regarding a PCN for driving on a taxi only street in June 2016 - Marston Attendance Cost query***Resolved/Refunded***

[gingdave]

Hi,

 

Thanks for having a look at this. In hindsight I'm a bit confused about what happened earlier when a bailiff turned up at my door.

 

We moved house 3 years ago. My other half didn't update the address on her car's log book, only her driver's licence. She got clamped/fined in September 2016 and updated the log book address. Fair enough, our mistake, it's a pity that we didn't have warning letters forwarded to us but hey ho.

 

Today a bailiff turned up regarding a PCN for driving on a taxi only street in June 2016. Again, we hadn't received any previous correspondence regarding this.

 

I paid up in full but have since become confused about the £235 Attendance Cost.

 

The bailiff came to our current address at 10am, but we have subsequently found out that he originally went to our old address at 8am and handed an identical notice of fees to our the people who moved into our old house.

 

What bugs me is why have they didn't trace our new address before leaving the office and send us a letter regarding the fine thus saving us £235?

I did phone the Bailiff on his mobile to ask this and he said that the £235 isn't just a fee in relation to attending an address, it is a fee that was added to the fine because the fine had become a warrant and that process incurs the costs (and that calling it a fee just for attending an address isn't strictly true?!).

 

We have been on the electoral role ever since we moved house, we have a traceable credit history linking our old/new addresses, and what surprises me most is that Kirklees Council must have contacted the DVLA with her vehicle registration and we had already updated our address with them (drivers licence but not log book). They could've searched the electoral role via 192.com for as little as 40p and found our new address as soon as they were asked to chase the fine, or ideally Kirklees could've done this before passing it onto Marston.

 

I've read that the Attendance Cost is limited to £235 to prevent unreasonable charges but surely £235 is unreasonable given the ease and low cost of tracing someone that isn't trying to hide from anyone?

 

I've also read that we should've received a Notice Of Enforcement prior to the Bailiff attending our property and given the fact that he initially attended our old address the address on the warrant would have been incorrect?

 

Would you feel that we have grounds to contest the £235 Attendance Cost added to our fine?

 

Any advice would be gratefully received.

 

Many thanks,

Dave

[Bailiff Advice]

It is such a shame that the current tenants did not contact you when letters from the council were received.

 

I notice that the contravention was in June 2016 and your partner updated her V5C some time after September 2016. Unfortunately, the only search of the DVLA records that the council are permitted to undertake is the initial request following the contravention (in June 2016). That would have recorded your previous address.

 

The correct course of action in your particular case, and the one outlined on numerous similar circumstances as yours by the Local Government Ombudsman, is to submit an Out of Time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. If accepted, you will receive a refund from Kirkless for the PCN debt and you will be entitled to be refunded the enforcement agent fees. Kirkless would then issue a new Notice to Owner to your partners current address giving her the opportunity to pay the charge at the earlier discounted rate.

[gingdave]

Hi. Thanks so much for taking your time to reply. Very much appreciated after what has happened today.

The people who bought our house actually messaged my partner regarding what he'd delivered to them, in person, and then they posted it (but didn't knock) to us late afternoon. They say they've being doing, "return to sender". Regarding the dvla and the council, the dvla did have the new address via her driver's licence but they must not check that database even though the fine was in her name.

I'll speak to the council and email Marston as per your advice tomorrow. It sounds great that there are these safeguards to protect people. Let's hope they see sense!

All the best,

Dave

[Bailiff Advice]

Dave,

 

The tenants at your previous address should have received 3 letters from the council (a Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate and an Order for Recovery) followed by one letter from Marston's (a Notice of Enforcement).

 

Just to clarify the situation for you, a local authority may only undertake a DVLA search for keeper information. That database is an entirely separate one to the one holding driving licence details.

 

By all means write to Marston's to request a refund but I would not suggest that you hold out too much hope of a refund. Instead, you may receive a response informing you that you need to submit an Out of Time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

Please do post back with the response.

[gingdave]

Hi.

After waking at 0330hrs continually thinking about this I have collated the following info.

