Hi all,
First post, many thanks to Neil for advice by email. Thought I'd put details here of my ongoing case, all advice appreciated. Apologies for this is a long one, I've used bullet points and indents to break it up.
On 19th February 2007, I parked and paid for an hour on Sandland St in Camden, I arrived back at my car about 7 minutes outside of the time (unavoidable) and had received a ticket. Whenever I get a ticket I automatically appeal and this was no different. Since I don't count on the 'mercy' of adjudicators (ie. being slightly late to get back to my car) I simply went for the Bill of Rights defence and also that the ticket hadn't been applied correctly due to it being left under my wiper, not affixed.
The first thing I did on 28th September 07 was to write to them and ask how I go about appealing since there was no information on the back of the ticket regarding how to appeal.
on 11th October 07 Camden replied and their advice was to "send an enquiry (containing relevant evidence and reasons) to the above address" and details of the Notice to Owner etc...
I promptly replied with a formal appeal on 16th October 07 (this was obviously just outside the 28 days, but since I had written I assumed that I had kicked off the process).
Now during all this time, I had recently moved to a new address, so my car was still registered at the old one (fortunately my mums address) so I was actually getting correspondence sent to both addresses.
On 19th October 07 I received the NTO, and I then wrote another appeal to this 5th November 07, detailing the same arguments in my first appeal. At this point I referenced Aspire Loft Conversions v Camden, regarding the wording of the NTO which mentioned "you must pay..." . I also referenced Sched 6 (2b) of the RTA where “A notice to owner must state— (b) the grounds on which the parking attendant who issued the penalty charge notice believed that a penalty charge was payable with respect to the vehicle;” since it did not state this specific wording, it only stated this as a contravention.
I also complained that I had not received a reply to my original appeal. Looking back at it now, my letter was probably bit overreaching and sounded a bit arrogant, but I was just angry at the whole thing, especially since Camden doesn't allow any grace period, not even if you are travelling to a parking meter.
After this letter I recieved a letter dated 2nd November 07 (sent to my mums address), so this was the original reply to my first appeal, it was a rejection letter but they reset the discount charge to £40.
I decided to wait this one out for my second appeal. 23rd November 07, I received the rejection to my NTO appeal. They mentioned Aspire Loft conversions but said this did not apply because that was for a PCN, not an NTO. They were still keeping the charge at £40 for me, which was nice, and they enclosed photos taken at the time (by the warden).
2nd December 07, I formally appealed against the NTO (which is odd, since I already had sent 2x appeals, one for the PCN and one for the NTO). At this point I explained they should reply to one address so I could end the confusion. I mentioned all the points as before:
-
BoR
-
Aspire Loft Conversions
-
RTA Section 66 (1a) - Fixed to vehicle
-
RTA Sched 6 (2b) - Grounds for issuing (I interpreted this as based on wording not just contravention code and description)
-
I also referenced MacArthur v Bury as the original ticket had only a Date of Notice on the ticket, and a Date of Issue on the tear off slip- I didn't think these were the same thing(?)
On 19th December 07, I recieved a letter from PATAS, stating the appeal would be heard on 17th January 08.
On 4th January 08, I received a letter from Camden with a lengthy Case Summary and their evidence against me, a photocopy of a *blank* PCN and more photos taken at the scene of the 'crime'.
1st March 08 (2 months after appeal hearing!) I recieved the PATAS decision which was a refusal. The Adjudicators reasons were:
-
PCN was affixed to the vehicle (apparently "under the windscreen wiper" is good enough)
-
PCN displays 'Date of Notice' and NTO displays 'Date of this notice'
-
NTO states "PCN was issued 'because of the following contravention: Parked after expiry of paid for time'" - I guess the wording is not a problem
-
Mr Justice Collins decscribed BoR as 'nonsense'
The adjudicator concluded with a very personal and patronising statement (my emphasis):
"Mr ......... should be aware of the Adjudicators power to make an order for costs: ' By regulation 12 Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993 the Adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses, but may make such an order againsta party if that party has acted frivolously or vexaciously or his conduct in making pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable.'
The appeal Mr ........ has submitted bears no relation to the circumstances of this case. It appears to have been 'cut and pasted' from some other case or cases. I make no order for costs on this occassion but Mr ...... might not be so fortunate if he were to repeat the exercise in any future case."
I was infuriated by this comment. Fair enough my arguments were not good enough, but was he basically threatening me against making an appeal in future - which is my right?
I would have quit and paid up at that point but his patronising remarks spurred me on. It was then I found this site, and decided to go back to Camden (which I do not live near or visit) and find the spot. Sure enough, the markings were wrong and I took photos (I'll post these soon).
So I fired off a new letter on 11th March 08 requesting a review. I highlighted the following:
-
On the grounds that there is new evidence and the existence of this could not have reasonably been known or foreseen before the decision (3). - basically I do not live or work in Camden so I made a special trip to do this.
-
Enclosed photographic evidence, diagrams of road markings and extracts of relevant regulation
"Finally, in the Adjudicators Decision to my appeal, I note that Michael Burke commented that my appeal appeared to be “'cut and pasted' from some other case or cases”.
