A few months ago (Oct 2013) I received a Penalty Charge Notice for allegedly contravening a restriction on using a road, which was reserved for buses only, in restricted hours, in the London Borough of Ealing.
I appealed to the Council, who rejected my appeal, and I made a further appeal to PATAS, who granted me a hearing before a Traffic Appeals Adjudicator.
I attended the appeal on Saturday, 22nd March, where I was offered the opportunity to present my case to an adjudicator, who is a Solicitor. The hearing took place in Angel. The evidence led by the Council was presented and was extensive and included video and photographs.
I took a multi-level approach and used the Department of Transport Signs Regulations, as well as pointing out a defect in the Penalty Charge Notice.
I won my case on Appeal. A small victory for the small man against Ealing Borough Council!
"He made a number of points concerning the adequacy of the signage at this place.
His last point was about the validity of the penalty notice.
The penalty notice in this case was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The local authority is entitled to issue the penalty notice to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle concerned.
Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London act 2003 says that the penalty notice must state:
1 the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
2 the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
3 that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
4 that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
5 that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
6 the amount of the increased charge;
7 the address to which the penalty charge must be sent;
8 that the person on whom the person is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and
9 specify the form in which such representations are made.
Mr Scruff drew to my attention that the payment slip states that payment must be made in 14 days beginning when the notice is served. This of course is wrong and contrary to the correct instruction in the body of the notice.
In R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator, CO/3355/2006, (judgment 2 August 2006), Mr Justice Jackson stated that a payment slip is not part of the penalty notice.
That case involved an on-street penalty.
This case involves a penalty notice-comprising documents-served by post.
I can therefore distinguish the judgment.
In any event in the case of Hackney Drivers Association Limited v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire County Council CO/7565/2012 on 31st October 2012 Mr. Justice Raynor when considering a penalty notice asked at paragraph 11 of his judgment, "what was fairly conveyed by the penalty notice, read as a whole?" The recipient requires certainty.
I find that the recipient of the penalty notice document read as a whole does not receive certainty.
I will therefore allow the appeal."
I appealed to the Council, who rejected my appeal, and I made a further appeal to PATAS, who granted me a hearing before a Traffic Appeals Adjudicator.
I attended the appeal on Saturday, 22nd March, where I was offered the opportunity to present my case to an adjudicator, who is a Solicitor. The hearing took place in Angel. The evidence led by the Council was presented and was extensive and included video and photographs.
I took a multi-level approach and used the Department of Transport Signs Regulations, as well as pointing out a defect in the Penalty Charge Notice.
I won my case on Appeal. A small victory for the small man against Ealing Borough Council!
"He made a number of points concerning the adequacy of the signage at this place.
His last point was about the validity of the penalty notice.
The penalty notice in this case was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The local authority is entitled to issue the penalty notice to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle concerned.
Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London act 2003 says that the penalty notice must state:
1 the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
2 the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
3 that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
4 that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
5 that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
6 the amount of the increased charge;
7 the address to which the penalty charge must be sent;
8 that the person on whom the person is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and
9 specify the form in which such representations are made.
Mr Scruff drew to my attention that the payment slip states that payment must be made in 14 days beginning when the notice is served. This of course is wrong and contrary to the correct instruction in the body of the notice.
In R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator, CO/3355/2006, (judgment 2 August 2006), Mr Justice Jackson stated that a payment slip is not part of the penalty notice.
That case involved an on-street penalty.
This case involves a penalty notice-comprising documents-served by post.
I can therefore distinguish the judgment.
In any event in the case of Hackney Drivers Association Limited v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire County Council CO/7565/2012 on 31st October 2012 Mr. Justice Raynor when considering a penalty notice asked at paragraph 11 of his judgment, "what was fairly conveyed by the penalty notice, read as a whole?" The recipient requires certainty.
I find that the recipient of the penalty notice document read as a whole does not receive certainty.
I will therefore allow the appeal."
Comment