Jump to content

Jamberson

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    5,394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Jamberson last won the day on April 29 2018

Jamberson had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,380 Excellent

1 Follower

About Jamberson

  • Rank
    Gold Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'd pay it. You've had three PCNs reduced to half a PCN. That's a result in my book.
  2. I don't want this thread to get sidetracked on this matter. However for the sake of clarity, you can submit up to nine, but each one has to be submitted at the appropriate stage of the process, which is after an Order for Recovery has been issued, and normally only one would be submitted. But the council can issue a second Order for recovery later on, depending how the case progresses, and if they do, a second Witness Statement can be made, and so on, up to nine times. But none of that is particularly relevant to this case. In the OP's case he has had one Witness Statement rejected
  3. I would not file an N244 right now, I would send a new TE9/7 for that PCN and see what happens. However keep it in mind as an option, in case it comes to that. If you do have to go down that route, your second TE7/9 may in fact strengthen your case - but first things first. In your TE7 you must explain the situation clearly or they are likely to reject it. I would say something like this: In xxxx I lent my car to a friend named xxxx. I since learned he received three PCNs, but he did not tell me about them. I left me previous home on xxxxx dur to family circumstances, a
  4. @Will GoodfellowLet's not get too bogged down in this nine applications thing - it's not really relevant, but you are right it's a perfect tactic to frustrate the system. However it depends on the Council repeatedly issuing an Order for Recovery, which they shouldn't do, although many will. If they do issue one, then someone can respond to it with a TE9 every time. It's standard. Would be very unusual to keep submitting out of time ones, as they will have the correct address after the first one and will look to issue notices there - so they can then reject it. But do it
  5. @Will GoodfellowDebtor files witness statement on the grounds he did not receive the notices. Council looks to see whether that is plausible. If it is, witness statement should be accepted. The whole point that out of times are possible is because problems like this arise, and the most common grounds for filing them is this one. It's what the process was set up for. Failure to update DVLA is common and whoever's fault that is doesn't matter. OP has a legal right to defend himself against forfeiture of goods and so the Council must serve him notices first. He hasn't been served any
  6. dx is right though. The grounds for having the application accepted out of time only hinge on the reasons why it is late. Not having the car registered to the correct address is a convincing reason why the forms could not have been submitted in time, and so it supports the application. If the car was registered to the correct address that would weaken the application, as no-one would belive three separate notices failed to arrive at the house. But if the OP isn't living there when they are delivered, then that all makes sense.
  7. The CEO may have kicked them to show why he was issuing the PCN. Basically, the leaves were covering the lines when you parked, and when you collected the car at a later date. If there are three sets of photos showing the state of the road between those two dates, I would want to see them all - if just one shows the lines not visible, I think it would strengthen your case. Anyway, if you have appealed already, it's a case of wait and see for now.
  8. I missed this post, but just reading through it - I hope you have not just made complaints, but have followed the appeals process? You must do that! OK, leaves aren't fixed in place. You were ticketed on three separate days. There should be three sets of council photos taken on different days. Is your argument that, when you arrived, the lines were hidden by leaves so you had no idea they were there? If so, compare that with the photos the council has to see what the road looked like when the CEO arrived on the scene each time. That will give you a good base-line idea of how strong
  9. It's more than "reducing the amount". It removes the threat of any bailiff action and revokes their execution warrant and fees, and it gets the OP back in the appeals process, which is what he wants. He can then appeal them or pay, and will have a month to do one of those, or better, he can ask his friend to pay them, and the situation can be resolved. As to why the vehicle was registered to this or that address, it's not relevant. That's the sort of diversion which he doesn't need to get concerned with. Just showing why he did not receive the official notices is what he needs to d
  10. You have a good case and may well win. I will be happy to tell you what to do. Before I do, let me just say this: I am always concerned when I hear about solicitors being involved in parking tickets. I presume he/she is charging you for their services, whether you win or not? You can get all the advice you need for nothing, elsewhere. Most solicitors know little about the PCN process in my experience, but will still take your cash whetever happens. If I were you I would not pay anyone a penny for their advice. If your solicitor knows their stuff, this is what they will have told yo
  11. The garage put the car in the parking bay after inspecting it? They then failed to keep feeding the meter for you? I would say your argument is primarily with them, but forcing them to pay the PCNs doesn't seem realistic, so they've landed you in it. In terms of your appeal, I would be looking for proof it was towed to the garage, some sort of paperwork from the garage, proof it was scrapped - that kind of thing. It's not a guaranteed win, but stronger then just proving you're no longer the keeper.
  12. Complete rubbish. You're not helping people by making up things. They can tow any car which is in contravention, regardless of whether there is a "porking" place nearby. I'm not sure what COVID-19 has to do with it, but you have a right of appeal against the charges. What were the circumstances which might win an appeal for you?
  13. Sure. 1. PCN issued (usually onto vehicle windscreen) 2. 28 days later, Notice to Owner (NTO) by post - the discount is forfeited by now, but you can still appeal 3. 28 days later (I think) Charge Certificate (CC) - right to appeal expires when this is issued 4. Order for Recovery (OR) - this opens the possibility of making a Witness Statement, to get the case set back to NTO stage, and back into the appeals process. The adjudication stage is available if you appeal during the NTO stage, and your appeal is rejected. However the legislation states that if
  14. You have included two images of notices from Traffic Enforcement Centre stating the Order for Recovery and Charge Certificate has been revoked. However the PCN numbers are obscured on both. I am therefore assuming they are each for a different PCN - if that assumption is wrong, then what follows will be wrong too. When the CC and OR are revoked, the Council should refer the case to the adjudicator. What they sometimes do is issue a new Notice to Owner. You have not included any such documents, but you should find out from the Council ASAP whether they issued them. A sim
  15. In addition to you being insured to drive, every vehicle on the road has to have a policy covering it. You wouldn't be able to legally drive a vehicle if the vehicle has no policy covering it. Is that the situation you were in? No-one had a policy for that specific car? On the question of the tow, when you were towed you were also issued a PCN for the parking contravention. What was the contravention code/description as stated on the PCN?
×
×
  • Create New...