Help needed urgently re rejection of OOT

[LittleHen]

Husband has this afternoon received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunal Service to say Application to file Statutory Declaration out of time was referred to Court Officer and has been refused! We have heard nothing from council and TEC have denied all knowledge.

 

Husband is advised that he has to complete notice N244 for this decision to be reviewed.

 

We put down explanation for why original notice of parking offence was not received (we did not live at that address any more), wording agreed with Jamberson, so do no understand why OOT has been refused, especially as proof of non residence at former address was provided thru Utility bills with OOT application.

 

Why would application be refused as husband no longer lived at address to which PCN was originally served, and proof of new address provided in form of utility bill attached to OOT statement?

 

Apart from anything else, originally OOT statement was lodged with TEC on 14 August. Initial application rejected via email by TEC that day as boxes not correctly completed. Application form re submitted on 14 Aug following discussion with TEC representative and form correctly competed over phone with their assistance. Confirmation of receipt of form TE7 and TE9 received from TEC on 14 August - nothing mentioned this time re incorrect completion so assumed all well.

 

See all previous postings re this case - we filed form on 14 August in good faith that no further action would be taken once receipt acknowledged by TEC without any errors mentioned. At that point costs were £127 parking fee plus £75 letter fee. Husband had tried on various occasions (evidence available) to contact enforcement officer in charge of case with no reply, this enforcement officer was appointed on 24 July and removed 1 Aug, no further officer appointed until 15 Aug. Husband called on 14 August to say forms submitted to TEC and to complain again about original bailiff not responding to calls/texts. Equita said new bailiff was to be appointed and would be in touch re this case. First we heard from new bailiff was on return from holiday on on 22 August to find notice of enforcement through door adding £235 onto original costs.

 

We do not believe that the rejection is fair.

 

We do not believe that Equita have dealt with this case fairly i.e. appointing original agent, then replacing with new agent but not supplying details so that husband could get in touch to pay costs prior to enforcementvisit.

 

What on earth do we do now?

 

Will copy and post this to bailiff forum, at very least we feel that £235 fee should be rescinded as husband filed forms TE7 and TE9 on 14 August without rejection (following original rejection email)and it appears that TEC lost these forms, bailiff did not visit until 21 August and so if original TE7 and TE9 as submitted on 14 Aug had been passed to Equita, this additional £235 would not have been levied as bailiff visit would not have happened.

 

Urgent help needed as to what to do next.

 

Best

 

LH

[Jamberson]

Just to clarify for those new to this thread - there are two issues here.

 

1. An out of time was submitted but not processed (by TEC) and there was a bailiff visit and fees meanwhile. The OP has a confirmation email from TEC showing that they received the application prior to the bailiff visit.

 

2. Another out of time was then submitted, and has just been rejected. It's out of time because the debtor moved house prior to the PCN, and notices went to the old address.

 

For my part, I don't know about issue 1.

 

So far as issue 2 goes, you say you sent "utility bills" with the application. When were these dated? It is important that they show where the debtor was living at the time the PCN notices were issued (starting in December) - not later on. I was hoping you'd be able to get hold of a council tax bill, which is more robust.

 

I think you should go ahead with the N244 as your case is strong. It costs money, about £180 now, but this can be claimed back as an expense if you win, and I think you have a good chance.

[LittleHen]

Just to clarify for those new to this thread - there are two issues here.

 

1. An out of time was submitted but not processed (by TEC) and there was a bailiff visit and fees meanwhile. The OP has a confirmation email from TEC showing that they received the application prior to the bailiff visit.

 

2. Another out of time was then submitted, and has just been rejected. It's out of time because the debtor moved house prior to the PCN, and notices went to the old address.

 

For my part, I don't know about issue 1.

 

So far as issue 2 goes, you say you sent "utility bills" with the application. When were these dated? It is important that they show where the debtor was living at the time the PCN notices were issued (starting in December) - not later on. I was hoping you'd be able to get hold of a council tax bill, which is more robust.

 

I think you should go ahead with the N244 as your case is strong. It costs money, about £180 now, but this can be claimed back as an expense if you win, and I think you have a good chance.

 

Thanks for responding Jamberson. The utility bills were dated August 2013 so before the PCN was issued.

[Bailiff Advice]

I have had a quick look at all the posts on the parking section. I can respond in detail later on today if you are OK with waiting a while.

 

Meanwhile....the fee for filing an N244 is now £155 but you can opt for the cheaper route (without a hearing) and the fee for this is £50. If going for the cheaper option there are a number of points to take into consideration first which I can address later today.

