PCN 62 Hillingdon, London

Sparkos

Sparkos

Just noticed something very very random in their appeal rejection letter.

At the top of the 2nd page, they begin to reference the Traffic Management Act 2004

As far as i can see The Traffic Management Act 2004 talks about the contents of a fixed penalty notice. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/1...20040018_en.pdf

In my informal appeal letter I reference The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 which appears to deal with the Contents of a penalty charge notice

I have a Penalty Charge Notice and was under the impression that it differs from a Fixed Penalty Notice.

Is there a difference between the two?

I can't see why they would reference the Traffic Management Act 2004 in this instance as it appears to have no relation to a Penalty Charge Notice.

Am i right on that one?

Coupon-mad

I think that is not a valid point - isn't the TMA 2004 referenced at the top of your PCN?

That was a very quick template rejection letter! Or was that the rejection you'd already got, and you've since written again? Doesn't change anything. You were always going to get a rejection at first, but should see them fold in the end. So now you await the NTO (unless you really want to pay at the discount).

Sparkos

Hmmmm, ok sorry.

I thought it was very relevant as I'm arguing the non compliant PCN contents on The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007

They appear to be arguing it on the Traffic Management Act

Not sure which one legislates the PCN contents

So which are the correct regulations for the contents of a PCN?

Coupon-mad

Do try pepipoo again, hopefully one of the legal types will see your query if you bump your thread this time of evening (a good time to be at the top of that forum).

Sparkos

OK, so Penalty Charge Notices are technically issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

However, the regulations with regards to the ticket and appeals process is The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007.

All the Act does is to provide the authority and set the framework. The CPE sets the regulations for the contents of a PCN.

Correct?

Either way, my argument remains the same on the basis that they have failed to put anywhere on the ticket the reduced "amount" payable. I can't believe that for one second they are not obligated to put the actual "amount" payable (full or reduced) on the ticket! It's not even on the back.

Furthermore if their argument is that they way in which the "amount" has to be written is not specified in the TMA/CEPC then why bother putting the £110 on there in the first place. They could have just put that 100% is payable.

Is that just me that sees their claim in the informal rejection as stupid?

Coupon-mad

Yes you are correct, and no, it's not just you!

On pepipoo we have seen these tickets before and I do not recall one ever going in front of an adjudicator when this specific appeal point is made - I am sure the Council know their tickets are flawed but don't care because most people don't spot it.

An adjudicator can only find on the info the person has appealed on - and after all, the vast majority of the UK public are daft enough to just pay up when they get a parking ticket. Saying that, I was daft enough to do exactly that when I got a Council PCN 16 years ago! Never again, I would appeal ANY now, even if one of my teenage kids was driving and parked like a pillock!

Sparkos

I definitely think that point is worth appealing on.

One other point that i can't quite find the answer i'm looking for is the debate over dating on the PCN.

I've put this question on PepiPoo too but I wonder what you think?

There is no Date of Contravention on my PCN.

There is an Date Served which is accurate in relation to Schedule 1 (a) - the date on which the notice is served;

There is a Observed: At TIME on DATE - that would appear to relate to an observation. I appreciate Footway parking doesn't require an observation time, but i can't see how "observed" could mean the same thing as Date of Contravention.

And finally there is an "Issed At" date. I read through the Bury case - http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/d...ding_of_PCN.pdf - and it states "The date of the contravention is not the date of the notice even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention."

To comply with section 66(3)©, a PCN must have a date. The date of the contravention is not the date of the notice even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention. I accept that, in Bury, there are no notices issued after the event. Nevertheless, the absence of a date of notice is a serious problem because a motorist will not always be sufficiently au fait with the Act to appreciate that as a matter of practice (but not as a matter of law) the date of the contravention will usually be the same as the date of the notice. It is perhaps worth remarking, by way of example, that in certain circumstances in London contraventions can be photographed and then subsequently followed up with a PCN issued on a completely different date.

Is anyone clear on whether the Date of Contravention can be construed the same as the Date of Issue, Date Served or Observed At time?

Again, i just don't know why Hillingdon don't follow the guidelines and just put a date of contravention. It would kill these queries immediately. Why they chose not to follow the guidelines exactly is a mystery and leaves them open to challenge.

Thanks for all the help

Coupon-mad

I agree with you on that point too, nothing to lose by adding it when you are citing PCN flaws anyway.

It's going to be down to the opinion of the adjudicator or whether (more likely) the Council throw in the towel a week before the hearing.