PARKING MATTER

[Jamberson]

You have a good case and may well win. I will be happy to tell you what to do.

 

Before I do, let me just say this: I am always concerned when I hear about solicitors being involved in parking tickets. I presume he/she is charging you for their services, whether you win or not? You can get all the advice you need for nothing, elsewhere. Most solicitors know little about the PCN process in my experience, but will still take your cash whetever happens. If I were you I would not pay anyone a penny for their advice. If your solicitor knows their stuff, this is what they will have told you in five minutes:

 

- Yes you can submit another TE7/TE9. You can submit up to nine in connection with any PCN.

- The owner of the vehicle is liable for all the charges, that's you, because you only lent the car to a friend and did not sell it.

- You must advise the DVLA of who keeps the car, and they must be named on the V5C. Nonetheless the owner will always be liable for the PCNs.

 

What to do... file a new TE7 and TE9 for each PCN as soon as you can. You do it yourself to be sure, and don't rely on any the solicitor may have done for you. Do new ones, so you know they are correct.

 

The TE9 is the first one to do: fill in your details in the boxes, using your current address. Tick the box which says "I did not receive the Penalty Charge Notice". Sign, date etc.

 

Now the TE7 - make sure you get this right! This is the form which tells them why you are late in submitting the TE9, and they need a good explanation or they will reject the whole thing. Fill in your name and current address again, as before. In the box "Reasons" - explain clearly and simply - you lent the car to a mate (name him, don't give his address) tell them when you did it. Tell them you moved out of your previous home on xxx date. Tell them your friend failed to advise you of any PCNs, and you did not at any point receive a PCN or Notice to Owner because you had left the property they will have written to. Sign, date etc.

 

(My advice, stick to these facts, don't talk around what you would have done if... or accuse them of anything - just tell the straight facts as I suggested.)

 

Get this done for each PCN as soon as you can. Do one TE7 and one TE9 for each PCN which is outstanding. Send them back to Northamton County Court, not to the council.

 

Post back if any of this is unclear.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Jamberson

[Jamberson]

It's more than "reducing the amount". It removes the threat of any bailiff action and revokes their execution warrant and fees, and it gets the OP back in the appeals process, which is what he wants. He can then appeal them or pay, and will have a month to do one of those, or better, he can ask his friend to pay them, and the situation can be resolved.

 

As to why the vehicle was registered to this or that address, it's not relevant. That's the sort of diversion which he doesn't need to get concerned with. Just showing why he did not receive the official notices is what he needs to do now. Any discrepancy over the place of registration is DVLA's concern, not Birmingham City Council's.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Jamberson
typo

[Jamberson]

dx is right though. The grounds for having the application accepted out of time only hinge on the reasons why it is late. Not having the car registered to the correct address is a convincing reason why the forms could not have been submitted in time, and so it supports the application.

 

If the car was registered to the correct address that would weaken the application, as no-one would belive three separate notices failed to arrive at the house. But if the OP isn't living there when they are delivered, then that all makes sense.

[Jamberson]

@Will GoodfellowDebtor files witness statement on the grounds he did not receive the notices. Council looks to see whether that is plausible. If it is, witness statement should be accepted.

 

The whole point that out of times are possible is because problems like this arise, and the most common grounds for filing them is this one. It's what the process was set up for. Failure to update DVLA is common and whoever's fault that is doesn't matter. OP has a legal right to defend himself against forfeiture of goods and so the Council must serve him notices first. He hasn't been served any because he was not living at the address they sent them to. That's all that matters for the sake of PCNs.

 

The nine submissions came from when I used to run an appeals team in my local Council. We were aware we were probably non-compliant in some respects so I had one of my team research the Council's whole legal obligation and this is one of the facts which came up. I imagine most councils don't even know, but it's not really important. There's no grounds to reject a witness statement on the basis that another witness statement was submitted before. It will only be accepted or rejected based on the material facts concerning the notices and the reason for late submission.

[Jamberson]

@Will GoodfellowLet's not get too bogged down in this nine applications thing - it's not really relevant, but you are right it's a perfect tactic to frustrate the system.

