I rented a vehicle and received a PCN from TFL for parking on pavement. for some sort of reason the PCN has been sent to me under "The Company Secretary". i rent from Hertz on my private name and it seems there is a mistake from Hertz of TFL for not putting my name as the renter.
Is this PCN valid or does it have to have my name?
This is a known glitch with TFL. Is it your address - has the PCN been reissued to you under the Hertz terms (which probably includes an admin fee) but without your name?
Post the PCN. Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like as space on forum is limited.
yes, it has my address and was reissued by TFL after hertz giving them my info
See here:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90145&view=findpost&p=1490060
Mick
Thanks for this
so i will send online challenge on the above note.
Let's have a look at the PCN--leave in everything but your details and the PCN number.
TfL often make mistakes on dates etc and the exact contravention.
If you could get photos from TfL that would be a bonus.
Might as well look for other flaws before you appeal because it will be a camera generated PCN most like.
Mick
Luke Nolan v Transport for London (2190181937, 04 June 2019)
The Appellant disputes the PCN stating that it was incorrectly addressed to "The company Secretary" and that it is not
possible to determine by the use of the camera the weight or contents of the goods being carried as to whether they required
the use of the vehicle to transport them.In addition the appellant states that he wanted to collect something which was not
ready.
The video evidence does show the driver exiting the vehicle with a large carrier bag and returning a few minutes later without
it. The appellant's evidence is vague as to the contents of the bag and what he claims he was intending to collect. The onus is
on the motorist to prove that they fall within the loading/unloading exemption.
However with regard to the PCN, the local authority say that the words "Company Secretary" were inserted into the PCN in
error but that this should not invalidate the PCN.
I do not agree.
The PCN is a legal document and should be accurate as to its contents and to whom it is addressed, and which should
accord with the registered keepers details at the DVLA. As the addressee is incorrect I find the PCN to be defective and allow
this appeal.
I challenged the PCN to TFL on the basis above that it was not correctly addressed. I received today a new PCN from TFL with my correct name. I have not recieved any response to the challenge.
OP, we're getting away from the law.
As regards MMV's posted case, it hardly supports your case if the evidence in that case has been correctly summarised in the decision. This is because of this comment:
The PCN is a legal document and should be accurate as to its contents and to whom it is addressed, and which should accord with the registered keepers details at the DVLA. As the addressee is incorrect I find the PCN to be defective and allow this appeal.
In your case, the 'registered keeper details at the DVLA' are irrelevant. Your owner details were supplied by Hertz, and DVLA, like plumage, don't enter into it.
So getting back to the law.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/5/made
But how could we apply this, you still have not posted the PCN but have submitted reps which have been rejected, but do we really know because the NOR has not been posted!
OP, post docs otherwise just pay the discount if it's been re-offered.
Yes, I know it's hard and without subtly, but frankly we need to galvanise you into positive action and if this works, good.
here is the first PCN i received
https://postimg.cc/nsTYykGr
then i challenged it that it is not directed to my name.
Yesterday i received in the post the second pcn
https://postimg.cc/VJyNw0fc
please answer this very important question. Are the PCN numbers the same or different?
Also ask Hertz for a copy of or at least the date of notice of acceptance of representations they would have recieved cancelling the PCN in their name
both numbers are the same. i will ask hertz but can take 14 days to get reply
Therefore I'm going to fight this one and request an adjudicator decision
I suggest that before you get too carried away, you post your reps. For all I know, these could have not been formatted as reps but simply a request, to which they complied, for a PCN in your name. In the scheme of things, it wouldn't alter the outcome, but let's have all the required evidence pl.
By the way, the date of PCN 1 (22 March) was a Sunday, so it doesn't even get out the starting stalls: the date of issue must be the date it was posted.
All i wrote in the challenge was that the PCN os not addressed in my name and therefore i am not liable to this contravention.
here is the summary of the process of this PCN
PCN status history
08 April 2020PCN Batched
N/A
07 April 2020On Hold: SUS20 - Enquiry Received (22/04/2020)
N/A
24 March 2020Email dispatched to: ----------@gmail.com Subj Representation receipted
N/A
24 March 2020On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received
N/A
22 March 2020PCN Batched
N/A
21 March 2020Representation Accepted
TfL has accepted a representation received for this PCN.
