Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • Hi All,   I would really appreciate any help in this. I want to stop paying this and am wondering if I need to offer F&F or if I am good just stop paying. A few details first:   1.DMP with StepChange started circa 2010 2.Have been paying every month since 3.Want to stop paying/clear as want a new mortgage in the next 9 months or so 4. None are currently showing on my credit file   And the finer detail:     * = these were on my credit file until recently. I complained stating that they should have been defaulted as it was unfair. They have stopped reporting now - but werent able to add a retrospective default date.   I havent made any enquiries about CCA's etc. I want to just stop paying but also cant have any of them appearing on my credit file as need another mortgage etc. I understand most will likely not have a CCA but there is one overdraft related entry so not sure what to do about that one. Also I think they could CCJ but can they start reporting again - I know the ones with a default date cant but can the others?   Hopefully thats enough info. Would really appreciate your excellent guidance   Many thanks    
    • This sites getting less and less accessible every week   Got my vaccination invite over weekend   despite living on the edge of a large town with a number of other large towns just a few miles away in various directions, and a 'university' city only 8 miles away, nearest center with any vaccines is about a 10 mile drive away in a small village. Interesting that the maps link showing you the locations for my nearest (sic) vaccination points are wrong - this is from the NHS vaccine booking site.   Once you have selected a location to see when vaccinations are available, it also wont let you go back to select another location, and if you just close the page down (without booking) and open the site again and put in your identification data, its gives you a 'you have failed to attend and will have to book both appointments again' message - despite not booking anything. - wonder if thats how they've counted 20 million vaccinations?   Checked with 3 local surgeries including my own asking why none of them are an option and two haven't had any vaccines for over a week and haven't even been able to book all their own vulnerable for a vaccine, other has vaccine but is only booking its own priority people   Makes me think the claim of 20 million vaccinated is complete and utter 'Johnson      
    • there is a difference.........   pass = IGNORE a DCA (we write on behalf of our client xxx bank etc)   SELL = the original creditors issues a default notice, then latterly sells it on..if that happens there must be something seriously WRONG with a debt of + £10K if they do...won't happen IMHO. (you will get a Notice of Assignment - stating xxx bank etc have now sold the debt to us)   TBH: the quicker you get the pro rata plan running, the quicker the OC's might issue default notices (but not sell) and the quicker those DN's reach their 6th Birthday..... when the whole debt vanishes from your credit file preventing you from moving forward again...doesn't mean the debt is not still owed, just that prospective creditors can't see the debt anymore.   ok it's a 6yrs plan as such, but if you were to be honest to yourself, things are not going improve any in the short term so it's better to take control of YOUR money now and plan well ahead rather than worrying forever.   dx          
    • Hey,   I was hoping for a bit of help with a really old Talk Talk debt and BW Legal.   The debt is from 2014. I'm not sure that it qualifies as statute barred? I haven't heard off them for years, but within the past 6 months or so, they've been sending me their standard debt collection letters and emails. I have just ignored them and I haven't formally acknowledged the debt. However, recently they've been threatening to issue court proceedings, so I thought I would like to try and get them sorted out.   Am I right in thinking that this type of debt it an unregulated debt? As in it wouldn't be covered by the Consumer Credit Act? If that is the case, is there any precedence for doing a SAR request to ask for a copy of an agreement to provide their services? I am assuming that they would rely on some sort of original agreement between myself and Talk Talk to provide services?   Would It be worth doing a DSAR instead?   I am familiar with doing SARs for consumer debt, like loans and cards, but I haven't done one for a utility debt. Would someone be able to point me in the right direction please?   Many thanks 😀
    • Particular Of claim   1. By an agreement between Lloyds Banking Group & the defendant on or around 13/05/2003 (“the agreement”) Lloyds Banking Group agreed to loan the defendant monies.   2. The defendant did not pay the instalments as they fell due. The agreement was terminated following service of a default notice.   3. The agreement was assigned to the claimant.   4. THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS: 1) £8704.42 2) COSTS     Defence   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claims are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) – failed to serve a letter of claim pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is admitted that the claimant has sent details of a current account with an unknown account number but has no connection to this this claim or alleged debt. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the details of alleged debt the claimant refers to nor have they referred to any account number within its particulars. I have therefore sought clarity from the claimant and requested further in formation which at this time they failed to comply to my request.   3. Paragraph 2 is noted. However, as above the alleged debt is still unknown and further I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.   4.Paragraph 3 is noted. As above as the debt is unknown its immaterial and I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.   5. On receipt of this claim I sent CPR 31.14 and section 77 request. The claimant has failed to comply with either requests and in particular my section 77 request and provide a valid copy of the agreement and therefore remains in default of my request and is prevented from enforcing the agreement they wish to rely on.   7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice/Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.               1. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought clarity from the claimant.   2. However, I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

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

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2516 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.....

Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:




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?





Edited by LynetteC
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by LynetteC
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 !!!!

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.



Edited by LynetteC
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...