Hull City Council sending Bailiffs for an unpaid parking ticket

[LynetteC]

Sorry Jamberson, but I have to disagree with your review of my circumstances. I responded appropriately to every letter I received from Hull City Council - none of which referred to a Witness Statement:

 

Letter 1 - Notice to Owner (fee increased from £35 to £70) - representation made in writing:

I have enclosed the signed representations form, although I have not ticked any of the boxes as none of the Specified Grounds are relevant - I am not requesting cancellation of the fee, only clarification as to whether I should have to pay the increased fee due to an unforeseen error that I consider out of my control. Hull City Council say this was not recieved.

 

Letter 2 - Charge Certificate (fee further increased from £70 to £105) - further letter sent to Hull City Council:

I notice that one of the possible reasons for the Charge Certificate being served is: . No representations were made in response to the Notice to Owner.

This is the only reason that could possibly be relevant to my case as I did not tick any of the boxes on the representation form, however, I specifically noted in my letter that this was because none of the Specified Grounds related to the circumstances of my case as I was not seeking to have the fine quashed but to query whether I should be liable for additional charges when I believed the fine paid.

I therefore dispute that no representations were made and hereby request that the additional £35 charge be removed. Hull City Council say this was not recieved.

 

Letter 3 from Council - Pre-Debt registration (fee remained £105) - letter sent to Council:

I am not disputing that I owe £35 for the initial fine, however, as is evident from the enclosed correspondence, I do dispute being liable for additional fees that have been piled on whilst my correspondence has been repeatedly ignored. I will pay the full £70 if necessary (under protest) but I do not feel that I should be responsible for any additional costs.

 

I would therefore be obliged if you would withdraw this debt from the County Court and have the courtesy to respond to my query as first requested back in May - that is, should I be held liable for the additional £35 charge when I believed the fine paid on 16 April 2013? Hull City Council say this was not recieved.

 

None of the letters I received made any reference to a Witness Statement. Hull City Council's grounds for objecting to my late Statement are that they sent correspondence that I didn't receive, which is ironic considering I have sent them three letters that they have no record of.

 

Would any of the above change your advice regarding taking this further?

[Jamberson]

Did you receive an Order for Recovery?

 

May I ask, what grounds did you give on your witness statement for it being out of time?

Edited November 29, 2013 by Jamberson

[LynetteC]

All I received before the bailiff arrived were the three letters I referred to above. No Witness Statement, no Order of Recovery. My statement said:

"I have written to Hull City Council on three separate occasions and they have not responded (letters attached). I never received an Order for Recovery and was therefore unaware of these proceedings until receiving a bailiff's letter on 30/09/2013."

 

On Form TE9 I ticked the box for "I made representations about the penalty to the enforcing authority concerned within 28 days of the service of the Notice to Owner, but did not receive a rejection notice."

 

The letters I received from Hull City Council were scanned with the corresponding responses sent and attached to the email.

[Jamberson]

So you did not receive an Order for Recovery?

 

When you filed your Witness Statement, it would have been an "Out of Time" one. Therefore, you should have submitted the TE9, but also a TE7, and on the TE7 you have to explain why the application is Out of Time.

 

Did you do this?

 

If you did not, then you could try filing one now. It still might get rejected, but if you did not receive the Order for Recovery, and did not in fact file a TE7 previously, then there is a glimmer of hope that you would have a stronger case.

 

Do you recall whether you filed a TE7 with the TE9?

[LynetteC]

I did both. The paragraph I quoted is what I wrote on the TE7 form, the box ticked was on the TE9.

[Jamberson]

So you stated on the TE7 that you had not received the Order for Recovery, and they rejected it anyway. You've done what you should have - so I am struggling to think of the best thing for you to do from here.

 

The council's position is this:

 

1. They sent you an Order for Recovery, to the correct address.

2. They have no knowledge of an incoming Representation from you.

 

It's difficult for you to prove that you sent letters to them, when they deny having them, and also convince someone that the Order for Recovery never arrived.

 

May I suggest you put a post on the bailiff section of this site. There are people there who might have a better idea of your chances with the N244. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Bailiffs-and-High-Court-Enforcement-Officers

[LynetteC]

Summary of the situation:

A bailiff turned up in October demanding £265 for an unpaid parking fine from April. I had sent three letters to the Local Authority querying the additional charges as I thought I had paid on their automated telephone system but the payment had failed. I have never refused to pay the initial £35, and have even stated that under duress I would pay the £70, but I do not feel I should be liable for any further charges.

