PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Perrins Lane Banned Turn., Threads merged
madandy
post Mon, 9 Mar 2020 - 13:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,885



I AM OVERPASTING THIS ON MY STARTING POST AND CLEARING ALL MY INTERMEDIATE POSTS DOWN TO THE REPOST OF THIS OWING TO MY CRACKING THE TECHNOLOGY!!!!

https://i.ibb.co/Vw7Hq6w/Camden-1.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/VCXWTyy/Camden-2.jpg

I have a PCN from Camden for the banned right turn from Perrins Lane into Hampstead. On a hunch I checked the signage and believe it is incorrect but first a run through the PCN which seems to be flawed.

I will number each point for ease.

1) It says "If the penalty charge is paid before the end of a period of 14 days beginning from the date of this notice." The date in question is March 3rd. This arrived on March 5th. If this us a breach of the procedure whereby the date should be that of service of the notice then this is a flagrant breach because their service of the notice could not possibly be the same of the date of the notice i.e. if this breach is deliberate. However, in the paragraph below it state that "the date of service of this notice is effected as the second working day after the date of posting. Surely that should apply throughout... my point here being that this one PCN has effectively two dates of service! The bottom paragraph reverts to a straightforwards "beginning with the date on which the penalty notice was served" without qualification!

2) Another old chestnut is the "grounds for appeal." There is no tick box for "Other reason" or "mitigating circumstances" thus implying that if none of the tick-boxes are your grounds for appeal you cannot do so.

3) Upon looking at the images online I am confronted with "Unfortunately, we are unable to display the video evidence with the browser you are using. Please try to complete the form using Internet Explorer 8 or later." This is clearly obstructive since I have never had any problem viewing anyone's videos including those of PCN elsewhere online because of my browser.... Google Chrome. given those circumstances surely that fetters my ability to see the evidence.

[attachment=69956:Camden3.jpg]

4) Regarding the situation I will post here the starting picture. I had actually stopped there to take on board a passenger after a wait of about two minutes and simply could not see the sign because of the way it was angled. One thing you will see it the No Entry sign but to the reverse of it is the Turn Left arrow sign. What is however really noticeable is that the pole is situated excessively to the left so that when driving down Perrins Lane it is easy to miss seeing it (i) because of the leftwards curve, then (ii) because of the building to the left obstructing the line of vision and the (iii) because the sign has been attached to the pole at an angle rendering it visible only for a few yards then invisible for about a car length to the junction. Indeed, the camera is set on the same post as the sign in the high street and the picture angle betray the fact that the sign does not face the junction.

5) There is another sign on the other side of the main road with an arrow on it BUT this sign is in fact way to the right of the junction rather than facing it.

6) So now we come on to the main thrust. The signage is non-complaint and therefore unenforceable according to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-03.pdf

Here is the paragraph from the section on signs:-

At an unsignalled junction where a side road forms a T‑junction with a two‑way road (see Figure 4-6) and traffic is required to turn in one direction only, the use of a sign to diagram 606, even without a “One way” plate, could be misleading as drivers might think they are turning into a one‑way road. A sign to diagram 612 or 613 (S3‑2‑7 and 8 respectively, see Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9) should therefore be used at the junction, indicating the prohibited turn.

If you turn to Figure 4-4 it shows how the signage of arrows should be set up if the main road is a one way street. Hampstead High Street is not but even assuming it was, both signs are in the wrong place with the one on the corner needing to be about 50 metres back and the other across the main road directly OPPOSITE the junction. There is no sign 50 metres back.

On the other hand Figure 4-6 on Page 29 shows the correct signage for a T-junction where the main ropad is not one-way with the "Turn Left" arrow sited 50 metres in advance and specifically a "No Right Turn" black, white and red sign sited to the left on the junction.

Indeed, Section 4.2.5 makes it absolutely clear that the use of a "Turn Left" sign at the junction of a two way main street is not allowed because it implies that the street could be one way and that only a "No Right Turn" sign will do.

Either way there was no advance warning sign whatsoever and before I end I need to point out that i took the liberty of comparing this situation with other prohibited right turns from side roads onto main roads at T junctions in Camden and here are two result which can be verified on Google Earth.

(i) Caversham Road into two way Kentish Town Road:- No Right Turn sign:- Correct. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5488275,-0....6384!8i8192

(ii) Park Hill Road into one way Fleet Road:- Turn Left sign:- Correct:- https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5527947,-0....6384!8i8192
...and in case you wondered, yes, in the lower picture that IS by chance two of the councils tow-trucks queuing to add some cheer!.

