Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: DotCom Tue, 24 Mar 2020 - 12:10
Post #1558916

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?

Posted by: stamfordman Tue, 24 Mar 2020 - 12:16
Post #1558918

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.

Posted by: DotCom Tue, 24 Mar 2020 - 12:18
Post #1558920

yes, it has my address and was reissued by TFL after hertz giving them my info

Posted by: Mad Mick V Tue, 24 Mar 2020 - 14:30
Post #1558968

See here:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90145&view=findpost&p=1490060

Mick

Posted by: DotCom Tue, 24 Mar 2020 - 17:36
Post #1559013

Thanks for this

so i will send online challenge on the above note.

Posted by: Mad Mick V Tue, 24 Mar 2020 - 17:49
Post #1559015

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

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 27 Mar 2020 - 16:15
Post #1559602

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.

Posted by: DotCom Sat, 11 Apr 2020 - 23:40
Post #1562620

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 12 Apr 2020 - 08:43
Post #1562625

Are the numbers on the PCN te same?

Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 12 Apr 2020 - 12:16
Post #1562636

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 12 Apr 2020 - 12:40
Post #1562638

Posted by: DotCom Sun, 12 Apr 2020 - 19:34
Post #1562680

here is the first PCN i received

https://postimg.cc/nsTYykGr

Posted by: DotCom Sun, 12 Apr 2020 - 21:39
Post #1562693

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

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 13 Apr 2020 - 10:16
Post #1562722

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

Posted by: DotCom Mon, 13 Apr 2020 - 14:22
Post #1562754

both numbers are the same. i will ask hertz but can take 14 days to get reply

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 13 Apr 2020 - 14:51
Post #1562759

So they have a PCN served on the company secretary Number 12345

They have a pCN served on you Numbered 12345

And I would venture if you ask hertz for a copy of theirs it is numbered 12345

They cannot do this Hertz might pay te company secretary might pay and you might pay

there is nothing in the regulations that covers the council making a mistake with an address realising and so cancelling that PCN and serving a fresh one providing it is to a different person but more so they cannot serve a PCN on two people or legal entities

Posted by: DotCom Mon, 13 Apr 2020 - 16:23
Post #1562776

Therefore I'm going to fight this one and request an adjudicator decision

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 13 Apr 2020 - 17:00
Post #1562782

Don't send anything without posting here for review, it is a technical argument tat you do not want to get wrong. Did you receive anything else other than the new PCN?
if so post it

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 13 Apr 2020 - 17:04
Post #1562784

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.

Posted by: DotCom Tue, 14 Apr 2020 - 15:13
Post #1562866

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

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 16 Apr 2020 - 19:10
Post #1563213

So TFL admits its issued the same PCN twice, that'll do nicely.

Posted by: DotCom Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 00:50
Post #1563258

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

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 08:47
Post #1563272

Keep it dates are going to be important but the real issue is having 2 PCN's addressed to different people but with the same number and if tis letter is dated later than the PCN in your name it is compelling evidence that they are acting on both

Posted by: DotCom Sun, 19 Apr 2020 - 21:10
Post #1563608

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

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 18:40
Post #1563735

This is hilarious, you couldn't make it up! Don't lose this letter, it's the nail in the coffin for TFL's case.

Posted by: DotCom Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 20:00
Post #1563753

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?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 20:13
Post #1563756

you are going to need some help but I need you to answer the question posed by HCA what did you say in your reps to the PCN issued to the company secretary

Posted by: DotCom Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 22:22
Post #1563787

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.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 14:39
Post #1563887

So we have a failure to consider as well.

Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 14:51
Post #1563890

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 15:32
Post #1563899

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

Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 18:16
Post #1563921

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.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 18:30
Post #1563925

It wouldn't matter. What if there's a whole bunch of companies at an address, and a named individual is the director of some (but not all) of those? With no company name on a document, it's impossible to know on which company the notice is served, so the PCN remains invalid. Hence a PCN addressed to "The Company Secretary, 123 street name" is invalid in any event.

Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 18:34
Post #1563926

I still wait for the OP to confirm one way or the other.

I like to get a feel for the players' credentials.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 18:58
Post #1563928

As well as the Luke Nolan case that CP posted earlier in the thread this one can also be used



http://bit.ly/397eRkQ

Posted by: hcandersen Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 21:11
Post #1563941

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.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 21:26
Post #1563947

A fair and impartial adjudicator must always, in the first instance, be open to argument from either side. Otherwise he'd be a biased / prejudiced adjudicator.

Posted by: DotCom Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 22:14
Post #1563951

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 06:30
Post #1563957

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

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 09:45
Post #1563986

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.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 17:18
Post #1564083

The fact that DotCom might have perceived the PCN as being sent "to him" does not mean that it was legally served on him or anyone else. It can't have been served on a company if there is no company name, for the reasons I explained. The PCN served on "The Company Secretary" is a nullity and the council cannot resurrect proceedings after the fact by issuing another one.