 

I filed an Out of Time Witness Statement as I had never received an Order for Recovery. Hull City Council claim that they have not received any of my correspondence. They have objected to my Witness Statement on the grounds that they have sent me documentation that I have not received. (Oh, the irony!)

 

I received an Order dated 11 November, revoking the unpaid penalty charge and cancelling the charge certificate. I then received a further Order dated 18 November refusing my Witness Statement. (I queried this on my previous post).

 

Yesterday I received a letter from Jacobs bailiffs advising that I have 7 days (from 26 November) to pay out £167.44. Hull City Council have re-instated the debt due to my statement being refused.

 

I spoke to Northampton County Court today who advised that the first Order was made because Hull City Council didn't respond to my statement before 25 October, the deadline on their system. However, Hull then produced evidence to the Court that they'd had an extension to 28 October to respond, which they complied with and my statement was subsequently refused.

 

I'm now at the point where I have to decide - do I risk paying an extra £45 (or £80) to file for a review and risk having to pay not only the bailiff's charges but Court costs on top, or do I pay the £167.44 to Jacobs?

 

Either way, I feel like going to our local media to point out what a bunch of clowns we have running our "City of Culture"!

 

Please can anyone advise?

 

Thanks.

 

LynetteC

 

Does nobody have any advice?

 

Well, I did what you suggedted Jamberson, and posted in the Bailiff forum, but nobody has replied. Guess I'm out of time. Thanks for trying.

Edited November 30, 2013 by LynetteC

[tomtubby]

After submitting the OTT did you receive a copy of the Statement of Truth that had been submitted to TEC by Hull City Council?

 

I am very surprised indeed to hear that the Traffic Enforcement Centre allowed the LA an "extension". to file their response to the OTT. I am not sure this is actually permitted in the CPR rules. I will check when I return to work tomorrow. In the meantime, can you call TEC and ask them for further details of the regulations that allow for this?

 

It is vitally important for you to see the Statement of Truth and you should ask TEC for a copy of the application for an "extension".

 

PS; I am lost for words as to WHY the TEC would even consider an "extension" given that Hull were afforded a period of '19 working days' to consider your application. This is ONE MONTH and is more than sufficient time.

 

Something is NOT RIGHT !!!!

[LynetteC]

Hi tomtubby

 

I received a copy of a letter DATED 28 October 2013 addressed to the TEC opposing my late witness statement on the grounds that they had sent me four peices of correspondence, only three of which I received. It was the TE3 and TE9 forms apparently posted on 17 July 2013 that never arrived. There was nothing on it naming it a Statement of Truth but I'm guessing it was a suitable alternative. There was a covering letter with this correspondence, also dated 28 October that said:

 

"Please find enclosed a copy of the Council's opposition to your late witness statement which has been sent to the Traffic Enforcement Centre." It must have been filed to the TEC by email for it to have been received by the deadline.

 

The letter itself has incorrect facts:

 

"Mrs C states on her declaration that she was not aware of the PCN until she received a letter from the Bailiffs on 30/09/13" INCORRECT - My statement was - and I quote: "I have written to Hull City Council on three separate occasions and they have not responded (letters attached). I never received an Order for Recovery and was therefore unaware of these proceedings until receiving a bailiff's letter on 30/09/2013."

 

I said that I was unaware of the proceedings, not the PCN.

 

Regarding the three letters that they do not have on file:

"Although Mrs C has supplied copies of these letters she has not submitted a formal appeal using the Notice to Owner form, this she confirms she has received." INCORRECT - From my response to the Notice to Owner letter: I have enclosed the signed representations form, although I have not ticked any of the boxes as none of the Specified Grounds are relevant - I am not requesting cancellation of the fee, only clarification as to whether I should have to pay the increased fee due to an unforeseen error that I consider out of my control.

 

Even if they did not receive the original letters they have obviously read the copies I attached to my Statement. I am unable to provide a copy of the signed but incomplete form as I didn't take a copy before I posted it.

 

Regarding my telephone call to the Council on the 1 October:

"During this conversation Mrs C stated that she had paid the PCN and that she had also sent 3 letters to the Council. Hull City Council have not received any payment against this PCN no (sic) has Mrs C supplied documentation that shows this has been paid." INCORRECT - I have never claimed to have paid, only that I believed it had been paid but the payment somehow failed. From my response to the Notice to Owner: This communication has come as a surprise to me as I believed this parking ticket to have been paid via the automated payment line on 16 April 2013. I have checked my bank statement and have found that no charges have been taken so I can only assume that there was a problem in processing the payment. and from my response to the Charge Certificate: I notice that one of the possible reasons for the Charge Certificate being served is:

 

• No representations were made in response to the Notice to Owner.
  