The following options have been suggested to me:

-(In the first instance, you should write to Marston direct)

-(submit an Out of Time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre - issue being incorrect address on log book and potential costs if rejected) http://pilesadvice.co.uk/index/traffic-enforcement-centre-tec/out-of-time-witness-statement

-(You need to contact the council that issued the PCN)

-(if nothing works contact Local Government Ombudsman)

 

I intend to send this Marston in the first instance along with a little more info from my initial post and more formal formatting.

Any advice? Thanks again, Dave

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Issues surrounding this case:

The notice of enforcement went to an old address. No efforts were made to contact us at our new address despite the ease and low cost of tracing someone that isn't trying to hide from anyone throughout the 14 months since the supposed offence. We have been on the electoral role ever since we moved house and we have a traceable credit history linking our old/new addresses. We have identical hand written requests for fees from the bailiff, the first of which was handed to the current owners of our previous property at 0800hrs on 07/08/17 and the second presented to us at 0945hrs on the same morning. At the point during that morning that the bailiff discovered that we now live at a different address a new warrant should have been drafted and a new NOE sent to the new address.

 

The regulation 8(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 state:

8.—(1) Notice of enforcement must be given—

 

(a) by post addressed to the debtor at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business;

 

We were not given the notice, despite the bailiff having every opportunity to do so, therefore the next enforcement stage could not have taken place until you had done so thus making the £235 attendance fee unlawful.

 

Further more, Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act includes an aim to support early payment and compliance by debtors as they will be fully aware of the costs implication if they fail to do so, and provides the debtor with an opportunity to settle the debt at the compliance stage without the need to face a bailiff visit.

Schedule 12 procedure, paragraph 7 states:

"An enforcement agent may not take control of goods unless the debtor has been given notice (of enforcement)".

In this case, a notice of enforcement was not received despite the bailiff having every opportunity to send one by post after visiting our old address on the morning of 07/08/17; instead unlawfully opting to visit our new address and insisting that the only option available was to pay there and then in full despite the address not appearing on the original warrant and the need for a notice of enforcement being ignored.

 

This is supported by the requirement to issue a Notice of Enforcement to every debtor. The details of which are described in Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 Part 2 paragraph 6 (minimum period of notice of enforcement) and:

8(1) Notice of enforcement must be given—

(a) by post addressed to the debtor at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business;

 

We were not afforded the opportunity to settle at compliance stage as Marston did not give us notice in accordance with legislation despite knowing "where the debtor usually lives". The notice was clearly sent to our previous address and not correctly reissued to our new address as per legislation despite the bailiff having every opportunity to do so.

 

We ask that Marston now refund us the £235 enforcement fee that we paid without first being given the opportunity to settle at compliance stage as prescribed in legislation.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------

[Bailiff Advice]

Good morning Dave,

 

As I said in my earlier posts, by all means write to Marston's and ask them to refund the enforcement fee of £235. There is no harm whatsoever in doing so. I would however reiterate that you should not hold out too much hope of them refunding the fee. Like many enforcement companies, they will likely refer you to the correct procedure which is to submit an Out of Time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

A complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman is a option open to you. The problem that this poses is that the LGO will not accept a complaint unless it has first gone through the local authorities complaints procedure. That route will be time consuming. Also, as with all other similar cases that I see on a regular basis, the LGO will merely refer you to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

Can I just make a point quite clear. There is a potential cost with Out of Time witness statements but this only applies if an application is rejected and the individual wishes to have his rejection reviewed.

[Peterbard]

Yes, I think the OOT will be all that is required here.

 

I personally would just send that. If it fails then I would look at other options.

But it is your choice of course.

 

If you do decide to write to the bailiff, may I suggest simpler letter just stating that you did not receive the notice of enforcement s required under the TCEA, I am sure they will be aware of the law in this area.

This sort of long winded trip around the regulations just makes them aware that you have been taking website advice and serves no purpose. In fact, it can give the wrong impression as to credibility. IMO

[brassnecked]

The OOT is the best way forward at the moment, the first you knew about was the bailiff fetching up. If OOT accepted all bailiff fees are removed and the debt wound back to pre-enforcement stage to pay or challenge.

