This was the famous press release from Barrie Segal which highlighted the invalidity of MILLIONS of parking tickets in the UK and led to the reknowned "Barnet - v- Moses" case in the High Court and a RESOUNDING SUCCESS FOR THE MOTORIST!

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE" £85 Million of Parking Tickets could be cancelled. 2 million parking tickets could be illegal.

Barrie Segal founder of AppealNow.com™ claims Westminster City Council, Camden and Lambeth Parking Tickets are ILLEGAL

Other councils involved [include], Tower Hamlets and Barnet. "I expect to uncover more illegal parking tickets - Millions of pounds are involved" says AppealNow.com's founder, Barrie Segal.

Motorists being fleeced for millions of pounds

Chartered Accountant Barrie Segal, the founder of www.AppealNow.com™, has challenged the legality of Westminster Council's parking tickets. He so far also challenged the legality of Camden's and Lambeth's,parking tickets as well as those of Barnet and Tower Hamlets.

Says Barrie

"Parking tickets information have to comply with a strict legal requirement. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991 the date of issue, amongst other things, must be shown on the parking ticket. Westminster Council's parking tickets do not, they only have the issue date on the tear-off slip which according to a recent parking adjudicators decision is not part of the parking ticket. (Some councils don't even print the issue date on the tear-off slip). Therefore all such parking tickets have been illegally issued.

"I have challenged Westminster, Camden, Lambeth, Enfield and the other councils quoting chapter and verse.

"I have also advised the Chief Parking Adjudicator in London of my views and requested that in the interests of justice all adjudicators consider the validity of the parking ticket when the make their decision. I have also written to the National Parking Appeals Service and the Scottish Appeals Service.

"I believe that the illegality that I have found is the tip of the iceberg."

Nick Lester, Director of Transport at the Association of London Government, stated that the matter would have to go before a London adjudicator for a decision. Westminster and Camden have disputed Barrie's claim.

Barrie says

"I have reviewed both Westminster's and Camden's responses and believe that they do not comply with the law as stated by the parking adjudicator. If necessary I will take up Nick Lester's challenge and take an appeal to the London Parking Adjudicator."

END

Notes for Editors

Technical information.

The Parking Ticket (technically called a Penalty Charge Notice or PCN) does not comply with Section 66 of the Road Traffic Act 1991('RTA 1991') as the date of issue is shown on the tear-off payslip and not on the PCN itself. (Please see the PATAS case review London Borough of Wandsworth v Al’s Bar and Restaurant (Case Number: 2020106430) and National Parking Adjudication Service decided case BC 188 Mr Roger L. Macarthur and Bury Metropolitan Borough Council.)

Section 66 (3) states:

(3) A penalty charge notice must state [my underlining]—

(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

(c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(d) 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;

(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.

The Parking Adjudicator states inter alia on pages 5 and 6 of the decided case BC 188 Mr Roger L. Macarthur and Bury Metropolitan Borough Council:

[underlinings added by AppealNow.com for clarity]

"To comply with section 66(3)(c), 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. In Bury, a motorist will search in vain for a 'Date of Notice' or 'Date of Issue' on the face of the PCN. A date is necessary because the 28 day period begins with 'the date of the notice'. In my view, if Parliament had intended the date of contravention to be the starting point for the relevant periods, it would have said so. The specimen PCN in the Guidance specifically shows a 'Date of Issue' at the top. The tear off slip is not part of the PCN and may be detached. The Bury PCN does not comply with section 66(3)(c), nor was it modelled on the Guidance. There is a serious possibility that real prejudice could be caused as a consequence of this omission - because of potential uncertainty as to when the 28 day period begins. The same reasoning applies to 'the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice' referred to in section 66(3)(d)."

You will see that Westminster's PCN fails on precisely this basis. Moreover there is no time of issue shown anywhere on the PCN.

Clearly this PCN and all other PCNs issued by Westminster Council are invalid.

AppealNow.com
Reversing the charges