PCNS & Statut Barred Law?

[BazzaS]

I am ready to start a claim against a council, there were PCNs but they are over 6 years ago.

 

Is your concern that you’ve had your address unknown to the council but your claim will reveal it to them ?

 

If a court might be minded to issue such a warrant will likely depend on why they have allowed 6 (or is it now 7!) years to elapse. Do you know why? (For example if they had no knowledge of your current address to pursue you & have only now come into such information it is more likely ‘just and fair’ for them to do so than if they had had your address, you’d had assets, and they’d just not bothered).

[Caz16]

your claim will reveal it to them ?

 

No, I want to know if the statute barred act includes PCN.s.

[BazzaS]

No, I want to know if the statute barred act includes PCN.s.

 

And you’ve had your answer.

Yet, here you are asking for a third time (this time leaving it only a day before re-asking, not leaving it a year like last time!)

 

Why not detail what has happened, what you’ve received and when, and you might get focused, reliable advice based on the facts of the situation, rather than you and respondents playing guesswork?

 

Still apt.

[Jamberson]

He's not had an answer. Which post contains the answer to his question?

 

My own post 10 gives my opinion, but I don't know for sure. It appears no-one here knows.

[BazzaS]

No one here knows the exact situation the OP is facing, hence no precise answer. The OP can keep saying “yes or no”, but the answer is still going to be “it depends”, and until the OP gives details : that is the answer.

 

If a PCN was issued and no order for recovery sought, the council wouldn’t be able to seek one from scratch 6 years later.

Depending on what the council had done (& why: had the OP moved and evaded process?), the council MIGHT be able to seek a fresh warrant of execution. As ever, the devil is in the detail. The detail is lacking. How can a precise answer be given without it?

[Caz16]

Thank you Jamberson, you've got it!

I also have an 'opinion', problem is my opinions are never written into Laws

[Ethel Street]

No one here knows the exact situation the OP is facing, hence no precise answer. The OP can keep saying “yes or no”, but the answer is still going to be “it depends”, and until the OP gives details : that is the answer.

 

If a PCN was issued and no order for recovery sought, the council wouldn’t be able to seek one from scratch 6 years later.

Depending on what the council had done (& why: had the OP moved and evaded process?), the council MIGHT be able to seek a fresh warrant of execution. As ever, the devil is in the detail. The detail is lacking. How can a precise answer be given without it?

 

Yes indeed, and what's more all views expressed so far seem to have assumed, reasonably enough, that the question relates to a council taking action against Caz16, but I notice that last night Caz16 slipped in that the situation is actually the other way round:

 

I am ready to start a claim against a council, there were PCNs but they are over 6 years ago.

 

Caz16, it's pretty clear you are not going to get a more specific answer here unless you tell us what's happening, give us more background and context.

[Caz16]

Yes indeed, and what's more all views expressed so far seem to have assumed, reasonably enough, that the question relates to a council taking action against Caz16, but I notice that last night Caz16 slipped in that the situation is actually the other way round:

 

 

 

Caz16, you tell us what's happening, give us more background and context.

 

If you mean whats happening about a claim from council, it has no relevance to PCN's or anything related other than I happen live in same borough.

 

 

The PCN issue's were just straight forward unpaid PCN's!

[Caz16]

I should have added Ethel Street, of course when I start a claim against them any outstanding PCN's would probably come up as a by-product when they check who I am etc, but, if they fall under statute barred act they would have been/should have been written off!

[Gick]

So what you are concerned about is if the council can go back to enforce PCN's from 6 years ago if you reappear on their Radar due to your making an unrelated claim against them, not that they are in the process of attempting to do so?

 

It is very difficult to give opinions if posters do not make clear the situation!

[ericsbrother]

parking fines are essentially a fixed charge for a breach of contract.

The council doesnt have to follow the normal requirements for showing a quantum for damages and the penalty can be deterrent in nature (unlike other consumer contracts) but it is a civil matter so can become statute barred.

 

Now have you got a parking fine that you have avoided that long and now it has reared its ugly head or are you hoping that this might help you at some point in the future? your problem is that the matter may be handed over to bailiffs when an ordinary CCJ cant be

[Jamberson]

parking fines are essentially a fixed charge for a breach of contract.

 

Not sure that's accurate. They are civil debts, created for breaches of regulations. There's no actual contract issue or contract law. It's similar though.

[Caz16]

The answer to my question is, no, PCNs, once bailiffs have been employed, do not timeout ever.

 

I am not at this point certain if the claimant has to go to a court to ask for further time to collect payment or goods or not or if the original enforcement order is still valid, I think it is still valid.

