56 day limit - ** APPEAL ALLOWED **

[Jamberson]

Here's a real case. It's still ongoing but almost resolved:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404544-Urgent-advice-required-Bailiff-letter-delivered-today-%28Parking-ticket%29/page2

 

The OP filed a witness statement on the grounds that she did not get a response to representations (her post number 32).

 

I told her, as I've said here, to expect an NTO, and after all the various processes, she reported back in post 70, "I received the NTO yesterday..."

 

So that's how it's being done in the real world.

[Pocket Nines]

Here's a real case. It's still ongoing but almost resolved:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404544-Urgent-advice-required-Bailiff-letter-delivered-today-%28Parking-ticket%29/page2

 

The OP filed a witness statement on the grounds that she did not get a response to representations (her post number 32).

 

I told her, as I've said here, to expect an NTO, and after all the various processes, she reported back in post 70, "I received the NTO yesterday..."

 

I see. I also can't doubt your experience at B&H; Councils make mistakes as I earlier said.

 

It doesn't change the fact that a Local Authority issuing a new NtO in these circumstances commits a procedural impropriety and, on that basis, the case should be won by default.

 

In the case you link, Hull are in breach of Gen reg 23 (7) and Appeals reg 4 (5) (a).

 

In THIS case you have advised the OP to challenge a new NtO (if one turns up)? My understanding is that they need not do so and that they may refer the matter, in this instance to patas, directly themselves.

 

Likewise, in the Hull case, the new NtO is unlawful.

She should at least contact TPT to attempt to register an appeal, based on the ruling of TEC.

If denied that right TPT would need shooting and then I'd agree she would have to make formal reps again - but it is simply, totally wrong.

 

The one thing I fail to understand, given the serious breach of the Regs in the Hull case, is your advice thus >

 

It's up to you, but you could send them a letter explaining the initial issue - that you were perfectly willing to pay £35, but the system somehow failed. If you ask them, it's not impossible that they will reinstate the discount for you, which is £35 saved for you, just for asking.

???? Pay.

 

I haven't looked at the circumstances of the original parking issue; It may be that there was no strong case - but do you not think the subsequent and latest P.I. would be sufficient?

[Jamberson]

I see. I also can't doubt your experience at B&H; Councils make mistakes as I earlier said.

 

It doesn't change the fact that a Local Authority issuing a new NtO in these circumstances commits a procedural impropriety and, on that basis, the case should be won by default.

 

In the case you link, Hull are in breach of Gen reg 23 (7) and Appeals reg 4 (5) (a).

 

In THIS case you have advised the OP to challenge a new NtO (if one turns up)? My understanding is that they need not do so and that they may refer the matter, in this instance to patas, directly themselves.

 

Likewise, in the Hull case, the new NtO is unlawful.

She should at least contact TPT to attempt to register an appeal, based on the ruling of TEC.

If denied that right TPT would need shooting and then I'd agree she would have to make formal reps again - but it is simply, totally wrong.

 

The one thing I fail to understand, given the serious breach of the Regs in the Hull case, is your advice thus >

 

 

???? Pay.

 

I haven't looked at the circumstances of the original parking issue; It may be that there was no strong case - but do you not think the subsequent and latest P.I. would be sufficient?

 

In that case the OP wanted to pay and I was saying not to - but if she had made her mind up, then she might get them to waive half the fee by asking. It's a long-running case, almost done.

 

The problem with what you say is that the process is automated. It is better in my experience to respond to the NTO than not, and then get a Charge Certificate issued by default and then deal with the consequences and so on. Also, there is the issue of getting PATAS to hear a case - the OP presumably doesn't have forms and PATAS will be unclear on the history. It is possible to go down that route, but better, I think, to respond to the NTO by stating that it was issued wrongly and should be revoked, the rest of the case with it.

 

It's a question of tactics. That's how I'd do it if it were my PCN.

[Pocket Nines]

In that case the OP wanted to pay and I was saying not to - but if she had made her mind up, then she might get them to waive half the fee by asking. It's a long-running case, almost done.

 

The problem with what you say is that the process is automated. It is better in my experience to respond to the NTO than not, and then get a Charge Certificate issued by default and then deal with the consequences and so on. Also, there is the issue of getting PATAS to hear a case - the OP presumably doesn't have forms and PATAS will be unclear on the history. It is possible to go down that route, but better, I think, to respond to the NTO by stating that it was issued wrongly and should be revoked, the rest of the case with it.

