. This makes no sense and should be correctly labelled and explained on the ticket. Again, its presence serves to confuse the ticket recipient.

There is also a misprint on the PCN which makes the description of the contravention illegible. The contravention essentially reads ‘Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway’. The details of the contravention are indecipherable as a result.

It is worth repeating the comments of the adjudicator from the Moses v Barnet case. Mr Justice Jackson ‘emphasised that the statutory requirement of the form of the PCN were simple and clear – compliance was not difficult and a specimen form had been available for more than 10 years. Enforcing authorities therefore had no excuses for non-compliance.’

The above issues show a procedural and compliance question mark in the serving of the PCN and make the contents of the ticket extremely difficult for a recipient to understand and decide what they should be paying.

In addition to my objections previously stated I believe there are other circumstances under which I would like to challenge the PCN.

Firstly, on the day in question my regular access point to my place of work was made inaccessible due to a police shooting incident. This essentially left my workplace and usual car parking (private car park) inaccessible.

Secondly, I would like to detail the more than significant efforts made by myself to keep traffic moving in your local area by attempting to find an alternative route due to the closure.

I first approached my place of work from the ***** Road having come up the M4 *****, and then the ramp to **** Road in order to turn back on the ***** Road heading west. On approaching the traffic lights at the ***** Road connection with ***** Road I could see the roadway had been cordoned off due to a police incident. I then went to the trouble of getting back on the M4, driving back down to Junction * in a bid to access my work from an easterly direction along the ****** bypass. However, on reaching the traffic lights at the ****** bypass connection with **** Lane A3044 again the roadway was cordoned off. A near 10-mile round trip!

I could, and in hindsight perhaps I should, have merely waited at the traffic lights until the roadway was cleared! However, as any good motorist would, I opted to keep traffic moving as best I could.

Thirdly, I presented myself to an on-duty police officer at the ***** Bypass connection with **** Lane to explain my predicament. He promptly rejected my appeal for access to my workplace and the advice I was given was to “find a side street and park there until the roadway could be cleared.” That was the exact advice given to me by a uniformed police officer!

May I refer you to the legislation for Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, Part III, Highways, Section 15 which states as to parking on footways, grass verges, etc.:

(3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked—

(a) in accordance with permission given by a constable in uniform

Contrary to this my other work colleagues approaching the same accident at the ***** Road/***** Road traffic lights were allowed through the police cordon in order to gain access to work. Therefore, I was also on the end of inconsistent policing given I was refused access at both points yet my work colleagues were not.

Fourthly, as you can see from my postal address I do not live locally. I simply commute from my home to work and NEVER have any need to divert from my usual route. Therefore, I have CATEGORICALLY no understanding of the local roads surrounding Heathrow.

On a direct instruction from Police I proceeded to drive around the local area specifically searching for a place to park that neither contravened any permit restrictions or required parking tickets. I must have driven around ********* for nearly 20 minutes before, given the delay to my employer, regrettably deciding that ***** Close was as good a place as any to park up for a short period due to the police incident. My decision to choose ***** Close was based on the evidence that there was NO signage detailing any restrictions.

I then walked to my place of employment, having been deliberately splashed by one of your local buses I might add, with the full intention of returning to collect my car as soon as the roadway had been cleared. I even enquired as to the projected time of clearance with a duty police officer I met on my walk. I feel the observation time of the ticket is hugely relevant. I had parked my car at **** Close, ********* just 3 minutes prior to being given a PCN (I have witness evidence of timings). I had not been there long (3 minutes) and had the full intention of moving my vehicle as soon as the accident was cleared. In fact if you take in to account the time shown on the photographic evidence (which is different to the PCN observation time) I had actually been at the location for just 2 minutes!

Given there is NO signage at ***** Close, *********, and given the emergency situation, I thought it prudent to place my car in a position of least irritation in case of the requirement of emergency vehicle access.

Equally, I do not live in a London Borough. Therefore, I am utterly unfamiliar with London Borough Parking Restrictions and I find it unreasonable, particularly given the lack of signage at the destination, to expect me to be acutely aware of the specific London Borough of Hillingdon parking policies. My employer provides a private car park which was inaccessible on the day in question.

I have subsequently taken the advice of my own council - ****** Council – who do not run a similar strict policy on ‘verge parking’. Having spoken with my own Council they have assured me that whilst a Footway and Verge Parking Policy is a necessary traffic regulation they would not seek to regularly enforce it on a blanket basis. Indeed in their own Parking Policy ****** council explicitly state that:

“Footway parking can also relieve the pressure on the surrounding highway network and provide a clearer passage for users of the highway. For these reasons it is important that a local balance is achieved when determining the allowable level of footway parking in any area and in some cases, street by street. “

“Local issues will always need to be taken into consideration by highways officers when recommending whether footway parking is acceptable or not in specific locations”

“Each case needs to be considered on its merits rather than applying a blanket policy to parking on verges.”

I believe that is a reasonable position for a Council to have on Footway and Verge Parking.

Finally, having reviewed the photographic evidence I believe my parking provides a minimal obstruction to the pathway and given the circumstances it is not unreasonable to challenge the PCN.

Given my PCN compliance concern and confusion, my efforts to cause as little impact locally as possible, the local issues on the day in question and the specific merits of my case, I believe the ticket should be cancelled.

Having been TOTALLY unaware of Footway and Verge Parking regulations I am now fully enlightened by this incident. Whilst my own Council do not operate as strict a procedure as Hillingdon, I will in future seriously consider where and how I park.

I hope you can understand that in ANY other circumstance I would not have been in that position and would have parked privately in my employment private car park.

I look forward to hearing from you.

