am i liable for parking tickets after my car was stolen

[3essem]

the council is pursuing me for tickets incurred after my car was reported stolen - isnt that illegal under the administration of justice act?

[gwc1000]

Hi. Have you had a Notice to Owner (NTO) for the tickets?

[rory32]

Have you given the council the police crime reference number?

[Al27]

You need to tick 'The car was taken without my consent' on the Notice to Owner.

[nero12]

You need to tick 'The car was taken without my consent' on the Notice to Owner.

yes this is one of the grounds to which you can appeal to the notice to owner. If you have the crime number then it should be included in your appeal.

[3essem]

dear all, i have done everything. they knew the car was stolen, i gave them the police crime reference number. they have not done what they should have done, and as a last resort they are trying to say that i was out of time in replying to notice of owner and therefore i have no right. we have been in discussion for about a year and they have behaved really unethically

[Al27]

You say 'tickets', plural.

 

So you've received more than one Notice to Owner and did you reply to them within 28 days?

 

Have you received any Notice of Rejections?

Have you received any Charge Certificates?

[green_and_mean]

dear all, i have done everything. they knew the car was stolen, i gave them the police crime reference number. they have not done what they should have done, and as a last resort they are trying to say that i was out of time in replying to notice of owner and therefore i have no right. we have been in discussion for about a year and they have behaved really unethically

 

There is a difference between the Council not believing you and failing to appeal in time. If you didn't appeal within the permitted timescale you are still liable regardless of the circumstances as long as the NTO was served correctly.

[crem]

If you didn't appeal within the permitted timescale you are still liable regardless of the circumstances as long as the NTO was served correctly.

 

As in; we don't care if there is total evidence that you didn't have the car at the time, and that we know you couldn't possibly have been driving, we think we have dotted the I's and crossed the T's so please don't even think to expect us to apply any common sense whatsoever.

[green_and_mean]

As in; we don't care if there is total evidence that you didn't have the car at the time, and that we know you couldn't possibly have been driving, we think we have dotted the I's and crossed the T's so please don't even think to expect us to apply any common sense whatsoever.

 

Sorry I didn't realise you had more information than the rest of us?!

[crem]

Who said anything about information G&M? I referred to common sense which councils seem to be completely devoid of.

[green_and_mean]

Who said anything about information G&M? I referred to common sense which councils seem to be completely devoid of.

 

Sorry I thought you were refering to this case for some reason. Common sense works both ways common sense would state that only having one date on a PCN would not make a blind bit of difference or that parking on DYL that had been painted a few metres longer than the TRO should still end up with a fine but the law is the law. If you want Councils to allow reps at any stage that suits the driver then why cry foul when a word is wrong on a PCN?

[nero12]

Sorry I thought you were refering to this case for some reason. Common sense works both ways common sense would state that only having one date on a PCN would not make a blind bit of difference or that parking on DYL that had been painted a few metres longer than the TRO should still end up with a fine but the law is the law. If you want Councils to allow reps at any stage that suits the driver then why cry foul when a word is wrong on a PCN?

3essem

 

maybe worth sending a letter to the chief executive of your local authority with the crime number of your stolen vehicle then contact the local gouverment obudsmen with a complaint. They have the powers of discretion here.

 

Green stop bloody arguing.

[lamma]

and they have a duty not to fetter their discretion at any stage, even after an adjudication that they win. clear proof that the vehicle is stolen and yet they are still pursuing the money. council clearly in the wrong. Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately - and here they have failed. I would suggest that the OP reads THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S STATUTORY GUIDANCE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ON THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTRAVENTIONS FEBRUARY where phrases used above will be found.

[green_and_mean]

I love this board 2 posts giving only a mere hint of what occured and already members can decide exactly what happened. We don't even know if the car was reported stolen before or after the alleged parking tickets got issued. We don't know if the car was actually stolen just that it was reported stolen.

