Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The important thing to know is that MET - although they will send you threat after threat about how they will divert a drone from Ukraine and make it fall on your home - hardly ever do court. Even in the very small number of cases where they send court papers, if the Cagger defends, they drop the matter before the hearing.  They have no real intention of putting their rubbish claim before a judge.  The aim is to find motorists who are terrified of the idea of going to court and who will give in when the court papers arrive. Thanks for doing the sticky and well done on finding F18's thread.  Do what they did.  On the first page - I think post 19 - there is the address of the CEO of BP.  Write to them, lay it on thick about being genuine customers in the various premises, mention the small kids, the very short stay time, attach any proof of purchase - and request that they get the invoice cancelled.
    • Thank you for that, I have obviously already been convicted so I think the appeal lodged is for the previous offence? Sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I suppose my only concern is that weds I go there and they don’t let a stat dec happen. If they do then as you say and solicitor says it’s highly likely I’ll be happy with the outcome. But I’m being told there’s no guarantee for the stat dec to be hard Weds as that’s not what the hearing is proposed for. Solicitor has stated that you can put a stat dec before a magistrates at any time so it shouldn’t be a problem.   
    • I re-read the extract from your  solicitor's letter this morning and think I might understand what they have in mind. I believe (and it’s only a guess) their strategy is this: 1.    You will make your SD 2.    You will enter fresh pleas to the four charges (not guilty) but will offer to plead guilty to speeding on the understanding that the FtP charges are dropped. 3.    If this is accepted they will attempt to argue that the two offences were committed “on the same occasion” 4.    You will be sentenced for those two offences (the sentence depending on whether the “same occasion” argument succeeds). They also have a plan in the event that your offer at (2) is unsuccessful and you are convicted again of the 2xFtP charges (and so face disqualification under “totting up”): 5.    They will make an “exceptional hardship” argument to avoid a ban. 6.    If that is unsuccessful they have already lodged an appeal in the Crown Court against that decision. (This is the only “appeal” I can think of). 7.    They plan to ask the court to suspend your ban pending that appeal. If I’m correct, I’m surprised the Crown Court has agreed to accept a speculative appeal (against something that hasn’t happened). The solicitor says this is to lodge it within the normal timescales. But you will have 21 days from the date of your conviction (which will be next Wednesday) to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court, so there is no need for a speculative appeal. I have to say that an application to have your ban suspended pending an appeal is unlikely to succeed. The Magistrates Court is unlikely to agree to it for one very good reason: if they make such an order (suspending your ban until your appeal is heard), all you need to do is not to pursue the appeal and the Magistrates order suspending your ban will remain in place. Hey Presto! No ban and no need for you to trouble with an appeal. Perhaps he will ask for your ban to be suspended for (say) three months or until your appeal is heard (whichever occurs first). This potentially creates a problem because if your appeal is not heard in that time either your ban will kick in or you will have o go back to court to get the suspension extended. But the solicitor obviously knows more about these things than I do. I would want to be very clear about this solicitor’s fees and what he proposes to charge you for. As I said, there is absolutely no need to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court. That can be done if and when it becomes required. But I am still firmly of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that you will not need to progress beyond point 2 above. Point 3 is optional and I don’t know whether he solicitor has made It clear to you that the only thing you will avoid in the event of success is three penalty points. You will still be fined for the second offence and your driving record will still be endorsed with the details, but no penalty points will be imposed. Do let us know how it goes.  
    • I'm really trying, but worst case I can't find what are my options?
    • John Lewis' Privacy Notice states that their CCTV Systems does not use facial recognition or collect biometric data - so I assume it should be fine?    Thank you a lot for your reply. I've scheduled my first therapy session ne t week. Really the time to turn my life around..
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Follow-up: Council rejected procedural impropriety claims. Worth appealing?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5152 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

Hello again,

 

I thought it would be not necessary but bad luck, council did evaluate my rejection of PCN in time :(

 

Details on the original PCN is here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/218535-cctv-pcn-challenge.html

 

In short, PCN was dated more than 28 days following the contravention.

 

I've just received a reply from Newham Council on the case, and they rejected my claim.

 

The contravention took place on 25 July 2009. We then went to the DVLA to obtain the registered keeper details on the tenth day after this.

 

Our remit is to go to the DVLA before the 14th day after the contravention and as you can see that is what we did. That is the only timescale for which we are responsible at this stage in the proceedings and the delay in printing and posting the PCN out to you was a result delays from the DVLA.

 

So is it worth appealing?

 

And another question, they request £100 fine now, is it correct? As I've send the initial representation within £50 period....

