FORM TE3 Received

[mestaoptik]

Received FORM TE3 today. Not sure where to go with this?? Just absolutely sick of the one-sided way these things get dealt with.

 

Didn't know whether it was worth attending court or asking for the court to be moved more local to me. I have sent letters to the council who issued the PCN, although not using any of their forms to do so (thinking that I would bind myself into contract with them by doing so). They have sent me NtO and also a letter noting my correspondence with them informing me that it was too late in proceedings to action against the issue of the PCN.

 

Now I have the TE3 and TE9 forms, again looking for me to fill out the four cornered boxes with my response. As I have already sent two letters in response to the original PCN (the first one was apparently not received by the council) could this be used as part of my defence in court?

 

We're talking about a period of three minutes before the parking space became free to park when the PCN was issued! I made an offer of £0.10 to resolve the matter (payment for the 5 mins remaining until free parking including the mandatory 2 mins viewing period).

 

I have asked questions in my letters to the council which they have not answered; Clarification of the Notice to Owner, Clarification on whether the £75 is a fine.

 

I have sent a third letter asking for clarification on specifics relating to the PCN as mentioned aboved. They said in their letter to me that the NtO was a legal document and so I have asked what lawful obligation I have in relation to it. No reply yet.

 

All help and advice appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

M.O.

[Al27]

Council PCNs are decriminalised, so you won't be standing up in court.

 

The council isn't under any obligation to reply to anything apart from your Representations in response to their Notice to Owner.

 

You can't bargain with them, and an offer of 10p probably got short shrift.

 

Now you have an Order of Recovery you can make a statutory declaration an attempt to turn the clock back to the NtO stage.

 

Sounds a bit pointless to me though since you've just decided to ignore the Notice to Owner in the first place.

 

How much do you owe now? You either pay, or attempt to go back to the time you could appeal. But I'm not sure you have any grounds of appeal since you were parked for 5 minutes during restricted hours.

 

I'd pay ASAP if I were you.

[mestaoptik]

 

Sounds a bit pointless to me though since you've just decided to ignore the Notice to Owner in the first place.

 

 

The NtO was not ignored, I made the decision to respond by letter and not completion of their form.

[green_and_mean]

The NtO was not ignored, I made the decision to respond by letter and not completion of their form.

 

If you responded to the NTO why did they say your appeal was too late, how long did you leave it to appeal?

[mestaoptik]

If you responded to the NTO why did they say your appeal was too late, how long did you leave it to appeal?

 

I sent the first letter within the prescribed timescale, however they say they didn't receive any communication from me, conveniently. The second letter was sent recorded delivery to make sure it was received. Unless I can use the presumed method of delivery been received 2 days from posting on the first letter I cannot prove I sent it.

 

It just seems funny that they choose to ignore the first one and respond to the second one because it was out of the timescale. I'm sure if I'd sent a cheque in the first letter they would've received that!

[SWOOP]

Hi There,

 

I need help but don't know how to start a new thread so sorry for hijacking this one but it is related.

 

I completed form PE3 as per the traffic enforcement centres website but the local council is saying this form is not acceptable as i should have used form TE3, these forms serve the same purpose though. do they have a point or are they just being pedantic?

 

Below is a copy of the Email from the council: (Note the spelling mistake lol)

 

Dear Mr. Doyle

I am writing to inform you that you have made a witness statement/statutory declaration to Northampton County Court relating to Penalty Charge Notice number LE41085837 by using incorrect form PE3.

The correct forms TE3/TE9 were sent to you on 05/03/10 which you have to use and send it to Northampton County Court by 30/03/10.

I am not quite sure where you managed to get the PE3 form, as it was not produced and sent to you by us.

PE3 form relates to cases which are pre Traffic Management Act 2004, and therefore are not acceptable by Traffic Enforcement Centre.

I therefore advice you to use the forms TE3/TE9 to make your witness statement which you must do by the given date of 30/03/10.

If you have any queries or concerns please contact the Parking and Enforcement Team on telephone number 0116 2232148.

Parking Team

--

Penalty Charge Representations

PO Box 8459

Parking & Enforcement Team

Leicester

LE1 8AW

 

[Jamberson]

I don't know the validity of the old forms, but you should take direction from Northampton County Court. Phone them and ask if they have accepted your application - if so, they will direct the Council on what to do. If not, please can you have current forms to re-submit.

