PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

New PCN for Motoring violation, Another 50JL with address issues
Dexx99
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 15:21
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,589



Hi Guys,

Unfortunately, a new motoring violation, but this time received the PCN (DON: 19.03.19) after initial issue to Lex Autolease around 15.01.19.

One thing to Note Address Line1 was a bit inaccurate. I have left the number in and blanked out the rest on the images FYI.

The format as sent was: 4 4 <STREET NAME>

However, should be: 4 <HOUSE NAME> <STREET NAME>

Would the inaccuracy open up a chance for an easy technical appeal with LT?

If you advise not, I may just pay within discounted period to focus on Appeal with LT (registered today) on my other post.

PCN - PAGE1


PCN PAGE2
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 109)
Advertisement
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 15:21
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Dexx99
post Tue, 10 Dec 2019 - 15:47
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,589



Please see my submissions against the Costs Evidence provided by LBOE.

I take issue with the suggestion the penalty officer’s involved could not have been aware of the existence of the authority’s procedural impropriety to have issued two PCN’s for the same offence. Despite representations made on 04.06.19 making this abundantly clear, this was disregarded by serving of NOR dated 14.08.19. Thus, forcing me to have to incur the time and expense to make an appeal against the decision.

Furthermore, the early service of a Charge certificate on 17.10.19 was a further P.I a statutory ground and reason enough for them to discontinue as the regulations demand. Despite, the authority being made aware by LT and agreeing to put the CC on old on 25.10.19, the authority chose to continue to pursue the matter.

The directions to the Authority on 19.10.19 was their submissions had not provided the original PCN dated 19.03.19 or the statutory authority they relied upon if they believed they could issue a second PCN to the same driver for the same offence. Despite the directions on 19.10.19 the Authority failed in its duty to provide the referenced PCN dated 19.03.19 and inconvincibly updated submissions with another PCN dated 29.05.19.

I take issue with the Authorities assertion the cancellation of the second PCN is a reward. I do not seek a reward I seek recompense for the cost of making an appeal that had the council performed their responsibilities to a proper standard, by their own admission they would have withdrawn.

Moreover, it is clear from the admissions made by the authority with regards with the failings of their service it was wholly unreasonable to press enforcement when the authority was aware or should have known the issues with service impact on the appellant.


Please review and let me know your thoughts and any points to improve.

Also, can we ignore the misunderstanding we made about the NOA on 28.05.19 as detailed in my previous post (LBOE costs evidence on page3.para2)?

Thanks for the help and support guys it's much appreciated.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 14 Dec 2019 - 23:28
Post #102


Member


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



I'm not sure if the charge certificate has been uploaded to the tribunal website, but if not, upload it now. Here's a response to the council's submissions:

QUOTE
The council concedes that many errors were made in the processing of the PCN, and these problems are (or at least were) apparently systemic. A systemic system failure is not in itself an excuse for conduct which is, objectively speaking, wholly unreasonable.

The fact that incorrect correspondence was added to the case might have made the appeals officer's task harder, but that simply meant that more time had to be spent to ensure that all but only the correspondence relevant to this case was taken into account. Sifting out all the irrelevant correspondence might be mundane, but it cannot be described as a challenging task.

The council concedes that the appeals officer who dealt with the case missed the fact that two PCNs were issued for the same contravention, which the council concedes is not permitted. However this was the central point made in the representations submitted to the council, as part of the appeals process those representations should have been considered with a reasonable degree of diligence and that clearly did not happen.

The council states that "The Appeals Officer was unaware of the fact that two PCNs were served to the Appellant and thus misunderstood the Adjournment Directions" but the representations made against the PCN clearly explained:

"I received the PCN dated 19 March and, because it was incorrectly addressed, I made a formal representation against it... I am now in receipt of a further PCN dated 29 May 2019 but in the circumstances, the enforcement authority has no powers to issue and serve additional PCNs for the same contravention."

By the time the adjournment directions were received by the council, the council had the clear benefit of reading my appeal which explained:

"As the respondent's case history demonstrates, a PCN was issued in my name on 19 March 2019, that PCN was duly received and I made a formal representation against it. The council's case history confirms the representations were received within the 28 day period, on 15 April 2019. The representations were accepted by the council on 28 May 2019 and that should have been the end of the matter.

The new PCN which is in issue in this appeal was issued on 29 May 2019 but the council has not explained where it derived the statutory authority to serve the second PCN.
"

The council's response to this application now suggests there were in fact three PCNs: One issued to the lease company, and two issued to me. This does not change the fact that the council issued two PCNs to me, this was clearly put to the authority in my representations and in my appeal and yet the council continued to resist the appeal.