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something fishy about all this! Newham have on this and other forums claimed this '14 day' excuse on numerous occasions in the last few months. The Council I work for has delayed responses from the DVLA in very few cases and generally for a reason, no trace, keeper etc. It seems very strange the DVLA are late with most responses to Newham when other Councils get 'next day' replies to requests. Personally I would request data from both DVLA and Newhan to both back up their claim in your case and additionally general figures on response times to vq4 requests between DVLA and Newham over the last few months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition Newhan as a London council are supposed to abide by the London Councils code of practice which states...

 

Issue of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs)

2.4.10 The operator will use the contemporaneous record, or tags on the digital record, to identify the sections of the ‘working’ video recording, which contain possible contraventions.

2.4.11 Each contravention will be reviewed on the working video to decide whether it is clear and indisputable. Appropriate details of the vehicle and circumstances involved in clear and indisputable contraventions are recorded, and registered keeper details obtained. A PCN is then sent to the registered keeper.

2.4.12 All PCNs are to be issued within 14 days of the contravention and should be sent by first class post. The PCN is deemed to have been served when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

The statutary guidance from Secretary of state also states...

 

In these circumstances a PCN is served by post on the owner (whose identity is ascertained from the DVLA), and also acts as the Notice to Owner. The Regulations set out what information must

29

be stated on a PCN sent by post. The Secretary of State suggests that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention.

Edited by green_and_mean
Link to post
Share on other sites

From a similar case....

 

Got a reply back for FOI Request yesterday.

 

I asked

 

 

How many regulation 10 PCNs have been sent 28 days after Contravention occurred between 1st April 2009 and 1st October 2009

 

My Reply was

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Request for Information: Information Not Held

Please quote our reference: E4953.

Subject: Regualtion 10 PCNs.

 

We write with regard to your recent enquiry for information held by the Council under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

The information is not held, as the parking software system is not configured to produce the requested information.

 

If you require any further information or are not happy with our response please do not hesitate to contact a member of our team on (020) 8430 3737 or email us at [email protected].

 

If you are not satisfied with the decision, you may ask for an internal review via Newham Council Complaints Procedure. I enclose a copy of the procedure.

 

 

Yours Faithfully

 

Information Governance

 

Newham Council

Link to post
Share on other sites

What date did they state the DVLA replied? If they sent it off on the 5th Aug as claimed they 2 weeks to get back the details and send the PCN which is plenty of time to get it served in time.

 

They did not disclose this information.

 

If they sent the request for registered keeper address to the DVLA 10 days following the contravention, that would mean a date around 5 August. They mean however that the rest of the delay is not their fault but DVLA's. Why would DVLA take about three weeks to reply, still avoids me. Even before the contravention, I already had a certificate from DVLA posted to me...

 

By the way, on the reverse side of the rejection notice... I'm not a native speaker, but this english sounds rather gibberish....

 

You also mention that fact you felt you had to have a two minute observation period. This you had. We do not have to give this time as this what is termed as an instant fine but out of courtesy we do give this under this contravention.

Took me several readings to understand more or less what exactly they refer to... Still, why would it be an instant fine? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not disclose this information.

 

If they sent the request for registered keeper address to the DVLA 10 days following the contravention, that would mean a date around 5 August. They mean however that the rest of the delay is not their fault but DVLA's. Why would DVLA take about three weeks to reply, still avoids me. Even before the contravention, I already had a certificate from DVLA posted to me...

 

By the way, on the reverse side of the rejection notice... I'm not a native speaker, but this english sounds rather gibberish....

 

 

Took me several readings to understand more or less what exactly they refer to... Still, why would it be an instant fine? :confused:

 

I think Newham has a problem with postal PCNs this delay is not normal I can assure you most responses from DVLA are next day. The waffle at the end is correct in some respects the penalty is instant as soon as you park you are in contravention the only reason you can park is to pick up or drop off which is why its normal practice to observe for 2 mins to check this is not taking place. I would personally take this to PATAS there is a good chance they will back out before hand and if they dont I think you have a good chance of winning. If you do appeal to PATAS I can supply relevant legislation to back up case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to think about that. What's more interesting, I have another PCN which was as well delivered more a month after the contravention, and I have yet to receive reply to my presentation for that.

 

Interesting enough I spoke with them on the phone regarding the first PCN (in september, before I replied to it) and the lady said I had another parking violation as well. The 2nd contravention occurred in the first week of August :) And the second PCN was posted about a week or so following the phone conversation, so way overdue again.

 

It would be interesting to see what they can came with in regards to the second notice.

 

upd:

Just checked the papers. The second PCN was dated 16/09 regarding the contravention which took place on 05 August :p

I had a phone conversation with their parking department around 7 or 8 September, when they mentioned there was another fine due.