[AndyOrch]

Just say the word dave .....if you have all you need.... and I will close this thread until you are ready to proceed?

 

Andy

[Bailiff Advice]

Dave

 

You will also NOT be referred to the TEC if (in the unlikely event) you had to contact the LGO.

 

We all know that you like to encourage individuals to make Formal Complaints but please, don't mislead the forum about the extent to which the Local Government Ombudsman will investigate complaints. This is one very recent decision from the LGO that was released only a week or so ago.

 

London Borough of Ealing

 

 

The Ombudsman's final decision:

 

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him a penalty charge notice and sent correspondence to his old address.

It would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to make a late witness statement.

The complaint

 

The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council wrongly issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN)

and sent correspondence about the PCN to his old address.

 

 

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

 

The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)©, as amended)

 

How I considered this complaint

I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

 

 

What I found

 

The Council issued Mr X a PCN for parking on a footpath. Mr X says he appealed against the PCN but the

Council sent its correspondence to his old address.

He was therefore unaware the Council was pursuing the PCN until enforcement agents (bailiffs) acting for the Council clamped his car and demanded £482 to release it, which he paid.

 

The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as Mr X has an alternative remedy it would be reasonable for him to use.

 

If he did not receive any response to his representations, and/or did not receive the ‘notice to owner’ from the Council, Mr X has grounds to make a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton Court. Although Mr X is outside the normal timescales for making a witness statement he may apply to the TEC to make a witness statement ‘out of time’. The TEC can consider Mr X’s application and may cancel the basis for the Council’s additional charges and reinstate his right of appeal.

 

I will not exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate this complaint as the TEC’s powers are broader than those of the Ombudsman and it is therefore more likely it would provide him with the outcome he wants.

 

The Ombudsman could only recommend action by the Council where we find fault, however the TEC does not require evidence of any failure by the Council to accept his witness statement; the Ombudsman also has no power to reinstate Mr X’s right of appeal against the PCN itself.

 

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/16-019-435

[Bailiff Advice]

With respect BA, it's not a case of misleading the debtor. You somehow have to understand that we are talking about challenging a bailiff fee, NOT a PCN.

 

It is ridiculous to think that the TEC can determine whether a a £235 enforcement fee.

Before embarking upon your 2nd most common trait (of arguing with others) please make sure that you read your posts properly. You had specifically stated in your post number 10 the following:

 

You will also NOT be referred to the TEC if (in the unlikely event) you had to contact the LGO.

 

Your statement was wrong...and I have provided the evidence in support.

 

Furthermore, the LGO is guided by the Local Government Act 1974 which imposes restrictions on what they can investigate and the act provides that the LGO cannot usually investigate a complaint when someone court take the matter to court (which in this particular case, is the Traffic Enforcement Centre).

[gingdave]

Just say the word dave .....if you have all you need.... and I will close this thread until you are ready to proceed?

 

Andy

 

Hi. Personally I would prefer to keep it open and I'll continue to post updates and any responses I receive. It may help someone else? I'm having to work in small chunks due to child care commitments over the summer hols. It's very frustrating that I have been scammed out of £235 despite the simple guidance that is in place, yet I feel that I am going to be up against the whim of a few individuals when it comes to being able reverse something that following logic and common sense shouldn't be an issue. I felt that the £235 was wrong, even spoke to the guy about it and he blatantly BS'd me despite all of his appreciation of how understanding I was being.

[Peterbard]

alreadyexists said:

With respect BA, my statement was not wrong. My statement referred specifically to the challenging of a bailiff fee.

 

I have no real interest in challenging parking tickets and am happy to leave this to you.

 

Also, correcting mistakes is not arguing. You are the one who always has something to say about my posts, I am more than happy to completely ignore you

 

I am glad you agree, and BA is quite right to correct yours. incidentally, no one needs your permission to comment on anything they like, or that is the position as I understand it on CAG. T

 

Just trying to work out what you said in regard to the bailiff fee and the LGO, in either case, you are wrong. Because the LGO would not be interested in the enforcement matter either, it would be a regulation breech and there is a remedy in law under section 66.

