What Council is this? Can you also confirm the amount of £90 ??? Sounds wrong unless there have been changes I haven't kept up with.

Indeed. It should be winnable on that but what are the realistic chances of it being understood here? We'll see.

There is no "Court" involved. It's being enforced as a decriminalised contravention. There are no points involved. and (as an aside; there is never any point in paying for a 'Recorded' (signed for) service when sending documents to any organisation so large that they will NOT be signed for and RM will deliver anyway. You pay for something you don't get. Certificates of posting, as an alternative, are free at any Post Office). Amberr. we haven't seen the PCN. Either you can't post it - in which case go to a forum that allows it, or You just haven't shown in it, in which case, do. From what I've seen of the box and what you describe then you are in contravention. Your only chance would be a flaw in the PCN.

How can a piece of paper show the difference between stationary and moving. I've explained already; That is not their evidence.

Amberr. what you say is basically correct. But we need to understand why, oddly, a PCN has been issued. 1/. The pics are not their evidence; The video is; Have you viewed it? 2/. We don't know where this is or if you are even allowed to turn right at the junction. 3/. We haven't seen the PCN.

Ok, I retract my withdrawal - IF - you will post docs. Well there are now!! It would have been far fewer earlier. Ok. can we see the 'Case Summary' statement of the Council from the evidence pack that you've just received. ++ THIS letter, I'm curious about.

Mean? Not sure if you've noticed it has been revealed in the thread that the OP IS NOT RK and RK themselves has not made Reps?

Not entirely true in certain circumstances. And you haven't mentioned any mitigation at any point in this thread?? But we've got to the point where you don't seem to be listening, perhaps because you don't like the answers you're getting. We have your 'opinion' on what has happened so far; Your interpretation of what each document actually says and your statments regarding what you've submitted and your relating of previous experiences. We can verify none of it. We can't point out anything you may have missed or misunderstood -- which may have helped you. It may be that 'something' has gone wrong somewhere and that there is some aspect that will help you resolve this matter; Who knows? Again, I mention that I think I've seen this case elsewhere; Correct me if I'm wrong? Was it the requirement there to actually SHOW documents that put you off? As I said, you should be worried exactly what matters the Council intend to raise at Adjudication --- but you've ignored that and again refused to let us see -- or even tell us what their case summary says. Stubborn intransigence doesn't win cases; Especially when it's directed at people trying to help by giving their time freely and in good faith With the continuing refusal to show any of the relevant documents, you are beyond help. I'm out.

"Throughout", being --- a single response to an initial, informal challenge, or more? Do you have evidence of this? I guess you know what I'm going to ask next ---

I agree. @ Stuart. Is there something on any correspondence or anything else that made you think you had a right to make representations? NtOs are addressed to RK (unless there has already been a clarification of owner by way of an earlier NtO) and most that I've seen clearly state that the recipient should NOT pass the document to a third party (normally giving the driver as an example). I'm gobsmacked. Of course, we haven't actually SEEN anything so there's no real telling what has gone on or how the content of any document may have erred and helped you. Neither do I have any idea how this might pan out and exactly what the Council might intend to do about it. The implications are worrying. - and again - SEEING docs would give us a clue.

Hi Lynette. Did you receive last PM after my call to TEC? @ mods (I will post any info on here for the benefit of others - later).

Jamberson. I still think your idea of getting the TRO is useful in resolving the location issue. Indeed, as you say, they don't seem sure themselves and there might already be sufficient doubt for an Adjudicator.

I'm thinking TEC have just reverted to the original Order they made in your favour on (11th November was it?) If, as you say, you ticked the box 'reps submitted to Council but no reply received' -- then they have made the WRONG Order -- as shown by the Regs I've posted. TEC are generally good in putting things like this right. Quite possibly correcting this in response to just a phone call. I don't want to break any forum rules so Mods nudge me if needed but I don't mind trying the call for you to TEC if you like? You would first have to notify them that I have permission from you to speak to them - by phoning them yourself. what do you think?

Lynette. If we can sort this here it will actually take the matter off your back and put it in the hands of the Adjudicator -- then you have nothing to worry about and very little to lose and very little work to do.

Following the County Court Order -- the TEC Court Officer should have processed your original TE9 - as was discussed here and not as the DJ thought (no re-submission). At that point, TEC should have sent the final decision Order to you. Is that a no then?

TMA 2004 section 86. Blanket restriction.

they don't need a TRO to enforce a DK. But it would be useful in clarifying or, hopefully, disproving the location.