13 March 2020Representation submitted Under review
N/A
10 March 2020On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received
N/A
20 February 2020PCN Batched
N/A
So TFL admits its issued the same PCN twice, that'll do nicely.
Today i received a reply to my original representation.
they write,
The company secretary
my address
Due to privacy and data protection legislation we are unable to process this correspondence as it is not from you, the registered keeper of the vehicle.
we will be happy to correspond with a third party directly if you send in written authorisation allowing them to act on your behalf. this information should be sent to us within 14 days from the date of this letter. if we do not receive authorisation in time, the representation will be treated as invalid and enforcement of the penalty charge will continue.. as the registered keeper of the vehicle you will remain liable for the full payment of the outstanding amount.
again the letter is addressed not in mine name but rather The Company Secretary
The 1st PCN addressed to The Company Secretary was dated 22/03/20
Representation was made on the 25/03/20
letter from TFL addressed back to The Company Secretary on the 07/04/20 stating that the have received correspondence but unable to process as it is not from the registered keeper.
new PCN addressed to my name with same PCN number on the 08/04/20
Do i now make my representation using the above stating that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority or do i wait for the charge notice which should arrive in around 14 days time?
I wrote to them the following
The PCN is a legal document and should be accurate as to its contents and to whom it is addressed. There is no company secretary at this address and the company that is registered at this address had never owned or hired this vehicle. there there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority and this PCN should be cancelled.
So we have a failure to consider as well.
I still get the feeling we're peeling an onion.
So now we know that there is a company registered at your address because your reps tell us.
So OP, although you didn't mention this, is the distinction which you're trying to draw between the 2 PCNS simply that you say you hired the vehicle in your own name 'for some sort of reason the PCN has been sent to me under "The Company Secretary". i rent from Hertz on my private name and it seems there is a mistake from Hertz of TFL for not putting my name as the renter., as opposed to the company's?
But if so, then why would the first PCN say 'Company Sec, ...private address'?
Maybe it didn't, maybe it was addressed to The Comp Sec ABC Ltd and you claim that you rented it as A. N. Other, ABC Ltd.
If there is an error, where does it lie? So far the council have, as far as we know, sent a PCN to the Comp. Sec, ABC Ltd, then disregarded reps made by you because you cannot make reps against a PCN other than in your own name and by implication you disclaim any association with company because your reps don't even touch on whether you might be associated with the addressee company.
They then send another PCN with the same number.
But was this addressed to you, ABC Ltd, 123 Any Road, or just you, 123 Any Road?
Some might say it doesn't matter. But I don't think it's that simple. Error v Shenanigans? I don't know the answer but the issue of the addresses should solve it, hopefully.
HCA I agree that the reps are problematical but TL l have a software error somewhere in the chain that causes some PCN's to be addressed to the co secretary rather than the name of an individual.
The second PCN issued in the name of the OP causes a further PI if as you surmise the error could be one by Hertz in giving the name of the hirer as a company What ever the issue there are good grounds for PI but we do need to know
Still waiting for the OP to come back, but I'm unsure about the detail of TfL's error.
Is this to address regular PCNs to 'Co. Sec' 123 Any Road, when they've obtained details from DVLA? Co. Sec. is the normal form of address for companies when details are obtained from DVLA, but when from the owner?
C**k-up or confusion e.g. Hertz had the OP's actual name and company and perhaps just supplied the company name reckoning, correctly, that the name is not relevant as regards companies.
All the OP has to do is reassure is that the hire was not just in his name but in his private capacity.
I still wait for the OP to confirm one way or the other.
I like to get a feel for the players' credentials.
But it's not definitive.
That appeal was allowed because the adj wrote to the authority requiring them to explain why 2 PCNs had been issued for the same contravention and not receiving an adequate reply allowed the appeal.
