Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No this is (£387.12 for Rubble) not (£8387.12 ) Repairs is £8000.00 and £5190.00 for unfinished work
    • The figures now match, so as far as I'm concerned that's that.   If there is duplication then that's the OP's look out, there has been nearly a year to make simple lists of costs.   I think "the three of us" should have a last read through.   It's up to Simeon to make sure the references to the exhibits are accurate, they certainly weren't accurate in the version I've just edited, in fact they were contradictory, but that's up to him.   If the "three of us" don't see any obvious errors then the document is good to go tomorrow morning (not as the last minute).
    • We might, finally, be there -   Particulars of Counterclaim   1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The Inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The Inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The Inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The Building Inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.    The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3000 (see receipt, Exhibit 1).   11.    The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspected either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When the Claimant challenged the Defendant he admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Exhibit 2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Exhibit 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed in Exhibit 4.   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Exhibit 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £16,577.12 in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete, £3,000.00, Exhibit 1; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in paras 15 & 16 above, £5,190.00, Exhibits 2 & 3 & 4; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above, £8387.12, Exhibit 5; (d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.  This has not yet been costed.   19. In addition to the amount in paragraph 18 above, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant also claims 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from 26 October 2020 which was the last day the builder or one of his colleagues worked at the property     STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I believe that the facts stated in this particulars of counterclaim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • So do you have psychic powers or are you merely Britain's foremost forensic accounting expert?  Or maybe you're a dentist...   Either way, I'm impressed by anyone who has made any sense of what simeon has posted today.  (And yesterday... and the day before... and the day before that...)
    • [Edit - I see I've cross-posted so hopefully this post of mine is NOT required and can be ignored.  Unless FTMDave thinks it might help]     Christ.   Looking back I see that I introduced paras 16 - 18 back in #95 (I think?) four days ago.  The purpose of those paragraphs was to give some basis to, and explanation of, the figure of £16577 that simeon was claiming, because all he had at that stage was "I'm claiming £16577" but no explanation why.   Because simeon has the intensely annoying habit of repeatedly posting things (like receipts, estimates and reports) with no explanation of why he was posting them or what they are, I've looked at them all and tried to break them down into 18(a) - (d) to make sense of them.  Despite my asking him on several occasions whether any of the posts he kept on making included any duplication of estimated costs, it would now appear that some of the figures are in fact duplicated.  Hence the sum of 18 (a) - (d) exceeds the total amount claimed...  😲 😬 ☹️   Why simeon could not have pointed out that he did not understand the purpose of para 18 (a) - (d) before now (I posted it four days ago) I simply cannot understand, but having looked back over this thread, I'm not certain that simeon has actually understood anything at all that we've been trying to tell him.   And that can't just be down to having poor English I'm afraid...   =============================================================================================================   I'm wondering if Simeon should drop the breakdown of para 18 into four sub-paragraphs and simply say something like this:     "18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £16,577.12 in respect of the costs listed at [simeon - you then add the Exhibit or exhibits where the lists of costs and/or estimates  totalling £16577 can be found, and then delete (a) - (d) as suggested below[   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete is  £3,000 – Exhibit 1 (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above, £16,577.12 – Exhibit 5 (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above;  £8577,12 – Exhibit 6 (d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above put down as estimated.  TBA 4 and 5   19. In addition to the amount in paragraph 18 above, the defendant/Part 20 counterclaimant also claims 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from the 26 October 2020 which was the last day of his employee left the property"        STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I believe that the facts stated in this particulars of counterclaim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.’.   The above is just an idea to get round the fact we can't get (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) to add up to £16577.   It's just an idea at this stage......  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

PCN Issued for parking on single yellow in a CPZ


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5007 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys

 

It is my first post here as you can see and it is about a PCN i got back in September 2007 for parking on a single yellow line on a Sunday.

 

I sent the appeal via email with pics to show that there were no time plates on anywhere on that road. Also to show there were metal posts on either side of the road which had no sign attached to them, just bare metal posts on the road. I was parked in the beginning/end of the road, basically near the corner.

 

I received no acknowledgement of the appeal.

 

I received a notice to owner 2 weeks ago saying I had not repsonded to the chance to pay the reduced fee so I must pay the double of £120.

 

I spoke to them, and explained that I still have not hear the outcome of the appeal. They said to send a copy of this notice to owner and a covering letter. I did this and that was 2 weeks ago.

