Has Anyone Reclaimed Paid PCN

[bmwman]

Hi All

I really need some help understanding this one.

Concerning what happens after receive the charge certificate. See below

Charge certificates

6 (1) Where a notice to owner is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the authority serving the notice may serve on that person a statement (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.
(2) The relevant period, in relation to a notice to owner, is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a) where no representations are made under paragraph 2 above, with the date on which the notice to owner is served;
(b) where—
(i) such representations are made;
(ii) a notice of rejection is served by the authority concerned; and
(iii) no appeal against the notice of rejection is made,
with the date on which the notice of rejection is served; or
(c) where there has been an unsuccessful appeal against a notice of rejection, with the date on which notice of the adjudicator’s decision is served on the appellant.
(3) Where an appeal against a notice of rejection is made but is withdrawn before the adjudicator gives notice of his decision, the relevant period in relation to a notice to owner is the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the appeal is withdrawn.

Enforcement of charge certificate

7 Where a charge certificate has been served on any person and the increased penalty charge provided for in the certificate is not paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the certificate is served, the authority concerned may, if a county court so orders, recover the increased charge as if it were payable under a county court order.

Invalid notices

8 (1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) a county court makes an order under paragraph 7 above;
(b) the person against whom it is made makes a statutory declaration complying with sub-paragraph (2) below; and
(c) that declaration is, before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which notice of the county court’s order is served on him, served on the county court which made the order.
(2) The statutory declaration must state that the person making it—
(a) did not receive the notice to owner in question;
(b) made representations to the London authority concerned under paragraph 2 above but did not receive a rejection notice from that authority; or
(c) appealed to a parking adjudicator under paragraph 5 above against the rejection by that authority of representations made by him under paragraph 2 above but had no response to the appeal.
(3) Sub-paragraph (4) below applies where it appears to a district judge, on the application of a person on whom a charge certificate has been served, that it would be unreasonable in the circumstances of his case to insist on him serving his statutory declaration within the period of 21 days allowed for by sub-paragraph (1) above.
(4) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the district judge may allow such longer period for service of the statutory declaration as he considers appropriate.
(5) Where a statutory declaration is served under sub-paragraph (1)(c) above—
(a) the order of the court shall be deemed to have been revoked;
(b) the charge certificate shall be deemed to have been cancelled;
(c) in the case of a declaration under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, the notice to owner to which the charge certificate relates shall be deemed to have been cancelled; and
(d) the district judge shall serve written notice of the effect of service of the declaration on the person making it and on the London authority concerned.
(6) Service of a declaration under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above shall not prevent the London authority serving a fresh notice to owner.
(7) Where a declaration has been served under sub-paragraph (2)(b) or (c) above, the London authority shall refer the case to the parking adjudicator who may give such direction as he considers appropriate.


As I can see it ifm you do not pay on the charge certificate the issuing authority can request an enforcement order from TEC. This then has to be sent to you along with an appeal form. This has to be done befor it can go to a collection agency or baliff for enforcement. Or enforcement can be deemed to be illegal.

Enforcement.

78.—(1) In this section—

• "certificated bailiff", means any person authorised to act as such under subsection (6) below; and

• "a Part II debt" means any sum which is—

• (a) payable under, or by virtue of, any provision of this Part of this Act; and

• (b) recoverable as if it were payable under a county court order.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision—

• (a) for warrants of execution in respect of Part II debts, or such class or classes of Part II debts as may be specified in the order, to be executed by certificated bailiffs;

• (b) as to the requirements which must be satisfied before any person takes, with a view to enforcing the payment of—
  • (i) a Part II debt; or
  • (ii) such class or classes of Part II debts as may be so specified,
  any other step of a kind specified by the order.

(3) Any such order may make such incidental and supplemental provision (including modifications of any enactment other than this Act) as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of the provision made by that order under subsection (2) above.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision in connection with the certification of bailiffs under this section and the execution of warrants of execution by such bailiffs.

(5) The regulations may, in particular, make provision—

• (a) as to the security (if any) to be required from certificated bailiffs;

• (b) as to the fees and expenses payable with respect to executions by certificated bailiffs; and

• (c) for the suspension or cancellation of certificates issued under this section and with respect to the effect of any such suspension or cancellation.

(6) For the purposes of this section, a person is a certificated bailiff if he is authorised to act as such by a certificate signed—

• (a) by a judge assigned to a county court district; or

• (b) in such circumstances as may be specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, by a district judge.