 

It's a question of tactics. That's how I'd do it if it were my PCN.

I note the bit about you accepting she did not want to fight further and apologise because I missed what she said. Well done you for persuading her to bat on after getting this far.

 

I also have to concede that you are probably right about the likely necessary course of action in a case where a second NtO is issued, unlawfully. I wouldn't though, describe it as tactical; Rather a necessity. I still think it would be foolish to not at least approach whichever adjudication service was appropriate to ask if a direct appeal would be accepted for registration.

 

It generates further thoughts for me as well.

Firstly, issue of such an NtO should, as I said, basically settle the case in Lynette's favour. I take it you agree it is a most serious P.I. ? Actually disregarding a Court Order is about as serious as it gets I think. My only concern would be that a TPT Adjudicator might not be one who is so au fait with the applicable legislation and ignore that and decide to test the case on its original merits. An average member of the public wouldn't be able to 'correct' or 'direct' such an Adjudicator.

 

Your mention of possible progression to a Charge Certificate, then a second OfR, etc. got me thinking further.

It's actually very worrying. Initially, on the face of it, TEC, being aware of the earlier processes, should know that they should not accept registration of another debt for the same PCN, at least in the near future. A problem arises in that, longer term, they might reasonably think it HAS been referred to the Adjudicator, decided against the appellant and subsequently not paid yet again!

One would hope that TEC have some safety valve in there somewhere, whereby they know they can't authorise registration and issue of a second OfR within a certain time frame - but I doubt they do have such safety checks.

The conclusion is that there is far too much control given to Local Authorities over procedure considering they are completely incompetent at administering that power. The reason you're here I guess.

 

Anyway, apologies for detracting from THIS case and back to the current situation.

On the grounds that Camden are likely to have a little more savvy than Hull, I'm pretty sure he won't get that NtO. As you say, we'll see.

[stuartw]

The Council Have now sent me, with out any prior notice, 45 pages of documentation and evidence, which I presume they've also forwarded to PATAS, though I have not instigated an appeal and PATAS have not contacted me.

 

interestingly, when I first made an informal appeal I asked for photo evidence and they sent me a picture that didn't identify my car, I pointed this out and they sent me another which also did not clearly identify my car and in subsequent correspondence I've made several references to the fact that their photo evidence is flawed however the evidence pack they have now sent me contains several pictures which clearly do identify my car which begs the question as to why they continued to let me believe thay didn't have any photos?

 

it couldn't be that they we're expecting me to use that in my appeal and that keeping quiet about it till it got to PATAS would scupper my defence and make me look foolish now would it?

[Jamberson]

OK, fine. It looks like they are doing it properly then and bringing the case to PATAS. The important thing is that you are back in the appeals process.

 

We need to get down to the nitty gritty of what happened with your representations. You say they received them but did not send you a notice of rejection.

 

So, what is in their bundle? Is there a copy of your representation? Or of their Notice of Rejection? Or anything to prove they received your rep?

 

If not, what are the dates of the NTO you originally had, and the Charge Certificate which they subsequently issued? Normally, if they don't receive a rep from you, the gap between these two would be around 28 days - sometimes a little more. But if they did receive your rep, and did not reply to it, then the gap would the number of days from when the NTO was issued until you made your rep, and then an additional 56 days.

 

Can you check and let us know.

[stuartw]

Ok, in their bundle is a copy of my representations both informal and in response to the NtO, however there is no copy of any notice of rejection. They have obviously not included the correspondence regarding the unrelated PCN.

[Jamberson]

Looking good. And the number of days between the NTO and the Charge Certificate?

[stuartw]

The NTO is dated 16/10/13 and the charge certificate was issued on 25/11/13.

 

Having read thru the case history as submitted by the council they state that the NTO was sent to the registered keeper and named my wife and our address. She is the registered keeper though I was driving when the contravention occured.

they then state "No payment or representation from the keeper was received"

 

and below that they state "Correspondence from someone other than the keeper was received"

 

However, when I responded to the NTO, I stated at the begining that I was making the representation on behalf of the registered keeper

 

so they're claiming that as no representation was received from the keeper, the case progressed accordingly, hence the charge certificate etc, yet they did respond by sending me a notice of rejection to the unrelated PCN.