[Bailiff Advice]

It is pretty clear cut that you should not have been charged the £235 and you should get this refunded quite easily, if not by Marston straight away, certainly with the intervention of the council who will be keen to avoid the LGO investigating a case of maladministration.

 

As I have said already, the Local Government will NOT investigate such a complaint and there will be NO finding of maladministration. For the sake of clarity, a further recent decision by the Local Government Ombudsman is as follows. This decision is from approx 3 months ago.

 

London Borough of Haringey

 

The Ombudsman's final decision:

 

Summary:

 

The Ombudsman

will not investigate

Ms A’s complaint that she did not receive any information about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the Council issued so it should not have clamped her car. This is because

it would be reasonable for Ms A to ask the court to consider a late witness statement

on the grounds she did not receive a Notice to Owner.

 

The complaint

 

The complainant who I shall call Ms A says the Council took enforcement action against her for non payment of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) she did not receive. Ms A says she contacted the Council and explained she had not received any notification or documentation regarding the issue of the PCN but

had to pay £513.00 to have the clamp removed

 

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

 

The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)©, as amended)

 

What I found

 

Ms A says the Council should not have clamped her car because

she was unaware

it had issued her with a PCN.

Ms A says she moved

and had notified the DVLA of the move but the contravention must have occurred during this period. Consequently, she did not receive notification of the PCN.

 

The law sets out the parking enforcement regime. If the Council issues a PCN it invites the driver to either pay at a discounted rate within a short period of time or pay the full rate within 28 days.

 

If the PCN is not paid within 28 days, the Council asks the Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority for the name and address of the registered keeper. It sends a Notice to Owner to this person. The owner can make representations about why the Council should cancel the PCN. If the Council does not accept these, it issues a Formal Notice of Rejection of Representations. The owner then has the right to appeal to a tribunal.

 

If the registered keeper does not appeal, or the appeal is unsuccessful the Council will issue a Charge Certificate. If the debt is still unpaid the Council can register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), which is part of Northampton County Court. Then the Council sends an Order for Recovery to the owner.

 

The registered keeper

may make a late witness statement

after the court has issued the warrant,

but the court must first accept the late statement.

 

The registered keeper can only make a witness statement on certain grounds. One is that they did not receive the Notice to Owner. Another is that they made representations to the Council and did not receive a rejection. If accepted a witness statement in effect restores the right to appeal to the tribunal, if they have not already used this. If the debt remains unpaid the Council applies to the court for a warrant, which is passed to bailiffs.

 

Ms A can ask the court to consider her late witness statement

on the grounds she did not receive a Notice to Owner.

 

Final decision

 

The Ombudsman

will not

investigate Ms A’s complaint. This is because Ms A can ask the court to consider her late witness statement and set the clock back on the grounds she did not receive a Notice to Owner.

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/16-014-103

[Bailiff Advice]

If you pair want to discuss this further, I urge you to start a discussion thread and I will put you right.

 

It is wholly inconsiderate to keep hijacking peoples posts for these silly and childish attempts at point scoring. Furthermore, the misinformation is not helpful to anyone, least of all the OP

 

Please calm down. I have been posting here for over 10 years and I don't need a new visitor suggesting whether a subject should be moved to a 'discussion thread'. Just because the Local Government Ombudsman's decisions show that your advice is wrong is not a reason to hide them away in a discussion thread. They will very likely assist other visitors viewing this popular forum.

[Peterbard]

But n OOT will recover the £235 together with all the other fees, it will also reduce the amount owed o the fine. You can't say that we did a disservice to the OP by bringing the option up. Can you?

 

I really do not see your problem. So you were mistaken, so what.

[gingdave]

It's an interesting case. A precedent definitely needs to be set. From everything I've read it feels like I've had the £235 taken from me unlawfully (rather than it being the bailiff's interpretation of the law vs ours), am I definitely correct in thinking this as the standards/regulations appear to clearly explain how they should be operating?

