Jump to content

Pocket Nines

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pocket Nines

  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 action in Court: There is none, as liability for the debt is pre-confirmed by the parking (or related) legislation; requiring no judgement. Jamberson has already explained this. Hence registration is all that is required and it really is all automated. Your earlier mention of 30 days is further misleading and, given the OP's situation, potentially dangerous. The Order, in this instance, will allow just the 21 mentioned earlier. FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY: What is MICHELLE actually asking here? Does she just want to delay payment? - in which case she has a little time. Or something else? Perhaps she should explain how it got this far and exactly what documents she received prior to the Charge Certificate.
  2. This is very odd: No approval is needed for this camera. Was yours a parking case?
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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 --
  6. 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 reasons:- The most common is - a) Incorrectly completed forms (in a number of different ways) but then b) Almost routine objection by Councils which, despite having little substance, cause TEC to reject you. So, looking at a) I would have assumed confidence until I read you had submitted two sets of forms? but b) is what we really need to look at. If you can persuade the Council to NOT oppose your OOT then, barring any technical cock-ups on the forms, the OOT will be accepted. Your track record suggests this is a real possibility. What do you think? --- Back to my concern about the reason for OOT. Can we, btw, stop referring to them as "appeals" as it is a misleading description of what are, simple, applications to the Court (TEC). Another question: You now talk about them in the plural? Is there more than one? The reason you now state is that "appeals" submitted but no response received. Again, that generic term 'appeal' is misleading. It is only accurate at adjudication stage. I'm not being picky, it's vitally important: These are either 'challenges' in response to PCNs served on the vehicle or 'formal representations' in response to the Notice to Owner (or postal PCN). You may only submit a Witness Statement in respect of receiving no response to the latter of those. Your description of events, particularly "next day" is hence worrying. One last question: Are all of the PCNs for alleged parking contraventions?
  7. 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?)
  8. 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.
  9. 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, that cuts have affected Council attitudes to enforcement and they quite blatantly go hell for leather to get money through the enforcement route to the detriment of all other concerns.
  10. 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 on the subject of acting for someone with literacy difficulties? I would still like to see a full timescale of events from the OP, not least because Newham frequently cock - up. I am also still concerned at the letter to the Council. Only because a well known bailiff expert has told me that Councils tend to take advantage when people disclose vulnerability and worry. It is, however, a good idea to convey the info to Newham because they are currently notorious at failing to apply discretion and deal with various vulnerable members of the community appropriately. Their inevitable failure might be useful later. It may be better to engage the help of a Councillor to forward such a message. A Councillor can't influence the outcome but they do have the effect of keeping the enforcement team in check while asking for the matter to be looked at. That has the effect of getting the info across with the added benefit the enforcement team are under Councillor scrutiny. I still, however, disagree that it doesn't matter which box is ticked on the TE9; Your first advice was correct as I've said. Apart from making a false or uncertain Statement being unlawful, it will confuse the case later if inaccurate. Whilst they shouldn't, any Council objection will address the claim on the TE9, hence the need for accuracy.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. Ok sorry, I posted the last without reading later posts. We don't have dates or an explanation of what kind of "appeal" you made, or what documents yopu found had been received when you returned. See later posts but if you do proceed with TE7 and TE9 despite this lack of clarity, then -- What happens next? ---- the Council are likely to routinely oppose your application. then you will have the chance for a judge to decide at your local County Court - but this now costs £155 I'm told (normally recoverable if the Judge agrees). Research N244 -- the next stage. But as I said -- more detailed, up to date advice in the bailiff section of the forum.
  14. This needs moving to the bailiff section pronto! If she gets any more advice to write again to the Council and flag up her predicament I'm sure Tom Tubby will be the the first to tell you that bailiff will be round before you've got back from the post box!! that said, I agree with jamberson's sentiments; the Council should be helpful but won't be. SALEEM. How do you know this is with bailiffs? You said you had an Order for Recovery - which includes form TE9 (only) and you should have completed that when in time. What happened with that?
  15. There is so much wrong it's difficult to list it all. I don't have the time. I'm probably not allowed to mentioned any other on-line forums but there certainly is one, with more active members, who will tear into this. No, I've got the answer I was looking for. The PCN fails to tell you what to write! You weren't specific in that you didn't specify a time, date and office to view the vid. That's because the PCN fails to tell you that is what you must do and that is your right: It is therefore unlawful. Viewing available on-line is not decreed as an acceptable alternative in law; The written request info is still required. See what Michael posted earlier. (Incidentally; Why haven't you viewed on-line?) -------------------------------------------- ++ The NoR has the timescale for payment or appeal to the Adjudicator wrong -- but again, I don't have time to explain fully here. Maybe others will? The statement - 'not on hold' contradicts the clear statement on the PCN that cases ARE held? There is probably a lot more to use. Michael also mentioned that they have 'fettered your defence' by their obstruction to viewing the vid. I agree but I also think this amounts to a 'procedural impropriety'. they have not provided access to the vid in the way that the law prescribes and, although not directly stepping outside the statutory process, they have stepped outside their OWN stated promises. ---- You are lucky beacuse the fact you say you may have been there for considerably longer than is allowed for alighting would lose for you. Re-boarding, as you describe, is also not allowed. BUT - you're going to get away with this because of the Council's incompetence.
  16. I stand corrected. Thanks Michael. Worth a check of local policy on letting off first time BB offenders maybe.
  17. I can't recall hearing of a correctly displayed BB and clock (assuming that was so) not being valid in a Resident Permit bay? It is a common exemption in most traffic Orders. I suggest you ask for the relevant Order and post it here. Show the rejection ---- because you say they refer to 'you should know where to park'. Well, yeah but what info did you get with the BB on where exempt and what applies locally?
  18. So you made a request to view the video but were not specific. Why? i.e. what exactly did the PCN say in regard to the right to view the footage? Actually, where is the PCN? lets' see it. If it misled you in this respect or omitted mandatory info then it helps you.
  19. Ah. N.I. has it's own process for PCNs. That said, is it actually a PCN (for which you have your own Regs, etc.) ? I'm not sure if some areas might still use the old 'criminal' legislation. Either way, it is worth checking their stated 'policy' on how they deal with mitigating circumstances. Yours might be considered to come under 'medical emergency'.
  20. But it isn't at all is it. that's been explained and it's hardly rocket science. How could either CEO know the other would also issue or had also issued? Let us know if they get awkward though; Newham just have in a similar case.
  • Create New...