Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I'm sure I'll get around to kicking my Bank charges into touch, which always seem to be a rather 'Catch 22' situation- "...you haven't got enough money in your account so we're going to take more money that you haven't got off you..." (actually, I COULD have a reasonable amount in my account if I could but finally pay off those exorbitant bank card charges or persuade my three children, from whose mother I'm divorced, not to have a Christmas this year...).
But I digress- although at least you now know something about me.
I'd like to put you in the picture regarding a parking matter- about which there seems to me a wealth of information on your site. I wish I'd discovered it a few weeks back!
At time of writing, my other half has just received a 'Notice to Owner' regarding a parking contravention made (err... allegedly) by my good self (she is the registered keeper of our car).
So forgive me for jumping straight in, but I've been champing at the bit waiting for this 'notice' to arrive- annoyed that NCP (an anagram of pcn, surely?), under the guise of TfL... (i.e. neglecting to mention themselves at all on correspondence headed Transport for London- but their post code betrays them!) ...has cut me out of the equation.
The response to my letter... in which I pointed out that:
1) The signage was confusing (i.e. two notices on one pole, one denoting a 'Controlled Zone Monday to Saturday 8:30am- 6:30pm' (it was a Sunday), the other that it was a 'Red Route No stopping on any day 8am -7pm except 10am- 4pm 20 minutes max loading'), and that:
2) The Parking Attendant had put the location on the PCN as 'Great Portland Street NW1', which neither the Royal Mail or Multimap websites agree exists (it's actually in W1)... was addressed and directed to my partner, rather than myself (not in any way at that time identifying or acknowledging her as the registered keeper- rather, that it was HER who had carried out the (alleged) contravention).
This means..? I've personally had no formal response to my letter. Which is annoying.
This also means that the NCP operative has rather inappropriately jumped straight to the DVLA computer to 'target' my other half.
At the time (PCN: 11:26 to 11:29), I was under the impression that the 'red route' sign referred to the area outside the recessed bay I was in, and the 'controlled zone' sign to the bay itself. There is a certain logic in this, I feel.
If the 'Controlled Zone' refers to elsewhere, why is it directly beside the bay? The area either side of the bay (which it transpires contains a 'Red Box') has red lines- if the controlled zone refers to yellow lines further along the road, then surely it should be placed at the start of THEM..?
On reading further online (and boy do you have to dig), I now realise that there should be a 'controlled zone' sign on BOTH sides of the road, as there is in the next road along. More confusion. More reason the 'controlled zone' sign appears to refer to the recessed bay itself.
There should also be a two digit contravention code on the PCN printed next to the contravention. There is none on our PCN.
The contravention 'Stopped where prohibited on a red route or clearway' (the wording of our PCN) should have the contravention code 46 next to it.
However, if this then was a loading area at the time of the (alleged) contravention, then surely the contravention should have been noted as:
25 Parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading (incidentally, a minimum of 5 mins observation, according to one London Borough).
The NCP operative also stated that he was '...not permitted to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.' This is surely untrue? I'm lead to believe that it's down to discretion, rather than a hard fact of (civil) law.
Also- is there meant to be an investigative site report made out? Is there not also meant to be photographic evidence to support the PCN?
Neither of these matters have been mentioned by NCP /TfL.
It was stated in the original NCP / TfL 'response' that the Notice to Owner '...will be dispatched 28 days after the date identified in point one.' Point one states a date of 26 October 2006. The Notice to Owner is dated 14/11/06. That's surely 19 days. That's surely maladministration.
As too is NOT referring, in both their letters, to the PCN location stated as: 'Great Portland Street (NW1)', but as 'Great Portland Street (Westminster)'- an obfuscation of the fact that the parking Attendant made an error on the original PCN.
There is a very interesting Local Government Ombudsman's report online, dated 16th October 2006...
'Report on an investigation into complaint no 05/A/16230 against Westminster City Council'
...which refers directly to four counts of maladministration, the last of which states:
'Lastly, the Council failed to process incoming correspondence properly.'
As I hinted at earlier (and it's now very late), I've accumulted a fair amount of information. Consider yourself lucky. This is précised down from about 13 pages of quotes, cases, links and photographic evidence. Now we have an email address for NCP / TfL, we'll be able to send it on to them.
Does anybody have anything to add... (apart from the Bill of Rights act 1689)?
Hi welcome to the site.
This is certainly an interesting one though although there have been similar stories here.I have moved your thread into this section where,I am sure it will get some exposure/feedback from others who may be able to advise you further.
Try doing a search using the search tab at the top of the page.
If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon. Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed. Donations help CAG to help YOU Click here
Have you tried talking to the people at Patas and ask them for any similar cases to yours with adjudications. Apparently you can do thiis according to Money Box Junction
Be it 'yonks' later BUT came accross this thread from somewhere else....
In all cases where you dispute a clamping (now almost obsolete) or removal some tips. If you consider the action on your vehicle to be unlawful:
Go to where you vehicle was clamped/removed from.
Check road signs/marking.
ALL enforcements have images taken both of the vehicle/area/signage!
Take photographs yourself (we all now have image capable mobiles).
Fill in the appeal/representation form after paying to get your vehicle back - everyone is offered one so don't ignore it if you think somethings wrong.
Enter the appeal (within 28 days).
Persue it (meaning don't let it whizz by and be too late or loose heart)!
Wait for the responce.
The reply will be a yes or no.
If it's a 'yes' then you won.
If it's a 'No' then you make the decision of accepting/leaving it (bearing in mind they will have done some work in rejecting your claim).
If you are (seriously) positive there is an error then continue.
Remember if you go further and you loose then it's going to cost you.
This is to do with when you get clamped or removed due to parking restrictions/violations. Did I not detect there was a problem with a parking problem? I'm like giving advice (because I know in this area what I'm talking about)
Michael
"ALL enforcements have images taken both of the vehicle/area/signage!"
Really? Wanna point me at the legislation that says that? Yep, failure to do so by a Council so equipped would be dimly viewed by an Adjudicator but only on the basis of government 'guidance'.
-
Erm, sorry I think you are answering all your own questions here (and being seriously pedantic) but....
Last bulleted point equates to if you lose then you lose, you'll have paid the fine and charges and the end is as such.
You are asking or telling me about appeal/representation forms? You should be offered one. Now (at least) you know you should and if not ask for one/why you were not offered one. By your tone I'm sure you know all the stuff you are challenging me on.
Legislation about images? I think you'll find any half decent contractor or local council will take images. You can take images as well, no law against you not doing so.
I'm sorry but I stated a few easy and simple points and you are replying with some kind of attitude of being pernickerty. What's the problem here? You, by your replies and tone have lost and think you are above the current legislation or a special case or what? I cannot see why you are replying as you are.
Personally I have a car, I drive many miles and park in many places. I also know that you can get a ticket if you don't comply. I tend to 'not' get tickets, be argumentative and abide by the rules 99% of vehicle driving people do. Is that some kind of problem?
Oh, I've been clamped once and paid albeit sadly.
Michael
Notice to Owner
, surely?), under the guise of TfL... (i.e. neglecting to mention themselves at all on correspondence headed Transport for London- but their post code betrays them!) ...has cut me out of the equation.
Reply With Quote
Re: Notice to Owner
Originally Posted by InformedSearcher