The wording in post 84 is directly from the applicable law. I've got a TE9 in front of me and I can see that they word it a little different but just to make it plain I think. the effect is the same. You should not have a second NtO; That is clear from the Regs I posted. You made a Witness Statement under Reg (2)(b) above --- and so the result should be as (7) above - the Council can only refer the matter to the Adjudicator. BUT --- since I posted that, I noticed something. This may not be the fault of Hull. It may be that TEC have made the wrong Order?? Is there a copy of the final TEC Order somewhere in the thread? Wow, you really do not have much luck do you!! A numpty Council, A District Judge who did not know the correct Civil Procedure Rules and possibly now TEC themselves cocking up?? Never seen so much bad luck in one case. I feel for ya. In simple terms Lynette, what was the last thing you received from TEC?

It's already been said but -- you had your chance and didn't submit the necessary evidence. The Adjudicator, as they have said, was not 'wrong' at the time.

I got a bit lost earlier with 'there was a man -- there wasn't a man' and whatever the Council said about it - and something you were mistaken about etc. Most crucially and of possible help to you --- was someone at the vehicle for the whole time it was parked?

Not impressive at all; but wholly unlawful. Not the hand delivery but the NtO. Lynette, I was discussing your case last week with Jamberson, in another thread. Hull have got the latest process wrong and hence acted unlawfully. The result is that you can win this. I know you have 'had enough' but it seems a shame to get this far, be messed about so much and then 'give up' at the last hurdle. Can I just explain:- When a Witness Statement is made and, as in your case, finally accepted and processed, the Council are informed - as has happened. Then, one of two things may happen. I quote from the Regs. (2) The witness statement must state one and only one of the following— (a)that the person making it did not receive the notice to owner in question; (b)that he made representations to the enforcement authority under regulation 4 of the Representations and Appeals Regulations but did not receive from that authority a notice of rejection in accordance with regulation 6 of those Regulations; ©that he appealed to an adjudicator under regulation 7 of those Regulations against the rejection by the enforcement authority of representations made by him under regulation 4 of those Regulations but— (i)he had no response to the appeal; (ii)the appeal had not been determined by the time that the charge certificate had been served; or (iii)the appeal was determined in his favour; or (d)that he has paid the penalty charge to which the charge certificate relates. and, most importantly >> (7) Where a witness statement has been served under paragraph (2)(b), © or (d), the enforcement authority shall refer the case to the adjudicator who may give such directions as he considers appropriate and the parties shall comply with those directions. The Council should NOT have issued a new NtO. They may only do so if your Witness Statement stated that you never received the first (which it didn't did it? I don't have time to look back). They SHOULD have referred the matter to the Adjudicator, who would then have invited your comments. So --- think about this ---- this isn't me putting you through yet more work -- but Hull Council AGAIN! What they have done amounts to a gross procedural impropriety - and you could potential win the case just with that. -------------- So what do you do? I think you've said you've now responded to the NtO and asked to pay the discount amount? Is that correct so far? I'll come up with a few suggestions when you answer. DO bear in mind, as I say, this is Hull causing the extra work for you - not me; The matter shoul already be with the Adjudicator with you having to do very little. They are cheating. Hang on Lynette. Just an easy quick question. What box did you actually tick on the Witness Statement??

I think this would be best as he has no tangible case at present. Just ask for the hearing to be changed and rescheduled. I've done this by phone in the past but not sure if they still do. They may want an e-mail or letter. You should look at 'Legitimate expectation' as a possible point of appeal, maybe. Also in conjunction with the sudden imposition of CCTV enforcement, where you might otherwise have been 'informed' by a CEO on the street. It gets quite involved to make the latter point. Can you describe more fully exactly what happened in terms of assisting Gran and who did what and in what order, who was at the vehicle and when ------- and then akso insert which parts of those events were covered by the CCTV footage?

How do you know that was the case. Apart from it not being a legal requirement, you are faced her with an appellant who clearly hasn't a clue and, most of all, no documents have been shown to support that statement. Since you mention another forum then you know full well that they have the savvy not to jump to such assumptions because they won't help at all without seeing documents. Where is the rejection that 'didn't re-offer'? It sounds more like he doesn't understand the full process. I have no idea if your info on CCTV use is of any use currently but the more basic facts of the case haven't even been clarified or explored. At face value, he hasn't a leg to stand on considering what he thinks might be relevant. Disclosure of docs and a full and proper description of what happened might change that. Who was at the vehicle during the time of contravention? Where are pics of the location? Does he know he can (and probably should) get this postponed to understand his position more fully). Does OP even understand 'assisted alighting' (for future reference only - no need to park on footway) -------- Incidentally, I'm sure that many PCNs ARE cancelled by Councils in response to initial challenges or Reps. I believe Jamberson has been in a position to know that. To say none are, is ridiculous.

THAT confident??? Wow!

How so?