(7) Any person who is not a certificated bailiff but who purports to levy a distress as such a bailiff, and any person authorising him to levy it, shall be deemed to have committed a trespass.

CPR 75
The same happens here as in SCHEDULE 6, councils skip service of a notice of debt registration, and appeal form / N244 or P2/P3 statutory declaration. Call the TEC centre weekly after receipt of a CHARGE CERTIFICATE, ask if it lodged, and if it is REGISTERED as a debt, THEN GET YOUR OWN statutory declaration / download, or TEC will email you one, and appeal all the way back to the PCN stage where your rights have been abused.

Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75.3 (1) The authority must file a request in the appropriate form scheduling the amount claimed to be due.
(2) The authority must, in that request or in another manner approved by the court officer
(a) certify –
(i) that 14 days have elapsed since service of the notice of the amount due;
(ii) the date of such service;
(iii) the number of the notice of the amount due; and
(iv) that the amount due remains unpaid;
(b) specify the grounds (whether by reference to the appropriate code or otherwise), as stated in the notice, on which the authority claims to be entitled to claim that amount; and
(c) state –
(i) the name, title and address of the respondent;
(ii) the registration number of the vehicle concerned;
(iii) the authority's address for service;
(iv) the court fee; and
(v) such other matters as required by the practice direction.
(3) On receipt of a request that meets the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2), the court officer will order that the amount due may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order by sealing the request and returning it to the authority.
(4) On receipt of a sealed request the authority maydraw up an order and must attach to it a form of statutory declaration for the respondent's use.
(5) Within 14 days of receipt of the sealed request, the authority must serve the order (and the form of statutory declaration) on the respondent in accordance with Part 6.

(6) Where an order is served by first class post (or an alternative service which provides for delivery on the next working day) rule 6.7 is modified so that the date of service will be deemed to be the seventh day after the date on which the order was sent to the respondent.


Electronic delivery of documents



1 Have I got this right
2 Do the issueing Authority send the enforcement order.

	County Court guidebook by Judge Patricia Pearl Follow this link to read the review of this excellent Small Claims Guidebook. This comprehensive and very accessible guide will take you through the process of suing or defending a claim. This guide will help you take control of your litigation and make you more confident about doing it yourself. Applies to England and Wales

[Medusa]

You have it right, BUT.


The issuing authority – BAD NAME, they ARE NOT an authority because they are celled so. An authority is some body / one who ALSO shows respect for its electorate, and leads by example. That must be earned, and I haven't seen that yet. They are a council, and elected, so they are PUBLIC servants, don't you forget that, and don't let them.


In the fine art of omissions for commissions, they frequently FORGET, in what they call administrative errors! Thus a true assertions is manufactured by economy of truth into a false implication serving a greater detriment.
I said check with the TEC weekly, and see IF it is registered, and IF you receive what you ought to. IF NOT, then step in and ask for one from TEC over the phone.


All this is explained in the case going live at http://www.logiclaw.co.uk
click on the W V Camden et al, left nav bar link, The material is already placed and the Link will go up today. A direct link is being connected later today by mid afternoon.


BTW their reply on earlier post; their letter to you, uses the art of ambiguity. Sent to YOU, WHO IS THAT, and AT WHAT ADDRESS? And if YOU didn't receive the same then the omission happily increases the debt due to alleged implied postal failure. Look at what happened with utter precision in that same format in the link coming up later today. The other wording is totally omniscient in that it in-FORMS the recipient what he DID when he may not have done so. Care here on wordings.
They say in that copy, that YOU DID NOT MAKE AN APPEAL
ONLY you can KNOW that, NOT THEM, they can only KNOW they didn't RECEIVE ONE do you see that? It's a fundamental principle in epistemology that omniscience is ruled out of such rebuttable presumptions, and it manufactures semantics as to what you did, when they are NOT omniscient, but guessing. You will see that in the thread later, fully exposed as it goes live in stages.


Be aware, that TEC global statements of truth are regularly compromised and that TEC's code of conduct is full of the term 'offence' where all these things are actually SUPPOSED to be civil penalties, as per Justices Jackson and Collins; for the simple reason that in renaming a detriment is a false emphasis on a class type distinction, that's alluring and makes you feel that you received something OTHER THAN a detriment. The council coming up later calls these things AWARDS? And provide shops for collection of the revenue, so the experience of parting with your money is like retail therapy. All very fascinating.
BTW, I would have put this on your other thread, but they have a habit of removing unpleasant truths.




