PCN & DVLA Mix up

[Bizzman]

Hi. I received a PCN as parking bays were suspended street by street over a period of time, due to resurfacing on a Victorian housing estate in Leyton E10. The contractors were running way behind schedule, parking was at a premium due to the suspensions, and it was chaos. I asked a roadworker if they were actually going to be working on the road in question that day, and he assured me they were not, and it was fine to park. I received a PCN, took photo's, pre-empted the problems, and e-mailed Waltham Forest Council the same day. I keep getting a response in writing by snail mail, although I have asked for an e-mail response in correspondence, (they state it's a legal obligation to use snail mail?). Every 28 days the "fine" is going up by £65, but I haven't got a problem with anything, as I think they have made an error.

 

My name has one initial then my surname R E****. I received a letter addressed to M R E**** and returned it to sender as it is illegal to open mail not addressed to oneself. Matters have progressed, and although the "offence" occurred in Waltham Forest, I have been advised a case is being handled by Northants County Court. My defence on this matter is that I have never received the "notice to owner" and even wrote to them stating their error. They wrote back to M R E****, stating that was the info given to them by DVLA, therefore if I have a problem to contact DVLA. I contacted DVLA today and they confirm the details held are for Mr E****.

 

Do I ignore all proceedings as I am NOT "M R E****" as it surely cannot affect my credit rating etc? I have explained the situation to Waltham Forest Council, but they see it as my problem?

 

Confused, and then some.

 

Thanks in anticipation

[green_and_mean]

Maybe you should have sought advice earlier? Assuming you have sent back the order for recovery un-opened there is nothing you can do except wait for a visit from the baliffs to tow your car away.

[Bizzman]

Hi, thanks for your prompt response. I have responded every time they have written, by e-mail the same day. My initial gripe with them was the fact they would not correspond by e-mail. I have loads of photo's of what happened, and e-mail would have given me a defence. They state that "the Traffic Management 2004 requires that the Rejection of Representation is formally served by first class mail". I wasn't asking them for a qualification, just a means of stating it was an error or both trust and judgement.

 

The issue here is not the original accusation (I guess that's standard?), just a point of Law, they have addressed correspondence to M R E****, and my name is R E****. I returned to sender, and now find myself in litigation in a Court 70 miles away from the original offence? That's obviously another gripe for another time

[patdavies]

returned it to sender as it is illegal to open mail not addressed to oneself.

 

 

Where did you get this nonsense from...?

 

You have tried it on and lost. I can't see any way out of this than to pay.

[Bizzman]

It's legal to open mail addressed to somebody else? Hope you can provide evidence to the fact? Give me 5 minutes, I'm sure I can prove otherwise.

[patdavies]

It's legal to open mail addressed to somebody else? Hope you can provide evidence to the fact? Give me 5 minutes, I'm sure I can prove otherwise.

 

Yep. It is only illegal to tamper with mail' in the course of transmission' (ie from the time it enters a postbox to the time it is delivered to an address). Once delivered, anybody can open it.

 

Think about it for a moment. If somebody at your address dies, are you saying that any mail received subsequently for them could not be opened and dealt with - even by the executor...?

[green_and_mean]

If you got an electricity bill addressed to a M R E***** would you have sent it back un opened and waited for the lights to go out?

[Bizzman]

A legitimate reason is fine, I'm all for that. My point being, a letter was addressed to M R E****, that's not me, I pointed it out to Waltham Forest council and they insist that's the name given by DVLA, quote "if you feel that any of these details are incorrect please contact the DVLA".

 

I KNOW they are incorrect, have phoned DVLA today and they have confirmed the fact, so what do I do? Let them get a CCJ against M R E****, which obviously isn't me? I know it's pedantic, but it's not me who started it. Living and working in London, I get shed loads of dubious fines. Some warranted, some not. Sometimes, it's worth asking the question to see if there is precedent. Thanks

[patdavies]

Postal Services Act 2000

 

S.84 (1)(b) (my bold)

84 Interfering with the mail: general.

 

(1)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—

(a)intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or

(b)intentionally opens a mail-bag.

 

S.125 (3) (my bold)

(3)For the purposes of this Act—

(a)a postal packet shall be taken to be in course of transmission by post from the time of its being delivered to any post office or post office letter box to the time of its being delivered to the addressee,

(b)the delivery of a postal packet of any description to a letter carrier or other person authorised to receive postal packets of that description for the post or to a person engaged in the business of a postal operator to be dealt with in the course of that business shall be a delivery to a post office, and

©the delivery of a postal packet—

(i)at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, unless they are a post office from which it is to be collected,

(ii)to any box or receptacle to which the occupier of those premises has agreed that postal packets addressed to persons at those premises may be delivered, or

(iii)to the addressee’s agent or to any other person considered to be authorised to receive the packet,shall be a delivery to the addressee.

 

Pedantic or otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on

Edited January 4, 2012 by patdavies

[green_and_mean]

A legitimate reason is fine, I'm all for that. My point being, a letter was addressed to M R E****, that's not me, I pointed it out to Waltham Forest council and they insist that's the name given by DVLA, quote "if you feel that any of these details are incorrect please contact the DVLA".

 

I KNOW they are incorrect, have phoned DVLA today and they have confirmed the fact, so what do I do? Let them get a CCJ against M R E****, which obviously isn't me? I know it's pedantic, but it's not me who started it. Living and working in London, I get shed loads of dubious fines. Some warranted, some not. Sometimes, it's worth asking the question to see if there is precedent. Thanks

 

They don't have to get a CCJ the debt is registered at Northampton County Court and a warrant for recovery issued the balliffs will then attend your property and most likely seize your car

[Bizzman]

OK, for the sake of argument..... they might as well address the letter to "Mr Car Owner". If they addressing Legal letters to me, then surely they should be addressed to me?

[Bizzman]

Patdavies, as my initials are not M R, is was never addressed to me? Whether I open it of not, that's the crux of the mater, not interception of mail?

[Michael Browne]

Are you, by any chance, a Freeman of the Land?

[green_and_mean]

OK, for the sake of argument..... they might as well address the letter to "Mr Car Owner". If they addressing Legal letters to me, then surely they should be addressed to me?

 

There is nothing we can say or do to change the situation, thanks for telling us your story please come back and tell us how it ends up.

[Jamberson]

I received a letter addressed to M R E****

 

Yes you did. YOU did. It's YOU. They know it, you know it, we know it.

[Br1gg5y]

Just out of interest but what does it say on your driving liecence as to your name? i'm sure there is some kind of "rule" about your liecence being 100% accurate?

[Old Snowy]

The slight misaddressing would almost certainly be admitted under the "Slip Rule". Demonstrate that you were materially misled and you might just have a whiff of an argument. As it stands, attempting to raise the trusty shield of pedantry (or is it pedanticism, I always forget?) is almost certainly going to see A.N. Other Bailiffs Ltd waltz off down the road having legally seized you car. I suggest you swallow your pride and pay the outstanding amount before it escalates any further.

[borisbeaver]

Perhaps it's Mr E**** but they've printed M R E****?

[Old Snowy]

Are you, by any chance, a Freeman of the Land?

Don't be ridiculous. Any fule kno that if the OP was a FOTL then his name would be R of the family E****. Tch