Edited by Sergei
Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to think about that. What's more interesting, I have another PCN which was as well delivered more a month after the contravention, and I have yet to receive reply to my presentation for that.

 

Interesting enough I spoke with them on the phone regarding the first PCN (in september, before I replied to it) and the lady said I had another parking violation as well. The 2nd contravention occurred in the first week of August :) And the second PCN was posted about a week or so following the phone conversation, so way overdue again.

 

It would be interesting to see what they can came with in regards to the second notice.

 

upd:

Just checked the papers. The second PCN was dated 16/09 regarding the contravention which took place on 05 August :p

I had a phone conversation with their parking department around 7 or 8 September, when they mentioned there was another fine due.

 

I am pretty sure you can request the dates requested and returned from the DVLA which would show if Newham are not being honest about the delay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Hi there, it's been a while.

 

just an update on this, I appealed to the original PCN. The decision was scheduled in January.

 

It is almost May now, and I finally got the response from Adjudicator.

 

And guess what, yes, the appeal has been rejected.

 

So, it seems, councils now how the right to serve PCNs at any time following the contravention, how sweet...

 

The date of the next general election is approaching quickly, just a thought :)

 

Still have to pay £100 now though :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you get the relevent legislation off G&M to back up your apeal? He offered it a few posts above.

 

 

Well, that would be bad for an Adjudicator not to know it, right? :)

 

The trouble is that he agreed that the notice was served outside of 28 days period and that he himself cited the appropriate paragraphs.

 

But here's what typically happens, all these sweet obscure small print in a subpoint in another paragraph trickery.

 

In this case the magic is done by Paragraph (6):

 

Where this paragraph applies, notwithstanding the expiration of the 28-day period, an enforcement authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a regulation 10 penalty charge notice —

(a) in a case falling within Paragraph (5)(a), for a period of six months beginning with the appropriate date;

 

Needless to say though that I never personally seen the exact evidence whatsoever that this case was indeed "falling within Paragraph 5.a clause"... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, it's been a while.

 

just an update on this, I appealed to the original PCN. The decision was scheduled in January.

 

It is almost May now, and I finally got the response from Adjudicator.

 

And guess what, yes, the appeal has been rejected.

 

So, it seems, councils now how the right to serve PCNs at any time following the contravention, how sweet...

 

The date of the next general election is approaching quickly, just a thought :)

 

Still have to pay £100 now though :(

 

Can you post a copy of the PATAS letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

seconded. we need to see it.

 

No problem with that!

 

Here you go, the 2nd and the 3rd pages of the reply. Just deleted date, case number etc. Just in case :)

 

 

 

picture211111.th.jpg

 

picture211112.th.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they certainly presented some documents, but they submitted them directly to the adjudicator. I don't recall though that there were *exact* dates when they submitted the request to DVLA and when they received the information.

 

However, since the whole process has been so massively delayed, I haven't even found these papers yet (the council sent me a copy). PATAS sent me a confirmation letter in the early November, so it took them almost 6 months to make a decision for this relatively simple case, lol :) Lots of stuff happened since then, for instance, I have already sold my car, and it was like two or three months ago :)

 

if the adjudicator is simply going to allow any period for service provided that the VQ4 was sent within 14 days then it makes a joke of the 28 day period.

Yeah, he basically means exactly that. Not for unlimited period of time, but councils may serve the notice any time within six months following the contravention. Edited by Sergei
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused. "Well, they certainly presented some documents, but they submitted them directly to the adjudicator..... I haven't even found these papers yet (the council sent me a copy)." Contradictory statements ? the council has to send you a copy of their 'case' if you dig them out it would be good to see them. As said before unless the council proved the claimed exemption then the adjudicator has just made this up. you could meanwhile ask the DVLA when they received the request for the VRN from the ocuncil and when they supplied the response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused. "Well, they certainly presented some documents, but they submitted them directly to the adjudicator..... I haven't even found these papers yet (the council sent me a copy)." Contradictory statements ?

 

Not really. They did sent these statements to the Adjudicator directly. They did however sent me a copy which I received in November last year. However I cannot tell if the Adjudicator requested any additional evidence from the Council (or DVLA, for instance). It took way too much time for this process anyway, so it is possible that some additional evidence was indeed requested (but that is just my theory, of course!)

 

the council has to send you a copy of their 'case' if you dig them out it would be good to see them.

 

Of course, if I find it I'll let you know :) So far no success though. As I told in my previous post, I sold my car about two months ago, and received a confirmation of the ownership change from DVLA in March. After that I pretty much forgotten about this case anyway, to be honest with you... The case was due before the New Year anyway, in fact I find this delay even more annoying than serving the notice after 28 days!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...