In other words, Camden are aware of what it should be.

Finally I dug up this case in Havering which relates directly to the difference between a directional and a prohibition sign..... http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t87831.html

A look at the picture of the junction from this angle below clearly indicates that applying that judgement to the above misplaced signs, even if they were compliant, one could clear the signs by driving as close to the front of the blue car across the road before turning on full lock. Food for thought.

This post has been edited by madandy: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 - 12:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Mon, 9 Mar 2020 - 13:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
madandy
post Sat, 23 May 2020 - 20:45
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,885



I thought I'd have another look at this by following the trail to me PCN online and two other things do not look right.

The first is this page. In the past when looking up PCN's I have become accustomed to a rough history of the process and progress and to see when/if the sent this phantom NOR and when and perhaps what was in it.

Here you will see just one line. However, the scroll-bar template to the right clearly indicates that the page is created so that the full history and progress of the PCN is visible.

Now the problem here on that point is not so much that evidence ofan NOR or date is missing but that either it was not entered in the first place or that it was deleted along with previous history such as (date of) my challenge... (remember I have their acknowledgement of it.)

However, looking at this page you will see that unlike the PCN it gives the contravention code. That trivia aside the line of the prpgress of the PCN gives the status of it as CC sent and £195 outstanding but in the same line as which other fields relate to and include the date of issue of the PCN.

The point of all this is that thereis no progression and it is impossible to see any progress of the PCN because either it has not been entered or it has since been removed instead of added to at each stage.

This seems good evidence that the NOR was not sent because if it was that would surely be there and whilst everything else on that line COULD relate tothe current status, the date conflates as that is the date of the contravention.

So I come to the other image here. It seems to still invite me to submit a challenge.

I am tempted to do that, but to base my challenge on the fact that the CC has been issued when my initial challenge has not been replied to as evidenced on the site.

If I do this then the default response should be to reject my challenge on the basis that the challenge has already been made. I cannot see that doing any harm. Should I go for it?

https://ibb.co/CMJcB6s

https://ibb.co/KhJs6pK

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 24 May 2020 - 10:43
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



. I cannot see that doing any harm. Should I go for it?

No. But then you know the process and you've chosen to ignore advice.

Who cares whether they've issued a NOR at this stage, it is irrelevant.

Your position is that you did not receive a NOR. You do not have to show one was issued, this is the authority's burden. In addition, TEC do not care whether one was issued at this stage, all they want is your moniker against a properly attested statement of truth in respect of a statutory declaration made in time.

So, if you have time on your hands then use it purposefully and phone TEC periodically once the CC period has elapsed.

Or, of course, just do your own thing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spaceman
post Sun, 24 May 2020 - 10:56
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 934
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,319



QUOTE (madandy @ Sat, 23 May 2020 - 21:45) *
I thought I'd have another look at this by following the trail to me PCN online and two other things do not look right.

The first is this page. In the past when looking up PCN's I have become accustomed to a rough history of the process and progress and to see when/if the sent this phantom NOR and when and perhaps what was in it.

Here you will see just one line. However, the scroll-bar template to the right clearly indicates that the page is created so that the full history and progress of the PCN is visible.

Now the problem here on that point is not so much that evidence ofan NOR or date is missing but that either it was not entered in the first place or that it was deleted along with previous history such as (date of) my challenge... (remember I have their acknowledgement of it.)

However, looking at this page you will see that unlike the PCN it gives the contravention code. That trivia aside the line of the prpgress of the PCN gives the status of it as CC sent and £195 outstanding but in the same line as which other fields relate to and include the date of issue of the PCN.

The point of all this is that thereis no progression and it is impossible to see any progress of the PCN because either it has not been entered or it has since been removed instead of added to at each stage.

This seems good evidence that the NOR was not sent because if it was that would surely be there and whilst everything else on that line COULD relate tothe current status, the date conflates as that is the date of the contravention.

So I come to the other image here. It seems to still invite me to submit a challenge.

I am tempted to do that, but to base my challenge on the fact that the CC has been issued when my initial challenge has not been replied to as evidenced on the site.

If I do this then the default response should be to reject my challenge on the basis that the challenge has already been made. I cannot see that doing any harm. Should I go for it?

https://ibb.co/CMJcB6s

https://ibb.co/KhJs6pK


Why do that?

