Didnt receive original PCN - Kingston |
Didnt receive original PCN - Kingston |
Fri, 1 Nov 2019 - 15:24
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 13 Apr 2019 Member No.: 103,414 |
Hi,
Help! In June I received an Order for Recovery for a traffic offence which occurred in Kingston for which I didn't receive the original PCN. I completed a Statutory Declaration and after returning this was told that was successful. I have subsequently received another Order for Recovery and after ignoring it as I had already completed the Statutory Declaration I have now received a Notice of Enforcement. My understanding was after the successful Statutory Declaration, the process was reset and I would receive the PCN at which point I could pay the 50% of the original fine. I just called the number on the Order for Recovery (020 8547 5995) and was told, no I wouldn't have received the PCN, just the Order for Recovery again (which I stupidly ignored!) and so there is now nothing I can do except try and complete another Statutory Declaration, call the debt collectors and tell them hoping they will back off. I was told to call the TEC and I'm currently on hold to them but what use this will be I have no idea. So my question: After the SD was successful should I have been sent the PCN? It seems mad to me they dont resend it and it goes straight to the Order for Recovery again as that doesnt give me a chance to pay the original fine (and more importantly 50% of it). Any advice gratefully received. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 1 Nov 2019 - 15:24
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 17:20
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Being confused is not a ground for the stat dec. It seems to me the legality of filing at all rather than filing late is a bigger issue
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 17:47
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Being confused is not a ground for the stat dec. It seems to me the legality of filing at all rather than filing late is a bigger issue Uh? How so? He hasn't received a PCN. The only exception is where a copy of the PCN accompanies an OfR. I'm confused about this as the Revoking Order specifically says: "Important note to correspondent: This order does NOT cancel the original PCN" Only in so far as they may issue a fresh PCN. This post has been edited by Neil B: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 17:52 -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 17:54
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 13 Apr 2019 Member No.: 103,414 |
A key thing for me here is from this.... https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...ent-process#rod Is parking ! https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...rcement-process OK thanks! And on reading that its clear... "If the ground is that the Penalty Charge Notice was not received, the Order for Recovery, Charge Certificate and Penalty Charge Notice are cancelled. The Enforcement Authority may then issue a new Penalty Charge Notice;" It still odd to me the revoking order said ""Important note to correspondent: This order does NOT cancel the original PCN" Can they do that? How is (3) relevant to you? and when quoting (8) why stop short of © which I earlier highlighted? My reading of it must be incorrect. I was trying to understand the detail by using the specific pieces I thought were relevant. Apologies if that was incorrect/misguided. Being confused is not a ground for the stat dec. It seems to me the legality of filing at all rather than filing late is a bigger issue From reading https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...rcement-process Specifically this... "Statutory Declaration Where an Order for Recovery has been made, liability for the penalty can then only be challenged in the following circumstances: You did not receive the Penalty Charge Notice in question; or You made representations to the Enforcement Authority concerned but did not receive a Notice of Rejection from that authority; or You appealed to the adjudicator against the rejection by the Enforcement Authority of your representations but had no response to the appeal. If, and only if, one of these applies, you may make a statutory declaration." Am I correct in thinking I can only do another Statutory Declaration to say exactly what I said in the original one - that I didn't get the original PCN and the reason this one is late is because as per the process, once the original SD was accepted the PCN should have been cancelled and I should have been issued with a new one? As subsequent documentation references the original PCN I thought this was a mistake as that PCN no longer existed. "If the ground is that the Penalty Charge Notice was not received, the Order for Recovery, Charge Certificate and Penalty Charge Notice are cancelled. The Enforcement Authority may then issue a new Penalty Charge Notice" But then that begs the question why the revoke said "This order does NOT cancel the original PCN" |
|
|
Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 18:09
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
But then that begs the question why the revoke said "This order does NOT cancel the original PCN" They are a bit slack with revoking orders. I think there's more than version and we've seen inappropriate wording on others. Even if Kingston were misled by it they are supposed to know the process. The same wording was used in this case http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t=0&start=0 dropbox in post #14. Council proceeded to issue a fresh PCN. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 18:58
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
