Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Work from home is "an aberration" that will be corrected as soon as possible says Goldman Sachs chief. View the full article
    • Work from home is "an aberration" that will be corrected as soon as possible says Goldman Sachs chief. View the full article
    • The mini electric vehicle being made by China's biggest carmaker is now outselling Tesla two to one. View the full article
    • https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations   Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!   "Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...   "Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...   "Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...   Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."   Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.    
  • 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

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1775 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

Dear all,

 

I came here recently with help regarding a parking fine and bailiff issue with Southwark. Everyone here was so helpful and it was a great success. Thanks a lot everyone!

 

This time I have another problem with Lambeth. Similar in duration (Original PCN was from 22/05/14).

 

The original NTO I appealed last year and then never heard back from them until recently (09/15) when I received an OFR out of the blue demanding £202 (£130 for the original NTO + £95 for the CC + £7 Court registration fee). I filed a witness statement stating that I appealed the original NTO, but never received a reply. The WS was accepted and the NTO and CC were ordered to be revoked.

 

The original PCN was obviously not cancelled so I waited for Lambeth to send a new NTO, which they did on the 09/10/15.

 

The new NTO gives the wrong time of contravention. Instead of 12:34 (controlled times between 12:00-14:00) it says 00:34. I then sent the same appeal I sent them last year PLUS the additional comment about the wrong time (ie 00:34 is outside controlled hours etc.) via recorded mail and received a rejection notice on the 20/11/15 (pretty speedy response- only 5 days after my appeal).

 

The rejection notice is just the usual patronising, generic letter, not addressing any of my points (see my appeal below and their rejection attached). The rejection notice had an appeal form enclosed to give me the opportunity to appeal their decision to an adjudicator within 28 days after receipt of their RN. It's only been 21 days so far and today I received a new Charge Certificate from the LA dated 08/12/15, so they ignored my statutory right of 28 days to appeal their decision to the adjudicator and drafted and posted their new CC only 18 days(!!) after their rejection notice.

 

Apart from my original appeal, which had only a weak (but reason enough?) argument of me having a grace period of 20min loading/unloading, which I didn't exceed, am I right in assuming that their mistakes from this year (wrong time on NTO, sending of CC after 18days instead of 28) is enough material to present to the adjudicator and getting approval?

 

As always, any help would be really appreciated.

Edited by bigkahuna666
removing personal info in attachments
Link to post
Share on other sites

pers I would be removing the bar codes

 

 

pop all your pix into ONE multipage word doc

then file save as .pdf

and attach that

 

 

go edit your previous post

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

bar code on page 1 still shown on ticket

 

 

page 2 remove officer number

and time and same on page 5

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks dx! I think its all done now. By the way, I originally left the time on the NTO and CC because they are showing midnight time not the midday time as seen on the original PCN and original NTO (NTO from last year which I cant find at the moment)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you needed to hide the times on the NTO and CC, but are you saying the NTO states 00:34? If so, the NTO is probably invalid.

 

I would appeal to the adjudicator on the basis that:

 

1. The contravention did not occur. You are being held liable on the basis of the NTO, not the PCN, and the contravention stated on it did not and could not have occurred. [explain further about the times etc]

 

2. There has been a procedural impropriety. You have been issued with a CC prior to the expiry of the time allowed to consider the rejection notice and appeal to the adjudicator.

 

3. The PCN is too old to be reasonably defended, since accurate recollection of events on the day is not possible.

 

Point 3 might sound unconvincing, but believe me, this is a strong argument where such timescales are involved. Cases like yours can be won on this point alone, so definitely chuck it in. I think you are likely to win this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot Jamberson and Michael,

 

this is exactly what I thought. I am glad to hear that this could be an easy appeal.

 

Jamberson, I removed the times because dx100uk adivsed to take them out along with the officer number. I can see why the officer, but I am not sure why the contravention times seeing that I am mentioning those in my text anyway. Maybe he meant something else and I misunderstood?

 

I will draft the appeal tonight and send it off first thing tomorrow.

 

Again, thanks a lot for your adivice. I will let you know if and when I hear back from the adjudicator to let you know the final decision.

 

Fingers crossed this is an easy winner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just doing the online appeal as it means I can send it all off tonight rather than rushing to the post etc. Just wanted to double check: am I ok to just put the following text as the appeal?

 

I would appeal to the adjudicator on the basis that:

 

1. The contravention did not occur. I am being held liable on the basis of the NTO, not the PCN, and the contravention stated on the NTO did not and could not have occurred at the time given (00:34). I have pointed this out in my recent appeal to the authority, but their Rejection Notice is just a generic letter and does not address this issue.

 

2. There has been a procedural impropriety. I have been issued with a Charge Certificate prior to the expiry of the time allowed to consider the rejection notice and appeal to the adjudicator. The Rejection Notice is dated 20-11-15 and the Charge Certificate is dated 08-12-15 and was received 11-12-15. The Charge Certificate was therefore issued 18 days later instead of the statutory 28 days.

 

3. The PCN is too old to be reasonably defended, since accurate recollection of events on the day is not possible.

 

Should I include anything else?

Looking forward to any advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good. All I would suggest is a bit more info in each section. Rememer the adjudicator will be coming to this completely unaware of what hapened, so when you say the contravention could not have occurred, he'll wonder what you're getting at - better to tell him that the restriction is in force from x to x and the contravention is alleged to have taken place at xxx, outside of those times.

 

Likewise point 3, I would just inform him of the dates and timescales - just so he has all that info clear at the forefront of his mind without having to plough through the bundle of docs to find out.

 

Other than that, fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...