He did not allow the appeal simply because there were two PCNs. Clearly he was open to an argument from the authority.
Had it been simply 2 PCNs = appeal allowed then he would not have adjourned the hearing to seek clarification.
there is a company registered at my address to which i am not affiliated to it at all.
i rented the car in my private name and do not hold any directorship in any company.
they car from hertz must be registered in a company name hence therefore they sent the PCN to the company secretary.
HCA's digging is bearing fruit.
Bottom line is that there can not be Two PCN's with the same number for the same contravention at the same time against the same vehicle at the same location.
Hertz receive a PCN and make reps against it to the effect that the vehicle was on hire. The can only do this if they have a hire agreement that complies with the relevant legislation The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000
You must have signed a hire agreement that so qualifies or the liability cannot be transferred to you Yes or no?
Is your address a residential or business address? if residential what relationship exists between you and the company that shares the address?
How was the hire paid for? your personal account or an account owned by the business at your address ?
I think this can be won but if the wrong argument is made (as I must say was the case with your representation) defeat can be dragged from the jaws of victory
Candour now is the key
Your opening post, my emphasis:
for some sort of reason the PCN has been sent to me under "The Company Secretary".
Then:
there is a company registered at my address to which i am not affiliated to it at all.
i rented the car in my private name and do not hold any directorship in any company.
Wide of the mark, I'm afraid.
The OP has not confirmed whether there was a company name in the address, in fact every response has avoided this point.
If there was a company name in the address, then the correct addressee is The Company Sec AND the OP had no legal right to even open the mail, let alone treat it was if it was addressed to him and make representations in respect of a company 'to which I am not affiliated'. The authority's response - that in fact the OP is not a party - supports the hypothesis that the addressee was a company whose registered address is that of the OP.
If there wasn't a company name in the address, then Company Sec must be incorrect.
The OP has yet to tell us which and IMO it cannot help to get ahead of these basics.
It simply requires confirmation one way or the other.
Nice try.
Post #22 refers to their response, not the address on the PCN.
Furthermore, I am not going to infer, deduce, guess or get my magnifying glass out: I'm going to do the obvious which is to ask the OP and I should be grateful if you would let the OP respond.
You seem happy to overlook the fact that a window envelope which apparently had nothing in the address to suggest that the contents had any relevance to the OP was then opened and responded to.
My post 39 defeat can be dragged from the jaws of victory
Start to finish
We know a PCN was served on Hertz car rental,
We can be confident they must have made representations on the hire vehicle ground. And had them accepted.
Then the authority served a fresh PCN on the Co secretary at an address.
All perfectly fine under 5.3 of the appeals regs.
We now know that there is a company at the address to which this PCN was served so addressing to the company secretary would be fine ( put aside for the benefit if this post CP's point that name of company would still be needed)
The OP made representations against this PCN
The PCN is a legal document and should be accurate as to its contents and to whom it is addressed. There is no company secretary at this address and the company that is registered at this address had never owned or hired this vehicle. there there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority and this PCN should be cancelled.
This representation is legally entitled to a response by way of acceptance of rejection The authority chose to decline to accept the representation as not being from an authorised person, why we know not.
Put that aside for a moment, what then can happen legally?
The OP gets from the officer of the company permission to make reps on their behalf or they do nothing. In the normal course of thing a CC would arrive.
But the authority have for whatever reason instead served the PCN again but changed the address to include the OP's name
Can they do this?
Let us pretend that Hertz sent of a representation including valid hire agreement, but that a mistake was made on the part of the authority. I would say that they could cancel the PCN sent to the Co Secretary send them a letter to the effect that it was sent in error and it has been cancelled and then issue a new/fresh PCN on the OP providing of course it is within the 28 days allowed from the cancellation of the PCN to Hertz
But what have the actually done?
As regards the PCN served on the the Company secretary, Nothing. The Company secretary/officer must believe it is still a live PCN, and may make representations or pay it or risk a CC and ultimately bailiffs.