But then that begs the question why the revoke said "This order does NOT cancel the original PCN" They are a bit slack with revoking orders. I think there's more than version and we've seen inappropriate wording on others. Even if Kingston were misled by it they are supposed to know the process. The same wording was used in this case http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t=0&start=0 dropbox in post #14. Council proceeded to issue a fresh PCN. I've never seen it happen but Neil has been about longer than I. As I read the regulations when registering the debt the council may include the original PCN, that would then be forwarded with the revoking order, so the original PCN is not cancelled, but if that option is not used then the original PCN is DEEMED cancelled and the council my serve a Fresh PCN but not send an updated version of the original Nothing in the regulations allows the same PCN to contain different details, (in your case the date) and the adjudicator said as much in the thread Neil linked. but you dont have the PCN(s) But I still think the legality of a SD is questionable -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 18:59
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Am I correct in thinking I can only do another Statutory Declaration to say exactly what I said in the original one - that I didn't get the original PCN and the reason this one is late is because as per the process, once the original SD was accepted the PCN should have been cancelled and I should have been issued with a new one? As subsequent documentation references the original PCN I thought this was a mistake as that PCN no longer existed. Is about it but I would recommend referencing and/or quoting the relevant sections of legislation and making the point the council have acted unlawfully. Show what you draft. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 19:14
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Nothing in the regulations allows the same PCN to contain different details, (in your case the date) and the adjudicator said as much in the thread Neil linked. I can't see where the adjudicator said that. Of course a fresh PCN would have a different date; otherwise what is the payment and representations period that applies? I don't see any doubt about the legality of a PE3 SD; He has not received the PCN. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 20:18
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Show what you draft. Have a crack at it asap and post here. Time is short. When we get it filed bailiff enforcement will be suspended pending a decision. I've drafted something but want to see yours first. --- If Kingston object and TEC sides with them you have the option of a district judge reviewing it but that costs £100. That fee might be recovered later via the LA Ombudsman but it's a haul. If we get this accepted you almost certainly won't be paying the PCN. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 20:37
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 13 Apr 2019 Member No.: 103,414 |
Show what you draft. Have a crack at it asap and post here. Time is short. When we get it filed bailiff enforcement will be suspended pending a decision. I've drafted something but want to see yours first. --- If Kingston object and TEC sides with them you have the option of a district judge reviewing it but that costs £100. That fee might be recovered later via the LA Ombudsman but it's a haul. If we get this accepted you almost certainly won't be paying the PCN. Thanks. I am travelling atm so will post a draft in the morning. |
|
|
Sun, 3 Nov 2019 - 20:40
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Fair enough.
-------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 14:02
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 13 Apr 2019 Member No.: 103,414 |
My understanding is I have to complete another SD (PE3), stating the original PCN was not received. Next I complete an SD Out of Time (PE2) completing the reasons for filing the SD outside the given time: Draft On the 12th April I received a Charge Certificate for PCN XXX. Subsequently on the 16th May 2019 I received an Order for Recovery for the original PCN. I completed a Statutory Declaration and filed this on the 5th June 2019 (copy provided). A Revoking Order was issued by the County Court accepting my Statutory Declaration, and ordering the Order for Recovery be revoked (copy provided). As per the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, at this point the original PCN should have been cancelled. Section 8: "© in the case of a statutory declaration under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, the penalty charge notice to which the charge certificate relates shall be deemed to have been cancelled; and (d)the district judge shall serve written notice of the effect of service of the statutory declaration on the person making it and on the enforcing authority." The next I heard on the matter was a re issue of the Charge Certificate for the original PCN (received 2nd July 2019), and a reissue of the Order for Recovery (received 9th September 2019). As no new PCN had been issued and these new documents referred to the original PCN, they were invalid. I have now received a Notice of Enforcement regarding the original PCN (dated 25th October 2019). This Notice of Enforcement is invalid as noted above, the original PCN should have been cancelled and a new one issued. A the Notice of Enforcement is invalid, the TEC should not have accepted the second registration of the debt as a new PCN was not issued. Can you please suspend the bailiff enforcement pending a decision and confirm by return email and/or post. Regards ------ Comments please. I hope this represents correctly what you've told me. I will print off the relevant sections of legislation and also provide links when faxing the documents. Thanks |
|
|
Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 14:12
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
"As no new PCN had been issued and these new documents referred to the original PCN, they were invalid."