 

Exactly 2 weeks after I did this I received a letter now saying that they apologise for the delay in replying to my 'informal representations'. What does this mean? Informal in terms of it not going to court, or informal in terms of my language....?

 

They have said that they reject my representations because the road is part of a the area's inner CPZ. This zone they say is enforced from 8am to 10pm. The restriction times and signs are apparently clearly displayed and marked on each entry time plate to the zone. They also say that there is no need foor additional time paltes for yellow lines as the yellow lines are governed by the hours of the controlled zone.

 

They say unless I was loading/unloading...and they give a max of 20 mins for this to happen. They also say that there must be a clear indication of such an operation in progress....now how can I get that...? lol.

 

I also wrote in the appeal how rude the attendant was when I asked why I was given this PCN. They made no reply to this.

 

They have just said right of appeal to adjudicator or pay reduced fine within 14 days or it doubles or then it triples!!

 

What do you guys think??

 

Isnt it meant to be cancelled as they made no reply to my appeal back in September?

 

I would really apprecitae your help.

 

Thanks in advance and sorry for the long post lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

OK you haven't got long.

 

Wash and scan both sides of the PCN and NTO.

 

On the face of it you have given nothing to say that technically you did not commit the contravention.

 

Informal reps atre those made prior to the issue of the NTO, however, you can allege that in failing to respond the LA have failed in their overriding duty to treat you fairly and therefore the "penalty exceeds the applicable amount" (one of the statutory grounds).

 

When we look at the PCN and NTO there may be flaws which give further grounds for appeal.

 

But you must respond to the NTO by the deadline. You have nothing to lose by doing so.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Bernie.

 

I am afraid I dont quite understnad what you mean. Can you reword that please.

 

But you say I should respond to the NTO. I think that has expired now. But they say in this letter I have 14 days from the date of the letter (09/02/08) to pay the reduced amount of £60 or pay £120 before the end of 28 days from the 9th of feb. So no mention that I must stick to the NTO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What specifically don't you understand?

 

You got a PCN for £120.

You had the right to pay a dicounted £60 within 14 days.

You didn't do so and received a Notice to Owner. If you fail to respond to the NtO within 28 days of Service you should expect to get a Charge Certificate and the penalty will increase to £180.

 

I am encouraging you to respond within 28 days of service of the NtO.

 

You say you got it two weeks ago which means you only have two weeks left.

 

The "formal" appeal process does not start until you get the NtO, that is what the LA mean by "informal" - they were sent before the NtO.

 

Did you send your e-mail within the original 14 day discount period?

 

Informal reps have no status in law in that they are not contained in the RTA 1991 but the adjudicators have said that there is an overriding responsibility on LAs to treat motorists fairly and that a failure to respond to informal reps and a failure to maintain the discount where informal reps have been made in the discounted period may be seen as not adhering to this fundamental principle. But I see now they are giving you this discount.

 

A failure to treat the motorist fairly may invalidate the enforcement process for that PCN. Therefore the penalty will be nil.

 

But there may also be foul ups in the wording of the PCN or NtO. That is very likely. To establish this you need to scan and post copies of both sides but "wash" them first (ie remove personal identifiers ref nos etc).

 

There is no charge for the appeal. It is in two stages. Firstly to the LA and then to the Adjudicator. Only if you fail to meet the timescales or you fail to pay the penalty if the Adjudicator finds against you will the penalty increas further.

 

Hope that is clearer.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks Bernie.

 

I will 'wash and scan' them now...lol.

 

I have just found out that the NTO has expired. It isi dated the 10.01.08 and I sent the council the copy fo the NTO and a covering letter on the 14/01/08 explaining that I have not even received a reply to the PCN appeal made in september 2007.

 

I recceived the reply to the appeal today, dated the 09/02/08.

 

But again as I said, the letter states that I have 28 days from the 9th. No mention of the NTO.

 

Im scanning that stuff now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the letter I got yesterday which they say they do not accept my appeal they said the same thing which is that If I was loading/unloading, then 'there must be a clear indication of such an operation in progress'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes youa re right it says from 16:20 to 16:20 but......when do I ask for the PA's notes? Do I write to the council? they have said I must appeal to the adjudjicator now or pay up. What do you guys reckon I must do, do I have to pay first no matter what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you lost the 50% discount period? If so appealing costs nothing and you only pay when/if you lose. If you still have the option of the discount the choice is yours pay up or gamble on the appeal.