But using the same PCN number with all the details the same they have also served this PCN on the OP with the same opportunity to pay make reps or risk a CC and bailiffs
I would consider two representations. One by the authorised officer of the company claiming that
1:- they did not hire the vehicle did not sign a hire agreement and are not liable ( if true) and
2:- The PCN is incorrectly addressed as it does not specify the company
If one is true the authority will have no choice but to cancel that PCN if two then they are likely to claim, it doesn't matter because they got it anyway.
And The OP
That there is no legal basis for this PCN to be re addressed and sent to him (expanded a bit )
but and this is what I would have advised in the first place but the OP rushed in.
Wait until the last day for representations this will time the authority out from cancelling and serving a fresh PCN
The pertinent fact from the PCN in the OP's name is that there is no legal basis for it's service as it is a PCN severed on at least one but I would venture two other parties
Sorry for not replying earlier.
I work for a company that is registered at my address.
i rent the cars in my personal name and pay for it with my personal credit card.
The company doesn't even have a card in its name and hertz would never have the name of that company on their system.
I opened up the post as thought it was for the company i work for.
once i saw the PCN, i understood they are referring to the car that i personally hired as i did get already a charge from Hertz for this PCN. but it was not in my personal name the PCN and took advise here and sent my representations to it as above.
I don't know where this thread is up to now , By what date must you make representations I:E what is the date of the notice served on you?
That's my point, other than constantly criticising both those giving advice, and OPs who don't jump to attention and respond promptly to your demands in a form and manner that satisfies you, you don't seem to be willing to do much. It might be best if you did nothing at all.
Rein it in.
For info, I've reported this to the Moderator.
So far we have an OP and a company 'to which I am not affiliated' who now works for them, in a capacity which has not been revealed.
Without authority, they open mail, discover that it is a legal document addressed to the company and then write to an enforcement authority the following :
The PCN is a legal document and should be accurate as to its contents and to whom it is addressed. There is no company secretary at this address and the company that is registered at this address had never owned or hired this vehicle. there there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority and this PCN should be cancelled.
The sort of thing any average employee does!
As far as I can see, still do not know the actual address on the first PCN, despite repeated requests. If it doesn't include the company name, then the OP had no right to open, let alone purport to make reps. And if it did include a company name, then this must be a miracle because:
The company doesn't even have a card in its name and hertz would never have the name of that company on their system.
Great insight for someone 'not affiliated' to the company.
In the absence of a clear and plausible explanation, it clear that there are shenanigans going on whether with the actual events or OP's account or both. Some find this acceptable and will strain every sinew to win the case for the OP.
C'est la vie.
But what now for Pepipoo? Are we really a site to which motorists can turn to obtain justice, or the refuge and last hope of anyone who has committed a contravention and is simply trying to wheedle their way out of a penalty?
as the company is registered to my residential address i have the authority of the director of the company to open all post and to pass on to him should it be relevant to do so.
regarding the PCN's
PCN addressed to the Company secretary was dated 22/03/20 (a sunday)
PCN addressed to my name 08/04/20
contravention 15/02/20
If you did not follow my earlier advice to send a representation against the PCN addressed to the company and do it today because it will be late
PI the PCN was not addressed correctly and was not served
PI the PCN is dated the 22/03/2020 this is a Sunday. The regulations require that the date of issue is the date of posting. This cannot be so as there is no postal collection service on a Sunday
But i have already received a reply to my representations that was made to that PCN and i had a reply as mentioned before that they can not process the correspondence as it is not from the registered keeper.
So your job is to open mail, fine.
Then where does 'The Company Secretary" with my residential address on it. I opened it. I AM ALLOWED to open any mail addressed to my residential address. and then responding in your name?
If your private address and the company's registered address are the same, then you must open all the company's mail? As you've capitalised it, where does I AM ALLOWED' come from? Only if you have authority, through your job description or from an authorised officer of the company. Clearly mail may not be opened other than by the person to whom it is addressed. This is an internal matter in any property uniquely referenced for postal purposes i.e. you may not open a housemate's mail because it's not addressed to you. The RM deliver to a property, after that it's a matter of law or agreed working arrangements.