Not sure but it may be worth elaborating on this - "These documents were clearly sent in error and I called the council but was wrongly told that a PCN would not be resent. But I could not see how I could make a truthful witness statement about a PCN that has already been revoked according to regulation." |
|
|
Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 14:16
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 13 Apr 2019 Member No.: 103,414 |
"As no new PCN had been issued and these new documents referred to the original PCN, they were invalid." Not sure but it may be worth elaborating on this - "These documents were clearly sent in error and I called the council but was wrongly told that a PCN would not be resent. But I could not see how I could make a truthful witness statement about a PCN that has already been revoked according to regulation." Thanks. I've made an appointment to get the documents signed at Kingston CC tomorrow morning so aim is to get them faxed in shortly after that. |
|
|
Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 14:20
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Can you please suspend the bailiff enforcement pending a decision and confirm by return email and/or post. Take out that bit; suspension is automatic. It's quite good but doesn't really explain why late. It's better than mine in that it explains the background (previous SD) which I chose to omit. Mine > 'My delay in filing is due to confusion over the Enforcement Authority’s actions which I now believe to be unlawful. I have only now realised the matter really has been escalated through receiving contact from an enforcement agent. I refer to the court’s revoking order of 6th June (attached). Contrary to that order I subsequently received a Charge Certificate dated 2nd July (attached) and an Order for Recovery in September. Believing these to be a mistake I awaited a fresh Penalty Charge Notice in accordance with The London Local Authorities Act 2003, Schedule 1, para 7, sub para (8) ©; I quote, “in the case of a statutory declaration under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, the penalty charge notice to which the charge certificate relates shall be deemed to have been cancelled” and sub para (9), again I quote, “Service of a declaration under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above shall not prevent the enforcing authority serving a fresh penalty charge notice” It is clear that no such fresh PCN has been served, denying me the right to either pay or make representations. I submit that service of the June Charge Certificate and subsequent Order for Recovery was unlawful and any objection to this application would be equally so. I respectfully ask that my request to file a late Statutory Declaration be accepted.' Perhaps you could combine elements of both. Use 'unlawful' rather than invalid; hitting Kingston head on and pre-empting any objection. when faxing the documents. !! email. tec@justice.gov.uk -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 14:20
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Neil has tackled the same thing in detail.