This is the only reason that could possibly be relevant to my case as I did not tick any of the boxes on the representation form, however, I specifically noted in my letter that this was because none of the Specified Grounds related to the circumstances of my case as I was not seeking to have the fine quashed but to query whether I should be liable for additional charges when I believed the fine paid. (emphasis added for the purpose of this message).

 

I therefore dispute that no representations were made and hereby request that the additional £35 charge be removed.

 

They then go on to say that they have acted correctly within the regulations whereas I have "totally ignored the whole process". BLATANT LIE. Just because they didn't receive/lost my correspondence, the fact that I had provided copies would suggest that I most certainly had NOT ignored the process.

 

I had thought that a Magistrate, Judge, or whoever it is who looks at the cases at the TEC would at least have read my letters and realised the inaccuracies in Hull City Council's claims!

 

Would it be worth ringing the Council and pointing out the above inaccuracies? Perhaps appeal to their better judgement?

 

I have until tomorrow to get in touch with the bailiffs. Any advice you can give will be greatfully received.

 

LynetteC

Edited December 3, 2013 by LynetteC

[LynetteC]

OK, I've just had a call back from Northampton County Court.

 

Apparently, the only error was that the 25 October was added to their system as the deadline for the LA's response, but 28 October is actually 19 working days (if you count from 2 October and not the date I filed my OOT Statement. The man I spoke to on 28 November was "new" so got his facts a little wrong! Hull City Council's statement, incorrect as it is, was therefore filed in time.

 

So, what chance do I have if I file for a review?

 

The lady who called me back said that I could request that the LA pay the costs of the application, but there's no guarantee's that this would be ordered. I need to contact the bailiffs as my seven days run out today - if I file the N244, does this put them on hold again?

[Jamberson]

The details you posted here are more promising, in particular their various incorrect statements which imply that they did not properly read or consider your Witness Statement. However, it is still far from clear what the outcome would be if you did go ahead with an N244 - even if their errors are corrected, the fact still remains that the case was allowed to progress to bailiffs. Your defence for filing late was the failure of the Order for Recovery to arrive, but it's not definite that this would be ruled sufficient in itself (since you had previous documents and were aware of the live case).

 

I really don't know what is best. It is a 50-50 situation I think, in view of what you said above. Their false statements certainly look bad for them.

 

Out of interest, do your earlier letters to the council all have your name and address and the PCN number typed correctly?

 

If you do go for an N244, it will put the case back on hold, but you might find they are unwilling to place it on hold until the forms are actually filed and received. If you go for it, I would suggest you advise the council at once that you are doing it, and get the forms in as quickly as possible.

 

When you apply, you should include a request for costs - and if you win the hearing, you may well get back the application fee. If you lose, then of course you won't.

[LynetteC]

Hi Jamberson

 

Yes, the letters all had my name and address (with home and mobile numbers and my email - I have a personal template set up in Word) and the PCN.

 

You say that my defence for filing late may not be ruled sufficient, but how would I be expected to file a statement if I never received the form? I accept that I was aware of the case, but as I had written in response to the first three documents received from Hull City Council I assumed that the matter was under review. I had no idea that my mail had gone astray and as I have never been in this situation before I did not know that I should be expecting any other forms.

 

I can complete the forms and email them to the Court this afternoon but I'm wondering if it's worth the risk? What sort of costs would I be looking at if I lose apart from the PCN, the bailiff's costs and the application fee?

[Jamberson]

The view they sometimes take (and I emphasis "they" take it, not me!) is that if you received the Charge Certificate, then you would have been expecting an Order for Recovery and had a duty to chase things up before the dates passed. You have a good counter-argument in that you were waiting for, and expecting, a reply to your letter, but they might not accept that the Order for Recovery never reached you, and that is the core part of your argument.

 

It's tricky, but the more I think about it, the better I think your odds seem to be. Maybe it's worth the risk of paying for the N244? It's very much up to you.

 

I have never heard of a council requesting costs in the event they win, so your only additional expense would be the payment for the N244.