They CERTAINLY do know what an enforcement order is, as they probably ISSUE thousands, and hundreds as certainty no doubt. They may call it something else, in the fine art of semantics, but whatever they call it, in their terms it will belong to the precise same class of things as a registration of debt, and consequent order for recovery, through a bailiff. These forms sometimes, too often fail to get RECEIVED, because NOT SERVED, and when questioned closely, as in a court witness statement, they will swear that the documents were ISSUED TO, meaning precisely that. ISSUED TO in the office but NOT sent out or served. You can see why instantly, because the bailiff camaraderie is to benefit at the next stage.


The system allows that all they require is the OMISSION to receive payment, without reference to the OMISSION of service their side. THAT is where flaws and false causes are manufactured.


SO. keep in contact with TEC frequently, and IF registered, where NO forms arrive then get them direct, and make the representation saying so. AT that stage, if you maintain the pressure to ensure communications DO NOT fail, then it will get transferred to the local CC for a hearing, no cost. The stat dec, is out of time will be dealt with at court, and depending on the Judge, will be accepted or declined.
BTW this department doesn't invest in people as it says at the foot of the letter, look around all the letters and they are full of such subliminals, Particularly look at the PCN, NO, and CCs that use the word pay so many frequently it amounts to subtle persuasion.


One could go further with the semantics of their letters, but this is not the forum for it. The link wil do so.

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[Medusa]

As promised, the case that should help you has been posted here.

Menu link here....
Abuse of Authority, Breach of Contract.
or Direct link here...
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice

[bmwman]

Hi All

Phoned Hastings today regarding my FIO request or copy of enforcement order should have asked for a copy of the notice of debt registration.

Any way requested a copy of this on the phone only to be told that they are not allowed to send out copies because they have date as postmark on them. This I beleave would make them invalid.

Can they refuse to send a copy if I send a request under the data protection act.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by bmwman

Hi All

Phoned Hastings today regarding my FIO request or copy of enforcement order should have asked for a copy of the notice of debt registration.

Any way requested a copy of this on the phone only to be told that they are not allowed to send out copies because they have date as postmark on them. This I beleave would make them invalid.

Can they refuse to send a copy if I send a request under the data protection act.

Frankly I reckon that is complete and utter clap-trap.

In the first instance they can mark it as "COPY".
Secondly if they do state "date as postmark" how is anyone to know what the postmark and hence the date of the DR is?

I would ask for this confirmation in writing so you can complain to the Info Commisioner.

[Medusa]

I am off for a while, but
If you have not got an enforcement order, then I assume you also don't get an appeal form.
So IF you download one, and return it by email, in 24 hrs it should all be put on appeal and a new process begins.


The certainly CAN do what you ask, but are not inclined to, also it is the first sign of 'culpa lata' a hidden fault that discloses deception.

AS BERNIE states with utter precision...... – utter clap trap-

[bmwman]

Hi Medusa and Bernie the Bolt

Thank you for your replies.

I will do a Data Protection Act letter to Hasting info officer to see what happens but suspect I will get a load of claptrap back. Then put a complaint into the Information Commisioner.

Once Agian Many Thanks

[bmwman]

Hi All

Here's a copy of Data Protection Act letter

Freedom of Information Officer
Town Hall
Queens Road
Hastings Date 10/01/2008
East Sussex
TN34 1QR

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Data Protection Act 1998 request for [PCN Number HS55046555

Please send me the information which I am entitled to access under Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘1998 Act’) a copy of the original Notice of Debt Registration pertaining to the above PCN.

If you require any further information please let me know as soon as possible.

I enclose a cheque in favour of your bank in the sum of £10 with respect to the maximum statutory fee for processing this request.

I look forward to your response within the maximum 40 day timelimit under the 1998 Act.

Yours sincerely


Lets see what this brings

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Personally, I'd do it this way:

Attention: The Data Controller

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Data Protection Act 1998 - Data Subject: [My Name] - Subject Access Request

Please send me the information which I am entitled to access under Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘1998 Act’). This being all data which you hold in any of your departments in a "Relevant Filing System" as defined in the Act this includes all data that can be reached by cross-reference of any identifier and especially all information that can be searched for using computer search facilities.

I would expect this to include a copy of the original Notice of Debt Registration pertaining to PCN Number HS55046555.

I enclose a cheque in favour of you in the sum of £10 with respect to the maximum statutory fee for processing this request.

I look forward to your response within the maximum 40 day timelimit under the Act.