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 21:00
Post #1564115

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.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 21:06
Post #1564116

Or you could read post 22 http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=133885&view=findpost&p=1563258 like the rests of us, rather than wasting everybody's time.

Or even better you could look at https://postimg.cc/nsTYykGr and note that, while the details are obscured, the second line is obviously "XX something Avenue".

For someone who is constantly telling me I'm wrong, you could at least check your facts.

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 22 Apr 2020 - 21:21
Post #1564123

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 23 Apr 2020 - 09:46
Post #1564156

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

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 11:28
Post #1564638

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.

Posted by: DotCom Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 13:15
Post #1564662

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 13:25
Post #1564664

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?

Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 14:16
Post #1564670

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?

Posted by: DotCom Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 15:17
Post #1564677

I do not really understand what your getting at.

Yes there was contravention, otherwise there wouldn't be a PCN.
i open the post for the company i work for, that is registered at my residential address. I am not a director or secretary for them.
the first PCN didn't have any name, other then "The Company Secretary" with my residential address on it. I opened it. I AM ALLOWED to open any mail addressed to my residential address.
after opening it, I saw it was a PCN for a car that i privately hired. Nothing to do with the company i work for and that is registered at my address.
I then posted here the question, if a PCN that is not in my name if its a legal PCN.
I was told that its not.
So i sent a representation to TFL as above.
They then re issued me with another PCN, same number, same date, same contravention but this time it was in my personal name as on the rental agreement with Hertz.
Now i am told that there can not be 2 PCN's for the same contravention to 2 different people.

please explain now your query!




the new PCN on my personal name was issued on the 08/04/2020

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 15:31
Post #1564681

No you are not

The PCN was addressed to what could be inferred to be a legal corporate body and an adjudicator would be entitled to find that as it was addressed to the Co secretary and it is the only company registered at that address it was substantially compliant. It was you that prevented service to the authorised officer of the company.

You are not without blame in this accept that and we can move forward

Date of notice of the PCN served on the company secretary? this needs responding to

date of notice to owner served on you? this also needs a response

We are at post 5. I will help you but you can do the legwork of getting all docs responses etc together in one post to make it easier for me

Posted by: DotCom Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 16:06
Post #1564683

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

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 16:13
Post #1564685

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

Posted by: DotCom Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 16:19
Post #1564686

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 16:36
Post #1564687

You don't send it the authorised officer of the company does. All that reply said was you cannot make representations because the PCN is not yours. If its your wife get here to sign a letter authorising you.

It may be that the authority believe that that PCN is dead but legally it is not, and that helps your case. In fact it makes it

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 17:13
Post #1564691

Yes, and I’m thrilled. Can’t you two play nice?

Posted by: hcandersen Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 17:22
Post #1564695

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 17:41
Post #1564698

That would be a fine representation to the PCN addressed to the co sec but what about the one addressed to the OP , it is that that seals the deal for both of them

Posted by: DotCom Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 17:56
Post #1564699

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?

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 18:47
Post #1564704

No because ATM for the PCN issued to t he co secretary no legal reps have been made so you could not get the CC revoked legally

For the PCN addressed to you no reps have been made at all

The authority have acted ultra vires this does not allow you to do the same Your choice take my advice or not. And I advised this some days ago once you had come clean as to the company registered address.

Posted by: DotCom Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 20:15
Post #1564730

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?

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 20:55
Post #1564740

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 21:27
Post #1564752

We disagree on this. Correct a bailiff could not enforce but can still cause a load of hassle. By making a representation two things are brought into focus. That the co sec PCN is live. and that there is no vires for the issue of the pCN to the OP Any response from the council will help the OP with their PCN.

A response which says This PCN has been cancelled. Great The PCN to the OP is out of time

A rejection of reps or a sorry you are to late to make representations both indicate the authority believe that PCN is live so the OP's is ultra vires

No response makes no difference to the core argument

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 07:46
Post #1564767

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.

Posted by: DotCom Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 09:57
Post #1564806

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!

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:45
Post #1564823

I do not think you are blameless in this, but less at fault than TFL You knew enough to know that the PCN was not properly served but did not know why and rushed af a representation which to all in tents and purposes said Ha Ha you made a mistake so you can't enforce. Quite correct but because the representation was ill drafted and ill thought out you opened a door for them that had they responded correctly would have left you high and dry.

Now we know what the law requires them to do as regards the PCN to the company in order to serve a fresh PCN and we know that TFL think they have done it. So what is the legal position.

