Council deliberately witheld information from PATAS

[Kiki1]

Having seen this thread (and this post in particular )

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?396732-Lost-POPLA-appeal-what-are-my-chances-in-court&p=4284319&viewfull=1#post4284319

 

I am wondering what chance I have of appealing via the county court since I did provide proof of purchase and the council were in no way at a loss as I had proof of purchase

 

I went through the informal, then formal NTO procedure, and onto PATAS (upheld) believing the council had retained a ticket I had purchased in order to check why it did not remain on the windscreen after applying.

 

After no budging from their side I was eventually threatened with bailiffs and a seizure of a vehicle to cover their 'losses' and paid up approximately £400 on top of the original penalty.

 

Now following a FOI request it turns out the Council policy did not inspect the ticket, nor send it off for evaluation, their standard procedure confirmed in writing being to destroy any and all original correspondence sent to them (including the ticket), and retaining only electronic copies, which is absolutely no use to anyone when they have been asked to check for a defective product supplied / purchased for the purpose of 'pay and display'.

 

Does anyone else know if I migh have recourse using the courts ? I have already been through to the LGO, who (despite confirming the PATAS procedure should not have been the next step, even though it was suggestd as only route by the Council) they have their hands tied in contractural red tape.

 

Any parking legal eagle I should call, to check on probability of success ?

Edited July 12, 2013 by Kiki1

[green_and_mean]

Not sure what that thread has to do with a Council ticket?? Based on the few details you give you are barking up the wrong tree. Failing to correctly display a ticket in a council car park is a contravention of the traffic order and liable to a penalty, the fact you paid is not relevant (unless the P&D has your VRM on it, its not proof you paid anyway it could have been used in any car). When you go to PATAS you produce your evidence, the Council present theirs, its not the Council responsibility to ensure that your case is well presented that's your job.

[Jamberson]

I don't understand your thread. You say you went to PATAS and the case was upheld? Then the council should have cancelled the ticket. You say you were threatened with bailiffs - what else happened after the PATAS hearing? What correspondence were you sent?

 

You can't appeal the case through the courts.

 

Where is the case now? Have you paid?

[Kiki1]

Apologies, the councils side was upheld, as a result of there being no information to the contrary at the time of appeal.

 

Yes, the 'failure to display' was the offence, I'm unsure as to how the ticket 'could have been used in any car' since the warden that issued the PCN was shown the ticket about a minute after tapping his box of joy, and advised me that I should write off to the LA, enclosing the ticket as proof.

 

Without any of the above available at the time of PATAS - plus the fact the adjudicator conveniently ignoring that the ticket had been sent back to the LA for investigation as it did not remain in view as it was supposed to - meant the next stages of charge certification and then the bailiffs were an automatic follow on.

 

Once again my reason for posting is to find out why there is a difference between the pre-estimate costs for a private land parking ticket, and one for the council

[Jamberson]

Private tickets work on a different legal basis to council ones - namely, breach of contract. The remedy for breach of contract is to sue for losses so the private firms have to offer an estimate of what their losses were.

 

PCNs of the type you have are penalties, like fines. There is no concept of loss involved and so no need for the council to produce evidence of costs - the charge is there to penalise the owner, not compensate the council.

 

If the adjudication found against you and you then did not settle the debt, I can't see you have any option other than to pay.

[Kiki1]

If the adjudication found against you and you then did not settle the debt, I can't see you have any option other than to pay.

 

Thanks or that. Now, with the LGO advising that PATAS should not have been involved, despite the LA giving no option in their documentation following formal rejection after the NTO, as well as Northampton Bulk Court finding in favour (twice) for the registered keeper, they persued the original charge until the bailiffs came knocking.

 

If the County court in Northampton isdeemed to be part of the process, why is using a county court elsewhere in the country not a suitable step for the RK to persue the LA nw they have cnfirmed they destroyed documentation - paid for and therefore the property of the RK - without evaluating it for the fault that led to the PCN in the first place ?

[Jamberson]

So you've been through the ombudsman and also filed two stat decs already? You really have to tell us what's happened if you want meaningful advice. You didn't mention that before. Was the list time Northampton "found in favour of the registered keeper" before or after the adjudication hearing? If after, and they found in favour, what happened then?

 

What would be most helpful would be just a list of events in order, since the last NTO was issued, so we can tell the history of the case.

 

To answer your points - I find it bizarre that the LGO would advise that PATAS should not be involved. They are there to get involved! Anyway, whatever the LGO thinks that was right or wrong, it happened, so you can't attach much significance to his or her view, unless there were formal consequences (tell us about it!).

 

Northampton County Court are there to rubber stamp applications which approve bailiff action. That's rather different from you suing the council/bailiff as a private action, which is what you would have to do to get a court involved. But before even considering that, which points of law are at stake? The council is entitled to penalise drivers and enforce payment - what has happened which is illegal? (Poor work on their part in considering your appeal submission is not against the law - it's a matter for the adjudicator to consider.) You seem to be implying that the council destroyed property belonging to the RK - a used P&D ticket. That alone is hardly likely to get anywhere near a court room and in any case, is a separate issue.

[green_and_mean]

What did the LGO suggest instead of following the statutory legal procedure?