Urgent advice required - Bailiff letter delivered today (Parking ticket)

[Jamberson 1,381]

Either the bailiff is acting on a valid warrant, or they aren't. Until you find out from the council whether the bailiff is supposed to still be chasing it, it's impossible to say. There could even be two PCNs in the frame - we don't know at present.

 

When you speak to the council, try and find out as much as you can -

 

- Check the PCN number the bailiff is chasing

- Check that the council received a statutory declaration from you in relation to that specific PCN

- Ask what their decision was, and why you were sent two different letters.

 

You could also ask them if they will suspend the case for a couple more weeks due to the confusion - that will at least buy you some time to sort things out. They may or may not agree.

[LynetteC 1]

If there is a second PNC, it's not one that was ever stuck to my windscreen! I very seldom park in the city centre, hence my not realising the bay I was in was a Disabled one. I use the Park and Ride at the weekend or I'll park in one of the shopping centres. The Client Ref on the bailiff's letter matches the number of the parking ticket, so I'm assuming this is all linked to the same sorry episode.

 

I'm on hold with Hull City Council now - 8 minutes and counting.....

[LynetteC 1]

SO...

 

Hull City Coucil state that because my Witness Statement was refused, they then re-initiated recovery of the charges

 

Northampton County Court have explained why I have opposing Orders - apparenty, their system initially showed that Hull City Council had until 25 October to respond to my Witness Statement. Their response wasn't received so my application was treated as not opposed and the first Order was sent out. Hull City Council then provided evidence that they had authority to respond by 28 October, which they did and my application was then refused.

 

So now I'm facing an additional £45 - £80 to get a review of my case. I don't even dispute the ticket - I WANT to pay the £35 - I thought I HAD paid the £35. Hull City Council objected to my application on the grounds that they've sent me correspondence that I've not responded to (because I didn't receive it) but they state that they've not received THREE letters that I have sent them. Ironic.

 

Is it even worth the risk of paying out the extra if my case again gets rejected and I end up with the extra costs for the appplication as well as the bailiff's charges?

 

I'm at my wits end with this.

[Jamberson 1,381]

OK, so Northampton made a mistake and are saying you should disregard the first letter.

 

Personally I can't see a way out for you. I don't think it's worth you paying for a review (the N244 process) since by your own account, you received correspondence. You mentioned earlier, that you once received a letter asking for £105, but this letter will have told you what your options were at that stage - you needed to either pay up, or file a Witness Statement. As you did not do either (you said you responded with a letter to the council), it's hard to see how you could win the case. We know the council were writing to the correct address, since you were getting the letters, and your Witness Statement, when eventually filed, was out of time.

 

The council is within its legal rights to pursue the case with bailiffs. Sorry - I really can't see what you can do now, other than pay it.

[LynetteC 1]

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 1,381]

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 1]

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?

 

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 1,381]

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 1]

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

[Jamberson 1,381]

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 1]

I've been advised by Jamberson to start a new post here in the hopes that somebody can advise me. My original thread is here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404544-Urgent-advice-required-Bailiff-letter-delivered-today-%28Parking-ticket%29&p=4355752&viewfull=1#post4355752

 

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

Edited November 30, 2013 by LynetteC

[LynetteC 1]

Does nobody have any advice?

[LynetteC 1]

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 December 2, 2013 by LynetteC

[tomtubby 2,383]

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 1]

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 1]

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 1,381]

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 1]

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 1,381]

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 1]

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 1,381]

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 1]

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 1,381]

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

[LynetteC 1]

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 1,381]

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.