Jump to content

Jamberson

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    5,404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Jamberson last won the day on April 29 2018

Jamberson had the most liked content!

Reputation

1,383 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Just gonna have to keep trying. If you called the payment line, I assume you're prepared to pay the balance, £188 minus £113 already paid = £75. It's definitely best to explain the situation to them, and that you have paid £113 already, or their systems will just show an outstanding balance. They are going to need to know what the situation is so they can close the file.
  2. The correspondence you have should spell out your options. Does it mention TEC, witness statements, statutory declarations or anything like that? It should tell you what you can do to contest it.
  3. Couldn't disagree more with the above advice, for two reasons: 1. It would be a mistake to think that because the PCN shows as paid on the council's website, your debt has been settled. 2. Not phoning the bailiffs is tantamount to burying your head in the sand. I know it's an uncomfortable situation, but you really neeed to meet it head on. The longer you don't, the more likely you will get enforement action and considerable extra fees. No-one has eplained why you shouldn't phone the bailiff. I think you should, you should tell them the situation and hear what they have to say about payment arrangements. You might head off a site visit and big fat charge just by picking up the phone. It is correct that bailiff fees are deducted first for any part-payment of the entire debt, which is what you made. You made it via the wrong route, and so it might not have gotten through to the bailiff yet - another reason to get into dialogue with them and sort it out. Can't see you have any practical way of avoiding payment for this, but better to get into dialogue and don't let them think you need tracking down - or they will track you down and charge you for the privilege.
  4. Late to this one, but just for future reference - these parking restrictions are applicable to the "highway", which comprises carriageway, pavement and verge. For them to be inapplicable, the area would have to be off-highway, which is practice means a passer-by would have to recognise they don't have free access to that piece of land - so there would need to be some sort of barrier, such as a fence, to communicate it. Since any member of the public would consider themselves free to walk over that bit of land, it forms part of the highway. The issue of ownership is irrelevant - private or public, the highway is enforecable.
  5. If you submit the TE7, which you definitely must do, make sure you explain fully and convicingly why you were unable to deal with this sooner. You can also attach proof - plane tickets or similar evidence to show when you were out of the country. Whether it gets accepted will be at the council's discretion, so try to be as clear as you can on the details. The additional costs are bailiff fees for chasing the case. You are entitled to a breakdown I believe, but for now, you need to try and get the whole bailiff thing revoked, so there's no point in looking into that as of now. Just get the TE9/TE7 filled out and sent off soon as you can.
  6. So, the bay was still suspended when you parked there - according to their reply. You appealed, they rejected the appeal. So you either needed to pay or refer to adjudication and it looks like neither happened for whatever reason. You received a charge certificate and an Order for Recovery, but I assume you took no further action until the bailiff caught up with you. Is that correct? Now you are submitting a TE9 it is out of time, so you need to also submit a TE7 explaining why it is out of time, or it will likely just get rejected. I would advise you do that ASAP, along with a new copy of the TE7, but unless you have a reason why it's run on to this late stage without being dealt with, I'm not sure you will have any luck.
  7. Hi. Who issued this PCN? Council or private company? And what are you meant to have done? Entering a Restricted Area is not a phrase I know but I don't know much about moving traffic violations, if that's what it is. What exactly are they saying you did to get the PCN?
  8. Your argument about full reimbursement doesn't seem correct. If you won the appeal for the PCN because the council failed to write back to you after the event, it does not mean the vehicle was towed incorrectly to begin with.
  9. Happy to give you some advice, but there are a couple of areas not explained in your posts. Just to go over them, clarification would help: The date of contravention was 13/07/2020. Since then, it has gone to Order for Recovery and then back to Notice to Owner. - How did this happen? Usually Order for Recovery is followed by a bailiff warrant. What happened, and when? When I received this second NTO, I responded via email saying the following: "I am writing to make representations against your NTO. There has been procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. I appealed your initial NTO dated 24/08/2020 on grounds that I saw no original PCN affixed to my car on the date of contravention. I therefore requested to pay the 50% discounted amount. Instead of written acknowledgement or rejection, I received a Charge Certificate." - You are right, you should have got a rejection, assuming a. they received your representation, and b. it was completed correctly. What were the dates (approx) of the second NTO being issued, and your representation being sent? Some general info which might be helpful: If you make a statutory declaration or witness statement to get the Charge Certificate revoked, one of two things will happen. Correct is that the Local Authority refer you to the adjudicator. Incorrect, but it happens, is that they will issue a new NTO. Assuming they do the latter, make representations (again). Either way you have an option of paying the charge, and that's the end - but it's not correct about the discount being reinstated. That's a concession to encourage prompt payment, and once it's gone, it's gone, although it is sometimes re-offered as good will. I would assume in this case it won't be re-offered due to the timescale. If you do make a statutory declaration or witness statement, no, don't include any notes. Just stick to the process to avoid any complications. All pertinent info, write on the form. And Spaceman61 is spot on. Your grounds would be that you made representations against the notice to owner but did not receive a notice of rejection.
  10. Give the guy a break! He obviously drove off because he didn't want to be parted with his hard-earned money. Who would? Didn't get away with it, but if you are to fight it you will need grounds. If you did the deed, hard to see how it will get overturned.
  11. I'd pay it. You've had three PCNs reduced to half a PCN. That's a result in my book.
  12. 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 so an N244 is the only formal route left open on that PCN, which is currently on hold waiting for the OP to decide what to do. And it DOES matter that he applies in time, if that's what he is ultimately going to do. However while we are in the brief stage where all three are on hold, I think there is mileage in sending a new set of three witness statements and seeing what happens, because two of them have not been decided yet, so far as we know. The Council cant reasonably reject one and accept the other two, if they are all filed on the same grounds. So I say go for all three again and see what they do - nothing to lose. Filing an N244 is not easy, and there are upfront costs which might not ever get recovered, so for me, that would be the last resort. However the option remains open.
  13. 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, and when you sent me the official notices out I was no longer living there and did not receive them. The first knoweldge I had of the PCNs was when I was contacted by bailiffs. Therefore I have not had an opportunity to pay or appeal them. This is why my application is late.
  14. @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 in time, and you can stall the process for months and months. @Manxman in exileThe court don't accept or reject it - the Council does. The law is on the side of the debtor. In law you cannot be fined without the right of representation. This has been tested up to the House of Lords in connection with PCNs, whereby you have no option to present a defence in court. The legal position is, the appeals process serves that defence purpose and so it is an absolute right to have the appeals process made available to you, and you cannot be deprived of it because you were negligent in advising DVLA, or for any other reason. The council is seeking to penalise you - they have to serve notices first so you can choose to appeal. Serving notices does not occur if you do not live at the postal address they use - whoever's fault it is. Therefore they have to re-issue them to your correct address. I understand your reasoning, but the system doesn't work quite as you describe.
  15. @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 because he was not living at the address they sent them to. That's all that matters for the sake of PCNs. The nine submissions came from when I used to run an appeals team in my local Council. We were aware we were probably non-compliant in some respects so I had one of my team research the Council's whole legal obligation and this is one of the facts which came up. I imagine most councils don't even know, but it's not really important. There's no grounds to reject a witness statement on the basis that another witness statement was submitted before. It will only be accepted or rejected based on the material facts concerning the notices and the reason for late submission.
×
×
  • Create New...