In any event the PCN uploaded by the council following the adjournment direction is not a PCN issued to a lease company: The PCN submitted after the adjournment direction is a completely unrelated PCN for a completely different contravention. This was likely yet another error but in order to obtain a costs order, it is not necessary to show that the council's conduct was malicious or deliberate, it simply needs to be shown to be unreasonable to a very high degree, i.e. wholly unreasonable.

The council concedes that despite the case being under appeal a charge certificate was issued, the council can blame administrative issues or IT errors but none of that changes the fact that service of a charge certificate was wholly unreasonable, regardless of how the error came about. Resisting the appeal after the error had been pointed out raises the council's conduct to the high threshold of being wholly unreasonable: early service of a charge certificate is in the very definition of a procedural impropriety and once the council became aware that a charge certificate had been prematurely issued its position became entirely hopeless. The council should have agreed to cancel the penalty charge at that point, but it unreasonably continued to pursue the matter.

The council asserts that the appellant has been rewarded, but the tribunal did not make any finding of fact as to the contravention and cancellation of a PCN is hardly a reward. The purposes of a costs order is not to provide the receiving party with any sort of reward, the purpose of a costs order is to compensate a party for the time, cost and inconvenience of litigating an appeal that should not have been resisted.

Contrary to the council's assertion, this is not an application for "further costs", this is simply an application for a costs order to put the appellant back in the position he would have been in if the enforcement authority had agreed not to unreasonably resist the appeal, such resistance becoming wholly unreasonable once the council became aware of the fact that it had prematurely issued a charge certificate.


--------------------
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
Dexx99
post Mon, 16 Dec 2019 - 12:22
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,589



Hi cp8759,

Thanks for your great efforts to update my LT cost application today and I have attached with the.CC too as advised

I will update everyone with the outcome after the case has been heard on 21st December.

Thanks to everyone as always that has contributed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dexx99
post Sun, 22 Dec 2019 - 18:15
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,589



Hi Guys,

My Costs Application was heard on 21st December on with all your great help I won!! biggrin.gif

I didn't get the full award of the costs I had submitted, but TBH wasn't expecting that anyway as just thought worth a try.

So, I've ended up with an award of £69 which is a nice early Xmas Prezi for sure!

The sting in the tale for LBOE is worth 10x the amount in my eyes for their outright belligerence and serious of errors in this case! laugh.gif

Please have a look at how the adjudicator came to his decision if this helps similar cases in the future.


CA1


CA2


CA3



Thanks again to everyone in the forum who contributed to this positive outcome.

Keep up the great work and a Happy Xmas and Happy New Year to you all!!

This post has been edited by Dexx99: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 - 18:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 22 Dec 2019 - 18:23
Post #105


Member


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



QUOTE (Dexx99 @ Sun, 22 Dec 2019 - 18:15) *
Please have a look how the adjudicator came to his decision if this helps a similar case in the future.


CA1


CA2

Well done.
But neither of those links work?


--------------------
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 Mon, 23 Dec 2019 - 03:33
Post #106


Member


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



The links work for me but you can just look up 2190356258


--------------------
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
Dexx99
post Sun, 19 Jan 2020 - 17:59
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,589



Hi Guys,

Just to say LBOE have failed to meet the deadline to pay my Cost order adjudicated on 21.12.19 and was directed to be paid within 28 days.

Maybe I will get something tomorrow, but doesn't excuse the fact that LBOE failed to meet their obligation to pay within that timeframe.

Obviously, different when an Authority are expected to pay money within a deadline. The other way round and they'd be issuing a charge certificates and such like.

"I therefore direct the Enforcement Authority to pay the appellant's costs summarily assessed at £69 which must be paid to the appellant within 28 days (given that it is the Christmas period)." Michael Oliver Adjudicator 21st December 2019 2190356258

Anyway, will be calling LT tomorrow to lodge the fact that LBOE have failed to pay as ordered.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 19 Jan 2020 - 20:13
Post #108


Member


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



There's nothing LT can do about it, it's not a matter for the tribunal and the tribunal is not an ombudsman or a complaints body.

The sensible approach would be to contract the council. Ultimately you can obtain a county court order against the council (just like councils can obtain an Order for Recovery against motorists) but given there's a £255 fee (albeit recoverable from the council) it'd only advise that as an absolute last resort.


--------------------
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
Dexx99
post Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 17:22
Post #109


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,589



Okay thanks for the clarification.

However, I got the cheque in the post today after all so no need to pursure LBOE which is a relief.

Thanks for all the help and guidance from the forum members to get this matter resolved in my favour and with some recompense too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 23 Jan 2020 - 22:24
Post #110


Member


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



Well done, what I would say is be really careful in future, as the council is unlikely to ever exercise discretion in your favour.


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

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
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 - 16:19
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