NTO - Haringey Council

[CaptainChrisos]

Hi all,

 

My first post, so be gentle etc...

 

I'm buggered if I'm going to let some wrong and/or lying sod extract money out of me for the council, and in this case I'm dealing with a liar.

 

My usual course of action, is to fill in the form on the back of the ticket and if they reject my grounds for cancellation, I request full documentation relating to the PCN, including copies of issued documentation, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

Most of the time, they send me the information and add a covering letter saying they have reviewed the evidence and have "on this occasion" chosen to cancel the PCN, or in other words, "we realise our civil enforcement officer has actually provided no evidence of a contravention, so we are not going to be able to prove a thing, so..., er..., on your way sir, nothing to see here".

 

The events of the current situation are as follows:

 

• Last year, the car was parked in a bus stop, during an emergency, for reasons too long and detailed to go into.
  
• I noticed the CEO pull up on his bike, get out his little machine and start noting down the details of the vehicle.
  
• I walked back to the car and said, "I'm leaving now".
  
• He told me, "It’s too late I've started now".
  
• I said, "Nonsense" (no honestly, I was calm and there was no swearing or anything! ), then got in my car and drove away.
  

 

A few months later I received the first NTO, and made representations stating that the "contravention had not occurred", which seemed to be the closest to "the document was not legally issued". I also requested all the information available using the Freedom of Information Act Act 2000, hoping to get them to review the information.

 

I got no response from the representations, and a big bundle of information from the FoI request, and I left it at that.

 

A couple of weeks ago I get an "Order for Recovery of Unpaid Penalty Charge" through the post, so I dashed off an email to the parking enforcement people, asking what was going on, I had made representations and was yet to get a response. And I followed up with the FoI people to ask why there were no photos in the pack I had received.

 

From the FoI people I got email confirmation that there were no photos because none had been taken; I also received a copy of the rejection of my representations (which it was claimed had been posted some time previously).

 

 

From the parking enforcement people I received an email, saying that they were satisfied that a contravention had occurred, and they included a scan of the notes taken by the enforcement officer in question.

 

 

In his notes he had written the following codes about the alleged contravention:

 

• ATV (Meaning Attached To Vehicle),
  
• AWC (All Windows Checked),
  
• NLUS (No Loading and Unloading Seen),
  
• NDBS (No Disabled Badge Seen).
  

 

 

ATV? I think not! To put it nicely, my recollection and his do not tally, the not so nice way of putting it is that he is lying.

 

 

Their argument is: He noted down the vehicle registration and the tax disc details, and had written these codes in his note, hence they were satisfied that it was legitimately served. They also note that there is no legal requirement for them to back up the evidence with a photograph of the PCN attached to the vehicle, although they do strongly advise their operatives to do so.

 

 

My argument is: He has to note the car’s details down at the start of the process of issuing a PCN, and that there is nothing to stop him writing ATV in his notes once he has printed out a PCN and the vehicle in question is long gone.

 

 

I have also informed Haringey Council that I consider this now to be a deliberately vexatious persecution, and I will be expecting them to make up any lost income from dealing with this matter.

 

 

In the meantime Haringey have rolled the NTO back to start again.

 

 

I have also requested (again using the FoI Act 2000) copies of all the documentation sent to me (on the pre-printed forms it was issued on) and statistics relating to how many photos are taken by their CEOs, by this CEO, percentages of PCNs with and without photos, number of representations against this CEO with and without pictures and so on. It is my hope that the vast majority of his issued PCNs are backed up with photographic evidence of contraventions, and if this goes further, I will be able to argue that the reason for the missing photos is that the PCN was never legally served.

 

 

I have received this second NTO, and I plan to make representations, this time using “the traffic order was invalid”, since the PCN was never legally served, I have no idea if this is any closer to the right box to tick. Although frankly the form seems to exclude the option “The civil enforcement officer is lying”.

 

 

I am now at a loss; as far as I can see, it is basically the well documented word of their lying civil enforcement officer against my word.

 

Any advice will be gratefully received!

 

C

[lamma]

care to post up a picture of the NTO - suitably washed of your personal details. plus any other documents - also washed.

[CaptainChrisos]

Sure, but er... how? I can't seem to find a button to upload a file.

