Sorry, I am not getting involved in the sign argument. I can do no better than to state the PCN is invalid because it cites a ground from another legislation which does not apply to this contravention. It is as simple as that. Having thought the matter through, it is a complete waste of energy then to argue that it shouldn't be there because the sign does not need an order. It should not be on the PCN per se.

My approach when I started fighting tickets has always been to start from the legislation. The ground does not exist=akin to procedural impropriety. And I would wager they have been reading this - as they have learned from the other thread - and they will change the wording.

See this case where they sent out the wrong forms:- 211013314A

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

2110039979*, and 2120089430.

* The Authority have therefore purported to give the Appellant grounds to appeal to the Adjudicator which simply do not exist in respect of a Penalty Charge Notice issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

The fact that this appellant may or may not have been prejudiced by this is not a 'cure' to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. In the well-known decision of R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin), relating to a Penalty Charge Notice issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991, the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation was emphasised. Mr Justice Jackson said in that case "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."

It is not open to the Authority to vary the statutory grounds of appeal to the Adjudicator and considering carefully all the evidence before me I find that is the effect of the Authority's action in this case by sending the Appellant an appeal form that is for a different type of Penalty Charge Notice.

The enforcement cannot be permitted in these circumstances and, accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

The same arguments apply to the PCN! Game over.

Look at it this way. Supposing they issue you with the correct PATAS form for a moving contravention, then what? Because the traffic order was invalid ground will not be on the form! Here is the PATAS link:-

http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/en...vingtraffic.htm

The grounds on which you may make representations are:

You were not the owner of the vehicle at the material time;
The alleged contravention did not occur;
The person in control of the vehicle at the material time was in control of it without the consent of the owner;
You are a vehicle hire firm and the vehicle in question was, at the material time, hired under a qualifying hire agreement and the person hiring it has signed a statement of liability in respect of any Penalty Charge Notice issued to the vehicle during the term of the hire agreement;
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

Hippocrates - Thanks. The more I look at the PCN and the cases you cite the more I can see the strength of your argument. The PCN says " The grounds (set out in the Road Traffic Act 1991 - as amended & the London Local Authorities Act 1990-2003) on which you can make representations are set out below." That statement is misleading and simply not true for a number of reasons. The only place that grounds for representations for an alleged contravention under the LLATfL Act 2003 are (or have ever been) set out is in Schedule 1 of that Act. The Act itself says at 4(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must - (a) state- ........ (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this act; and .... The PCN does not state that. They have not nearly correctly set out the grounds in accordance with the schedule. The PCN invites me to make representations on grounds that are not valid or relevant. Yep, I see your point! This form is worded for parking offences.

EDW You are right in that the Act does not require photos to be included in the PCN but I am led to believe that Croydon has signed up to the London Councils Code of Practice for Operation of CCTV Enforcement Cameras which states at 2.5.12 "Still images must be provided in accordance with the relevant legislation. Notwithstanding this, authorities should include such still images on the PCN to show sufficient grounds for the PCN being issued." Stills were not included on the PCN and the PCN does not show sufficient grounds for its being issued. I believe that compliance with the authorities own Code of Practice is seen as essential to their operating with fairness and integrity. Thanks again for your assistance and clarity.

WHAO - WAIT ONE! Slight change here....
My wife has received a PCN for EXACTLY the same contravention, same place. Probably same day (middle of Jan). the CCTV footage shows that she DID give way - stopped completely. Waited. After a period of time she moved off. Just cannot be an offence.
Guess what - today she has received ANOTHER PCN for exactly the same offence from last week. In this instance she spotted the CCTV camera and was extra careful to make sure that she could not, in any way, be accused of failing to give way. But she still got a PCN.
I suspect that in these two days Croydon Council have just tried their luck and sent out PCNs to as many people as they could. There can be no other explanation.
Now what do we think we should do? We have made representation to BOTH PCNs - clearly no offence took place at either time.

the rule here is one PCN per thread.

Please start your own thread.

Re the inappropriate ground, in the cases I have cited, the council(s) have erred at the penultimate stage of the game by issuing the wrong/inappropriate paperwork with their NOR. In your case, they have erred ab initio by issuing a PCN, which is their primary evidence, and which is seriously flawed.