[Fair-Parking]

Your local council told you to complete a TE3? This council's email is so badly worded that it hasn't made it clear that a TE3 is not a form that you complete, it is a notice called an Order For Recovery and is sent to you as a demand by the council. It is accompanied by a TE9 which is a witness statement that you are being invited to complete if you wish to dispute it. It goes to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and not the council

 

For their education a PE3 is a valid statutory declaration and a PE2 is a valid statutory out of time declaration. They do NOT pre date the Traffic Management Act 2004 at least not in a way that suggests that they are no longer applicable. The TMA itself has been updated by the statutory guidelines of February 2008.

 

Nice of this inept council to make decisions on behalf of the Traffic Enforcement Centre, so no DON'T contact the bumbleheads in Leicester City Council's parking section. Contact the TEC's website, download a PE2 and send it to them.

 

It will almost certainly be refused and they will not give a reason why (That's because they won't know it as they will only send it to Leicester for their decision) but that at least that gives you another 19 days grace.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Fair-Parking

[bustthematrix]

Your local council told you to complete a TE3? This council's email is so badly worded that it hasn't made it clear that a TE3 is not a form that you complete, it is a notice called an Order For Recovery and is sent to you as a demand by the council. It is accompanied by a TE9 which is a witness statement that you are being invited to complete if you wish to dispute it. It goes to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and not the council

 

For their education a PE3 is a valid statutory declaration and a PE2 is a valid statutory out of time declaration. They do NOT pre date the Traffic Management Act 2004 at least not in a way that suggests that they are no longer applicable. The TMA itself has been updated by the statutory guidelines of February 2008.

 

Nice of this inept council to make decisions on behalf of the Traffic Enforcement Centre, so no DON'T contact the bumbleheads in Leicester City Council's parking section. Contact the TEC's website, download a PE2 and send it to them.

 

It will almost certainly be refused and they will not give a reason why (That's because they won't know it as they will only send it to Leicester for their decision) but that at least that gives you another 19 days grace.

Hi Fair-Parking

 

I also have received a TE3 (today) from a London Borough. The PCN was issued in Nov 2009 and it was picked up by CCTV Camera/Video for parking in a restricted area etc. To my recollection, I did not actually park there, I waited in the car for a few minutes while my wife took my young son to the loo at a nearby joint.

 

I have from day one, written to them refuting their evidence and not accepting liability. I also told them I will hold them to strict proof. So far, all they've sent are camera stills yet they claim to video evidence. Also, their charge seems a bit vague as it's not clear whether they are alleging unlawful parking/waiting/loading.

 

In my prior letters, I never raised the poor signage argument though this is arguably an influence as I am a careful (read - compliant) parker (aren't we all after years of being fleeced:rolleyes:).

 

Are you suggesting that I can ignore the TE9 they've enclosed (silly form really - the options thereon are annoying!) and reply with a PE3 instead?

 

What would that achieve?

 

Beyond that, is there any thing else that can or should be done?

[lamma]

"I waited in the car for a few minutes while my wife took my young son to the loo" thats parking. The contravention is actually 'waiting'. that angle won't fly. "I have from day one, written to them refuting their evidence and not accepting liability. I also told them I will hold them to strict proof" so you didn't put in reps to the NTO ? you 'putting them to strict proof" is something you have made up, read regs. and 'denying liability' is meaninlgess unless you were Not the RK at the time and used the NTO to establish this. again - read the regs. where did you get text for your letters from ?

[bustthematrix]

Hi Lamma

I think my approach was similiar to that of the thread starter and to be fair, off the back of such letters, I have had at least three PCNs cancelled. It hasn't worked in this case so far.

 

I'm now at a point where the TE3 has arrived and I'd appreciate input on how to deal with it going forward. I'm aware the TEC is NOT a County Court though sadly they make out they are so closely connected to the County Court that they have similiar powers blah blah blah.

 

Do you have experience in these matters? At least, is there something I can do to buy more time or revert things to NTO stage?

 

At the time I was waiting (prob. 2-3 mins max), there were other vehicles there simultaneously suggesting the waiting/no parking signs weren't all that clear any way.

 

Also, without very clear video evidence that is date and time checked, which I can inspect, can the evidence of a few digital images (what they've sent me as evidence) be accepted as 'beyond doubt' in a court of law? I'm no so sure it can. I have requested the video evidence but it has not been forthcoming.