Anyway, what you do with their mail is between you and them.
But you must see that dancing around exactly why you opened mail addressed to a company to which you are not affiliated, and not just this item but 'any mail' whether addressed to the company or not - providing it has the same shared address - has and IMO continues to muddy the waters. Mail does not become yours simply because it's about you, as I think you know.
Perhaps we are at the truth now, or very near anyway.
Perhaps, I own XYZ company which is registered at my home address. I occasionally hire cars on a personal account and did so on *** when I was caught on camera ***. A PCN was issued by the authority to the address held by Hertz but for some odd reason was addressed to 'The Company Secretary'. As an officer of the company I routinely open all mail and noticed that although address to Co. Sec. it was actually a PCN which related to my own hire on ***. Neither my name nor that of my company are on the PCN, just Co. Sec. and my address. It seems that TfL have inserted Co. Sec. in error: it cannot have been Hertz because all hire is in my own name, none having been made in the company's.
So are you advising me now, that i should make now another representation? or should i wait for teh charge notice that will come in due course and then to appeal at the independent adjudicator?
So the PCN sent to The Company Secretary I can get the director to write authorization that i can act on his behalf. Question is what should i write to them?
and the PCN to my personal name, What representation do i write for that?
For the PCN issued to the Company Secretary, I wouldn't do anything: you have notified TFL that it has sent a document that is legally defective and there's not much point in doing anything else. An Order for Recovery cannot be enforced against "The Company Secretary" as the name of the debtor would be missing, so the bailiff would return the warrant as invalid.
For the PCN issued against you, I would simply raise the issue that the earlier "Company Secretary" PCN posted to (but not legally served on) you amounts to a procedural impropriety.
So are you advising me now, that i should make now another representation? or should i wait for teh charge notice that will come in due course and then to appeal at the independent adjudicator?
What I am suggesting is that your declare an amnesty on what you've posted so far and simply tell us exactly what's what.
You skirted round my attempt to try and crystallise who's who and have just fired back another question.
Tell the truth and shame the devil!
In essence this could be a very simple issue, but being economical with the truth doesn't help. My concern is not prying into your and the company's arrangements, it's making sure that all the cards are on the table so that nothing might later come back to bite you in the proverbial a**e.
good morning,
I still dont see what i am still hiding.
I work for a small organisation that as they dont have an office they requested the registered office to be my residential address so post and communications will be seen.
i hope that is now clear. all i am is the manager of that organisation.
now concerning the rental, i rented on my private name a car with hertz. i presume that when they issued the first PCN they sent it to Hertz and they replied back giving my name and address. for some sort of reason they reissued the PCN without my name, and just changed the address to mine. as when they sent the PCN to hertz they must of addressed it to The company secretary.
i then made a representation as mentioned numerous times above that the company has never hired a vehicle and this PCN should be cancelled. they then sent back a letter stating they cant deal with me as i am not the company in question. and re issued me with a new PCN which has the same number as before on my name.
this is were we stand now!
Which, as I have said, is not what you posted at first: how else would you expect your statement that you were not affiliated to the company to be interpreted? And when it emerged that you clearly were linked, in fact you are a manager, then obvious questions arose as to the veracity of your account.
So, you work for a company; you open their mail. On this occasion you opened mail which comprised a PCN which alleged that as the hirer of a vehicle on ** they were liable for a penalty. As it happened, you knew this could not be correct as on this date you were the hirer.
Another point you've not mentioned, but which is important within the account and might occur to an adj, is whether you were engaged on company business when you hired the car.
Let's run with no for the moment and that your error came from you seeing you within the company as opposed to simply you.m
You knew the circumstances, that the contravention involved you only and deduced that all that had happened was that the enforcement authority had addressed the PCN wrongly. You knew that the hirer could not have misinformed the authority because they had no knowledge of your employer's identity. The authority had made a straightforward, if pretty basic, mistake but one which you believed invalidated the PCN. You then made the mistake of making reps because you knew that the events related to you, notwithstanding that the PCN did not carry your name anywhere. The authority responded that the reps were not valid because procedurally they were made by a third party albeit that factually they were made by the hirer whose details had been supplied to the authority by the owner - a point which not made clear to the authority in the reps.
