Jump to content

Pocket Nines

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Pocket Nines

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. You're actually both right and both wrong. The matter does go to Court; in that although TEC is as Jamberson describes, it has the powers of a Court, i.e. appropriate authority as part of Northampton County Court. The term 'Liability Order' is riling Jamberson and I can understand. The equivalent, in this process, would be the Order for Recovery Michael mentioned. £8 is the registration fee charged by TEC who 'authorise' the issue, by the local authority, of that Order. Obiter you are mistaken and misleading by referring to 'civil action' which most will perceive to mean an
  2. You haven't shown the PCN? B&D currently flawed, last seen.
  3. This is very odd: No approval is needed for this camera. Was yours a parking case?
  4. Eh? What is this about? I haven't questioned the use of the word creditor; it's perfectly acceptable. I'm trying to help get your OOTs accepted cos at the moment, from various things you've said, you have zero chance of that. So, what have you actually submitted to TEC? What have you written on the forms?
  5. No, I have no interest in that at the moment. It isn't relevant to the matter at hand, your OOT applications and establishing if they have been correctly submitted and how you might ensure they are successful. I responded to this bit, making a suggestion that may help you > Your response didn't make any sense to me. We are not currently talking about your applications being unlawful: That only appeared to be case from your earlier statements. You've since gone half way to explaining.
  6. Sorry, I can't make head nor tail what you are saying there? Maybe a simple timeline - for just one PCN as an example, will help? PCN served on car -- Then -- Then --
  7. I understand from your earlier posts what you are trying to do. What you've achieved with the other PCNs is admirable and the person you are assisting sounds frustrating. I'm still a bit concerned about the reason for OOT but I'll come back to that. Going back first to your question about getting this back in the hands of the creditor, obviously a Local Authority but I'm confused by your more recent reference to "company"? I have a suggestion: If the creditor Council have been so helpful so far then you may be ok. OOTs are commonly rejected, as I'm sure you know, for one of two
  8. Let me guess; Hull? If they sent you TE3 and TE9 that was unlawful. (and may help you). Presumably your OOT was submitted on PE2 and PE3. Many people get these wrong: You have to pre-empt the Council objection to force the hand of the TEC Court Officer. Show what you sent in please + the copy of the Council objection (you should have?)
  9. From what you've said, you appear to have submitted unlawful applications? On the TE9 Witness Statement there are no grounds available if the "Ostrich defence" has been employed. Can you explain please.
  10. I'm cool; I acknowledged that 'did not receive NtO' is the closest to correct. Yes i do know Newham unfortunately and it is quite shocking. B&H may well have been better and your mention of 'equalities' is bang on. I think you might recognise though, that what Councils purport to do and actually do, are two different things. Having also worked in another in the past I recall the attitude was (although never openly stated) well we have an appropriate 'policy' on 'that' so all is well; What we actually do therefore doesn't matter. It's also the case, as i'm sure you've noticed, tha
  11. I have to stand corrected and apologise, for the simple reason I missed this >> She can indeed and yes, OP statements should be taken in good faith; I simply didn't see that statement made. i will edit previous posts appropriately so as not to confuse or "alarm" the OP. There's still a small problem that OP isn't the person who should have 'received' but overall she can work out how to explain to a judge that she deals with her husband's affairs. As you've said earlier, power of attorney would really be necessary. i wonder if there have been any major defining legal cases
  12. Stop assumimg and refer to exactly what the rejection letter says -- and how the new 14 days is calculated. So, back to beginning; You ask about Council proving you were parked in contravention but what exactly are you saying? You were or you weren't?
  13. Also, if you live in Newham, you should contact your local Councillor. they can't directly interfere but they should be interested in situations where vulnerable people are not being treated appropriately by the Council. Sadly, Newham are very poor at exercising any kind of discretion in such cases -- so Councillors will be interested.
×
×
  • Create New...