Has Anyone Reclaimed Paid PCN

[lamma]

Interesting, wonder why they are going to this trouble and expense over a few tickets....
keep us posted

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by lamma

wonder why they are going to this trouble and expense over a few tickets....

I guess, the same argument could be used against the OP to.

[lamma]

No. the council is spending a LOT of (public) money, the OP is doing it for free.
the question is why is this so important that the council is expending so much resource on it.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by lamma

No. the council is spending a LOT of (public) money, the OP is doing it for free.
the question is why is this so important that the council is expending so much resource on it.

Are you suggesting if anyone puts in a claim against the Council they should just pay up regardless of any right or wrong just to avoid spending public money?

[lamma]

Not at all - you are attempting to infer it.

I will say that if the council had their act together and were doing their job in the fist place, as statute demands of them, and their case was solid, they had the signage, and TROS in order, the paperwork was good etc then they wouldn't need to fielding a team as the adjudicator would simply find for them.
Sounds like a 'rescue squad' to me. I wonder just what and who they are trying to rescue.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by lamma

Not at all - you are attempting to infer it.

I will say that if the council had their act together and were doing their job in the fist place, as statute demands of them, and their case was solid, they had the signage, and TROS in order, the paperwork was good etc then they wouldn't need to fielding a team as the adjudicator would simply find for them.
Sounds like a 'rescue squad' to me. I wonder just what and who they are trying to rescue.

What has the adjudicator got to do with County Court?

[lamma]

If the council's case was solid the adjudicator could/would have found for them with a non-controvertable decision.
If the council's case was solid they could counter in the county court with minimal effort and manpower.
They seem to have far to much 'coverage' here... QED

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by lamma

If the council's case was solid the adjudicator could/would have found for them with a non-controvertable decision.
If the council's case was solid they could counter in the county court with minimal effort and manpower.
They seem to have far to much 'coverage' here... QED

This saga is 11 pages long but from memory the PCN was paid so no adjudication was made on BOTH sides. The Council is corect in its position the County Court is not in a position to adjudicate on DPE matters if they (the council) allow the claim it could set a precedent.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

This saga is 11 pages long but from memory the PCN was paid so no adjudication was made on BOTH sides. The Council is corect in its position the County Court is not in a position to adjudicate on DPE matters if they (the council) allow the claim it could set a precedent.

No it couldn't. County Court cases never set precedents.

This is not a DPE issue. It is about restitution for payment of an alleged civil debt paid in error because of a mistake in law and/or fact. Don't allow the fact that the civil debt arose as a result of DPE cloud the issue.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by Bernie_the_Bolt

No it couldn't. County Court cases never set precedents.

This is not a DPE issue. It is about restitution for payment of an alleged civil debt paid in error because of a mistake in law and/or fact. Don't allow the fact that the civil debt arose as a result of DPE cloud the issue.

Sorry I didn't mean a legal precedent more that a win would encourage others to follow suit if the case went in the drivers favor.

[Rob S]

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

Sorry I didn't mean a legal precedent more that a win would encourage others to follow suit if the case went in the drivers favor.

And what is wrong with that? If local authorities are getting it wrong then others should be able to follow suit and claim their money back. If local authorities were acting within the law then you wouldn't get situations like this arising.

[green_and_mean]

Originally Posted by Rob S

And what is wrong with that? If local authorities are getting it wrong then others should be able to follow suit and claim their money back. If local authorities were acting within the law then you wouldn't get situations like this arising.

What is wrong with that is the Council consider they are acting within the law and have had no reason to give the money back. Until the Court decides otherwise the Council has a duty to protect the public money and cannot just send people money because they feel a bit hard done by.

[lamma]

Also the council should not be keeping money it has taken from the public by acting ultra vires. The people matter more than the council.

[bmwman]

Hi All

Thank you for your replies

Green_and_mean says Hastings beleaves they are acting within the law.
never mind the fact that they ignored a high court ruling and the NPAS circular that clearly states PCNs with one date are unenforceable.