The PCN served on the company has never been cancelled so in the eyes of the law it is still live. You made representations which although from your last post you would have been entitled to make, you said that you were not. " All i wrote in the challenge was that the PCN is not addressed in my name and therefore i am not liable to this contravention."

TFL responded quite correctly that as it is not your PCN then the cannot deal with you.

As it stands legally TFL can now serve a charge certificate against this PCN. No representations have been made by the company and it is now legally to late. TBH if I was TFL this is what I would do. The PCN is not legal but it is too late to fight it unless TFL play ball

But someone woke up and realised the error ( it is not a new one, of addressing to the company secretary) and tried to resolve this error by sending a PCN to you. This would have been easy to fight if you had waited a bit so it was timed out, Know the argument is that if is not legal because they did not cancel the earlier one before issuing the one to you.


This PCN is a duplicate of the one to the company other than the name .Your representation to this is quite simple. That the PCN is not valid as it is a duplicate of a previously issued PCN and that TFL have no vires under the law to issue it


This risks them going back to the PCN to the company which is why I say you should make simple representations to the effect that it was not legally served . That may open up a route to challenge if a charge certificate is served.

Your responses to date have knowingly or not sought to confound, that will not go down well at adjudication so desist and answer questions clearly and fully.

My advice is to make representations as an authorised officer of the company as suggested for the PCN served on the company.

Then on the last possible date make representations against the PCN served in your name again as suggested

But the choice is yours

Posted by: hcandersen Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:48
Post #1564828

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.

Posted by: DotCom Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 12:06
Post #1564848

I doubt TFL will go back to the company to issue a charge notice for that PCN as they are under the assumption that they have truly fixed the problem and re issued a new PCN in my name.

the 28 days from the date of issue of the new PCN on the 08/04/20 is 06/05/20. I will send my representation on the 05/05/20 as above.

many thanks

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 12:18
Post #1564850

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

Posted by: disgrunt Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 14:21
Post #1564876

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 14:38
Post #1564881

That is the crux of only part of the argument, but it was not made

Posted by: DotCom Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 15:01
Post #1564884

correct. this is what i was saying all the time.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 16:28
Post #1564892

This seemed clear to me and it's why I keep saying the PCN sent to the company secretary is a nullity. You cannot determine for sure what company it's been sent to, all you can do is attempt an educated guess, and for a legal document that must provide legal certainty that just isn't good enough.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 17:33
Post #1564901

Well finally something on which we can agree.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 17:48
Post #1564902

The problem with the first PCN is that no proper reps were made so not putting that to bed can lead to a load of hassle If TFL just clam up and let it take its course I'm saying what could happen not what is likely to happen

Explaining the whole debacle in reps against the second PCN. Should be enough But you are relying on the body that created the mess in the first place( albeit with a bit of help from the OP)

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 18:19
Post #1564907

Still, it seems like the best course of action IMO.

Posted by: DotCom Tue, 19 May 2020 - 10:01
Post #1567799

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

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 19 May 2020 - 10:06
Post #1567800

Lets see your representation and te rejection letter in full

Posted by: DotCom Tue, 19 May 2020 - 13:28
Post #1567815

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

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 19 May 2020 - 15:26
Post #1567826

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.

Posted by: DotCom Tue, 19 May 2020 - 17:32
Post #1567845

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

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 19 May 2020 - 17:53
Post #1567850

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"

Posted by: DotCom Tue, 19 May 2020 - 19:43
Post #1567865

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.

Posted by: DotCom Tue, 19 May 2020 - 20:06
Post #1567867

kindly note that i am now currently at stage to appeal only at adjudicator appeal

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 20 May 2020 - 13:08
Post #1567923

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)

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 20 May 2020 - 15:04
Post #1567937

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.

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 20 May 2020 - 16:31
Post #1567950

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'?

Posted by: Longtime Lurker Wed, 20 May 2020 - 18:00
Post #1567968

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.

Posted by: DotCom Wed, 20 May 2020 - 18:55
Post #1567977

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?

Posted by: hcandersen Wed, 20 May 2020 - 21:01
Post #1567984

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.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 24 May 2020 - 01:00
Post #1568325

No, I would wait and see what the council submits and if it adduces any such evidence, I would deal with it by means of a further submission.


I would go for postal. Forget about the form, register the appeal online at https://londontribunals.org.uk/ using the link "Create a new appeal", then upload the document I prepared for you in post 86 above.

Posted by: DotCom Mon, 1 Jun 2020 - 06:08
Post #1569188

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.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 1 Jun 2020 - 10:50
Post #1569212

Give the tribunal a call I think they are accepting by e mail ATM

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 1 Jun 2020 - 21:10
Post #1569276

+1

Posted by: DotCom Sun, 28 Jun 2020 - 05:24
Post #1572885

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.

Posted by: whatever Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 10:31
Post #1577171

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.