 

Thanks again for the time and interest you've all put into this.

[wonkeydonkey]

For the benefit of those who may be confused, here is a LGO decision that is relevant to this case. It is of course ridiculous to suggest that the LGO will not be interested in looking into a matter where injustice has occurred:

 

 

 

Dave. This LGO decision is 100% relevant to your own situation. If Marston do not return your £235, this LGO decision should be bought to the attention of the council when you contact them regarding the injustice that you have suffered.

 

Bailiffs and their apologists will tell you that every LGO is case specific. Whilst this is true, it is 99.99% unlikely that the LGO would find any different in your matter and even less likely that the council would want to take the risk of a negative LGO decision against them just to line Marston's pockets.

 

The link given does not work??

[ploddertom]

The link given does not work??

 

 

This one does though http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/16-008-217

[Peterbard]

First the misquote, I think I said, that the LGO will not investigate if there is a course for legal redress.

 

On a breach of bailiff regulations, there is an action under section 66, actions against the authority are different.

 

This is council tax and the OP is TEC, there is an immediate form of redress under the OOT for TEC cases of this kind, as shown in BA s post. sorry, no sale.

 

Just to add it is not me who is saying these things it is the LGO.

 

Read everything again and try and understand what has been said. It may assist your confusion

 

Just to remiind you of the differnce.

 

This was stated by the ombudsman in the previous decision posted on this thread, referring to TEC enforcement issues (like not receiving any notices)

 

The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it would be reasonable for Mr. X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement.

 

Yes much verbosity, but still the LGO will not consider investigating a case which is easily res0lved by an OOT request, why is this so hard to understand.

 

Why you would want to start another thread about fees, is beyond me, as there must be tens or hundreds already on here, and if I may offer an opinion, by people far more qualified than yourself.

 

It is just another opportunity for one of your flame wars, I certainly will not encourage you, others are of course free to do as they like.

[Bailiff Advice]

alreadyexists said:

If you pair want to discuss this further, I urge you to start a discussion thread and I will put you right.

 

It is wholly inconsiderate to keep hijacking peoples posts for these silly and childish attempts at point scoring. Furthermore, the misinformation is not helpful to anyone, least of all the OP

 

Can I just suggest that you take notice of your own advice and start a discussion thread.

 

You also need to look in the mirror and you will see that what you accuse others of, is actually what you are doing yourself.

 

alreadyexists said:

 

Please don't try to make out that I am in the wrong here, my only motive is to help and support people who visit the forum for guidance on how to deal with bailiff matters.

 

I am more than happy to ignore yourself and your 3 colleagues. However, if misinformation is posted by you or any one of you, I will correct it. I'm sure that you will agree that this would be for the good of everyone?

 

You are in the wrong. As I said before, if you had a genuine desire to assist individuals you would not be selective. You would want to help anyone.

 

Today in the usual place where you post, you will see that a poor lad who paid a court fine (and fees) has confirmed that he has taken heed of the advice given to him and issued proceedings in the court against Marston Holdings for the recovery of bailiff fees of £310. He has taken this foolish action in spite of the fact that he has a hearing at the Magistrates Court in early September for a Statutory Declaration.....which if accepted, will entitle him to be refunded the bailiff fees. Thee has been no 'help and support' from you for that poor lad.

 

Lastly, it is not quite so easy for individuals on here to ignore you. You have spend the best part of 3 years on another site making many hundreds of abusive, defamatory and downright nasty comments about posters on here. Moderators have had the same treatment from you. I can't forgive you and I certainly cannot ignore you on here either.

[fkofilee]

Guys - Please just stop for now.

The user is not currently around and this needs to end now.

[gingdave]

Hi,

 

I have finally been refunded the £235 from Marston.

 

Marston were very unhelpful/robotic/rude when spoken to and felt that the £235 was legitimate. They have not responded to any emails therefore giving no explanation to the reasoning for the refund other than being asked to do it by a Parking Officer at Kirklees Council.