 

I suppose if a bailiffs firm has had to much difficulty in the past to collect anything at all (unable to collect) & that consistent pattern of failure to collect has happened several times over a lengthy period of time the council may have written the debt off because they 'probably' have a contract with whatever bailiffs firm they use and pay the bailiffs firm for their time, travel & costs whether the bailiffs collect or not, guesswork on my part

 

The above has taken into account bailiffs cannot force entry into private homes.

[BazzaS]

That is indeed a “yes or no” answer, but to a much more specific subset than your broader initial question .....

 

Is it just if bailiffs have been involved, or if the warrant has been issued prior to the actual bailiff involvement?

Or at what previous stage?

[Caz16]

Is it just if bailiffs have been involved

 

It is from that point. If you read my first post you'll notice (maybe:-() that I posted only about PCN's & the statute barred act. Your question is about other legal questions as side effects if PCN non-payment(s).

 

or if the warrant has been issued prior to the actual bailiff involvement?

 

Who would a warrant be issued to if not bailiffs? Sorry, I've no idea what you mean.

[BazzaS]

If you read my first post you'll notice (maybe:-() that I posted only about PCN's & the statute barred act. Your question is about other legal questions as side effects if PCN non-payment(s).

 

No, it has been your question all along.

After multiple episodes of being told “you need to be more specific”, you have given an answer to that much more specific issue, as if it is the answer to your initial (much broader) query.

[BazzaS]

It is from that point.

 

Which point, please be specific at which point it becomes no longer able to be statute barred....

 

Who would a warrant be issued to if not bailiffs? Sorry, I've no idea what you mean.

 

I’m not saying the warrant would be sent other than to bailiffs. There are other possibilities.

 

I’m trying to establish exactly at what point you’ve discovered “stature barred” can no longer apply.

For example, you’ve been saying it is when the warrant goes to the bailiff.

 

Yet, it MIGHT be earlier. What if the warrant was issued by the court, and the LA found you had “skipped and run” and decided it’d be futile to send it on to a bailiff?

[Caz16]

After multiple episodes of being told “you need to be more specific”, you have given an answer to that much more specific issue, as if it is the answer to your initial query.

 

But I got the answer to my query which is NO PCN's do not come under the limitations act, satisfying my only query.

 

As you seem to have different queries or somethings along those lines, I hope someone will be along who can make you a happy chappie & answer them, sorry I can't as I don't really understand your posts.

[BazzaS]

I think the answer you have is “PCN’s that have had a warrant issued and sent to the bailiffs” aren’t statute barred.

That isn’t the same as “all PCNs don’t get statute barred”

 

Your posting suggested you had found the answer to your initial query, but it seems you can’t differentiate the two, which fits with your inability to understand when you had your previous answers.

 

However, if you have an answer you are now content with, and won’t be asking yet again, many months later (again!), : Bonus.

[Caz16]

[TheBogsDollocks]

This tribunal decision answers your question.

Service of Documents Within Reasonable Time.pdf

[BazzaS]

Does it?

We don’t know the OP’s situation is covered: we don’t know if they received an NtO and when.

We don’t know if an order was sought, or when .......

If an order was sought and enforcement tried : we don’t know how and when, and why it failed ....

[TheBogsDollocks]

The OP asked

Are PCNs subject to the 6 years (england) statute barred law anyone know?

The view taken is that penalty charge debt only becomes subject to the 6 year rule once the charge certificate remains unpaid. However, the decision then expands into a council's duty to act fairly and reasonably and delaying taking any part of the processing action (be it serving an NTO or CCert or registering it as a debt) beyond 6 months let alone leaving it up to 6 years is unfair and unreasonable.

[BazzaS]

The view taken is that penalty charge debt only becomes subject to the 6 year rule once the charge certificate remains unpaid. However, the decision then expands into a council's duty to act fairly and reasonably and delaying taking any part of the processing action (be it serving an NTO or CCert or registering it as a debt) beyond 6 months let alone leaving it up to 6 years is unfair and unreasonable.

 

Why was there the delay?

Surely if it is “unfair and unreasonable” depends on the circumstances.... which we haven’t been made privy to.

 

This is why, on 27th April, I noted:

 

So, what actions have the council(s) taken?

Depending on if they issued NtO’s (and when), and then any subsequent order(s), they might be able to go back to a Court and ask for a fresh warrant of execution.

 

If a court might be minded to issue such a warrant will likely depend on why they have allowed 6 (or is it now 7!) years to elapse. Do you know why? (For example if they had no knowledge of your current address to pursue you & have only now come into such information it is more likely ‘just and fair’ for them to do so than if they had had your address, you’d had assets, and they’d just not bothered).

 

I can’t say it is unfair / unreasonable

I can say it isn’t unfair / unreasonable.

 

Without the details : we just don’t know.

[Caz16]

Why was there the delay?

 

Simples, the bailiffs were unable to collect anything, not least because they had no 'walk in peacefull entry' (non commercial property), entry was denied/refused/did not answer door!