Council PCN oct 2017 - rundles oct 2018 NOE - i paid the council - now enforcement visit.

[Midge80]

1. Received a notice of enforcement for a parking ticket in october 2017.

 

2. I was not the registered keeper as it was a HP company

 

3. I sent letters to the HP company who I thought had dealt with it. 

 

4. Received a NOTICE of ENFORCEMENT from Rundles - AUGUST 2018

 

5. Enforcement officer visited and pushed a letter through the door demanding £388.

 

6. Ive paid council £82.00 directly 

 

7. I have submitted a TE9 & TE7

 

8. Enforcement officer is still looking to pursue and is threatening to return over the weekend.

 

9. Council is refusing to accept payment and is passing payment onto the Enforcement Agency

 

What is the next step.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Midge80

[dx100uk]

its rare for courts to grant right of forced entry on a PCN..he would have to apply for that.

deal with the council.

when did you send TE7/9?

have you had a reply?

 

you should still be the registered keeper on v5c regardless to the HP co being the owner of the vehicle??

[Midge80]

Te9 and te7 only emailed today. 

 

The council refused payment, and is sending it over to rundles. 

 

The Logbook wasn’t in my name it was short term lease wher the lease company holds v5

[Bailiff Advice]

You would have been responsible for the contravention. Of that, there is no doubt.

 

It is fairly common for a finance company to retain the V5C (Log Book) and have it registered to them. With road traffic contraventions, the finance company would have received the initial notice from the council. They in turn would have responded to the council to request that liability for the penalty be transferred to you. They would have provided the council with your name and address. Again, this is a very common procedure. 

 

The council would have then issued a fresh Penalty Charge Notice to you. If you did not receive any of the notices (which would have also included a Charge Certificate and an Order for Recovery), then I would imagine that the address details held for you by the finance company were not accurate. You would need to check with the finance company. 

 

You mention that you have sent letters to the finance company as you believe that they had 'dealt with it'. What had led you to believe that this was the case?

 

[Midge80]

Thanks BA

 

The vehicle was handed back before the contravention (Short term lease), unfortunately the leasing company didn't send me a report to say it had been handed back.

 

The agreement term covered the date I was there so it looks as though as I was the driver, yet I wasn't hence the reason I sent the letters back to the Company who leased me the vehicle. Their admin team told me over the phone that they will pass it on to the person who had the vehicle after me (I believe it was an employee of the company)

 

I have paid the fine directly to the Council and I will claim this back from the finance/Car leasing company.

 

The bailiff threatened to come round of Saturday/ Sunday but yet he never turned up.

[Bailiff Advice]

On 12/07/2019 at 14:00, Midge80 said:

Te9 and te7 only emailed today. 

 

 

Given that an Out of Time witness statement was submitted before 4pm on Friday (which is the 'cut off' time for the Traffic Enforcement Centre to process applications) all bailiff enforcement would have been placed 'on hold' from Monday morning (the next working day).

 

The 'hold' will remain in place for approx 4 weeks awaiting a decision. 

[Midge80]

As I have paid the council directly where do I stand in regards to the fees with the enforcement agency?

[Bailiff Advice]

1 hour ago, Midge80 said:

As I have paid the council directly where do I stand in regards to the fees with the enforcement agency?

 

There are plenty of threads on this forum regarding this subject and as confirmed by the courts, you owe the enforcement fees. 

As things stand at this present time,  enforcement of the warrant is 'on hold' so the immediate problem as to whether or not enforcement action will be taken against you is not something for you to be worrying about. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Bailiff Advice

[Peterbard]

Always get a head ache on this sub forum.

 

You say it is HP then you say a short term Lease.

 

You say you are not guilty because you were not the driver,

Then you pay the authority.

 

I think you have been given advice before the advisor bothered to fully appraise your situation.

 

What happens next? Who knows. I suppose it all depends on the success of your claim

[Midge80]

The Court still have not yet made a decision on the out of time witness statement.

 

The council have issued this email as a response to my original complaint.

 

Dear Mr xxx

 

I am writing in response to your recent correspondence which has been passed to me as a stage one complaint in the Councils complaints procedure.

 

Having reviewed your letter, it is not entirely clear what your complaint relies on, aside from the District Council have appointed, as is their right, an Enforcement Agent to recover Road Traffic Debt for Penalty Charge Notice MSxxx for which you are liable.

 

I have taken the opportunity to review your case and my findings are detailed below.