 

I didn't realise that this could be an issue as I've appealed PCNs before on behalf of the registered keeper had never had it questioned and I always make it clear that I'm making the appeal/representation on behalf of the keeper.

[Jamberson]

So who signed the witness statement? Presumably your wife?

 

This is a big deal and completely undermines your case. As your wife is the debtor, and she has not submitted representations,she can't possibly argue that she didn't get a Notice of Rejection. Whatever you might have done in terms of putting pen to paper is irrelevant.

 

She needs to take this up and deal with the forthcoming PATAS case, not you. But since the only line of argument you've mentioned is the lack of reply to your reps, I'm not aware what case she can even make. Presumably the grounds covered in your own appeal letter are her only lines of argument?

[stuartw]

Really?

 

They've been corresponding with me throughout and I made it clear that I was acting on behalf of the registered keeper. It has never been an issue before in previous appeals/representations, so are they playing this one because they messed up by sending me the wrong notice of rejection?

[Jamberson]

They will correspond with you, but you can't self-declare that you are acting on your wife's behalf. These PCNs are legally enforceable debts. If they let you, or anyone else, make a representation against your wife's debt, and it was rejected, then she has no rights to defend her own debt.

 

I can't believe they have let you do this before now. They shouldn't allow that unless its by her say-so.

 

Did she sign the witness statement you submitted?

[stuartw]

She did sign the witness statement because it stated that only the registered keeper can submit the statement.

[Jamberson]

I don't see how the 56 day rule will apply if she did not make representations. I'm not sure how to play it from here. Maybe someone else can advise.

 

Did you have a good appeal case initially, about why the PCN should be cancelled?

[Pocket Nines]

This is a big deal and completely undermines your case.

I agree.

 

@ Stuart.

Is there something on any correspondence or anything else that made you think you had a right to make representations? NtOs are addressed to RK (unless there has already been a clarification of owner by way of an earlier NtO) and most that I've seen clearly state that the recipient should NOT pass the document to a third party (normally giving the driver as an example). I'm gobsmacked.

 

Of course, we haven't actually SEEN anything so there's no real telling what has gone on or how the content of any document may have erred and helped you.

 

Neither do I have any idea how this might pan out and exactly what the Council might intend to do about it. The implications are worrying.

 

- and again - SEEING docs would give us a clue.

[Pocket Nines]

Really?

They've been corresponding with me throughout

"Throughout", being --- a single response to an initial, informal challenge, or more?

 

Really?

It has never been an issue before in previous appeals/representations

Do you have evidence of this?

I guess you know what I'm going to ask next ---

[stuartw]

The car belongs to my wife yet I drive it most of the time and in the 10 years that we've had the car I've received 5 or 6 PCN/parking tickets and when I've challeneged them It's always been me dealing with it on behalf of the keeper and I have never been told that this is incorrect. The local Authorities (at least 4 different ones) have been quite happy to deal with me with regard to the relevant case and I've never had it questioned, even by PATAS.

 

How can they deal with me if they should be dealing with the keeper? shouldn't they point that out at the outset and isn't there issues of data protection if they're discussing a case with someone other than the keeper?

The council messed up with their notice of rejection and so they are taking the official line in order to enforce. This is dishonest, as is the business with the photos (outlined earlier) they are either dealing with me or they're not, they can't have it both ways.

 

The problem is that for ordinary people like me, we're not traffic law professionals and so we need those who are, ie local authority parking services, to be honest with us and if we're making a (potentially significant) mistake then that should be made clear.

 

The other issue is with PATAS, there's no point me going there with my original appeal because they do not accept mitigation, which in my opinion renders the organisation next to useless. The only thing they can do is verify that the offence occured and that the council followed the rules when issuing and enforcing the PCN, which is why I was seeking clarification on the 56 day limit.

 

I guess the adjudicator at PATAS will have no choice but to refuse the appeal.

[Jamberson]

Local authorities will accept appeals from the driver, spouse or anyone, and consider and respond to them - up until the time a Notice to Owner is issued. After that they should not accept appeals from anyone other than the named person, and neither should PATAS. It is a breach of data protection, as well as being impropriety. There are a few exceptions - an appointed solicitor, or someone with power of attorney for example. But it has to be the debtor who instigates that, and I'm assuming here that your wife has never requested the local authority deal with you?