 

To be honest, they often side with the applicant over the council as they view these cases as relatively trivial, and they take up the court's time. They often get frustrated at councils - all you want is that they allow your Witness Statement, and so the officer in charge of the hearing will probably be more on your side that theirs. And, you can point to their failure to address the points in your original application, which will further count against them, when considering whether this is a worthwhile use of the court's time. It won't look bad for you, just for them.

[LynetteC]

OK, so I'm looking at completing the N244 form. For Part 3, I'm again out of the required timescales due to the confusion of the conflicting Orders. How does this sound:

 

I wish to apply for a review of the Court Officer’s Order to refuse my recent Out of Time Witness Statement.

 

I wish to apply for leave to file an application to review the Court Officer’s decision outside the 14 days of service due to an error in processing my case. I received an Order dated 11 November 2013 revoking the recovery of the unpaid penalty charge and cancelling the charge certificate. Shortly afterwards I received a further Order dated 18 November 2013 refusing my out of time witness statement but as I already had an Order, I was unsure what this meant. I was in the process of taking legal advice when I received correspondence from Jacobs bailiffs advising that they had been re-instructed by Hull City Council to collect a debt, leading to this application.

 

I also wish to apply for costs in this application as it would appear my Out of Time Witness Statement was not considered fully by Hull City Council before it was opposed.

 

For Section 10 I have selected the third option; "the evidence set out below" and have basically paraphrased the summary of inconsistencies in their statement that I posted above. I have also stated that I do not want the ticket cancelled, just clarification in respect of whether I need to pay the £70 or just the initial £35.

 

Is this an acceptable application?

[Jamberson]

I have never completed one myself, but it sounds reasonable to me. Maybe change the phrase "taking legal advice" to "trying to clarify what stage the case was at, and was then given incorrect information by TEC" - leading it back towards the whole mix-up beyond your control? (Otherwise it might sound like you decided to go outside the system somehow.) Just a thought - keep us posted with how you get on.

[LynetteC]

Thanks again Jamberson. I've made that change.

 

Now, TEC emailed me the forms and provided an email address to send this to but do I need to send it by post as well, with a cheque?

[Jamberson]

Don't know, I'm afraid. Maybe someone else knows the process from here?

[LynetteC]

The final step - should I request a hearing at a local County Court (and necessitate time off work) or will the £45 process without a hearing be sufficient? Which would you recommend?

[Jamberson]

I would go for a hearing, without doubt. You can put your case much more effectively, correct any council mistakes and answer any queries etc.

 

It's a very informal process. You might even get lucky and find the council doesn't show up - it does happen - and then you've won.

[LynetteC]

Well, I've emailed the form to the TEC and I'll call them tomorrow about the fee. I tried to speak to somebody at Hull City Council today but I was told that the Traffic Department don't take calls from the public! (I wonder why? ) I was on hold and going back and forth for about 20 minutes, but I *did* manage to score an email address so in future you can guess how I'm going to communicate with them! I've also copied them into the email to the TEC so they'll know first thing tomorrow that the application has been made and call off the dogs - I mean bailiffs!

 

Thank you Jamberson for following me over from the Local Authority Parking forum and continuing to help me here. It's most appreciated.

[Jamberson]

No problem. I just wish I knew a bit more about the N244 process. I'm surprised none of the regulars on here have jumped in!

 

Re: Hull City Council - the Traffic department might be the wrong department. I used to work for a local authority and there was a traffic dept who dealt with road layouts, street signs and so on - they weren't customer-facing. Do they have a separate department called Parking, I wonder?

[LynetteC]

OK, I have an update. I've been given a Court Date of 17 February and yesterday received Hull City Council's representations. It came in a hand-written envelope addressed to Mrs P C*** - I'm Mrs L C*** but as the only Mrs in the house I opened it anyway.

 

The covering letter is also addressed to Mrs P C***. OK, so the P is near the L on a computer keyboard, perhaps it's a simple mis-type on the letter. I started scanning through the document and found at paragraph 6 on page 3:

 

"... a NTO (BW1 pages 1 - 5) was sent to Mrs Patricia C***, 136..."

 

Mrs Patricia C*** is my mother-in-law. She has never lived at 136 with us and I have never lived with my in-laws at their address on the other side of the city. In addition, neither my mother-in-law nor father-in-law have ever owned a car or even hold a driving licence. Why would Hull City Council be trawling through my family members to have this information? The NTO attached at 'BW1 pages 1 - 5' is correctly addressed to me.