Edited May 13, 2010 by bustthematrix

[lamma]

yes i do have experience of these. But first some big questions. what court of law ? why are you trying to attach criminal evidential rules to a civil matter ? You have completely the wrong end of the stick. And yes the TEC is a 'deemed court'. Also the other vehicles is not evidence of the signage being unclear, only evidence of the signage is evidence of the signage. As its a camera issued ticket (reg 10 under the TMA) than the PCN also served as the NTO so you cannot claim you did not receive the NTO. Or is it an LLA ticket you have. start you own thread and post up some facts, you have given us nothing to go on. We don't know what council it is, what forms you have had, what you have done. So where did you get the text for these letters ?

[bustthematrix]

Hi Lamma

 

My responses in your post below. I'll start my own thread, but from what you are suggesting, is there nothing that can be done once a TE3 is received?

 

yes i do have experience of these. But first some big questions. what court of law ?

Not sure what you mean but the TE3 I have received is from the TEC situated at Northampton County Court Bulk Centre NN1 2LH

 

why are you trying to attach criminal evidential rules to a civil matter ?

I am not. I have asked the question to see if they're relevant and could perhaps use them in some way. Now that you have pointed that out, I can see that CPR rules may not apply here. However are you sure CPR relates to 'criminal evidential rules' as you call it? CPR= Civil Procedure Rules.

 

You have completely the wrong end of the stick.

Really? I thought you didn't understand my letters or my approach thus far?

 

And yes the TEC is a 'deemed court'.

What does that mean as far as pleas and actions go? Who is the Claimant against me, or is there no Claimant? Is it the TEC itself or the Council that originally issued the PCN? Is evidence no longer required before a verdict is reached?

Also the other vehicles is not evidence of the signage being unclear, only evidence of the signage is evidence of the signage.

Fair enough. I only highlighted that point because the signage was obviously not that clear, or maybe we were all just poor parkers that day!

 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but are councils not supposed to disclose that they are monitoring an area via CCTV? If so, there were no signs to that effect in my recollection. I plan to go back to that spot and take some pictures but the 'offence' was back in November 2009 so things may have changed.

 

As its a camera issued ticket (reg 10 under the TMA) than the PCN also served as the NTO so you cannot claim you did not receive the NTO.

I did not claim I did not receive the NTO. I may not have understood it though !!!

 

Or is it an LLA ticket you have.

LLA???

 

start you own thread and post up some facts, you have given us nothing to go on.

Thought I had but ok.

 

We don't know what council it is, what forms you have had, what you have done. So where did you get the text for these letters? Another website. As I said, it's worked with a couple of other situations before so I didn't think things would get to this stage.

I'd really appreciate input and that is what I've posted here for and what I try to offer to others in these forums in the areas where I have further knowledge.

 

Attacking me is of no help to me now (I know you're probably not doing this consciously, but that is the impression I get from your posts in reply to mine). I just need help as to what I may or may not be able to do going forward.

Edited May 13, 2010 by bustthematrix

[bustthematrix]

Here's my thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/259489-help-needed-cctv-pcn.html#post2925791

 

Thanks for your input.

[lamma]

re read my answer. you said "can the evidence of a few digital images (what they've sent me as evidence) be accepted as 'beyond doubt' in a court of law" 'Beyond doubt' is irrelevant. I take it you mean 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - which is the criminal evidential burden and this is a civil matter. and 'in a court of law' - there is no appearance in court involved. I am not attacking you at all but I am pointing out some wrong thinking on your part. LLA is London Local Authorities Act 2003. Different regs. your linked post is still fact free on this. Without knowing the regs who can say what the next step should be for you. the paperwork may have been flawed and so easily appealable or the signage wrong and so easily winnable or it could be a known bad TRO. But all that seems past know as it has gone past the statutory appeals. Without knowledge of the paperwork no one can tell you if there is a valid way for you wind the situation back to its initial stages through a Witness Statement. It seems you want to see this through using the Freeman approach, the Bailiffs won't care too much about that.

[bustthematrix]

Hi Lamma

 

I had responded to your post on my thread before I saw this. I think you should continue your feedback on that thread.

 

As far as I can determine from their letters, the Council has invoked the following two Acts to justify their activities:-

 

- Traffic Management Act 2004

- Local Authorities Act 2000

 

It seems you want to see this through using the Freeman approach, the Bailiffs won't care too much about that.

No I don't. If I did, I'd go to the Freeman areas for that, not here. The matter is 'winnable' using Freeman type stuff if I wished to pay the £155.00 and then go after them for several times more money but I'd rather not as I don't want to pay the £155 and spend further money and time writing further letters and getting Notaries involved etc.