The authority, presumably having rechecked their records prompted by the reps, to the person whose name had been supplied by the owner(Hertz).
This had nothing to do with the coincidental fact that you were the one who made the reps - THE point over which you've stumbled throughout this account. They sent a PCN to you because they checked their records and realised their mistake. Frankly, the reps could have come from Micky Mouse, the outcome would have been the same i.e. rechecking their records and realising their mistake. I believe this is reasonable assumption.
Is my take now that you've acknowledged your affiliation to the company. You assumed that your PCN came as a result of you making reps when IMO it did not, anyone could have made reps equally procedurally incorrectly: it was simply the fact that reps were made, not by whom, which led to your PCN.
You are probably right re the CC to the company, but that does not stop them and there is no time limit
Do not make the mistake of saying new PCN always refer to it as reissued and nothing more The law would if the criteria are met allow them to issue a new PCN, it does not allow them to reissue the same PCN on another person keep the distinction
I’m sure I’m missing something but where does the company dotcom works for come into this?
OP rents car from hertz
Picks up PCN
Hertz gets PCN addressed to Company Secretary
Hertz says Dotcom of 1 any street was driving
Council re issue PCN and address it to company secretary, 1 any street rather than dotcom, 1 any street
It just so happens that random company limited is registered at 1 any street and you are making the assumption that is who the PCN was addressed to. If no company was registered the PCN would still have been addressed to company secretary at 1 any street.
Well finally something on which we can agree.
Good morning
I have received today my rejection to the representation against TFL using the above advise of procedural impropriety
https://imageshack.com/i/pnX2yy5Mj
https://imageshack.com/i/pmpMSoMIj
Lets see your representation and te rejection letter in full
The rejection letter is in the post above. and my represenattion was;
To whom it my concern
PCN XXXXXXXXXX
VRN XXXXXXXX
The PCN is not valid as it is a duplicate of a previously issued PCN and it amounts to a procedural impropriety.
I request this PCN is cancelled.
Yours Sincerely
XXXXXXX
DotCom I'm going to be blunt: your representation was rubbish and insubstantive. If you'd posted a draft on here one of us would have almost certainly offered to re-write it for you.
You've hidden the date of the NoR so we don't know what timescales we're dealing with, but the long and the short of it is this: If you stop doing things yourself and let us write the appeal for you, you have a reasonable chance. If you insist on doing things yourself without our help, you will likely lose and you'd be better off just paying the discount.
If you're willing to follow our guidance I can write the appeal for you, but first you must re-post the NoR with the date of issue visible.
Sorry, for not uploading my representation, I didnt want to trouble and used the wording that was put here on the forum.
i have now posted the NoR again
https://imageshack.com/i/pnAeOKktj
OK I've started writing your appeal, please post up the representation you sent against the first PCN, the one addressed to "The Company Secretary"
I wrote to them the following
The PCN is a legal document and should be accurate as to its contents and to whom it is addressed. There is no company secretary at this address and the company that is registered at this address had never owned or hired this vehicle. there there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority and this PCN should be cancelled.
kindly note that i am now currently at stage to appeal only at adjudicator appeal
Which means what exactly?
We know you're at the appeal stage, you've received a NOR. The question is: what have you done?
If you've registered your appeal, what further comments did you add, do you have a hearing date and is it personal or on the papers?