|
|
|
Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 15:11
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 13 Apr 2019 Member No.: 103,414 |
Can you please suspend the bailiff enforcement pending a decision and confirm by return email and/or post. Take out that bit; suspension is automatic. It's quite good but doesn't really explain why late. It's better than mine in that it explains the background (previous SD) which I chose to omit. Mine > 'My delay in filing is due to confusion over the Enforcement Authority’s actions which I now believe to be unlawful. I have only now realised the matter really has been escalated through receiving contact from an enforcement agent. I refer to the court’s revoking order of 6th June (attached). Contrary to that order I subsequently received a Charge Certificate dated 2nd July (attached) and an Order for Recovery in September. Believing these to be a mistake I awaited a fresh Penalty Charge Notice in accordance with The London Local Authorities Act 2003, Schedule 1, para 7, sub para (8) ©; I quote, “in the case of a statutory declaration under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, the penalty charge notice to which the charge certificate relates shall be deemed to have been cancelled” and sub para (9), again I quote, “Service of a declaration under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above shall not prevent the enforcing authority serving a fresh penalty charge notice” It is clear that no such fresh PCN has been served, denying me the right to either pay or make representations. I submit that service of the June Charge Certificate and subsequent Order for Recovery was unlawful and any objection to this application would be equally so. I respectfully ask that my request to file a late Statutory Declaration be accepted.' Perhaps you could combine elements of both. Use 'unlawful' rather than invalid; hitting Kingston head on and pre-empting any objection. when faxing the documents. !! email. tec@justice.gov.uk Thanks I'll merge the two. And yes, I meant email !! |
|
|
Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 15:45
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 13 Apr 2019 Member No.: 103,414 |
Draft #2
My delay in filing is due to confusion over the Enforcement Authority’s actions which I now believe to be unlawful. I have only now realised the matter actually has been escalated through receiving contact from an enforcement agent. Details: On the 12th April 2019 I received a Charge Certificate for Penalty Charge Notice XXX. Subsequently on the 16th May 2019 I received an Order for Recovery for the original Penalty Charge Notice. I completed a Statutory Declaration and filed this on the 5th June 2019 (copy provided). A Revoking Order was issued by the County Court accepting my Statutory Declaration and ordering the Order for Recovery be revoked (copy provided). I refer to the court’s revoking order of 6th June 2019. Contrary to that order I subsequently received a Charge Certificate dated 2nd July 2019 (attached) and an Order for Recovery dated 9th September 2019 (attached) for the original Penalty Charge Notice. Believing these to be a mistake I awaited a fresh Penalty Charge Notice in accordance with The London Local Authorities Act 2003, Schedule 1, para 7, sub para (8)(3); I quote, “in the case of a statutory declaration under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, the penalty charge notice to which the charge certificate relates shall be deemed to have been cancelled” and sub para (9), again I quote, “Service of a declaration under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above shall not prevent the enforcing authority serving a fresh penalty charge notice” It is clear that no such fresh Penalty Charge Notice has been served, denying me the right to either pay or make representations and thus making the Charge Certificate dated 2nd July and an Order for Recovery dated 9th September unlawful. I have now received a Notice of Enforcement regarding the original Penalty Charge Notice (dated 25th October 2019). This Notice of Enforcement is unlawful as noted above, the original Penalty Charge Notice should have been cancelled and a new one issued. I submit that service of the June Charge Certificate and subsequent Order for Recovery was unlawful and any objection to this application would be equally so. I respectfully ask that my request to file a late Statutory Declaration be accepted. Regards |
|
|
Mon, 4 Nov 2019 - 16:19
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Works for me.
We can never be sure what is best to write in these cases but you've got the facts in there. Councils are so dumb they often routinely object but in this odd case they have no argument. A court officer should accept regardless of any objection. That's the theory but their workload is immense. This is being filed alongside hundreds of liars just trying their luck. Once filed you'll need to keep track of this. I'll post about that later. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 11:06
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 13 Apr 2019 Member No.: 103,414 |
Works for me. We can never be sure what is best to write in these cases but you've got the facts in there. Councils are so dumb they often routinely object but in this odd case they have no argument. A court officer should accept regardless of any objection. That's the theory but their workload is immense. This is being filed alongside hundreds of liars just trying their luck. Once filed you'll need to keep track of this. I'll post about that later. Quick update. Documents in and after calling the company who are enforcing the debt, I know its on hold. Interestingly when I called them, they immediately asked how much I wanted to pay. I told them I had filed the documents and they then say yes its on hold. So the cheeky */#*? were trying to get money from me even in the knowledge it was on hold! My expectation at this point is I'll receive a letter saying its on hold. And then at some point in the future, a notification of the outcome of the appeal. Fingers crossed. Thank you for the help. |
|
|
Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 11:27
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
My expectation at this point is I'll receive a letter saying its on hold. And then at some point in the future, a notification of the outcome of the appeal. No, you won't receive an acknowledgement letter. You should have received an auto-acknowledgement e-mail from TEC. It is NOT an 'appeal'. You are advised to check status by phoning TEC regularly from about 2 1/2 weeks onwards. Let us know if you receive anything from Kingston meantime. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:28 |