As others have said, just wait until you receive the OfR. You can then make a witness statement on the grounds that you made a formal representation in response to the NtO (I take it you did that and not just an informal challenge?) and did not receive a response.

The matter will then be referred to an adjudicator who will decide what happens next, which in all likelihood will be the registration of your appeal.

This post has been edited by spaceman: Sun, 24 May 2020 - 10:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madandy
post Mon, 25 May 2020 - 01:34
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,885



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 24 May 2020 - 11:43) *
. I cannot see that doing any harm. Should I go for it?

No. But then you know the process and you've chosen to ignore advice.

Who cares whether they've issued a NOR at this stage, it is irrelevant.

Your position is that you did not receive a NOR. You do not have to show one was issued, this is the authority's burden. In addition, TEC do not care whether one was issued at this stage, all they want is your moniker against a properly attested statement of truth in respect of a statutory declaration made in time.

So, if you have time on your hands then use it purposefully and phone TEC periodically once the CC period has elapsed.

Or, of course, just do your own thing.


Don't worry. I have not ignored advice. I will call TEC after the bank holiday.

Just one very quick question. Looking at https://ibb.co/CMJcB6s it says under STATUS "CC sent."

Does that mean that when they send the OfC that will be changed to OfC sent?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 25 May 2020 - 08:44
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551




OfC?

I'm not really interested in their internal databases, to be honest.

If you want to go online, then download and print off a SD: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...orm-pe3-eng.doc



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gert
post Mon, 25 May 2020 - 10:25
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 838
Joined: 15 May 2019
Member No.: 103,884



An LA is required by law to send its decision to uphold the PCN to the keeper through the post. Assume that's due to the legislation pre-dating most people having e-mails. So challenging through an LA portal, sending it through Googlemail or even on the PCN form itself, means the keeper has to rely on the LA printing it off and sending it, the sorting office correctly passing it on and Postman Pat making it to your front door. You can ask for a reply by email but you should still receive a hard copy in addition to any email containing it.

So it appears Camden have an online portal to submit your challenge. Should be no risk of the submission not reaching an officer. You have your automated acknowledgement. But still, no NoR.

If they generated an NoR and it never arrived, it's no sides fault. You should be re-offered the discount if you wish to settle but LAs bizarrely are sometimes reluctant to do so.

If however, no NoR was generated, and this is a straight to CC progression, you should consider a Procedural Impropriety challenge. You can prove they had your reps within the 28 day submission deadline - so by virtue of their not providing the NoR, they have failed to consider your reps within the 56 days requirement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Mon, 25 May 2020 - 10:47
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



??

I think the law had been rehearsed already and is not in doubt. And there's no 'should' re-offer the discount IMO.

Whether a NOR was issued does not affect the OP's next procedural step i.e. submit an in-time SD.

What is absent is which set of facts applies, and no amount of iteration here is going to get us any closer!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gert
post Mon, 25 May 2020 - 12:25
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 838
Joined: 15 May 2019
Member No.: 103,884



There is no legal "should" about re-offering the discount when someone says they never got the NoR but LAs may wish to consider the possibility it was never received and if the keeper wants to settle, what's the harm in doing so? Should could have been expaned to read "should, if all things were equal".

Paying at £65 avoids the LA going down the road of OfR which is an unnecessary cost.

It was for the OPs benefit to highlight the possible stages that could have led to no NoR being received, not any impact on the requirement to follow the OfR process. If the failure to consider the reps took place (reps never linked to the case, reps ignored and allowed the case to progress) then that is a statutory reason to cancel. That fact needs to be established down the line if necessary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 25 May 2020 - 12:58
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Gert @ Mon, 25 May 2020 - 11:25) *
within the 56 days requirement.

??? There is none.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gert
post Mon, 25 May 2020 - 13:05
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 838
Joined: 15 May 2019
Member No.: 103,884



QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 25 May 2020 - 13:58) *
QUOTE (Gert @ Mon, 25 May 2020 - 11:25) *
within the 56 days requirement.

??? There is none.