 

You need to be clear on what's happening here. You said at the start that you received a notice to owner - that's not correct. You did not receive anything. It was addressed to your wife. She received the NTO, she was invited to appeal and she has a debt with the council. It's that simple.

 

I don't know what will happen next, but I agree that the adjudicator is likely to refuse the appeal. I guess all you can do is hope that it works out in your favour, although I don't hold out much hope. In future, just make sure she signs everything you send in - problem solved.

[Pocket Nines]

The other issue is with PATAS, there's no point me going there with my original appeal because they do not accept mitigation,

Not entirely true in certain circumstances. And you haven't mentioned any mitigation at any point in this thread??

But we've got to the point where you don't seem to be listening, perhaps because you don't like the answers you're getting.

 

We have your 'opinion' on what has happened so far; Your interpretation of what each document actually says and your statments regarding what you've submitted and your relating of previous experiences.

We can verify none of it. We can't point out anything you may have missed or misunderstood -- which may have helped you.

It may be that 'something' has gone wrong somewhere and that there is some aspect that will help you resolve this matter; Who knows?

 

Again, I mention that I think I've seen this case elsewhere; Correct me if I'm wrong? Was it the requirement there to actually SHOW documents that put you off?

 

As I said, you should be worried exactly what matters the Council intend to raise at Adjudication --- but you've ignored that and again refused to let us see -- or even tell us what their case summary says.

 

Stubborn intransigence doesn't win cases; Especially when it's directed at people trying to help by giving their time freely and in good faith

With the continuing refusal to show any of the relevant documents, you are beyond help. I'm out.

[green_and_mean]

 

What I don't understand about the 56 day limit is what it is actually for, because that limit had been reached in this case yet the council, contrary to what is stated by PATAS and other websites, are still pursuing enforcement. All I can presume is that when it actually gets to PATAS you can use it in your appeal.

 

They have to send you a reply in 56 days that doesn't mean you have to receive it, that is the point of the witness statement. If they sent you a reply and you didn't receive it then PATAS will look at the actual reps you made, if they didn't send you a reply PATAS will allow the appeal regardless of what you wrote. If life was as simple as just saying you never got a reply in 56 days and the PCN just gets cancelled everyone would just claim nothing came in the post.

[stuartw]

Sorry if anyone thought I was being stubborn, it honestly wasn't my intention and I do appreciate everyones contribution here. I've learned quite a lot along the way. I'm not against posting all the docs, but there's quite a few.

 

I haven't mentioned my mitigation or even said what the PCN was for as I started this post to try and get clarification on the 56 day limit as the information I had found online was ambiguous. Of course anyone could say they didn't receive a response, but it's only valid if the council cannot provide a dated copy of the document.

 

My experiences with PATAS has been less than satisfactory and I'd be interested to know what mitigation they would accept. It could be a brilliant organisation and could reduce an lot of the shameful exploitation of regulations by our local authorities, if only they could consider mitigation and use their discretion.

 

Once again, many thanks for all the contributions

[green_and_mean]

Of course anyone could say they didn't receive a response, but it's only valid if the council cannot provide a dated copy of the document.

 

 

Exactly, but who is going to decide that if the system is not as it is?

 

Mitigation is rarely used in law as a defence its just used in sentencing and as the penalty is fixed they cannot vary it. Allowing mitigation would be ridiculous as everyone thinks their 'excuse' is a valid reason to cancel. The law allows for some unforeseen circumstances in the exemptions, but mitigation has no place at PATAS.

[Pocket Nines]

They have to send you a reply in 56 days that doesn't mean you have to receive it,

Mean? Not sure if you've noticed it has been revealed in the thread that the OP IS NOT RK and RK themselves has not made Reps?

[Pocket Nines]

Ok, I retract my withdrawal - IF - you will post docs.

I'm not against posting all the docs, but there's quite a few.

Well there are now!! It would have been far fewer earlier.

 

Ok. can we see the 'Case Summary' statement of the Council from the evidence pack that you've just received.

 

++ THIS letter, I'm curious about.

they then sent me a letter offering to let me pay a reduced amount as "a good will gesture"

which I've declined

[green_and_mean]

Mean? Not sure if you've noticed it has been revealed in the thread that the OP IS NOT RK and RK themselves has not made Reps?

 

I was speaking in general terms, the authority are meant to send you a reply however if its correctly addressed they are not responsible if its not delivered.