 

The original Penalty Charge Notice was issued on 31 October 2017, and on 3 January 2018 you were contacted as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention, following correspondence with the lease company. Our records show that you were sent the legal notices - Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery between January and June 2018 and did not contact the District Council after receiving any of these communications.  Therefore the case progressed to Rundles & Co Ltd Enforcement Agents and again there is no evidence that you responded to any communication until an initial visit by an Enforcement Agent.

 

After a second visit by an Enforcement Agent in July 2019, I understand that you have contacted the Council on a number of occasions and you were advised that any payment needed to be made directly to Rundles & Co Ltd as the Warrant of Control had been issued by the Court on the 22^nd August 2018. 

 

I would assure you there is no requirement to refer this matter to our Legal Team, as Parking Services is fully conversant with the requirements of the Taking Control of Goods Act.

To clarify, I confirm that under Section 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, the following applies;

 

(1)          Subject to paragraph 50(6) of Schedule 12, when the proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power are less than the amount outstanding, they must be applied in accordance with this regulation.

(2)          Where the goods are sold or disposed of at public auction (other than by internet auction), the proceeds must be applied first in payment of the auctioneer’s fees calculated in accordance with regulation 9(2) or (3) as appropriate. (not applicable as Goods have not been taken control of at present).

(3)          Following the payment at paragraph (2), the enforcement agent may then recover the compliance fee.

(4)          Subject to paragraph (5), following any payment due by virtue of paragraphs (2) and (3), the proceeds must be applied pro rata in payment of—

(a)          the sum to be recovered, and

(b)          any remaining amounts recoverable in respect of fees and disbursements payable to the enforcement agent in accordance with these Regulations.

(5)          Where the same legal person is both the creditor and the enforcement agent, paragraph (4) does not apply and the proceeds must be applied in payment of the amount referred to in paragraph (4)(b) before payment of the amount at paragraph (4)(a). 

(6)          In paragraphs (4) and (5), references to the proceeds are to the proceeds after deduction of the sums, if any, to which paragraphs (2) and (3) relate.

In other words, the compliance fee must be paid first in the recovery of any debts and fees to the Enforcement Agent.

 

You have incorrectly paid the compliance fee of £75 to Mid Sussex District Council, and we are now in the process of transferring this to Rundle and Co Limited, who have adjusted their outstanding fees accordingly.  I would also confirm the Enforcement Stage commenced at the time of the Enforcement Agent’s first visit on 2^nd October 2018. The compliance stage has long since passed.  In conclusion, the Enforcement Agents powers have not ceased to be exercisable.

 

I would confirm all Enforcement Agents acting under instruction by Mid Sussex District Council, are required to hold certification by the Courts and I confirm that in relation to this case the Enforcement Agent is in possession of a Warrant of Control.

 

In response to your final points, I confirm the following.

1.       There are no grounds to return the Road Traffic Debt to the Council, as the statutory process has been followed.

2.       Enforcement action will continue until the debt has been settled in full with Rundle and Co Limited.

3.       I regret “The Council make the necessary investigation as to why I received Mr. [NAME] at my address” is not a coherent question.

I note that at the time of writing this response, you have filed an Out of Time witness statement with the Courts and this is in the process of being decided by the Court and you will be notified of their decision in due course.

 

After reviewing your complaint, it is my opinion that all procedures have been followed correctly in the pursuant of the unpaid debts in relation to this Penalty Charge Notice.

 

If you have a complaint about the behaviour of the Enforcement Agent this must be raised directly with Rundles & Co Ltd via email [email protected] .

 

If you remain unhappy with this response to your complaint, within 28 days you can request in writing that your complaint progresses to second stage and is considered by a Head of Service. Please confirm in writing to Mrs KS via[email protected]

 

 

Claire xxx

Business Unit Leader - Parking Services

www.midsussex.gov.uk

 

HAVE THEY APPLIED THE LAW CORRECTLY AS TO THE COMPLIANCE STAGE FEE?

 

Best

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

I've removed your surname from the beginning of the letter and your surname at the end of the post, plus the names of the council employees. Best to keep things anonymous.

 

HB

[lookinforinfo]

Yes the Council were correct to deal with the Compliance fee the way they did given the circumstances they had in front of them. Now that you know you were not the driver at the time, you should get the Lease company to confirm that fact to the Council. Then you can reclaim the money you paid to the Council back from them.

 

[Peterbard]

Yes,  it seems I was correct earlier, I hope you didnt pay anything for the duff advice.

I