 

However it depends on the Council repeatedly issuing an Order for Recovery, which they shouldn't do, although many will. If they do issue one, then someone can respond to it with a TE9 every time. It's standard.

 

Would be very unusual to keep submitting out of time ones, as they will have the correct address after the first one and will look to issue notices there - so they can then reject it. But do it in time, and you can stall the process for months and months.

 

@Manxman in exileThe court don't accept or reject it - the Council does. The law is on the side of the debtor.

 

In law you cannot be fined without the right of representation. This has been tested up to the House of Lords in connection with PCNs, whereby you have no option to present a defence in court.

 

The legal position is, the appeals process serves that defence purpose and so it is an absolute right to have the appeals process made available to you, and you cannot be deprived of it because you were negligent in advising DVLA, or for any other reason.

 

The council is seeking to penalise you - they have to serve notices first so you can choose to appeal. Serving notices does not occur if you do not live at the postal address they use - whoever's fault it is.

Therefore they have to re-issue them to your correct address. 

 

I understand your reasoning, but the system doesn't work quite as you describe.

[Jamberson]

I would not file an N244 right now, I would send a new TE9/7 for that PCN and see what happens. However keep it in mind as an option, in case it comes to that. If you do have to go down that route, your second TE7/9 may in fact strengthen your case - but first things first.

 

In your TE7 you must explain the situation clearly or they are likely to reject it. I would say something like this:

 

In xxxx I lent my car to a friend named xxxx. I since learned he received three PCNs, but he did not tell me about them. I left me previous home on xxxxx dur to family circumstances, and when you sent me the official notices out I was no longer living there and did not receive them. The first knoweldge I had of the PCNs was when I was contacted by bailiffs. Therefore I have not had an opportunity to pay or appeal them. This is why my application is late.

[Jamberson]

3 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

 

But according to Jamberson it doesn't matter if LUNGHO misses the deadline for submitting an N244 in respect of the first rejection, because he's entitled to submit a further eight (!?!) TE7s in respect of the same PCN, and if they all get rejected he only needs to appeal against the last one that is rejected.

 

But then I'm not so sure about that and neither is Jamberson it seems , because he also seems to be saying (#27) that you can only submit more than one TE7 in respect of a single PCN if the council issues more than one OfR in respect of that single PCN:  "However it depends on the Council repeatedly issuing an Order for Recovery, which they shouldn't do, ..."

 

But he doesn't explain why a council would issue a further OfR if the applicant's TE7 has been rejected as surely the hold on bailiff action is lifted and the bailiffs proceed as if nothing had happened?

 

It's entirely possible that I'm completely mistaken in my understanding and Jamberson is completely right that you can submit more than one TE7 - but I'd like to read something more authoritative for that proposition than: "The nine submissions came from when I used to run an appeals team in my local Council.   ... I had one of my team research the Council's whole legal obligation and this is one of the facts which came up",  which seems to be reliant on nothing more than the unknown legal research skills of some council employee.

 

I've read nothing anywhere else on t'internet that suggests that resubmitting a TE7 (with different wording) is a valid response to a rejected TE7, rather than appealing via N244.

 

I don't want this thread to get sidetracked on this matter. However for the sake of clarity, you can submit up to nine, but each one has to be submitted at the appropriate stage of the process, which is after an Order for Recovery has been issued, and normally only one would be submitted. But the council can issue a second Order for recovery later on, depending how the case progresses, and if they do, a second Witness Statement can be made, and so on, up to nine times. But none of that is particularly relevant to this case.

 

In the OP's case he has had one Witness Statement rejected so an N244 is the only formal route left open on that PCN, which is currently on hold waiting for the OP to decide what to do. And it DOES matter that he applies in time, if that's what he is ultimately going to do.

 

However while we are in the brief stage where all three are on hold, I think there is mileage in sending a new set of three witness statements and seeing what happens, because two of them have not been decided yet, so far as we know. The Council cant reasonably reject one and accept the other two, if they are all filed on the same grounds. So I say go for all three again and see what they do - nothing to lose. Filing an N244 is not easy, and there are upfront costs which might not ever get recovered, so for me, that would be the last resort. However the option remains open.