My first appeal was recently rejected. I am unsure if i should continue.

Personally, i feel i do have room to get the ticket cancelled on a number of issues (detailed in my appeal letter) but wonder if it is worth the effort.

Do councils always just reject first appeals? Are they trying to put me off. I can't believe they rejected it.

Please read the thread and offer any help you can.

Thanks

The_Slithy_Tove

Sparkos wrote: »

Do councils always just reject first appeals? Are they trying to put me off. I can't believe they rejected it.

Yes, they do. It's all part of their game - to browbeat you into paying. You almost always have to take it to PATAS or on to ajudication to get a win. You lose on the discount, however, if you are unseccessful.

Bump your Pepipoo thread back to the top, else it'll get lost off the first page. Post there (if you haven't already), the exact correspondence (suitably redacted) you got back from the council with their rejection. Hopefully someone may then pick it up.

P.S. You'll need to paste in a link to your Pepipoo thread if you want anyone here to look at it. If you can't post links, as a newbie, paste in the URL without the http:// bit.

Sparkos

Bump your Pepipoo thread back to the top, else it'll get lost off the first page. Post there (if you haven't already), the exact correspondence (suitably redacted) you got back from the council with their rejection. Hopefully someone may then pick it up.

Thank you for your reply.

I have done that all along and bumped it to the top again today. I've not got many replies at all despite asking nicely :A

I've posted the ticket and the exact correspondance. The problem is that i can't link to it from here. I'm not allowed to insert links in my posts on MSE apparently.

I do feel i have got a point on several issues, many of which they failed to answer or even mention in their appeal rejection letter.

TrickyWicky

Sparkos wrote: »

I have done that all along and bumped it to the top again today. I've not got many replies at all despite asking nicely :A

If its anything like your thread here then it's probably because of the lack of details. You've not posted anything about the ticket, why you got it, where you were etc, just your letter of appeal (which is so long I stopped reading after a couple of sentences).

You might want to revise your opening post to give a bit more detail

Sparkos

Thanks for your reply.

If its anything like your thread here then it's probably because of the lack of details.

It couldn't be further from what you've suggested. I've probably posted far too MUCH information over on PePi Poo. I posted where, why, and with images of the ticket front and back!

I just wish i could give you the link. I can't even show the images on this forum.

The short version of my situation was:

"the roadway which leads to my work car park was closed off as a result of police incident (shooting). I literally couldn't get to work (yards away). Therefore i was advised by police to park on a side street and walk. I drove around for a long time looking for somewhere without lines and permit holder restrictions.

"Eventually i found a small street with no restrictions or signs. I walked to work and came back an hour later once the road was reopened to move my car to the work car park.

"I had a ticket on my return."

your letter of appeal (which is so long I stopped reading after a couple of sentences).

I appreciate it is long but that's because i feel there are numerous points on which the ticket should be cancelled.

ManxRed

Here's a link to your thread.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=74807

Sparkos

ManxRed - a hero :T

I stopped reading after a couple of sentences

ok, to cut through the long letter. The main points i still feel i have a valid case, despite the appeal rejection, are:

1) The PCN merely mentions a proportionate reduction of 50% as opposed to the 'amount' references in the Regulations.

2) Their appeal letter fails to answer why almost every other council goes to great lengths to clearly define the amount payable at every point, yet Hillingdon does not.

3) Use of the word 'payable now' on the PCN. The reduced amount is payable first not the full amount.

4) The catalogue of mitigating circumstances on the events

I'm just toying with the idea of either going through with it or not based on whether i have a reasonable case.

Coupon-mad

That was easier to read! Short and sweet as a readable summary of where you are with this.

OK I have posted an update over there on pepipoo, you are in a waiting game now, it will be the NTO next so there was no need to panic just because Sharon or Tracy at the Council clicked on the 'computer says no: early automatic rejection' button on her PC!

I say fight on and forget the discount because the dodgy PCN is your lifeline (IMHO). Pepipoo will want to see a pic of the rejection letter please.

Sparkos

Coupon-mad wrote:

no need to panic just because Sharon or Tracy at the Council clicked on the 'computer says no: early automatic rejection' button

Very funny:rotfl::T

Yes, sorry the length of my letter was provided mainly for the Council, so a shortened version works better here.

Pepipoo will want to see a pic of the rejection letter please

I will post the letter as soon as possible.

Thank you for your help and advice.

Sparkos

I have just noticed two other questionable elements on the original PCN.

Firstly, on the front at the bottom it states "The Penalty Charge of £110 will be reduced by 50% if paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date this notice is served"

To me that wording is suspect. Surely it should be "if the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served" as per the Schedule 8 of the Regulations.

The specific difference being 'not later than the last day of the period of 14 days' not 'before the end of the period of 14 days'. The wording doesn't match the regulation.

To me that suggests i have to pay before the last day of the 14 days, not including the 14th day.

However, my concern with this claim is that the statement appears on the Payment Slip, which isn't part of the PCN. But why put it there in the first place? Furthermore, they put the correct wording on the reverse.

Secondly, on the reverse of the PCN there isn't any provision to pay by cash or in person. What's the ruling on that?

Coupon-mad

I would include all of that, seeing as your appeal is based upon a flaw in the PCN wording already, this is just more of the same. And I agree with what you are saying - you are right that the payment slip isn't part of the PCN but how would a 'normal' motorist know that? They wouldn't, so I would add it in because you have found it to be misleading on top of the huge omission of no 'amount of any applicable discount' being stated.

As I said earlier, I can see the Council folding just before adjudciation (but I reckon they wil try one more rejection at formal stage first to try to call your bluff).

Time wil tell!