Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Westminster PCN: Can they do this?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5764 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I wonder if anyone can tell me if City of Westminster are in breach of any regulations:

 

I have just received a Charge Certificate Notice, but no previous correspondence (including a PCN).

It claimed that:

Parked in a Restricted Street etc

In London Street (no postcoded so I have no idea where that is!)

'Observed by: civil enforcement officer ...' ... on 24/05/2008.

 

At the top it says Penalty Charge Notice Issue Date 02/06/2008

 

It claims that 'A Notice to Owner (which experession includes a Penalty Charge Notice served by post) 02/06/2008'

 

I have a number of questions:

 

Are they allowed to issue a PCN and NTO at the same time?

As I understand it, postal PCN's must allow 21 days at the discounted rate. Surely there must be a further period at the full rate before issuing a charge certificate?

Can Westminster really issue a charge certificate with an additional £60 on 8th July ... just over one month after issuing the PCN.

 

Suffice to say that I will be making a Stat Dec as I didn't get the NTO and making an appeal.

 

Any information would be much appreciated.

 

thanks

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. But what does that mean in terms of my rights? Can they issue a charge certificate so quickly?

 

thanks

 

mark

it seems you may have had a ticket via cctv. These double up as pcn's/nto's AFAIK. you have 21 days to appeal to keep tha 50% reduction.

Or 28 days to pay the full amount.

 

If you havent had the pcn the write a to the la and complain

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the info.

 

The PCN was apparently issued by CEO no. XXXX, so it clearly wasn't a CCTV PCN.

The CEO wasn't actually visible to me, so I find the whole thing rather sneaky (and presumably the PCN is invalid). As I understand it they have to have either attempted to hand it to me, or at least started to issue the PCN. I was actually dropping off a passenger (on a single yellow line) so I was in my vehicle for the whole period of around 1 minute.

 

The problem, however, is that they have now issued a Charge Certificate. Am I correct in thinking that my only option is to make a Satutory Declaration then appeal it from there?

 

thanks

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the info.

 

The PCN was apparently issued by CEO no. XXXX, so it clearly wasn't a CCTV PCN.

The CEO wasn't actually visible to me, so I find the whole thing rather sneaky (and presumably the PCN is invalid). As I understand it they have to have either attempted to hand it to me, or at least started to issue the PCN. I was actually dropping off a passenger (on a single yellow line) so I was in my vehicle for the whole period of around 1 minute.

 

The problem, however, is that they have now issued a Charge Certificate. Am I correct in thinking that my only option is to make a Satutory Declaration then appeal it from there?

 

thanks

 

Mark

Unfortunately they don't have to hand it to you these days. The days of drive offs are gone. Of course if the PCN dates before 31 March 2008 then that is a different kettle of fish as that was when the law changed.

 

You need to get a Stat Dec done as quickly as possible, on the basis you didn't receive the PCN or NTO, as the next step is getting the bailiffs involved.

 

BTW get the Stat Dec sworn at your local county court and it won't cost you anything.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a more general issue, I think this represents a real problem for motorists. Bascially I wasn't parked (contrary to what the PCN states), however because the CEO 'observed' parking they saw fit to issue a PCN in my absence, no matter how spurious. In this case I was simply dropping off a passenger and was clearly NOT parking.

I am, however, put in a position where I have to question the honesty of the CEO involved.

This is now the third time in less than a year that a Westminster PA/CEO has basically lied about what happened - on the previous two occasions they claimed that they handed me the PCN (pre March 2008). On one occasion I had a witness and none on the other. In spite of making a formal complaint,

Westminster saw in favour of the PA, even though one of the PCNs was cancelled on appeal.

What's more, Westminster appear to have a policy of issuing NTO's and charge certificates as rapidly as possible, thus making as difficult as possible for motorists to dispute PCN's.

 

So my question is this: how are we going to deal with dishonest CEOs combined with an over-zealous authority who seem to support these CEOs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's more, Westminster appear to have a policy of issuing NTO's and charge certificates as rapidly as possible, thus making as difficult as possible for motorists to dispute PCN's.

 

 

The time frame for issuing documents is set down in law if they are sent too early or too late they are invalid. You can appeal an NTO (that is one of the primary reasons for issuing it) so getting one promptly does not prejudice your right to appeal.

Your original post does not make sense in respect of the times and the wording can you post a photo or scan of the documents you have received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've attached a scan of the Charge Certificate (blurred a few bits to project the innocent!)

 

I spoke to Westminster today and they said that they would consider my appeal, which is fair of them, at least.

 

I have downloaded the video from the Westminster website, and observes my vehicle for just over 1 minute, where I was stopped on a yellow line with my indicator on.

I was dropping someone off, so my engine was running and I didn't leave the car. As the contravention is for parking, then I presume the PCN is invalid. To have parked there would have meant turning off the engine and leaving the vehicle, for which there is no evidence.

Is that a reasonable basis for an appeal?

 

thanks

 

Mark

 

scan0002.jpgscan0002.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The time frame for issuing documents is set down in law if they are sent too early or too late they are invalid. You can appeal an NTO (that is one of the primary reasons for issuing it) so getting one promptly does not prejudice your right to appeal.

 

Is it possible to send an NTO too early? Westminster seems to have sent mine within a week of the contravention. Is this allowed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to send an NTO too early? Westminster seems to have sent mine within a week of the contravention. Is this allowed?

 

Looking at the paper work it seems you got sent a combined NTO/PCN which would mean it was a CCTV observed contravention (which is why you didn't see the CEO). The options are now to either pay up or send in a statutary declaration stating you didn't get the NTO and then if it is accepted you can appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that I was dropping someone off. However the video is too short to show someone exitting the car. There is less than a minute where the video is on my vehicle. That was not enough time to gather her bags and leave.

Surely the fact that my car was observed for such a short period of time means that there is insufficient evidence?

I would be happy, for example to provide two witness statements from my passengers to say that I was dropping off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

for ordinary yellow lines you are allowed to stop for passengers to alight.

Ask for the rest of the video.

 

Westminster - there are 41 million stories in the naked (greed) city, this is one of them...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is accepted. upon filing a stat dec with the TEC the TEC then contacts the LA and tells it to cease (current) enforcement. How can the LA refuse the stat dec ?

 

If it is not completed properly or for the wrong reason it will not be accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"wrong reason" ?

 

You have not received the notice to owner or enforcement notice;

 

You made representations to the Local Authority but you did not receive a rejection notice; and

 

You made an appeal to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator (following the rejection, by the Local Authority, of your representation) and you received no response.

 

are the only grounds to file a declaration, if you for example file saying you got a NTO but forgot to deal with it your application will be refused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case I didn't get the PCN/NTO so my grounds are quite reasonable.

At this stage I don't need to get a Stat Dec as Westminster have said they will consider my appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...