As an alternative, I am prepared to withdraw this request if you provide wiyhin the same timescale a copy of the original Notice of Debt Registration pertaining to PCN Number HS55046555.

Clearly this will save you considerable effort and in this regard I do not feel it appropriate for you to charge and should you choose this route, please return my cheque for £10.

If you require any further information please let me know as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully

I've tried this approach and it often saves me a tenner!

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

[bmwman]

Hi bernie the bolt

Thank you your letter much better than mine so will send yours

Many Thanks

[bmwman]

Hi All

I was talking to one of my customers this morning about Hastings and there parking tickets. He told me of a run in he had with Hastings cr**ks.

He and his wife look after two disabled children and took them to the Sealife Center in Hasting The car park that she parked in was vertually empty and displayed her Blue Badge. When they returned to the car she had received a PCN. She contacted Hastings Parking services and was told she was parked in a non disabled bay and that she could only use the blue badge to park in disabled bay and on double yellow lines what a load of Bo**ocks. This has given an insight in to the type of idiots I will be dealing with mind you I new that anyway.

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[Medusa]

I was talking to one of my

acquaintances in email exchanges, and he gave me this link that casts the right colour on what you are describing also.

BOLTON PARKING APPEALS

[adampaddam]

An adjudication of the 2 date iss was heard on 26th Oct 2006 and released three weeks later by adjudicator Stephen Knapp. this is the first adjudication of a 1 date PCN for nearly a year. See Mr James Melvin Keiller v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. Case Number BO 05339M also see article Bolton News The Bolton News, daily, Wanderers, Phil Gartside, Kelly, Reebok Stadium, tv, video, Bolton MP
If anyone wants a PDF of the adjudication PM me with your email address and I will send a copy.
Go through the LGO first before Court, if you get nowhere with the LGO you can go to SC Court, you cannot do it the other way round the LGO will not entertain you.

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[Medusa]

An adjudication of the 2 date iss was heard on 26th Oct 2006 and released three weeks later by adjudicator Stephen Knapp. this is the first adjudication of a 1 date PCN for nearly a year.

Actually there was another at PATAS on dec 15th 2006, case ref 206045033A
And others for similar issues are here.
http://logiclaw.co.uk/LG/LGS.html

But evidence now shows PATAS as playing bias with the rulings, and this is going to be made public soon.

[bmwman]

Hi All

Thank you for the replies. These will be very help full in my claim against Hasting Council. Hastings are taking the same attitude as Bolton. It is not my intention to just write to them and try to get my money returned. I want to get them into court and get a judgement against them. This is due to there attitude. So if anyone else here's of any more cases I would be very interested to here. Alter all the more ammunition I have to take to court the better.

Once again Thank You

[Medusa]

Don't hold your breath,but something is expected over the weekend that affects most councils on invalidity of tickets, enforcement and clamping, for about the last 9 months. I will come back on it.

[bmwman]

Hi adampaddam

Thank you for the copy of Bolton adjudication.

Made very interesting reading I liked the part about the date of contravention will be on the NtO. So I checked my NtO NO date of contravention. This will be something to watch for on NtO's in the future.

Once again Thank You

[bmwman]

Hi All

I have a question Starting to get Paper work ready to send of to TEC and have a question about PE3 Form it asks for date of contravention yet the PCN and NtO have NO date of contravention so do I leave it blank.

Many Thanks

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[bmwman]

Hi All

Came accross this little snippet laast night

Birmingham City Council have just been refused leave to appeal at the High Court an NPAS decision to invalidate its PCN’s because they only showed one date. The Council does not intend to pursue the matter.

This applies to tickets issued in 2006 and possibly early 2007.

Does any one have any more info on this.

Also NPAS site now seems to have a few cases listed now.