 

Then at paragraph 8:

"...in keeping with good practice, a letter sent to Mrs Hannam at the address above..."

 

I have no idea who Mrs Hannam is - most likely the unfortunate individual whose Court papers have been recycled to prepare my documents!

 

There are also inconsistencies in the records paraphrasing the telephone conversations I had with Call Centre staff :

 

• The record states that during my first call I claimed the ticket was paid and I was advised to provide proof - what I actually said is that I had believed it paid until the reciept of the first letter, when I checked my bank statement and found the payment hadn't been processed. This is also the content of my first letter to them.
• For my last call, they have recorded that I said it had been agreed that I only had to pay £35 and was advised that I was "wrong" - I called and advised that I had received a Court Order and read out the content of that Order to the operator. I was advised that they had the rejection of my Out of Time Statement on file and that I should contact the TEC to clarify the issue.

At paragraph 16, in reference to the three letters they didn't receive it states that "I regard the odds of this as so incredible as to leave me with no other alternative but to consider that these items were never received in this office and indeed never posted". So basically I am a liar!

 

They note at paragraph 17 the inconsistency between the content of my first letter and the content of the telephone call - this is purely the fault of the Call Centre operator's recording of our conversation as I have never claimed the payment completed as I accept that it never appeared on my bank statement.

 

Will I have a chance to address all of these errors in Court, or do I need to go through the statement and write a point by point representation before the hearing?

 

The fact that they find it unlikely that my three letters were ever posted suggests they're blaming the Royal Mail - judging by the sloppy way they've thrown this statement together and the way their Call Centre staff mis-represent the conversations they have had with clients, I would suggest it's a failure of their administration rather that the postman!

 

I'm a little apprehensive about the Court hearing, so any advice would be gratefully received.

 

Thanks.

 

Lynette

 

No advice, guys? Please?

 

Sorry to bump this post again, but l could really use some advice:-

 

Do I need to respond to the Council's statement in writing or will l get a chance to raise the above issues at the hearing?

 

What normally happens at these hearings?

 

l am awaiting some paperwork from a lady l order clothes from online as a parcel went missing before Christmas, which l hope to use as evidence that my post does go astray from time to time. Will l get the chance to present it at the hearing, or should l submit it in advance?

 

Thanks.

 

Lynette

 

If nobody in the Bailiff's forum can help, would it be possible for my thread to be moved back to the Local Authority Parking and Traffic Offences forum where somebody may be able to advise me?

 

Thanks.

 

Lynette

[AndyOrch]

Thread moved to LA Parking & Traffic Offences.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[LynetteC]

Thank you Andy. Fingers crossed somebody can offer me some advice before Monday.

 

As a bit of an update to this saga,

 

tonight I contacted the lady I order clothes from online

to see if she had received any paperwork from the Royal Mail

in respect of my missing parcel from November/December.

 

Apparently, they sent me a letter to sign to say that I hadn't received the item - two weeks ago!

 

I've asked her to write a letter to this effect that I can take to Court on Monday

to present as further evidence of post not reaching my address.

[Jamberson]

Hi. Only me again! I'm surprised no-one else has been able to help.

 

you asked for the hearing to take place,

and the council have a copy of the forms you sent.

 

They responded with their affidavit, which you have a copy of. You don't need to write anything else.

 

All you need to do is turn up and argue your case.

 

I can understand why you might be nervous, but it really is a fairly informal process, and you are not on trial.

 

You will sit in a room in front of a court officer, probably around a table or behind a desk, along with a council member.

 

The officer will read through your papers and ask both sides whatever questions he/she needs to, to get to the bottom of what happened.

 

The council has hampered its own case.

 

I think you should openly criticize the council for the incompetent way they handle their affairs.

 

When you get the chance, read out to him the bit about "Patricia xxx" and ask who she is (don't tell them).

 

Read out the bit about Mrs Hannam and ask who she is, and what it has to do with you.

 

Tell the court officer that the council clearly isn't organised enough to even know whose case they are dealing with in their own paperwork.

That being so, what confidence can the court have in the accuracy of their affidavit?

 

That and the rest of your story should give you a good chance of winning.

 

The court officers tend to be sympathetic to the applicant anyway,

and get fed up with councils taking up the court's time on what they see as trivial bureaucratic processes.

 

The officer dealing with the case will be a car driver too, and realises that it's the "little guy" against the system.

 

He will be more on your side than theirs.

 

I'm sure you will be fine, and hopefully get to enjoy him dismissing the council's case.