While we are all writing our mini-plays, are you keeping an eye on the deadline?

are there any cctv stills?

Date of service is 5th February.

OP - you say you've had a reply from the council regarding the video but not stated whether they have agreed to stay the enforcement process until this is received. We must know.

Re Hippocrates, if this were to apply then the whole of parking enforcement would collapse:

if I can do no better than to state the PCN is invalid because it cites a ground from another legislation which does not apply to this contravention. It is as simple as that. Having thought the matter through, it is a complete waste of energy then to argue that it shouldn't be there because the sign does not need an order. It should not be on the PCN per se.

There is a host of examples in reg 9 PCNs where a traffic order is not relevant but councils still use the same grounds for reps. In this respect I refer specifically to "dropped kerbs", footway parking, all off-street parking (if one wants to be precise) and zebra, pelican etc. crossing contraventions which are either established by statute, regulations or orders other than traffic orders.

Some time ago I suggested that an OP should use the argument regarding flawed grounds of reps in the case of a footway parking contravention but we didn't get feedback.

If the OP can wait for the video then I recommend that this is what they should do, as anything else would be premature.

I draw a distinction between what is an irrelevant ground and an inappropriate ground. Many councils include grounds which should not be included i.e. in parking contraventions or need not be included and I have seen at least one decision where this argument was not allowed. There has been advice to use such a ground as procedural impropriety but it hasn't worked. In this case, however, the issue is that they have included a ground which is alien to the legislation concerned. Croydon's status quo, therefore, is check mate. In any NOR, it would be impossible to wriggle out of the fact that they are using the wrong legislation on their PCNs. As I said before, I am willing to wager they will change the wording and very soon, notwithstanding the outcome of this present case, which has only one in my view.

I did not use this word.

Sorry, I am not getting involved in the sign argument. I can do no better than to state the PCN is invalid because it cites a ground from another legislation which does not apply to this contravention. It is as simple as that. Having thought the matter through, it is a complete waste of energy then to argue that it shouldn't be there because the sign does not need an order. It should not be on the PCN per se.

Over to the OP - video/contravention/discount period.

Thanks for your high quality input guys. What really miffs me here is that I honestly don't believe that the alleged contravention occurred or that there were sufficient grounds for the EA to issue the PCN in the first place. I've visited the site and I just can't see how what actually occurred at a busy complex road layout could possibly be evidenced reliably in this case from a single distant CCTV location beyond and behind the restriction. So I think I'll just send the reps letter in on Monday to get the matter looked at properly and if necessary get to PATAS asap. I'll post the reps letter here i.d.c. but in the meantime if any of you that i've come to know can suggest the best specialist London based professional representation for PATAS I'd welcome recommendations by private message. No commissions though! You do it cos you're the good guys

This writer has a 100% success rate of appealing PCNs before they reach PATAS. In your case, if you follow my advice, there should be no possibility of going to PATAS unless Croydon just push it to the wire for the sake of it, which is entirely possible.

Clearly, in view of your serious subscription to this forum and the pertinent questions you have asked, you have to decide for yourself whether you need or require assistance at PATAS. Frankly, in view of the merits of the case and the way the question as been phrased, I count myself out of the equation.

Moi aussi. Just got my miscreant son off, again.

But I digress.

How can the OP assert: I honestly don't believe that the alleged contravention occurred

You weren't there and, as far as I understand it, you haven't viewed the video - and for want of repeating myself, the video is the primary evidence NOT the pics.

I am not going to give you the reassurance you seem to want just to please you. If you do not view the video and make reps prematurely, then you're doing yourself no favours.

hca - I do understand your point and welcome the challenge but I have spoken to the driver who is quite certain about what occurred, I've seen the stills and referenced them to the location and have formed a very clear view in my own mind.

Which is?

Both of you should view the video then.

I have received a similar PCN.

absolute joke!

If you want help with your own case then please start you own thread; people will be reading through pages about a case that was over a long time ago, and confuse it with yours.

If you just wanted a quick moan, then this forum isn't really the right place for that!

+1

Make sure you consider relevant dates -they look conflated.

Mick