 

I've just remembered that you got the NTO so you will lose nothing by appealing as the discount period has passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke,

I'm struggling here - unless your claim is that you were loading/unloading and the PA did not take time to check - and you will need evidence that you were (delivery note is not essential despite what the LA say).

Can you also post the letter you got which is maintaining the discount at present?

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well What proof do I need that I was loading/unloading if you say a delivery note is not essential.

 

I have scanned the letter which refused my appeal.

 

Yes I have 14 days from the 09/02/08 to pay the reduced amount of £60. Can I appeal to the adjudicator, and then if that appeal is refused am I still able to pay £60, or will it be £120.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK here's what I would go for in your shoes:

 

Can you produce evidence that you were loading/unloading? eg a witness statement from a friend that you were delivering/collecting something large and bulky for which a car was essential. The PA took no time to assess whether of not loading/unloading was taking place. So if this is true you have grounds for ticking the box "The contravention did not occur".

 

Failing that, and in any event, you tick the box "The penalty exceeds the relevant amount" because the LA have unlawfully prejudiced the appeal and enforcement process. As such the relevant amount is zero. They have done this because they have issued a "Notice of Rejection" before you have even issued a response to the Notice to Owner and before the time limit is up. This is simply not allowed and has prejudiced the entire statutory appeals process.

 

For good measure include the other suggestions posted eg by Pat Davies.

 

Basically I think the LA have stuffed themselves on this one. They have circumvented the formal appeal to the LA.

 

You are quite lucky as I thought the PCN and NTO were pretty good, but I just love it when LAs do this!

 

I really don't think that you can lose this but there are no certainties and if you do you will have to pay the £120.

 

What I don't know is whether to go straight to the adjudicator or to the LA first. My instinct is the adjudicator but see what others say.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey thanks for that,

 

You said;

 

''Can you produce evidence that you were loading/unloading? eg a witness statement from a friend that you were delivering/collecting something large and bulky for which a car was essential. The PA took no time to assess whether of not loading/unloading was taking place. So if this is true you have grounds for ticking the box "The contravention did not occur".

 

I never mentioned that I was loading/unloading in my original appeal, becasue I only mentioned that there were no time plates. But, I can say that I never thought about that firstly... that would be ok??

 

Also, getting a statement from a friend, would they really accept that? I mean being my friends, it is not really very 'independent' is it? I can make up any stoy cant I....like carrying a box of small metal appliances and the main road is busy and there is no parking so I had to get to the shops from behind, or should I stick to a residential home?

 

Also you said;

 

Failing that, and in any event, you tick the box "The penalty exceeds the relevant amount" because the LA have unlawfully prejudiced the appeal and enforcement process. As such the relevant amount is zero. They have done this because they have issued a "Notice of Rejection" before you have even issued a response to the Notice to Owner and before the time limit is up. This is simply not allowed and has prejudiced the entire statutory appeals process.

 

I was told to write in with a copy of the NTO to say that I have not received a reply from my appeal yet. I cant remember as im not at home now but I said something like you havent made a decision on my appeal and you send me a NTO. You should make the decision first and cancel the NTO. I will double check later. But would that have been bad on my side, as they may say that I asked them to cancel it. But i never sent a reply or made any mark on the NTO, the original is still with me at home. So what do you think in this respect?

 

Sorry, but do you think there is any grounds to say that they received my appeal in september 07 then sent me an NTO in Jan 08, so have they broken any time limit? They give us a time limit of 14/28 days, surely there must be a time limit that they must abide too??

 

What do you mean by;

 

''They have circumvented the formal appeal to the LA''

 

The LA has said in the letter I have just scanned (above) that I must not appeal to them. Is that right?

 

Thanks very mcuh bernie, much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says 'such as' not that a delivery note is required. Obviously a delivery note is ideal, but not the only thing. I've had a letter from a shop owner accepted in the past.

 

No it doesn't. It says "such as a delivery note" as an example of documentation. It then goes on to say "(required for claims of loading or unloading)". This is prejudicial as there is no requirement for a delivery note in such circumstances; either in law or PATAS/NPAS previous cases.

 

Actually, the very fact that we have seen this to mean different things demonstrates the potential for prejudice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...