Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About stuartw

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Ok thanks for the clarification Michael, I thought that would be the case. I better pay it I guess, as in my experience, common sense, intelligence and fair enforcement are largely absent when it comes to dealing with local authority traffic departments and of course, reasoned argument gets you nowhere.
  2. Hi, Just wondering if the 56 day limit applies to an informal appeal or is it only valid for an appeal in responce to a "Notice to Owner"? I have just recieved a reply from the council to an informal appeal against a PCN, a week after the limit was crossed. The appeal was refused and I've been informed that the "notice to owner" will be sent in due course. Can anyone clarify? Thanks
  3. Here's an update on this case for anyone interested and rather than go thru all the issues again, I'll presume the previous posts have been read. Finally, a year after the original PCN was issued, I had my day at PATAS. It was a confusing case, I was in there for quite a while and the Adjudicator couldn't decide at the time and wanted to go thru the documentation again. A decision was then posted to me and I'm happy to report that the appeal was allowed due to procedural impropriety. Which was: 1. the council had not included all the correspondence in th
  4. Sorry if anyone thought I was being stubborn, it honestly wasn't my intention and I do appreciate everyones contribution here. I've learned quite a lot along the way. I'm not against posting all the docs, but there's quite a few. I haven't mentioned my mitigation or even said what the PCN was for as I started this post to try and get clarification on the 56 day limit as the information I had found online was ambiguous. Of course anyone could say they didn't receive a response, but it's only valid if the council cannot provide a dated copy of the document. My experiences with PATAS
  5. The car belongs to my wife yet I drive it most of the time and in the 10 years that we've had the car I've received 5 or 6 PCN/parking tickets and when I've challeneged them It's always been me dealing with it on behalf of the keeper and I have never been told that this is incorrect. The local Authorities (at least 4 different ones) have been quite happy to deal with me with regard to the relevant case and I've never had it questioned, even by PATAS. How can they deal with me if they should be dealing with the keeper? shouldn't they point that out at the outset and isn't there issues of d
  6. She did sign the witness statement because it stated that only the registered keeper can submit the statement.
  7. Really? They've been corresponding with me throughout and I made it clear that I was acting on behalf of the registered keeper. It has never been an issue before in previous appeals/representations, so are they playing this one because they messed up by sending me the wrong notice of rejection?
  8. The NTO is dated 16/10/13 and the charge certificate was issued on 25/11/13. Having read thru the case history as submitted by the council they state that the NTO was sent to the registered keeper and named my wife and our address. She is the registered keeper though I was driving when the contravention occured. they then state "No payment or representation from the keeper was received" and below that they state "Correspondence from someone other than the keeper was received" However, when I responded to the NTO, I stated at the begining that I was making the representation o
  9. Ok, in their bundle is a copy of my representations both informal and in response to the NtO, however there is no copy of any notice of rejection. They have obviously not included the correspondence regarding the unrelated PCN.
  10. The Council Have now sent me, with out any prior notice, 45 pages of documentation and evidence, which I presume they've also forwarded to PATAS, though I have not instigated an appeal and PATAS have not contacted me. interestingly, when I first made an informal appeal I asked for photo evidence and they sent me a picture that didn't identify my car, I pointed this out and they sent me another which also did not clearly identify my car and in subsequent correspondence I've made several references to the fact that their photo evidence is flawed however the evidence pack they have now sent
  11. I think Impropriety, since they wouldn't accept my original appeal
  12. Great, that all makes sense now. Many thanks for your help and I'll let you know what happens.
  13. OK 1. The letter from the court states that the order for recovery is revoked and that the charge certificate is cancelled. It further states that the original penalty charge has not been cancelled and that the local authority may take further action. It doesn't mention the NtO, that was probaly my mistake misreading the PATAS website. 2. The witness statement was submitted on the grounds that I made representations but did not receive a rejection notice. What I don't understand about the 56 day limit is what it is actually for, because that limit had been reached in this case y
  14. Thanks for the help, it is confusing. I'll see what transpires next
  15. Ok, there seems to be some confusion, I'll try and clarify. 1. I received a notice to owner and made a formal appeal. 2. I received a reply but it was for an unrelated PCN that was nothing to do with me, the reply refered to other information in my appeal, so I know it was received, yet they have not issued a notice of rejection relating to my PCN. 3. I then received (and challenged) a charge certificate 4. I received a "gesture of goodwill" letter offering to accept a discounted payment. 5. Having not made that payment, I then received an order for recovery, which was successfull
  • Create New...