There is if the LA determine to reply within 56 days for all post NTO reps, regardless if moving traffic or parking - especially if the Adjudicators consider over 56 days unreasonable delay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 25 May 2020 - 13:26
Post #51


Member


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



QUOTE
It was for the OPs benefit to highlight the possible stages that could have led to no NoR being received, not any impact on the requirement to follow the OfR process. If the failure to consider the reps took place (reps never linked to the case, reps ignored and allowed the case to progress) then that is a statutory reason to cancel. That fact needs to be established down the line if necessary.


Is it. The OP made representations against a LLA 2003 PCN. This is served by post so it is in effect the same as a representation against a NTO. The council are under no obligation to reoffer the discount The NOR if sent was not recieved so we do not know if the council made a discretionary offer of the discount.

What we do know is that representations were made, so the OP had no intention of paying at the discount but wants to fight the PCN.

Explaining to the OP the proper course to get back to that stage of fighting the PCN is IMO the proper action for a fightback forum. If the council can show via their PCN history then that will not create a winning ground of appeal, but it does not negate any original ground so the OP will have an opportunity to appeal to the adjudicator


QUOTE
If however, no NoR was generated, and this is a straight to CC progression, you should consider a Procedural Impropriety challenge.


PI if not a ground for appeal in these regs, a collateral challenge would need to be made under the penalty exceeds etc


--------------------
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
madandy
post Wed, 27 May 2020 - 15:03
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,885



QUOTE (Gert @ Mon, 25 May 2020 - 13:25) *
There is no legal "should" about re-offering the discount when someone says they never got the NoR but LAs may wish to consider the possibility it was never received and if the keeper wants to settle, what's the harm in doing so? Should could have been expaned to read "should, if all things were equal".

Paying at £65 avoids the LA going down the road of OfR which is an unnecessary cost.

It was for the OPs benefit to highlight the possible stages that could have led to no NoR being received, not any impact on the requirement to follow the OfR process. If the failure to consider the reps took place (reps never linked to the case, reps ignored and allowed the case to progress) then that is a statutory reason to cancel. That fact needs to be established down the line if necessary.



GOTCHA! The answer is simple. Coronavirus. At time the PCN was sent the lockdown was in its infancy and the PCN actually arrived just over a week short of the deadline to reply when the postal service was already problematic. I took the decision to reply online because I was aware of the fact that the appeals tribunal had stopped operating due to coronavirus and therefore assumed the likelihood that the offices dealing with challenges had too. By so doing I was to have proof with or without receiving an automated acknowledgement which I did. I thought it might be pertinent to find out how long the council had to reply and established that there was no legal time limit. Given that it stated on their website that they will "try" to reply within 10 days I assumed after the passage of two or three weeks that their offices had indeed close down due to the lockdown. For that reason I simply did not check up on the progress of the PCN during this period simply because the reason was obvious.

The Charge Certificate arrived nearly two months later out of the blue at a time when I was assuming this matter had been shelved until lockdown was over. Indeed the parking appeals site which I was using as my guide states quite clearly that:-

"Personal hearings that were scheduled for a date prior to 1st June 2020 have been placed on hold until business returns to normal. We will contact you to re-arrange a suitable date for your appeal.

Personal appeals currently scheduled for a hearing after 1st June will go ahead, subject to government restrictions. However, if circumstances change we will contact you in advance of your hearing date with alternative arrangements.

New appeals received by the tribunals after 1st May 2020 will be allocated a hearing date after 1st July 2020, but this may be subject to change depending on government advice."


I find it impossible to believe that an NOR was actually sent nor that my case was even considered for the following reasons.

1) A look at my case history on the councils website shows clear dates for the alleged contravention and for the issuing of the charge certificate but omits any mention of anything relevant between those two dates.

2) Having appealed online and received an automated acknowledgement I would naturally expect the possibility of a response online, with or without it being duplicated in the post but at the very least given the fact that the challenge was sent and acknowledged online I would expect a notification at least of any response sent out by post especially as at that period in time the postal service was weighed down by coronavirus to the point of extreme unreliability.

3) The fact is that either the council did respond and the response was lost in the post or it did not. The Charge Certificate itself does not specify the precise reason for it's issue but offers three alternative reason of which only one reason - failure to appeal or pay after the challenge was rejected - is possible. The Charge Certificate itself carries no evidence or mention of any reply sent out to myself, the nature of that reply nor the date which is the least one would expect thus further fueling any reasonable belief, founded or unfounded that the challenge was either or not replied to.

