Bus lane - informal correspondence, now warrant of execution and Bailiffs out of the blue

[Lifeforce]

The history

 

Four years ago I received a pcn for a bus lane and when moving through the PATAS procedure, the local authority - Richmond - confirmed a 'discretionary' penalty distance of 10m existed at the end of the lane(s), which I had apparently violated by almost 4metres - which turned out to be untrue after revisiting and measurements/photos. On the day of the hearing Richmond failed to offer evidence to the contrary, actually not bothering to turn up at all. So, case dismissed and a lost day of work, plus another day in travel and compiling . The adjudicator said at the time that if I had put in an application for costs before the hearing I would have got them. Lesson duly learned.

 

I do not travel much into Richmond anyway but on the odd occasion I will be at the same junction where there is no bus on the horizon, no cars are ahead in the lane, up to the lights, and everybody else is turning right, leaving a completely clear lane ahead of where I require to be to go straight ahead. The lights are phased in a way that at the point of the bus lane finishing, anyone starting from there as they go green will be caught by the amber/red for another three minutes, so in all the whole junction sucks, but hey-ho.

 

Last year I did much the same thing as the first, ensuring I was well within the 10m zone, Once again, no bus/taxi/cyclis anywhere to be seen, no cars right up to the lights and no possible chance of obstructing anybody.

 

I received a pcn a week later, which I duly replied to, citing the earlier instance and advising that if it was to progress further I would be applying costs. The response a few weeks later that there was no discretionary zone and no costs I could recover against the council for my time or stationery.

 

I sent back a reponse, including a copy of Richmond's own confirmation of the 'discretionary' zone, plus a final warning that I would charge for time if this was persued based on the adjudicators comments after the hearing.

 

Fast forward six months to this week, and no response from Richmond at any time in between, I have a letter from Phoenix of Bolton suggesting a warrant of execution was granted in November and they are now obliged to collect.

 

The address on the envelope/letter is not mine, however as it has my name on the neighbour has dropped it off, and so I am assuming any earlier letters might have gone astray, or returned to sender. Odd, as Richmond orignally replied using the correct address, but that is not the point of my first post, neither is the discretionary zone as such.

 

If Richmond confirms in writing that a zone existed, then later they state that it has never existed, should I be able to collate something via a solicitor that I can pass back to the bailiffs and local authority ? I appreciate the Bailiffs may have not been given any information prior to the warrant or instruction from Richmond, but since they are part of the jigsaw, are they obliged to adhere to the content of such a letter to stop them turning up on the doorstep with a further bill for their time ?

 

Thank you for taking time to read this

[Lifeforce]

I should add I have called the Bailiffs to ask for a copy of the warrant, but they are only interested in collection and that I should call Richmond - elsewhere on this forum however are posts confirming that once the Bailiffs have the documentation and are given the go ahead to persue, the council will not engage in correspondence. So where next ?

 

Where would a warrant be applied for/granted in this instance anyway, and can I appeal to the court, even though this was all done in November ?

[Lifeforce]

Finally got through to the bottom rung of the council parking department, but now a message has to progress up through the ranks before any response, apparently this could be a week.

 

Does anyone know if there has been a UK change in legislation on bus lane moving traffic violations, or is this limited only to the Richmond patch ? There is nothing on their public accessible site that confirms a 'discretionary' entry/exit rule, even though I have written proof from the LA it was in force in 2007/8.

If it is nationwide, where would bus lane regulations (and any subsequent amendments) be available online ?

 

I suppose I could be barking up the wrong tree, but would a court accept what I have on paper as a legitimate reason for crossing into the bus lane when photographed ?

[Lifeforce]

And a response from the LA, words to the effect of 'since there has been no challenge to an Enforcement Notice on xx/xx/xx, it's all moved on beyond any stage that I can appeal. Neatly ignoring two earlier letters of correspondence (one online and the second by post) that requested detail as to why the regulations around in 2007 are supposedly a figment of my imgaination when in exactly the same place in 2012.

 

The LA additionally claims that 'all communication regarding a PCN is required by law to be in writing'. Is this true ?

 

Since the warrant of execution was made in November (and despite asking for a copy, Richmond and the Bailiffs have refused to send one), is it possible I can still file for an out of time declaration, and if so, how do I go about doing it ?

 

Other threads suggest there is -currenty - a lot of missing mail from LA's, and a charge certificate gets issued the moment a deadline passes. Is this a new tactic, seeing as it appears to be the best method for securing funds on a PCN ?

[Jamberson]

I see you're getting no help at all here!

 

Bus lane issues aren't my speciality, but I think you need to file something called an Out of Time Statutory Declaration. This will challenge the warrant, since you had no correspondence about it.

 

I suggest you go back to the main page of this site, scroll down for the bailiff section and put a post on there. Someone should be able to tell you where to go from here.

[Lifeforce]

Thanks for the reply

 

I have already consulted with the bailiffs, which is why I registered on the site. They advised I get back in contact with the LA over the warrant of execution as whey could not send out a copy. But when I requested it from the LA, along with details of the original reason for rejecting my circumstances (and have continued to ignore it ) I have not had any further luck with them.

 

The bailiffs are not my main concern on this as I have already settled in full, just in case I got a visit along with some three figure charge for the privildege, what I do require information on is why the LA contradicted itself in their first 2012 reply.

I should check if it was a notice of rejection and correctly worded, as this may be just as important as the 'out of time' form. Is there a chage for applying for this ?

[Jamberson]

I didn't mean you should get in touch with the bailiffs. I mean you should post a message on a different section of this webiste. There is a bailiff section for people having problems over bailiff situations, and the people who post on there will know more about it than in the parking section.

 

Whether the Notice of Rejection was correctly worded is academic at this point. Unless you file an Out of Time successfully, you can't lodge a challenge - so I think you need to do that first. If you do, and you succeed, you should be able to just get a copy of the Notice from the council. I would be amazed if they tried to charge you for it!

[ploddertom]

Moved to Bailiff Forum

[Lifeforce]

OK, downloaded the PE2 form. Is this one correct for starting proceedings with ?

 

It looks as though I have to get it signed in front of a solicitor, or somebody at the local court.

[ploddertom]

If you contact the TEC they will tell which Forms you need & will email them to you.

[tomtubby]

The most important question to ask TEC is what address is on the warrant. Their number is 08457 045 007

[Lifeforce]

The most important question to ask TEC is what address is on the warrant. Their number is 08457 045 007

 

Thanks for the above.

 

I finally got through to TEC today (always engaged ) and they do not hold any documentation over the warrant, but have confirmed they will be sending out the correct form(s) for me to complete.

 

What they did say though was the completed form will be passed back to the LA and should they then claim the matter is closed (I've paid the bailiff simply to stem any visit/additional charge, not to stop any investigation) then that will be as far as I can go.

 

Furthermore TEC confirmed the application by the Richmond was for a private bailiff - Phoenix - to persue on their behalf, rather than a court appointed bailiff. What difference is there ?

 

One last point - in the Richmond correspondence of two weeks back they write 'Finally please be aware that it is procedurally inappropriate now for youto be seeking direct dialogue with us regarding this case, sorry'. ????????

 

 

It does look as though the procedure is designed simply to tie knots into any digging/justice by an interested party, one that has been given two different pieces of information by the same LA, over the same road/bus lane conditions, then been served notice to an address that does not tie in with the NTO, just to be screwed over each time.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Lifeforce