PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Yellow Box PCN - Original PCN not received (Wandsworth)
The Grand Ranch
post Sat, 6 Oct 2018 - 16:23
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 6 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,246



Hi Everyone, I received a Charge Certificate back in June for a PCN issued in May which I did not receive in the post.

Following advice on this forum, I waited until I received the letter from the debt collectors (Alpha) which stated that they would be passing the debt to Northampton CC. This letter arrived mid July and I've not heard anything further since.

I'm not in dispute over the original offence, I just didn't want to pay £195! However, I'm now a little concerned that I've not heard anything further and I don't really want this bill racking up in the background if they failed to send me the Order of Recovery.

Any advice or is this normal?

many thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 46)
Advertisement
post Sat, 6 Oct 2018 - 16:23
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:04
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,663
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



An adjudicator could say that, taking the PCN as a whole (including the representations period which is correctly included on the back of the PCN), it is substantially compliant, so I'd be reluctant to advise risking the discount on that basis alone. We need to see the video.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:14
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,213
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 11:04) *
An adjudicator could say that, taking the PCN as a whole (including the representations period which is correctly included on the back of the PCN), it is substantially compliant, so I'd be reluctant to advise risking the discount on that basis alone. We need to see the video.


+1 I feel an argument can be made but am reluctant to do so without sight of the video


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:30
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,631
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Grounds:
e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

The circumstances in this case are:
An alleged contravention dated 9 May 2018;
A PCN which the authority claim was issued on 18th May 2018 but which was not received by the appellant;
A charge certificate issued 29th June 2018 which the appellant received;
Instead of an Order for Recovery on 19 July 2018 the appellant received an extra-procedural letter from a firm of enforcement agents acting on behalf of the authority but without lawful authority (as Enforcement Agents) to pursue the penalty;
An Order for Recovery received 17 May 2019 ;
The appellant's statutory declaration dated 29th May 2019;
TEC's confirmation letter dated approx. 5 Jun;
A fresh PCN dated 14 June 2019, received 15 June;


As the authority will see, as regards the prescribed procedure there is a gap of 10 months between the charge certificate and the Order for Recovery in respect of the previous PCN. This lengthy period puts me at a serious and wholly avoidable disadvantage as regards submitting representations and prospectively an appeal. Absent a valid reason for this extreme delay, then the authority have acted wholly unreasonably and unfairly is pursuing the penalty and as such these are valid statutory grounds for representations which, if rejected, must be accompanied by a valid reason why the authority failed to pursue the penalty expeditiously.
At present I do not intend to raise the issue of the use of council taxpayers' funds to commission a firm of enforcement agents to act in a capacity which has no basis in law to follow up a charge certificate. For information, I enclose a copy of their letter whose form, tenor and appearance are deliberately intended to convey the impression that they are acting in a legal capacity as regards pursuing the penalty. Should it be necessary, I would invite the adjudicator to decide whether the Man on the Clapham Omnibus would find this to be and intended to be intimidating and coercive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Grand Ranch
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 20:57
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 6 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,246



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 11:14) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 11:04) *
An adjudicator could say that, taking the PCN as a whole (including the representations period which is correctly included on the back of the PCN), it is substantially compliant, so I'd be reluctant to advise risking the discount on that basis alone. We need to see the video.


+1 I feel an argument can be made but am reluctant to do so without sight of the video


I found the video -

https://vimeo.com/user22342865/review/342834887/cb2624ca6a

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 11:30) *
Grounds:
e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

The circumstances in this case are:
An alleged contravention dated 9 May 2018;
A PCN which the authority claim was issued on 18th May 2018 but which was not received by the appellant;
A charge certificate issued 29th June 2018 which the appellant received;
Instead of an Order for Recovery on 19 July 2018 the appellant received an extra-procedural letter from a firm of enforcement agents acting on behalf of the authority but without lawful authority (as Enforcement Agents) to pursue the penalty;
An Order for Recovery received 17 May 2019 ;
The appellant's statutory declaration dated 29th May 2019;
TEC's confirmation letter dated approx. 5 Jun;
A fresh PCN dated 14 June 2019, received 15 June;


As the authority will see, as regards the prescribed procedure there is a gap of 10 months between the charge certificate and the Order for Recovery in respect of the previous PCN. This lengthy period puts me at a serious and wholly avoidable disadvantage as regards submitting representations and prospectively an appeal. Absent a valid reason for this extreme delay, then the authority have acted wholly unreasonably and unfairly is pursuing the penalty and as such these are valid statutory grounds for representations which, if rejected, must be accompanied by a valid reason why the authority failed to pursue the penalty expeditiously.
At present I do not intend to raise the issue of the use of council taxpayers' funds to commission a firm of enforcement agents to act in a capacity which has no basis in law to follow up a charge certificate. For information, I enclose a copy of their letter whose form, tenor and appearance are deliberately intended to convey the impression that they are acting in a legal capacity as regards pursuing the penalty. Should it be necessary, I would invite the adjudicator to decide whether the Man on the Clapham Omnibus would find this to be and intended to be intimidating and coercive.


Wow, thanks, sounds like it could be worth a shot?




This post has been edited by The Grand Ranch: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 20:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:11
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,105
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



The video doesn't help, to put it mildly.

https://vimeo.com/342834887/cb2624ca6a

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 22:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Grand Ranch
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:22
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 6 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,246



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 22:11) *
The video doesn't not help, to put it mildly.

https://vimeo.com/342834887/cb2624ca6a


Well, I never said I contested the actual offence.

This post has been edited by The Grand Ranch: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 12:48
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,663
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The video link doesn't work?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Sunday, 18th August 2019 - 13:57
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.