My suggestion for your appeal, which probably goes against your grain, but hey ho:
On **** I hired a car, VRM *****, from Hertz. I hired this in my personal capacity for **** purposes;
I took possession on *** and returned it on ****;
The alleged contravention occurred on ****;
I am employed by *** as ***, part of my duties being to open mail;
The registered address of *** is ****, which is also my personal address;
On ***, I opened mail and found PCN ***** which was addressed to *****;
This showed that the contravention related to the car I had on hire at the time, see above;
I then allowed my knowledge of facts to cloud my judgement and immediately responded to the authority implicitly saying that as the offence could only have been committed by me then the PCN was addressed incorrectly;
(In my company role I know that Hertz have no customer record of the company and therefore how TfL managed to include Company Secretary within the address is still a mystery)
As both the company's and my private correspondence passed through my hands I am fully aware of the next events;
On ***, TfL responded to the Company Secretary that they had received correspondence from a third party(me) who lacked any apparent authority to respond to PCN ***; they undertook to hold enforcement to allow the company to regularise matters;
On the heels this correspondence, on *** I received a PCN addressed to me;
This PCN carried the same 'unique' reference number as the one dated *** addressed to the Company Secretary;
I made representations that clearly there must be a procedural impropriety as there is no provision within the regulations which allows:
Two PCNs to be issued and be contemporaneously extant;
Two PCNs to carry the same unique' PCN number.
Despite what I thought were obvious grounds - to the extent that I did not feel it necessary to expand on the primary point of procedural impropriety - the authority after 'having given my representations consideration' rejected these without any detailed reference to why my grounds did not hold.
Your witness TfL and good luck.
(probably you could throw in other points, but I don't like getting bogged down in secondary and even more minor issues: play you strongest hand first)
Draft appeal: https://bit.ly/2Tp9veB
Replace the bits in red with your real name and the name of the company registered at your address, also put your real email address in the case history. Change all the text to black, and save as a PDF. Then register the appeal on the tribunal website, in the box that asks you for your grounds of appeal just write "see attached Grounds of Appeal".
I would not add any of the facts outlined by hcandersen as I think they would be counter-productive.
OP, I told you my approach went against the grain!
IMO, you must set a context because as much as anything else this matter started and continued through the coincidence that the matters involved you in your own name and you in your capacity within the company.
And why are we at 'draft appeal' stage without knowing whether you've even registered your appeal?
Keep us in the loop.
@cp ..'agent and employee'?
cp8759 do you think it would it be worth adding:
Ground 3: Procedural Impropriety: This PCN has already been successfully appealed.
In the event that the council's evidence pack does contain evidence that an earlier regulation 10 penalty charge notice relating to the same contravention has been cancelled, sufficient to convince the adjudicator that the requirements of regulation 10(5)(b) or [c] have been satisfied as discussed above, I invite the adjudicator to compare the the PCN number on that evidence and the one in this case. If they are identical then the respondent is barred from continuing enforcement by virtue of having already accepted an appeal.
With this NoR I recieved the request of an appeal with the Traffic Adjudicators. Should I request a personal or postal? And do I write the above detail in the details of the Panel on the reverse of the form?
With this NoR I recieved the request of an appeal with the Traffic Adjudicators. Should I request a personal or postal? And do I write the above detail in the details of the Panel on the reverse of the form?
At this stage, you simply register your appeal.
Request a personal hearing if you wish, but IMO this is unnecessary as the objective facts ( except of course any evidence of your status within the company, or is it companies?) are in play and in the main they're not yours, they're the authority's.
Thanks for preparing the appeal cp8759.
I tried doing it online but received the following error message;
The Environment and Traffic Adjudicators does not accept online appeals for tickets issued by Transport for London. You should complete the appeal form sent to you with the notice of rejection and post to London Tribunals, PO Box 10598, NOTTINGHAM, NG6 6DR.
Thanks to all> especially to cp8759
received Saturday in the post a letter from TFL
We have recently received notification of your appeal against the above mentioned PCN for vehicle ****** from London Tribunals.
We have reviewed the issue of the PCN and the handling of your representation. As a result it has come to our attention that an administrative error occurred in the processing of the representation and we will not be contesting this appeal.
We have decided that the PCN will be cancelled now and no further action will be taken. We apologise for any inconvenience that may have been caused.
Read the thread as it has some relevance to a PCN I've just received. So pleased for you Dot Com that you got it cancelled.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)