appealed a PCN but heard nothing
Discussion
btcc123 said:
I don't think that you were ever likely to win your appeal saying that you forgot to display your badge.Its not a great deal of difference parking in a car park,getting a ticket and submit an appeal based on you forgot to buy a ticket.
I think some councils have the view if someone has the ordasity to appeal then they will make sure they do not reply until after the timeframe of the opportunity to pay half the amount.
I agree with the first part of your post. But I have heard people being let off before, so it was worth appealing.I think some councils have the view if someone has the ordasity to appeal then they will make sure they do not reply until after the timeframe of the opportunity to pay half the amount.
The second part of your post is, of course, bulls
t.Thanks anyway
SS2. said:
MrJuice said:
What to do?
See Red Devil's posts from 12 & 13 January regarding their response being beyond the statutory 56 day maximum.
I posted the wrong link earlier. 
see below. The OP needs to be careful here about which stage he is at, particularly as this would surely have to have been a windscreen PCN issued by a CEO.
The 56 day time limit does not apply to informal appeals, only those in response to a NTO (a postal PCN counts as a NTO because it is served on the RK)
See - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/regul...
There is no time limit for the council to reply to an informal challenege but they must issue a Notice to Owner no later than 6 months commencing with the date of service of the PCN. If they do not the PCN must be cancelled. If no NTO has been issued then the OP has a problem because his ground for appeal was never going to fly.
That said, many (most?) LAs will keep the discount period open for a further period (usually another 14 days) from the informal representation rejection letter provided the challenge is sent in promptly (i.e. within the initial 14 day window). As this London Borough does - http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Transport_and_Str...
Given that the OP did so it seems to me very unfair that the LA in his case is refusing to do so. It has definitely done so for other people so a precedent exists. Using their own tardiness in responding to disadvantage the OP is discriminatory imo.
If it were me I would be pushing hard to limit the wallet damage to the reduced amount of £55.
Red Devil said:
Just had a light bulb moment. I posted the wrong link earlier. see below.
The OP needs to be careful here about which stage he is at, particularly as this would surely have to have been a windscreen PCN issued by a CEO.
The 56 day time limit does not apply to informal appeals, only those in response to a NTO (a postal PCN counts as a NTO because it is served on the RK)
See - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/regul...
There is no time limit for the council to reply to an informal challenege but they must issue a Notice to Owner no later than 6 months commencing with the date of service of the PCN. If they do not the PCN must be cancelled. If no NTO has been issued then the OP has a problem because his ground for appeal was never going to fly.
That said, many (most?) LAs will keep the discount period open for a further period (usually another 14 days) from the informal representation rejection letter provided the challenge is sent in promptly (i.e. within the initial 14 day window). As this London Borough does - http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Transport_and_Str...
Given that the OP did so it seems to me very unfair that the LA in his case is refusing to do so. It has definitely done so for other people so a precedent exists. Using their own tardiness in responding to disadvantage the OP is discriminatory imo.
If it were me I would be pushing hard to limit the wallet damage to the reduced amount of £55.
Now I'm really confused. The link you have posted suggests that the LA does need to reply within 56 days. There is no reference to windscreen tickets or otherwise. I posted the wrong link earlier. see below. The OP needs to be careful here about which stage he is at, particularly as this would surely have to have been a windscreen PCN issued by a CEO.
The 56 day time limit does not apply to informal appeals, only those in response to a NTO (a postal PCN counts as a NTO because it is served on the RK)
See - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/regul...
There is no time limit for the council to reply to an informal challenege but they must issue a Notice to Owner no later than 6 months commencing with the date of service of the PCN. If they do not the PCN must be cancelled. If no NTO has been issued then the OP has a problem because his ground for appeal was never going to fly.
That said, many (most?) LAs will keep the discount period open for a further period (usually another 14 days) from the informal representation rejection letter provided the challenge is sent in promptly (i.e. within the initial 14 day window). As this London Borough does - http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Transport_and_Str...
Given that the OP did so it seems to me very unfair that the LA in his case is refusing to do so. It has definitely done so for other people so a precedent exists. Using their own tardiness in responding to disadvantage the OP is discriminatory imo.
If it were me I would be pushing hard to limit the wallet damage to the reduced amount of £55.
Are you saying, for sure, that if the PCN is issued by a CEO, then the 56 day rule does not apply? If so, please say so. I find it very difficult to make sense of legal prose.
Thanks!
To see which stage you're at, have a look at this flowchart: it downloads as a .pdf which you'll need to open - www.patrol-uk.info/download/downloads/id/4/process...
The 56 day rule applies to a formal appeal at the Notice to Owner stage, not informal reps - https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/personal/parking-fin...
Part of the problem is LAs often don't make any distinction between informal reps and an appeal against a NTO.
They treat the first contact as an appeal rather than an informal challenge which may explain the template 56 day reference in their e-mail acknowledgement.
I suspect your only hope, other than the LA showing discretion to cancel*, is the PCN itself is defective.
http://www.appealnow.com/Penalty_Charge_Notice_Con...
Most LAs have now got their act together so non-compliant Regulation 9 PCNs are now rare.
* LAs are supposed to use this power, but in practice the default response is usually 'Foxtrot Oscar'.
The galling bit is that only they can do so. PATAS/TPT adjudicators have no such ability.
The 56 day rule applies to a formal appeal at the Notice to Owner stage, not informal reps - https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/personal/parking-fin...
Part of the problem is LAs often don't make any distinction between informal reps and an appeal against a NTO.
They treat the first contact as an appeal rather than an informal challenge which may explain the template 56 day reference in their e-mail acknowledgement.
I suspect your only hope, other than the LA showing discretion to cancel*, is the PCN itself is defective.
http://www.appealnow.com/Penalty_Charge_Notice_Con...
Most LAs have now got their act together so non-compliant Regulation 9 PCNs are now rare.
* LAs are supposed to use this power, but in practice the default response is usually 'Foxtrot Oscar'.
The galling bit is that only they can do so. PATAS/TPT adjudicators have no such ability.
Presumably it is an option to quote the legislation which has the 56 day rule in it and ask why it does not apply in your case?
The OP might then want to go on to say in any event its blatantly unfair that in view of their tardiness in reply to your appeal that you have to pay £110 instead of £55 and point out that it is therefore to their benefit not to respond in time as they get twice as much money. Therefore they have an incentive not to process the appeal in a timely manner. I would be tempted to cc it to my local councillors and MP and ask them whether it is correct that Councils are able to benefit from their tardiness in this way.
I suspect the penalty might get withdrawn just to encourage you to go away!
The OP might then want to go on to say in any event its blatantly unfair that in view of their tardiness in reply to your appeal that you have to pay £110 instead of £55 and point out that it is therefore to their benefit not to respond in time as they get twice as much money. Therefore they have an incentive not to process the appeal in a timely manner. I would be tempted to cc it to my local councillors and MP and ask them whether it is correct that Councils are able to benefit from their tardiness in this way.
I suspect the penalty might get withdrawn just to encourage you to go away!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff