PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Yellow box fine of £513 with little notice
Dundermoose1
post Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 12:53
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 6 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,402



In Oct 2017 while driving my wife's car in Merton, London I stopped in a yellow box for a few seconds. This was due to a truck in front of me coming to a standstill to let an oncoming car turn right into a side alley about 15 meters on from the yellow box.

We moved houses about 3 days after the traffic incident and set up a mail forwarding service through the Post Office which ran until January 2018.

In early April 2018 we received a Notice of Enforcement (sent 2 days earlier) from Merton Enforcement Agents giving us 14 day to pay a £278 fine (see link below). This was the first we heard of the fine. My wife immediately called Merton Enforcement Agents and was directed to call PCN. She explained the situation to PCN, including our house move and the fact that this was the first that we had heard of the fine. They actually apologised and said that the original fine (that was issued shortly after the incident) would be reissued. Apparently the original fine had been mailed to an address that the car was last registered at 3 years ago! As requested we sent them proof of when we moved (i.e. the relevant pages of our current rental agreement) and waited to receive the reissued fine.

Today (17 days later) the bailiffs showed up at our home at 6am demanding £513. They had clamped our car and said that if we didn't pay the fine there and then he would have our car towed away that morning. This was out of office hours so we were unable to call PCN or Merton Enforcement Agents to clarify what exactly had happened here. Because we needed the car to get the kids to school and to get to work we were left with no alternative other than paying the fine.

A few hours later my wife called PCN to try and resolve the issue and get the fine repaid. They told her that they do not reissue fines and that we may be able to get a partial refund, but that that refund will definitely not include a refund of the enforcement fee (which was £235). They said that they will send us a letter later this week in this regard.

We are now in the process of contacting the DVLA to find out why they handed out 3 years old details to Merton Enforcement Agents in the first place (we have moved twice since those details were correct and informed the DVLA of our address change on both occasions).

As it stands I see 2 issues here: (1) whether the fine itself is enforceable (either due to the facts of the incident itself or the time that elapsed between the incident and us receiving the fine) and (2) whether it was in any event legal to progress the fine to the enforcement stage with such short notice and given what we were told over the phone. With regard to (1), the fact that we did not receive timely notice of the fine meant that we were not able to appeal as is usually the case.

Given that Merton Council are unlikely to refund much of the fine, my initial thoughts are to issue a letter before action asking that the £513 be repaid in full or alternatively that we be provided with (1) all photographic/video evidence of the incident, (2) all telephone recordings of our interactions with Merton Enforcement Agents and PCN, and (3) details and proof of all letters sent to us including dates and the address(es) that those letters were sent to. This will fuel a small claims action against them if needed. Would this letter need to be address to Merton Council or Merton Enforcement Agents? And would any subsequent action be against Merton council of Merton Enforcement Agents?

If anyone has any advice it would be very much appreciated. You can probably understand this is a stressful situation as £513 is a lot of money to have to fork out at the end of the month without notice.



Below is a link to the only paper correspondence we received (Notice of Enforcement):
https://imageshack.com/a/img922/9215/kpH8KV.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 12:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Dundermoose1
post Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 14:01
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 6 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,402



Hcandersen, all notices and corresponded sent by Merton Council and/or their enforcement agents were addressed to my wife using her first name and middle name (i.e. excluding her surname). This has been confirmed with PCN Debt over the phone and we have requested copies of all correspondence to check this for ourselves.

Do you think that my draft statutory declaration wording is too detailed? To me the main points addressed in the current wording are:

1) Why only applying for the OOT now and not immediately after becoming aware of the charge – due to Merton Council misinformation
2) Why applying for OOT – did not receive any notification of the charge prior to receiving the Notice of Enforcement
3) Why? – Due to unfortunate coincidence of timing (house move)
4) But what about the mail forwarding – didn’t kick in because of council’s typographical error
5) Did you act reasonably – yes (made contact with the council as soon as becoming aware of the charge)
6) Did the council act reasonably – no (misinformation, dispatching bailiffs despite knowing I had not received the PCN)


I know that some of the points above may not be 100% necessary but I want to paint a full picture of what happened and show the council in the negative light that they deserve. But if you think that I need to trim the fat I will. Also, do I need to specifically state that the OOT is being submitted in respect of the PCN?





Sheila, I totally agree with your concerns. They seem to be needlessly erecting hurdles that they say I must overcome to get full repayment while acknowledging that I didn’t ever receive the PCN (something they were aware of before sending the bailiffs out - incurring the associated enforcement fees).

The call to the TEC definitely was worthwhile. Thanks for that tip! Yes, the warrant was resealed on 20 March 2018 with my wife’s full name (including surname) and our current address. But the Notice of Enforcement that we received thereafter on 6 April 2018 (i.e. the only correspondence we ever received from them), was sent on 4 April 2018 and had our correct current address (but referred to my wife by her first name and middle name only). PCN Debt have confirmed that all other notices and correspondence have only my wife’s first name and middle in the addressee line (the surname was omitted). They have also confirmed that two Notices of Enforcement was sent out (both on the same date – 4 April 2018). One was sent to our current address and one to some totally unknown address in Mitcham, London. All other correspondence was apparently sent to our previous address. That unknown address is probably what was mentioned to my wife when she first called Merton Council and lead us down the rabbit warren of thinking that they had used very old details. Glad we finally got to the bottom of that!!

Anyways, seems that they got the warrant sealed, rechecked the address and noticed that it was out-of-date, got the warrant re-sealed with the correct, up-to-date details and then sent copies of the Notice of Enforcement to our current address and some other totally random address. Numpties!



Update: My wife called Merton Enforcement Agents and PCN Debt today to check how long it will take for the requested Notices, VQ5 and telephone recordings to be sent to us. It seems that every time she calls she’s told something different. She was previously told that these need to be applied for via email. She did that. But she was told today that the correct way to apply for these is via some online portal. These people – I’m starting to believe that you have to be a special kind of stupid to answer the phones at a town council. Anyways, it will take 15 working days for these documents to be sent to us. Should we wait for that or do you think waiting that long will prejudice my OOT?

Sheila, is there any point in me sending a letter before action type letter in the hopes of avoiding the time and effort of applying to the TEC?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 14:28
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,054
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Tackling the warrant is, IMO and with respect, targetting the wrong part of the process.

You need to submit your OOT.

Don't overcomplicate matters. And use correct terms.

For example, the authority did not make 'a typographical error' they failed to address the notices to the person specified in the regulations i.e. ********. In the normal course of events, the Royal Mail would have delivered the notices to the address and the resident of the property would have received them and it could be argued that service was effected. However, the Royal Mail decided that there was such a discrepency between the addressee's name and that specified in the mail redirection (see attached) that they determined that it fell outside the scope of the redirection and, unbeknown to the addressee, delivered to the (wrong) address i.e. the one in the notices and not the one specified in the redirection which was the residence of the intended recipient ***


*** at this point I would be tempted to refer the court officer to the film Miracle on 34th Street where the US Post Office, a branch of the federal government, determined that the addressee for letters addressed to Father Christmas was the one and only Kris Kringle and that the court would not interfere with such a decision! So should be the case here. If the RM decided that the discrepency was significant, then it's not for a court officer to gainsay that decision and the OOT should be allowed.

But you're not me, so probably best not to.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 14:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bailiff Advice
post Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 09:47
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,440



QUOTE (Dundermoose1 @ Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 15:01) *
Sheila, Is there any point in me sending a letter before action type letter in the hopes of avoiding the time and effort of applying to the TEC?


I do think that the OOT as drafted needs improving and when that is done, it may be a good idea to send a copy to Merton. They may well resolve the matter without you having to send the documentation to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Taking this route would take away the need to wait approx 4-6 weeks for a response from TEC.

PS: I am sure that Dundermoose would not mind me mentioning on here the fact that his wife's surname is a double barrel one with (with a hyphen in-between) Therefore, the omission of the surname in all their notices is significant.

Sheila

This post has been edited by Bailiff Advice: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 09:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 10:17
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 10:47) *
QUOTE (Dundermoose1 @ Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 15:01) *
Sheila, Is there any point in me sending a letter before action type letter in the hopes of avoiding the time and effort of applying to the TEC?


I do think that the OOT as drafted needs improving and when that is done, it may be a good idea to send a copy to Merton. They may well resolve the matter without you having to send the documentation to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Taking this route would take away the need to wait approx 4-6 weeks for a response from TEC.

PS: I am sure that Dundermoose would not mind me mentioning on here the fact that his wife's surname is a double barrel one with (with a hyphen in-between) Therefore, the omission of the surname in all their notices is significant.

Sheila


Glad you said that about improving the draft.
I bow to Sheila's experience on these matters, she has done more of these then I am ever likely to but at the moment, seems to be losing the facts in narrative.
My preference is bullet points/headings with brief explanations for any matter that needs clearly explaining.
ie.

No Statutory Notices were received and first knowledge of situation was from bailiffs.
Accordingly I could not deal with this in good time and ask that TEC accept the Out of Time submission for the Statutory Declaration.

PCN and all subsequent notices were incorrectly addressed.
My correct name is ??????
The PCN etc were addressed to ????, missing the surname.
This would not have been an issue except....

We moved house on ??? date, just before PCN was served on ??? date.
We had mail redirection in place but as the surname was missing, Royal Mail redirection system does not identify this as mail that is included in the redirection.
Copy Tenancy agreement attached to verify address change.
Copy of redirection appended (or explanation/details)

We had advised DVLA of change of address to update the vehicle details but this was in process when the PCN was raised.
The updated V5C was received on ???? date, after the PCN was served. (copy attached)

We have been discussing this with Merton who have agreed that we could not have received the statutory notices.
I append an email from them confirming this.

This seems like an unfortunate series of events that have conspired to prevent myself from dealing with this in good time despite me taking all steps to try to keep the system updated.
I ask that TEC recognise this and grant the OOT, the situation is simply not of my making and Merton have accepted that notices were not received and thus not served.

Hugs and kisses.

Not sure I have all details but is more my take on how to approach.
Fully support the copy to Merton BTW.

PS..... having had a two part name of French derivation all my life, I am well aware that spellings and indeed complete parts of it go missing.
Made worse by computers and data base entries that don't like spaces.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 10:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 12:23
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,054
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I would stress and provide evidence that RM determined that the address in the notices was not of the required form to give rise to redirection.

Stress that if RM have decided on this point, then the issue of the notices being wrongly addressed has already been determined. (I'm serious on this point. It is not for the court officer IMO to take a contrary view, but make the point politely e.g. as the Royal Mail decided that the notices were not addressed as required under the redirection procedures, and were therefore not redirected or served, and as their frame of reference was exactly the same as on the V5C, then you respectfully submit that the incorrect addressing of the notices is established and that the request to submit an OOT should be approved )

Here's the mail redirection; here's the copy of the V5C. See how the names are the same.

If the authority had addressed the notices correctly, then they would have been served. They didn't and they weren't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 13:30
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 13:23) *
Here's the mail redirection; here's the copy of the V5C. See how the names are the same.

If the authority had addressed the notices correctly, then they would have been served. They didn't and they weren't.

We don't know that; neither does the OP. Nobody has the V5.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dundermoose1
post Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 09:38
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 6 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,402



Hcandersen, you and I have a similar sense of humour I think. That film reverence is exactly the sort of thing I would slip in, though it’s questionable whether an overworked TEC judge/master would appreciate it.

Regarding the forwarding service, I have a letter from the RM with the names to be forwarded. This includes my wife’s first name, middle initial and surname. The RM website specifically says that one of the reasons that mail may not be forward is if you submit an incorrect surname. I have called them and they have confirmed that if a letter does not include in the address either a first name and surname OR initial(s) and surname as they are displayed on the RM confirmation letter then the forward will not take place.





Neil B, we have the RM confirmation letter and our latest V5C. This contains my wife’s full name. Line C.1.2 reads “Mrs [first name] [middle name]” and line C.1.1 (below that) reads “[surname]” correctly spelt, hyphen and all. To me it seems that either the council were only provided with the details on line C.1.2 or they were provided with both and, due to an error on their party, omitted the details on line C.1.1. The use of just my wife’s first and middle name as the addressee on all outgoing correspondence has been confirmed by both the council and their enforcement agent.

I understand that you may be referring to our previous V5C (which contained the details that the council would have used, and which we no longer have). But I’m pretty sure that the name on that would be the same as the current one.





DancingDad, the struggle is real. A few of years ago while trying to book an EasyJet flight online I was told that my surname was “invalid”. And don’t even get my started with the mispronunciations. The first part is 4 letters long but I have heard is mispronounced in many different ways. It happens so often that I now answer to whatever people decide to call me.






Everyone, thank you for all of your comments and constructive criticism. I’ll am going to ask Sheila to draft my forms. I will post the final wording and outcomes on this thread for any future people to read. I have found reading other people’s threads helpful and would contribute to this cites compendium of knowledge. Thanks all!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 09:55
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Dundermoose1 @ Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 10:38) *
.........DancingDad, the struggle is real. A few of years ago while trying to book an EasyJet flight online I was told that my surname was “invalid”. And don’t even get my started with the mispronunciations. The first part is 4 letters long but I have heard is mispronounced in many different ways. It happens so often that I now answer to whatever people decide to call me.
...........


Been there, got the tee shirt.

One of the funniest was a counter clerk in a bank questioning my surname and telling me it could not be in two parts.
Even though it was printed that way on the cheque I was trying to cash.
Clerk behind him tapped him on the shoulder and told him not to be silly.
She was my sister.

Good luck with this, trust Sheila but do remember time is ticking, reason to submit late dilutes with time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 10:55
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,054
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



@DD, I'm working on:
We checked with the DVLA and they have confirmed over the phone that our V5C has always been updated within a few weeks of each of our previous moves. I don’t know if much turns on any additional evidence that we may get from the DVLA as the date on our current V5C is all we need. But we have submitted the V888 anyway to get what we were told over the phone in writing.

OP, I'd give DVLA a call to see where they are.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 10:58
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 11:55) *
@DD, I'm working on:
We checked with the DVLA and they have confirmed over the phone that our V5C has always been updated within a few weeks of each of our previous moves. I don’t know if much turns on any additional evidence that we may get from the DVLA as the date on our current V5C is all we need. But we have submitted the V888 anyway to get what we were told over the phone in writing.

OP, I'd give DVLA a call to see where they are.


I think that was Neil querying that.
But I agree worth a call.
DVLA helpline people are a funny breed.
Some cannot be more helpful, some tie everything in red tape.
So worth a repeat or chase up call.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dundermoose1
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 16:59
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 6 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,402



Just a quick update for those that are interested. We received the recording of the call between my wife and the council today (extraordinarily quick for a council!). This is the call that my wife made to the council on the day that we received the Notice of Enforcement and were first made aware of the charge. The relevant sections of the call go like this:

Merton Parking Services agent (MPSa): I can only apologise for it going to this stage, but it’s because of the delay with the update within the DVLA and their turnaround as to why it’s gone that far. So what I can do is, if you are able to supply evidence of when you moved into [address] we will be then… as long as it shows that this is around about the time that we enquired with the DVLA… we would be more than happy to take that back and reissue the first penalty charge notice for you.

Wife: Okay. Can I send something by email maybe with an attachment with our contract that we have the landlord which has a date?

MPSa: Yeah. Yeah, that’s absolutely fine. Have you got a pen handy?

Wife: Yes I do.

MPSa: Okay. The email address is [address is spelt out].

Wife: Okay.

MPSa: Okay. If you send that all through and quote the PCN reference number that you gave me at the start of this call and a brief description just what you said to me: I moved at around about the same time as you guys sent off your request to the DVLA. Here’s my evidence of when I moved. Please can you update accordingly. Yeah?

Wife: Brilliant. And then will you, or I guess, Merton Enforcement Agents reissue the fine?

MPSa: Basically yeah. I mean obviously there may be a bit of turnaround time based on workload, but if you get your email to us as soon as possible the second that we… or as soon as we receive the email we will place it on hold with the enforcement agent until we have done our work that we need to do. Yeah?

Wife: Okay. Brilliant. Thanks so much.

MPSa: No that’s okay. Thank you. Okay bye.

Wife: Bye



So there you have it: an offer to "reissue the first penalty charge notice" so long as we provide proof of when we moved (which we did via email less than 30 minutes after the call). After making such a representation I don't know how they could legally (or morally) keep anything but the original £65 charge.

I will keep you posted.

This post has been edited by Dundermoose1: Thu, 3 May 2018 - 17:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 17:11
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Keep that recording safe.
IT stuffs any thought of the council or their agents acting reasonably.

I assume the SD and OOT have gone to TEC by now ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dundermoose1
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:05
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 6 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,402



For those who are interested (and for the benefit of any people who may find this thread useful in the future) below is the wording of my PE2 form. This has been anonymised:

I was not able to file this statement within the given time as I only became aware of this penalty charge notice on [date] when I received a Notice of Enforcement at my current address from a firm of bailiffs ([name of bailiffs]).

It would appear that my vehicle had been involved in a yellow box contravention on [date] and that all statutory notices from [the council] had had been sent to my previous address: [previous address]. Unfortunately, I did not receive any of these notices as I had vacated that address 3 days after the contravention (on [date]).

I contacted Merton Council via telephone on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (on [date we received the Notice]) and they confirmed that a penalty charge had been issued on [date - 12 days after moving]. I informed the council that I had returned by V5C (Log Book) to DVLA for amendment within days after moving and had received an updated V5C on [date].

Of significance is that during my conversation I informed the council that when I moved address I had set up a mail forwarding facility with Royal Mail. It was later discovered that correspondence had not only been addressed to me at my previous address, but most seriously, my name was incorrectly addressed as "[Christian name and middle name]" whereas my correct name is "[Christian name, middle name, surname]". This error would explain why correspondence had failed to reach me under the mail forwarding facility. [The council] could not offer an explanation for this error. They did however, during our [date] telephone conversation, agree to cancel the penalty and re-issue a fresh penalty charge with my correct name and address. [The council] did not cancel the penalty as agreed. Accordingly, an enforcement agent attended my current address on [date - 2 weeks after the call] and, under duress, I made a payment of £513.

As outlined above, I only became aware of this penalty on [date] when I received a Notice of Enforcement at my current address. Further, the associated Warrant was originally issued to my previous address and later resealed with my current address on [date - 8 days before receiving the Notice of Enforcement]. With this in mind, I would like to bring to the court's attention Section 10.69 of the Department for Transport's Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement dated March 2015: Section 10.69 states that if the name and address on the Warrant was incorrect, that the name and address on the Penalty Charge Notice and the Charge Certificate may also have been incorrect, and that accordingly, neither would have been served and if so, the local authority should serve a new Penalty Charge Notice or Charge Certificate to the address established. This has not happened in my case.

I would be grateful if this application could be accepted.



RESULT!!
Last week I received a letter from the TEC saying that my application had been accepted and ordered that: (1) "the order for recovery of the unpaid penalty charge be revoked" and "the charge certificate be cancelled". Whoohooo!! We win...

not result...
But the next day we received another letter from the Court letting us know that they had made a mistake - the previous letter had been sent in error as the Court had mistakenly thought that the Council had failed to file any opposition. They had opposed our application and as such the revocation order was cancelled. Interestingly, that Court letter was addressed to using my wife's Christian name and middle name only (no surname). So the name issue persists...

I can't for the life of me fathom under what grounds the Counsel are opposing our application. But to cut a long story short, we are now awaiting the Court's decision.

This post has been edited by Dundermoose1: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:49
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Dundermoose1 @ Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 13:05) *
I can't for the life of me fathom under what grounds the Counsel are opposing our application. But to cut a long story short, we are now awaiting the Court's decision.

Council should have sent you a copy. Query where that is.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dundermoose
post Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 20:24
Post #55


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 7 Mar 2011
Member No.: 44,868



So we contacted the council on 18 July and asked to have a copy of their submission to the TEC. They said that they do not give those out but that we could ask the TEC. The TEC said that they do not hand those out either. So we were left to wait for the TEC's decision.

Today we received that decision (dated 1 August 2018 and addressed to my wife by her first name and middle name only). Our application was refused - they didn't give a reason (and said that they are not required to do so) and said that if we wanted to appeal there would be a fee (£100 Or £255 depending on whether we wanted a hearing or not).

I can not for the life of me understand how our application could be refused. This just seems totally unjust. The facts are simple:

1) We did not receive any notices because we moved 3 days after the incident

2) The notices were all miss-addresed so were therefore not forwarded to us under our Royal Mail forwarding service.

3) As soon as we received a Notice of Enforcement we called the council and provided them with proof of when we moved. We were told the fine would be reissued and to wait until we receive that (we have a recording of that call)

4) Bailiffs turned up at our place 2 weeks later demanding hundreds of pounds in extra enforcement fees.

I really can't see how any court could find that in those circumstances it was right for us to pay the full fine including additional fees. It just doesn't make sense!

My wife is going to call the TEC again tomorrow to see if she can get any more information as to why the court found in the council's favour, but any advice anyone may have would be much appreciated.

This post has been edited by Dundermoose: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 23:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 20:44
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Dundermoose @ Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 21:24) *
So we contacted the council on 18 July and asked to have a copy of their submission to the TEC. They said that they do not give those out

Remind them that they, like all Councils, are signed up to TEC Code of Practice agreement (or similar title) that says they
must send you a copy.
To not do so now would be a blatant obstruction to you formulating a case for further redress through the Court, that is open to
you through an N244 application.
Get names of anyone obstructive, no matter how junior, as I find that tends to stop the fob-offs and gets you heard by someone
worthwhile.
Ask to speak to their legal dept. if need be.

How can you challenge the TEC Court Officers decision without knowing what submissions the Council made.

--

QUOTE (Dundermoose @ Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 21:24) *
My wife is going to call the TEC again tomorrow to see if she can get any more information as to why the court found in the council's favour, but any advice anyone may have would be much appreciated.

Don't waste your time with that. You will not get an answer.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dundermoose1
post Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 12:09
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 6 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,402



So my wife called the council and they tried to fob us off again by telling her that she would have to ask the court for a copy of the opposition. My wife then mentioning getting solicitors involved because the council's obstructive behaviour is unacceptable and they changed their tune. So we have finally received a copy of the council's opposition. And to be brutally honest it is totally underwhelming! All it says is:

The [council] opposes the application on the following grounds:-

I confirm that full payment was made on [date] and therefore we consider this case closed.

I am satisfied that there has been no procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.


So no supporting information, no rebuttal of our case, and no express reliance on some legal principal or precedent that exonerates them. Just - these people have already paid and we did nothing wrong. So what the Court did was totally disregard our evidence and just take the council's word for it. Am I missing something here? Because I am totally flabbergasted that the Court found in their favour on their weight of those submissions!


Anyway, going forward I have two questions:

1) The Court Order states that if we are to appeal that we must do so "within 14 days of the date of service of the Court Officer's Order". When is the "ate of service of the Court Officer's Order"? The Order is dated 1 August, the envelope was post-marked 2 August and we received it yesterday (6 August). Is it deemed served 2 days after it was posted as is usual with 1st class mail (even though this was sent via 2nd class mail)?

2) Should we appeal will we get the court fee and legal costs back from the council?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 15:05
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Given your circumstances I would certainly have a go and file an N244 application. That's a £100 gamble to get back some or all of the money you paid to the bailiff. There is a good chance that the District Judge will grant the N244 application if you can marshal the facts into a simple to understand chronology. Bear in mind that a busy judge will want to understand your case in minutes or less.

I would proceed on the basis that the drop dead date for an N244 application is Sunday 19th August and preferably well before.

You'll also need to rebut the Council's assertion that the case was closed by paying the bailiff. Your case is a good example of why it's necessary to file file an SD and Out of time immediately if you pay a bailiff. Or better yet don't pay and immediately file the SD/OOT. The bailiff would have to release the car pending the court's decision. But you weren't to know that. And in any event you needed to seek advice.

It's highly unlikely that you would get the court fee refunded by anybody.

This post has been edited by Enceladus: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 15:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 15:14
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 16:05) *
Given your circumstances I would certainly have a go and file an N244 application. That's a £100 gamble to get back some or all of the money you paid to the bailiff. There is a good chance that the District Judge will grant the N244 application if you can marshal the facts into a simple to understand chronology. Bear in mind that a busy judge will want to understand your case in minutes or less.

I would proceed on the basis that the drop dead date for an N244 application is Sunday 19th August and preferably well before.

You'll also need to rebut the Council's assertion that the case was closed by paying the bailiff. Your case is a good example of why it's necessary to file file an SD and Out of time immediately if you pay a bailiff. Or better yet don't pay and immediately file the SD/OOT. The bailiff would have to release the car pending the court's decision. But you weren't to know that. And in any event you needed to seek advice.

It's highly unlikely that you would get the court fee refunded by anybody.


+1

And in concert I would be starting the ball rolling with the councils complaints procedure with a view to getting their actions in front of the LGO


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 15:26
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Edit.
Took ages to type and cross-posted with others.


QUOTE (Dundermoose1 @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 13:09) *
2) Should we appeal will we get the court fee and legal costs back from the council?

An N244 application asks a DJ to examine the decision of the TEC Court Officer; it is NOT an appeal; terminology
is important.

There are no legal costs*; the fee is £100 and the Court will NOT refund. Your later recourse for that would be
via the Local Authority Ombudsman, likely linked to them also assisting you with recovery of bailiff fees.
They have done so before.

You appear to have a case, on numerous counts but nothing is a certainty.
I don't currently have time to read back but the latest, their so called objection, does indeed seem to be
laughable. (welcome to our world)

Starting point, if you choose to proceed, is N244.
Section 10 for the detail, as much as you like without giving the DJ so much that they fail to read fully.
Council is not invited to comment further.
------

*Costs.
In rare cases, Councils can object if a DJ finds in your favour.
That would lead to a further, personal hearing, at their request. If you lost there then you might be liable
for their costs.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 15:28


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:39
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here