[lamma]

you need five or six posts. or you could just post the url with spaces instead of full stops.

[CaptainChrisos]

Would I be taking the mick...

[CaptainChrisos]

If I posted several replies...

[CaptainChrisos]

Over the space of several minutes?

[CaptainChrisos]

Then added the scanned and altered images?

[CaptainChrisos]

Gosh that was a lot of faffing about...

 

 

Edited September 3, 2008 by CaptainChrisos
Bigger (and hence legible) images added.

[luke123456]

Sorry I dont want to go off the point, but Haringey are nasty people, make sure you dont loose hope. In my case they had too many photos...and they were meaning less.

 

Anyway...stick at it mate. Good Luck

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

From your story the correct grounds are that the contravention did not occur and that the penalty exceeds the applicable amount.

 

Do not accuse the PA (as they were then) of lying as that will endear you to no-one.

 

Your case is basically that you were stopped where it would have otherwise have been prohibited because of an emergency covered under the exemptions and also that you "drove-away" before the PCN was served.

 

I can see trouble with this as the question "why did the emergency evaporate the minute the PA started to write a ticket?" may be tricky to answer.

 

May be best to stick with the driveaway argument.

[Guest Ting]

NtO is flawed.

 

'Fettered' right of appeal. 'Tick one box' - tosh, you may tick as many as apply in the circumstances. Miss-states your legal position.

 

Also, on the front, 'you need to deal with it yourself'. Really? Doesn't say that anywhere in the Statute so wholly misleading.

In law, the owner is legally liable for payment of any resulting penalty. Anyone can deal with the matter. 'Do not pass to driver' - again - obstructive and misleading. If someone else were driving how would the recipient of such a Notice ascertain the circumstances if not allowed to do so.

-

Hope that helps.

-

[CaptainChrisos]

Sorry I dont want to go off the point, but Haringey are nasty people, make sure you dont loose hope. In my case they had too many photos...and they were meaning less.

 

Anyway...stick at it mate. Good Luck

 

Thanks for the support and encouragement.

 

I know about this lot mate, I've lived in Haringey for a fair few years now, and dealing with them has always been a comedy of errors with a healthy mix of legal threats.

 

A few years ago at a previous address in the borough, they painted a CPZ on the road and stood poles for the signage, but put up no signs for a couple of months, then put up the signs and covered them with taped up black bin liners for a week or two, then took off the covers with no warning (no signs, no letters telling you how to get a resident's permit, nothing!) and then ticketed my car.

 

When I went to their 1-stop parking shop in Wood Green, the staff refused to issue a permit, as my car was not registered to my address, despite proof of ownership of both the vehicle and the address, and no requirement in their form's documentation for the vehicle to be registered to that address... (A little bit of power and some bullet proof glass turn some people into complete arses unfortunately.)

 

I ended up sitting in the Crouch End Town Hall (in fact refusing to leave, when the fire alarm went off! ) until the relevant councillor responsible for parking turned up, apologised, reprimanded the member of staff involved and fixed the issue immediately.

 

Then there was the time they decided to direct debit my entire council tax for the year each month... The following year they got arsy about me paying by standing order, saying that you're only alowed to pay the full year's tax in ten payments if you pay by direct debit...

 

I think the film Brazil may have been based upon Haringey Council, or maybe it is the other way round, maybe they use the film as induction material for new starters.

[CaptainChrisos]

Bernie_the_bolt and Ting,

 

Thanks for the advice chaps.

 

One further question before I send it back, is it best to tick one box now then argue fettered right of appeal at the next stage?

[Guest Ting]

Bernie_the_bolt and Ting,

 

Thanks for the advice chaps.

 

One further question before I send it back, is it best to tick one box now then argue fettered right of appeal at the next stage?

 

It shouldn't matter if you tick as many as apply.

 

The fact that you now know or that you might have known anyway is not relevant.

By missinforming you in the first place they created potential prejudice. The fact that you know your rights better than they choose to advise should not affect the matter - the prejudice was there.

-

[CaptainChrisos]

It shouldn't matter if you tick as many as apply.

 

The fact that you now know or that you might have known anyway is not relevant.

By missinforming you in the first place they created potential prejudice. The fact that you know your rights better than they choose to advise should not affect the matter - the prejudice was there.

-

 

Thanks.