[lamma]

first post seems quite clear "the council is pursuing me for tickets incurred after my car was reported stolen"

[nero12]

first post seems quite clear "the council is pursuing me for tickets incurred after my car was reported stolen"

removed.

Edited December 14, 2008 by nero12
argumentative

[green_and_mean]

first post seems quite clear "the council is pursuing me for tickets incurred after my car was reported stolen"

 

So anyone that gets a parking ticket can trot off down the nick report the car stolen and the ticket should be cancelled no questions asked?

There was a story in my local paper about a driver who was upset as she got a PCN whilst her daughter was (allegedly) dying in the back of the car from some life threatening condition. On face value the article made the Council out to be ruthless money grabbing jobsworths. Having an aquaintance who knows the person who issued the PCN I know that she had already used the excuse before on several occasions and on this occasion the CEO observed her leaving a supermarket with shopping.

Whilst not accusing the OP of lying unless all the facts are known I cannot see how a judgement can be made regarding either parties point of view. Reporting a car stolen is not automatic grounds for cancellation any more than claiming you were loading etc, if the Council is not convinced based on the evidence you present that you are telling the truth they are still entitled to pursue a PCN.

[lamma]

"incurred AFTER the car was reported stolen". It is plain enough. Why on earth are going off at tangent now.

[green_and_mean]

"incurred AFTER the car was reported stolen". It is plain enough. Why on earth are going off at tangent now.

 

Because a one line statement without any details has somehow without facts and dates become a scandal worthy of the press and tv. Since the thing has been going on for a year there is obviously more to this than we have already been told.

[crem]

Because a one line statement without any details has somehow without facts and dates become a scandal worthy of the press and tv.

 

What is so complicated about the original one line statement? "incurred AFTER the car was reported stolen" This seems plain enough English to me i.e. the offence occurred AFTER the crime had already being reported. There is no suggestion that the theft was reported after the PCN but with a claim that the car was stolen some time before the PCN.

 

Since the thing has been going on for a year there is obviously more to this than we have already been told.

 

or maybe the council are hanging on by their fingernails to the hope that they might get their hands on 3essem's hard earned money as usual.

[green_and_mean]

What is so complicated about the original one line statement? "incurred AFTER the car was reported stolen" This seems plain enough English to me i.e. the offence occurred AFTER the crime had already being reported. There is no suggestion that the theft was reported after the PCN but with a claim that the car was stolen some time before the PCN.

 

 

 

or maybe the council are hanging on by their fingernails to the hope that they might get their hands on 3essem's hard earned money as usual.

 

Multiple PCNs that all for some unknown reason failed to get appealled against.....very straight forward and uncomplicated. If he was not liable there is no way they can chase him up if he did what he was supposed to do, if he ignored numerous NTOs then that is not really the Councils fault but his own. If he didn't get them he should have done a stat dec which he obviously hasn't. The Council are not hanging on by their fingernails at all since it has gone beyond the charge cert deadline they can now chose to chase payment via the baliff as he is legally still liable for the PCNs they do not need to hang on to anything.

[lamma]

after he notified them the first time all the following NTOs were are just worthless rubbish that the council should not have sent. A clear failing in their public duty. The long dates are an issue and the OP may have to go to court to put these to bed. can't see any judge not paying attention to the stolen car report.

[flyingdoc]

I have to say I am with green on this one - If the car was stolen - how much work is it to tick a box on a form and return it in the time allowed???

In any legal case if you dont return docs to court on time you get judgment in default this is no different.

I also agree with lamma that if the OP goes to court the judge should quash all outstanding tickets.

[green_and_mean]

after he notified them the first time all the following NTOs were are just worthless rubbish that the council should not have sent. A clear failing in their public duty. The long dates are an issue and the OP may have to go to court to put these to bed. can't see any judge not paying attention to the stolen car report.

 

Total rubbish do you really expect every PCN that gets to NTO stage gets checked to see if the driver has previously had another PCN cancelled because the car was stolen?