Below is the dates of the docouments issued and the court case etc

Penalty Charge Issued 28/10/2005
NtO issued 28/11/2005
Charge Certificate Issued 26/01/2006
Barnet Decision 02/08/2006 (2 dates required)
NPAS Circular re Barnet sent to all councils saying 2 dates mandatory PCN with ONE date unenforceable 11/08/2006
Hastings Register as Debt with TEC 04/09/2006 Some 8 months latter. (Now unlawfull enforcement)

Many Thanks

[Medusa]

Green_and_mean says Hastings beleaves they are acting within the law.

.........I just love that expression.....It's like Buckingham Palace 'said' today. “abcede”.........
A palace has 'vocal chords', and somebody now 'knows' a county, 'believes', when a county is a general term (the people collectively) used for a 'body' of council 'officers' who now also [ the body that is] have cerebral organs.
Nicely framed abstractions alright. ......Do they persuade one of anything relevant beyond hearsay and conjecture?
One thing for sure......
IF it's true that anyone in particular 'believes', then what they 'KNOW' is far more important. And that's very simple to determine between 'mens rea' and 'actus reus' that often diverge in accord with a basic human function I shall not dilate upon.

the Council has a duty to protect the public money

If that is true, then they should LEAVE the public money IN the public's pockets, rather than gain it unlawfuly and hold onto it ulawfully. I never heard of protecting my brother's money by KEEPING it in MY pockets.
Unless he was away and couldn't keep it himself or perhaps needed to be 'sectioned', and I had a nice power of attorney.</p>

[bmwman]

Hi All

Thank You for your replies

I received a new court order last Monday vacating the hearing on the 7th August.

However looking at the new Court Order their are some serious mistakes on it.

I am the Claiment/Respondent
Hastings are the Defendant/Appellant




So I am now serving myself. Yes I have already written to the Court pointing out thier mistakes.

Many Thanks

[bmwman]

Hi All

Contacted TPT this morning about viewing the register for appeals only to be told I would have to travel to Manchester to view them.
However looking at the Statutory Instrument. I should be able to view this at Hastings Offices. Can anyone confirm this for me Many Thanks
Statutory Instruments 1999 No. 1918
The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999

PART IV

The Register
The register
20. - (1) The register shall be open for inspection by any person without charge at all reasonable hours at the accommodation provided for the parking adjudicators by the local authority in accordance with the relevant Scheduled Order.

(2) The register may be kept in electronic form.

(3) If the register is kept in electronic form, the duty to allow inspection is to be treated as a duty to allow inspection of a reproduction in legible form of the recording of the entry the inspection of which is being sought.

(4) A document purporting to be certified by the proper officer to be a true copy of any entry of a decision in the register shall be evidence of the entry and of matters contained therein.



Signed by authority of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions


Glenda Jackson
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

30th June 1999



Signed by authority of the Secretary of State for Wales


Peter Hain
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Welsh Office

30th June 1999




<A name=sch>SCHEDULERegulati on 2(1)



THE SCHEDULED ORDERS


(1) (2) (3) (4) Item Designation Order S.I. number S.I. number of amending Order 1.The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (County of Hampshire, City of Winchester) Order 19961996/11711996/2017 1999/1322.The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Areas and Special Parking Areas) (City of Oxford and Parish of North Hinksey) Order 19961996/26501999/16683.The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (County of Buckinghamshire) (High Wycombe Town Centre) Order 19971997/561999/16674.The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (County of Kent) (Borough of Maidstone) Order 19971997/20781999/130 1999/6395.The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (County of Hertfordshire) (Borough of Watford) Order 19971997/23041999/16696.The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Borough of Luton) Order 19981998/32071999/16667.The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Manchester) Order 19991999/131 8.The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Portsmouth) Order 19991999/768 9.The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (County of East Sussex) (Borough of Hastings) Order 19991999/1112 10.The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (County Borough of Neath Port Talbot) Order 19991999/1288