Came accross this one

Mr C
-v-
Hastings Borough Council

Case No: HS0013
Adjudicator’s Reasons
The facts of this case are not in dispute. Mr C’s vehicle parked without displaying a valid
pay and display ticket and was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for that
contravention. It is also not in dispute that the machine adjacent to the space where Mr C
was parked was out of order. It did not display any direction that if it were out of order a
ticket should be purchased from another machine in the vicinity. Mr C’s case is that in
the absence of an express provision in the Traffic Regulation Order, backed up by a
direction on the machine, to the effect that if the machine is broken the driver must find
another machine to purchase a ticket, he says there is no onus on him to do that. The
Council say there was another machine a little way away and clearly visible from where
Mr C had parked, and he should simply have had the sense to go to the machine and
purchase the ticket.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1991 the right to appeal to a parking adjudicator arises when
the owner of a vehicle has been issued with a Notice to Owner, has made representations
against that notice and the parking authority (in this case Hastings Borough Council)
have rejected the representations.
A Notice to Owner is a statutory document and the requirements for a Notice to Owner
are set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 of Road Traffic Act 1991,
“1. (1) Where
(a) a penalty charge notice has been issued with respect to a vehicle under section
66 of this Act; and
(b) the period of 28 days for payment of the penalty charge has expired without
the charge being paid,
the parking authority concerned may serve a notice ("a notice to owner") on the
person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the
alleged contravention occurred.
(2) A notice to owner must state –
(a) the amount of the penalty charge payable;
(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;
(c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date on which the notice to owner is served;
(d) that failure to pay the penalty charge may lead to an increased charge being
payable;
(e) the amount of that increased charge;
(f) that the person on whom the notice is served ("the recipient") may be entitled
to make representations under paragraph 2 below; and
(g) the effect of paragraph 5 below.”
In this case the Notice to Owner served on Mr C was issued by Hastings Borough
Council on 10 January 2000. The document does not expressly state the provisions of
paragraph 1(2)(c), namely that the penalty charge notice must be paid before the end of
28 days beginning with the date of the on which the Notice to Owner was served. Instead,
the Notice to Owner form is printed with the words,
“If you fail to pay this charge or make representations to the Council by”,
and there follows a box with a computer inserted date, “04/02/00” (emphasis added).
Even assuming that the Notice to Owner was sent First Class post to Mr C, the earliest
that service would have been effected by delivery to Mr C’s address is 11 January. The
Notice to Owner therefore only allowed 25 days for payment or to make representations.
Therefore the Notice to Owner did not comply with the statutory requirement that 28
days are allowed from the service of the Notice to pay or make representations.
The effect of a council disregarding the statutory provisions set down in the Road Traffic
Act 1991 for notices and time limits was considered in Moulder v Sutton London
Borough Council (1994 LPAS 1940113243). The Adjudicator, G.R. Hickinbottom,
following Sedley J.’s (as he then was) judgment in R -v- The London Borough of Tower
Hamlets and the Tower Hamlets Combined Traders Association, (1993 unreported)
determined that where the Road Traffic Act 1991 stipulated that (in the Moulder case) a
Penalty Charge Notice “must state” certain requirements (Section 66(3)), those
requirements are mandatory. Therefore a Penalty Charge Notice failing to contain each of
the requirements set down in Section 66(3) is void and unenforceable.
Since Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 6 of the Act sets out the requirements to be contained
in a Notice to Owner in the identical words, namely,
“A notice to owner must state”,
it follows that the requirements are mandatory. Any Notice to Owner that does not
comply with those requirements is void and unenforceable.
The Notice to Owner served on Mr C by Hastings Borough Council did not comply with
Paragraph 1(2)(c) and is consequently void and unenforceable. I therefore allow his
appeal and direct Hastings Borough Council to cancel both the Notice to Owner and
Penalty Charge Notice.
Because of my finding that the Notice to Owner in this case is void, it is not necessary for
me to deal with substantive issue of whether Mr C should have purchased a ticket from a
machine other than the broken one adjacent to where he parked.
Finally, Mr C asked me to consider an application that Hastings Borough Council to Pay
his costs. He had gone to considerable trouble in presenting case. Regulation 12 of the

Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999

states that

costs shall not normally be awarded unless the unsuccessful party has acted wholly
unreasonably, frivolously or vexatiously. I have considered his application carefully, but
while I am of the view that it is generally unreasonable for a parking authority to issue
notices which do not comply with the Road Traffic Act 1991, I do not regard Hastings
Borough Council’s conduct of the particular case to be wholly unreasonable. In those
circumstances I do not find that this case falls within one of the exceptions to the
principle that costs shall not be awarded.
Caroline Sheppard Dated 25th May 2000

Adjudicator appointed under 73(3) Road Traffic Act 1991


Looking at my NtO seems to me that Hastings did not correct there NtO's after this ruling could this be breach of duty of care.

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[pt2537]

Hi,

just thought id mention that i have not seen mention of WOOLWICH EQUITABLE BUILDING SOCIETY RESPONDENTS AND INLAND
REVENUE COMMISSIONERS APPELLANTS - [1993] A.C. 70 in this thread.

if your PCN is unlawfull then this case may be a very useful case to read up on as it concerns payments made to public authorities in error

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.