PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Newlyn Notice of enforcement - WAVERLEY
YellowMETP
post Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 18:53
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,804



Hi,

I am hoping someone can offer me advice.

I received a 'Notice of enforcement' letter from a company called Newlyn. The letter was sent to my correct address, but has the wrong last name. I changed it nearly two years ago after divorce.

The letter claims that I owe £83 to Waverley Borough Council and includes a PCN number

It then states that the 'sum outstanding' is: £83 + £75 compliance stage fee = £158

The enforcement details state:

Warrant of control dated --/10/2017 for Non payment of PCN
Contravention Details: Parked after the expiry of paid for time on --/03/2016
It then states my car reg

I have no recollection of this alleged contravention at all, and when I log into the council website and enter the PCN number, it tells me the details and includes photos of my car and parking ticket etc. Ticket expired 28 minutes prior to 'contravention time'. So given the photos, the contravention obviously occurred? Yet I don't recall getting a ticket or PCN via the post at all. The first time I have been made aware is via this letter from Newlyn. On the council site it states that the status is 'case open'. However if doesn't state how much is owed.

I did move house in April 2017, but surely I would have received a PCN before that date? I updated my car log book and it has my correct name and new address.

So what do I do next?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 26)
Advertisement
post Fri, 5 Jan 2018 - 18:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 22:03
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,392
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



TEC is a form of court and the Court Officer who considers your application acts on behalf of the court.

The court's role is LIMITED to procedure. For example, a warrant is issued by a council under the authority of TEC.

Only an adjudicator may determine the issue of the penalty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 02:03
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,668
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



YellowMETP.
Please read this carefully, right to the end.


I remain extremely worried about the risk to YellowMETP of the next bailiff charges becoming due.
That is, an additional £235 if the bailiff visits (or claims to visit) and possibly a further additional £110.

And against, please do note, in the circumstances presented, a likely saving of just £8.
I'm sorry but can we just get real here.

I stand by my comments in post #16.
I can only apologise that I can't offer a better solution or outcome.

That said:-
- I do realise that bailiffs are busy and don't necessarily attend promptly when their stated deadlines expire.
So there's possibly a window of opportunity but it is a huge risk considering the amounts concerned.
- That the TE7 application suggested will suspend enforcement but I can only worry that the bailiff will 'sneak in'
extra charges at the earliest opportunity , one side or other of that suspension. If it happens, do we even have
an avenue to change that; or one that won't be a protracted argument via complaints and LAO?

How only an £8 saving?
A successful TE7/TE9 application will result in a new NtO being served for £50, saving £108.
But if not successful a review would have to be sought by a District Judge, costing a non-refundable £100.
Hence, if the latter were successful, a net saving of just £8.
It could even be worse: If a DJ also rules against OP he/she will have lost another £100.


And what exactly are the chances?
The only chance would be if the Council 'forget' to oppose the application in the timescale allowed.
On the following, as much as it's a stalling move - chance of success, zero.
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 17:03) *
As regards the TE7, I don't know what else you can say other than that you did not receive the PCN or any notices from the authority and was not aware of this contravention until contacted by enforcement agents. The contravention occurred in March 2016 at which time your details as keeper were current with DVLA as required. You received no notices prior to moving house in April 2017, over 12 months later. This is not a case of changing addresses while notices are served or mail forwarding: you were resident at your DVLA address for 12 months following the contravention and clearly a breakdown in communication has occurred and now that the enforcement agents have thankfully closed this loop you respectfully request that you be given the opportunity to make representations to the authority..

Like another recent case, three documents go missing and no likely possible reason is offered at all?
Imho that would be opposed, then refused and application to DJ become a choice, at £100.
Even then, as stated, losing is a possibility.

BUT
Is there a possibility the facts of this case are fundamentally flawed?
I strongly suspect that the contravention was 2017, not 2016, as I've stated before. It would then be a perfect case
for pointing out the NtO could never likely have reached Yellow.
In support of that theory, I say again; since when did it take a Council 18 months from contravention to apply for a warrant,
as opposed to the far more likely 6 months if the contravention was 2017.

YellowMETP.
IF you intend to make the suggested TE7/TE9 application then do just one thing for me >
That is, resolve whether the contravention was 2016 as the bailiff states or 2017. It makes a huge
difference to your case and how you word the application.

It only takes a phone call.

Phone TEC (the Court) and ask the date of contravention. 0300 123 1059
You only need your PCN number.
Be patient for phone pick up as they are very busy.

If they also say 2016 then phone the Council and ask them to double check.

Tell us the answer as soon as possible.

Thanks.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 02:54


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
YellowMETP
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 14:47
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,804



I contacted the council who issued in the first place (Waverley). They have acknowledged that I didn’t receive the original PCN and reissued giving me 28 days to appeal or to pay the original £50 charge. So I think that’s as good a result as it gets. I figured I had nothing to loose by dropping them and email. Thanks for all the responses
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 18:24
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,668
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



That is very unusual and you are very fortunate; well done.

As you e-mailed I assume you have this in writing?

- and they are going to issue a new NtO?

- and they've confirmed they have called off the bailiff?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
YellowMETP
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 19:04
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,804



Yes, I emailed and they sent me a new NtO. They didn’t mention the bailiffs at all?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 10:42
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,668
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (YellowMETP @ Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 19:04) *
Yes, I emailed and they sent me a new NtO. They didn’t mention the bailiffs at all?


and you're not worried about that at all?
It's not safe to assume the Council have taken the necessary action to stop the bailiff continuing.

--
Presumably you'll be showing us the NtO so we can advise on possible appeal points.

Did you establish what year it was - 2016 or 2017 ?

If '16 then you have a strong appeal point already: Unreasonable delay.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 22 Jan 2018 - 22:30
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,091
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



If we are back to the NTO stage then the OP should appeal on the basis that undue delay has created unfairness and that there is a breach of Article 6 of the ECHR especially as the case has not been brought to adjudication within a reasonable time.

They have to give valid reasons why the monies were not pursued at the time. If the OfR was significantly delayed that would prove the argument. I would suggest that, if the Council wish to pursue the penalty, they should indicate the date of each step in the enforcement process and a full explanation for any delay during process.

The key point is that the OP has been prejudiced. The delay HAS affected his ability to argue the case for the simple reason that as noted in Davis-v- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ( PAS 1970198981) " the unconscionable delay in the case has severely prejudiced the Appellant’s ability to collate and preserve evidence".

The Council could have altered its lines and signs at the location since the date of the contravention and, in making any current investigation, the appellant would be none the wiser. So there is the potential for prejudice too on that score.

The tipping point of this case is that the Council is trying to pursue a "debt" under the Limitation Act versus the view that there is a breach of Art 6 in that this case has not or cannot be brought to adjudication under the "reasonable time" requirement. Coupled with the view that DPE is not about accruing income there is only one winner in this contest.

EDIT

OP--does the NTO (last para, page 1) indicate they "will" send a charge certificate?

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 13:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Wednesday, 23rd May 2018 - 15:02
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.