 

It seems like they do what they like regardless of the regulations. See below for the email exchange with the council. It shows the timeline of the letters and when it was passed on to Marston therefore showing the lack of attempts they make to actually identify a possible new address (all good ££££ for them) and the fact that the log book address had been updated to our new address 4 months (and 2 council reminder letters) prior to it being passed to Marston. Marston then sat on it for 7 months earning £75 for sending out a letter to an address that was highly likely to be wrong. They abuse the system. Parasites. I bet they hate the regulations that restrict their earning capacity so bend every rule and hope to steamroller and stonewall people into accepting what they say as being true. I've still got the bailiffs mobile number, I'll have to ask him about it one day.

 

Thanks for your help with this.

 

Cheers,

Dave

 

.............................................

 

From: John xxx

Sent: 08 September 2017 08:53

To: 'Dave xxx'

Subject: RE: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf

 

Hi…..David

 

Good morning.

 

I have managed to contact our liaison officer with Marston and asked them to reconsider your request to the refund of the attendance fee. Please look out for that as they have agreed to arrange for a refund to you.

 

Regards

John

Senior Parking Officer

Kirklees Council

 

From: Dave xxx

Sent: 06 September 2017 17:07

To: John xxx

Subject: Re: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf

 

Thanks,

 

I have spoken with Marston and they feel that the £235 attendance cost was lawful despite their warrant having a different address on it and no notice of enforcement being posted to our new address therefore meaning that the next enforcement stage had not been reached. Apparently my payment was made "voluntarily", which the customer service agent suggests is my own fault despite the bailiff insisting that full payment was the only option. It seems that had I not answered the door and acted like an honest citizen I would've received a notice of enforcement through the post requesting £173 therefore saving myself £235.

 

Could you please advise me further on making an out of time witness statement. Is this something that needs to be done prior to contacting the LGO?

 

Thanks

David

 

From: John Lee

Sent: 06 September 2017 16:17

To: 'Dave xxx'

Subject: RE: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf

 

Hi…….David

 

The PCN reference KM88398003

 

The process from the issue of a PCN right up to sending the case to a debt collecting agency is configured to a standard industry time line which is also automated. For any none payment or communication from the keeper of vehicle, they will be passed on, there is no second trace unless the letter sent was return marked: Gone away, moved away, etc.

 

The process is followed as in accordance to the Department of Transport guidelines.

 

Regards

John

Senior Parking Officer

Kirklees Council

 

From: Dave xxx

Sent: 06 September 2017 16:08

To: John xxx

Subject: Re: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf

 

Many thanks.

 

Could you please provide the PCN number relating to our case?

 

I'm surprised to hear that you took so long to pass the case to Marston as I would've assumed that seeing as Marston stand to gain financially by not rechecking with the DVLA for a new address (a common occurrence since the paper tax disc ceased) that they wouldn't have checked, but seeing as you are a public service I would've hoped for more common sense. A majority of people would pay in good time in order to reduce the fine, so if there is no reply it stands to reason that they may have moved. A second check with the DVLA (or any of the other sources of tracing people) prior to sending your second letter, third letter, or before handing the case to Marston would've identified our new address. Surely as a council you can easily access electoral rolls?

 

Regards,

David

 

 

 

-------- Original message --------

Subject: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf

From: John xxx

To: Dave xxx

CC:

 

Dear Sir

 

Whilst you wait for a response from Marston, I will provide the information regarding a PCN incurred by the vehicle.

 

On 19/6/16 at 1220hrs, the above mentioned vehicle went through a Bus Gate enforcement at St George’s Square. We subsequently done a trace with the dvla for the keeper’s details. Upon receiving the keeper’s information, we sent 3 statutory letters (dated 23/6/16; 27/9/16 and 19/1/2017 respectively) to the owner before passing the case to Marston (standard procedure).

 

The original address from dvla was: ..............

 

 

Regards

 

John xxx

Senior Parking Officer

Kirklees Council

Edited September 22, 2017 by honeybee13
Surnames removed

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

That's good news about your refund, well done.

 

I've edited out surnames to keep this anonymous.

 

HB

[wonkeydonkey]

Well done Dave, pleased to hear you got a partial refund.