 

Have you received a copy of the local authorities response to your OTT?

 

Which LA is involved?

 

PS: Thank you Jamberson

[LittleHen]

Hi Bailiff Advice

 

Thanks for replying. More than happy to wait till later on for your detailed response and very grateful for any help you can give. We have heard nothing from the LA at all, only the letter yesterday from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. The LA is Lambeth.

 

I am not sure if we will be able to go the N244 route. Costs are already unaffordable and can't afford further costs if we lose. Our case seemed very clear - we were not resident at the address all correspondence was sent to re the PCN and husband never found the original PCN on his vehicle - yet our OOT was rejected and not sure why another hearing would find in our favour if a court officer has already rejected the OOT, which set out the case clearly thanks to Jamberson's much appreciated help with the wording.

[LittleHen]

I have had a quick look at all the posts on the parking section. I can respond in detail later on today if you are OK with waiting a while.

 

Meanwhile....the fee for filing an N244 is now £155 but you can opt for the cheaper route (without a hearing) and the fee for this is £50. If going for the cheaper option there are a number of points to take into consideration first which I can address later today.

 

Have you received a copy of the local authorities response to your OTT?

 

Which LA is involved?

 

PS: Thank you Jamberson

 

We heard nothing in yesterday's post from LA.

 

BailiffAdvice, would be fantastic to receive your detailed thoughts as soon as you have a moment to provide them, so we can decide whether or not to go N244 route. It would be more likely we would go for the £50 non-hearing option, as having to attend court would mean husband taking a day off work. He is self employed so it would mean the loss of a day's earnings as well as the £155 fee. But we will wait for your input before we make a decision.

 

Any and all help is so very gratefully received.

 

V best

 

LH

[Bailiff Advice]

Can you confirm that when sending the witness statement that you used the wording that was given on your previous posts?

[LittleHen]

Can you confirm that when sending the witness statement that you used the wording that was given on your previous posts?

 

Hi BA

 

I can confirm that the wording was as per posts on the other thread, except for including date V5 was sent to DVLA and stating nature of attached bills as proof of current address.

 

Hope this helps!

[Bailiff Advice]

Hi BA

 

I can confirm that the wording was as per posts on the other thread, except for including date V5 was sent to DVLA and stating nature of attached bills as proof of current address.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Did you submit evidence WITH your application or was it sent under separate cover?

[LittleHen]

Did you submit evidence WITH your application or was it sent under separate cover?

 

Evidence was sent with application.

[LittleHen]

Still no Statement of Truth from the LA regarding why OOT was rejected. Council say they cannot provide the Statement and say TEC have to provide it. TEC are saying that they cannot provide the statement and we have to ask the Council. We appear to have reached stalemate with neither side apparently able (or willing) to provide us with this basic information. N244 has to be filed apparently by next Sat (14 days from when rejection of OOT was dated) and I believe we need the reason why the OOT was rejected in order to file the N244. We would be most likely to file at the lower cost (without hearing) as husband cannot afford to take time off work to attend a court hearing and has already spent half a day off work trying to get through to TEC/Council and get the info we need, and has thus lost half a day's earnings which we can ill afford.

 

We still believe that we have a good case as the original PCN issued by the council was removed from husband's vehicle so he never saw it, and the correspondence from the council re the PCN was never received as it was sent to a former address. However the Council and the TEC seem to be making it as difficult as possible for us to put a case forward. We do not know what to do now to move things forward. Any help most gratefully received.

[Bailiff Advice]

A Formal Complaint needs to be sent to TEC asap. I will see whether I can get a copy over to you during the weekend.

[Jamberson]

In any respect, you can go ahead with the N244. It would be nice to know why they rejected the application, but it doesn't matter a great deal. You need to present your case to the court, which you can still do - I think the council has handled this badly, but you have a good chance of winning anyway, on the strengths of your case.

[LittleHen]

Jamberson and BA, many thanks for your continued input and help.

 

BA - could we formally complain only about the failure to provide the SoT, or could we also formally complain about the initial TE7 and TE9 being lost by TEC following acknowledgement of receipt and the bailiff costs being added to significantly as a result. We would go down the £50 non-hearing route with the N244; you mentioned that there were some points to take into consideration before filing and most grateful if you could let me know what these are. Based on Jamberson's advice that we can file the N244 without the SoT, will be looking to file the form by Tuesday latest.

 

Any further thoughts as always gratefully received.

[LittleHen]

Just bumping - any wise words before we look at completing a N244 much appreciated - totally understand how busy all contributors are but any help much appreciated if any of you guys can spare the time.