It is my belief that the council have acted in a way that is unacceptable at a time when the post, along with other public services was experiencing problems due to a pandemic and when many, including myself, were taking that into consideration by by showing patience and at the very least I should have been presented with evidence of any response being sent out to me prior to even considering sending out a Charge Certificate, something which to date has still not occurred by any means.

I have put down my maximum thoughts etc. Please feel free to advise on what to leave out for when the time comes

This post has been edited by madandy: Wed, 27 May 2020 - 15:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 27 May 2020 - 15:11
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (madandy @ Wed, 27 May 2020 - 16:03) *
I have put down my maximum thoughts etc.

And you need to stop thinking.

QUOTE (madandy @ Wed, 27 May 2020 - 16:03) *
Please feel free to advise on what to leave out for when the time comes

All of it. You're going to be ticking a box, end of story.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 27 May 2020 - 16:23
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 27 May 2020 - 16:11) *
QUOTE (madandy @ Wed, 27 May 2020 - 16:03) *
Please feel free to advise on what to leave out for when the time comes

All of it. You're going to be ticking a box, end of story.

What he said.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madandy
post Thu, 28 May 2020 - 00:16
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,885



Precisely regarding the ticking the box. I'm afraid there some crossed lines here. Obviously I intend to do just that full stop.

I was replying to Gert's comment exclusively not in the context of dealing with the OfR but in the context of being prepared for what may follow Camden's response to the OfR being denied.

Aploogies for any misunderstanding. there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 28 May 2020 - 03:52
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (madandy @ Thu, 28 May 2020 - 01:16) *
I was replying to Gert's comment exclusively not in the context of dealing with the OfR but in the context of being prepared for what may follow Camden's response to the OfR being denied.

I think we kind of guessed that as well but why worry what he/she thinks?

There is a set process for this but you can't expect us to explain it in detail every time it crops up.

1/. Your Statutory Declaration leads to an automatic reset to the appropriate stage. It cannot be opposed or even questioned; Camden
have no say in the matter.

2/. In the prevailing circumstances, if Camden subsequently >

a) Claim they have issued a NoR, they will be required to send it to you again and ask what you want to do.

or

b) Claim they never received any reps, they should ask for a copy.

Obviously, in the latter circumstance, you will have something to say about that when it later reaches adjudication -
BUT seriously, don't bank on it. Your perceptions, reading things into online reports that aren't there -- simply because they aren't
there, makes no sense at all.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madandy
post Thu, 11 Jun 2020 - 00:35
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,885



https://ibb.co/kB51yvs

https://ibb.co/b32FPMG

I now have the OFR sent to me again! along with the Statutory Declaration.

In the box saying "My reasons are" do I fill it in?

The other thing getting it signed. Any ideas of anywhere in particular to go (I'm in NW London).... Is there someone recommended here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 11 Jun 2020 - 09:19
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



The last we heard, the requirement to have the form sworn/witnessed was being waived during the
present situation.
The only way to find out if that is still the case is to ask TEC.

QUOTE (madandy @ Thu, 11 Jun 2020 - 01:35) *
In the box saying "My reasons are" do I fill it in?

A single sentence if anything, repeating what the words next to the box say and, if you like, add the date of
your representations.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madandy
post Wed, 17 Jun 2020 - 17:31
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,885



Regarding the Statutory declaration and Covid the score is thus. I phoned Northampton and after 40 minutes my turn came and the moent I started talking the phone cut off./ This was yesterday.

Today I cycled to Willesden Magistrates Court where I was told that nobody was doing it because of Coronavirus and all the beaks were busy. The guy advised me to go to Willesden County Court which I did and that was locked. A secuirity mguy inside shook his head when I showed him the document through the window so I thentook a picture of the "closed for covid" motice in the window.

My problem is this How do I fill in the form as in if I simply leave out the sworn statement bit will that cause a problem? Obviously I will send a picture of the notice in the window with accompanying note but I will give another go at phoning them tomorrow but I'd like to get it sent off.

Any do's or don'ts or advice? I wass thinking of formally requesting in my letter that if the witness endorsement is essential I am ok to have this matter adjourned until after lockdown.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 17 Jun 2020 - 17:53
Post #60


Member


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



We have seen quite a few cases where the Op has had it confirmed that they need for the SD to be sworn has been suspended. You could send it without it being sworn, if you need to but do not miss the deadline or it gets real messy Or try a local solicitor. The fee is not large about £10

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 - 17:55


--------------------
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

8 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 - 22:25
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