I am happy to admit as a citizen of the United Kingdom, I am free to research the law and defend myself when I am asked to pay a fine. I'm sure that the Head of PATAS would agree with the dictum “ignorantia juris non excusat” so I find it strange that Mr Burke would discourage this activity.
I would like to state that my original appeal was made as a layman with neither frivolous or vexatious intent. However, regardless of Mr Burkes' or my own interpretation of the law, I do not wish to pursue the earlier arguments and accept his judgment on them."
I received a reply to this on 4th April 08, that my letter would be "referred to the Adjudicator when he/she next attends the hearing centre ... In the meantime, I have written to the London Borough of Camden advising them of the correspondence and have requested them to suspend any further enforcement of the charge pending the Adjudicator's response to the correspondence." (my emphasis)
Then, dated 9th April 08, I recieved a Charge Certificate from Camden. I took a copy of this and forwarded it to PATAS on 22nd April 08, stating I was "very concerned" about the threat of court action, and I understood that they should not be doing this. Admittedly my letter was vague, I didn't ask for the case to be dropped. I heard nothing else after that.
On 24th April 08, PATAS notified me the review was scheduled for 6th May 08.
On 6th May 08, I received my second refusal from PATAS. This time the Adjudicator was "a different Adjudicator from the one who decided the appeal", so at least I had touched a nerve. The Adjudicator was "wholly unpersuaded" by the fact I could not have presented this evidence earlier. Interestingly he also states this:
"I am not persuaded that there was any difficulty in forseeability nor do I believe that the interests of justice requires a review here. The Adjudicators decision is final, subject to exceptional review grounds. This reflects on the principle that there is a public interest in the finality of proceedings. It also accords with the proportionality; the penalties in question are relatively small, and the proceedings relating to them need to be proportionate to what is at stake. It is not desireable for such proceedings to be unduly time consuming or protracted. If Adjudicators were freely to allow re-determinations of cases this would undermine public interest.
I do not thinkd that the interests of justice generally require that an Appellant should be allowed to re-argue his appeal putting forward fresh arguments that he could perfectly well have put in the first place."
Now the clerk simple stated at the end that I am "liable for the penalty, which [I] should pay without delay. Do not wait for the Local Authority to contact [me]. If [I] do not pay the penaty promptly, the Local Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty by 50%."
Oddly, the Local Authority already did issue a Charge Certificate, and this was not addressed in the correspondence. Also, no information given as to the time I have to pay (28 days?), or how much it should be.
So I wrote a final letter to them on 27th May 08, stating the following:
"Dear Mr Reeve,
Thankyou for your correspondence of 6th May 2008, notifying me of the Adjudicators final judgment.
I wrote to you on 22nd April 2008 to advise that I had received a charge certificate from London Borough of Camden before the adjudicator came to a decision on the review. I note that I have not received a response from you, neither did the adjudicator address this in his judgment.
I would therefore like to make a formal complaint as it appears the adjudicator has selectively rejected my appeal, and allowed an abuse of process by London Borough of Camden.
In your letter dated 6th May 2008 you stating “If [I] do not pay the penalty promptly, the Local Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty by 50%”. Please also note, your letter did not contain details of the period of time for my response before this 50% increase.
I believe that this is an abuse of process as described in the Road Traffic Act 1991 (s.6 p.4).
RTA1991 schedule 6 paragraph 4
4. Where any representations are made under paragraph 2 above but the London authority concerned do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under paragraph 2(7) above ("the notice of rejection") must—
(a) state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 6 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a parking adjudicator against the penalty charge;
(b) indicate the nature of a parking adjudicator's power to award costs against any person appealing to him; and
(c) describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to a parking adjudicator must be made,
and may contain such other information as the authority consider appropriate.
I now request that this Parking Ticket be cancelled since it has gone on long enough and although my request for review was on new grounds, the legality of this Charge Certificate was never addressed and is a situation that did not arise until after the review began.
Yours faithfully,
Mr .............
Enclosed:
1. Copy of Charge Certificate"
Sorry this has been long, thanks for sticking with it, those who have read this far, Neil has given me the following advice, any further input would also be great:
"Check out the BBC reports for yesterday ... and the DfT's statement that councils should refund where it is shown that the restriction is unlawful. Send me the photographs and I will check them over. Then approach the council with a request for them to confirm that the restriction is unlawful. FoI them for the last check by highways at the location to check compliance.
On the CC point ... this is maladministration and an unlawful demand for money. Initiate a formal complaint with the threat of civil action ... which will be compensation to the equivalent amount of the money that they are demanding from you.
Involve your MP in the complaint.
Check out the Miah v Westminster adjudication on the site."
I am now wondering what to do. Will Camden issue a second Charge Certificate? Do I wait for response from PATAS or write a second letter including the points Neil gave above?
It seems there has been an abuse of process (no doubt due to my persistence leading to their confusion) but I have felt patronised by the Adjudicators and that they really aren't acting with the interests of the public. If the charges are relatively small, and the proceedings inproportionatly long, why not drop it?
I will, of course, update this with any outcome.