PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

No PCN received, NO PCN - Charge certificate sent in post
Cloud16
post Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 19:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 20 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,506



Hi,

I have received a council charge certificate in the post on sat 20th Oct from Worthing Borough Council. I work as a Specialist Liver Nurse and was attending a meeting at the drug and alcohol service across the road. Unfortunately, I had parked on a road with restricted parking between 10-11am and 2-3pm and according to the council's website they sighted my car at 10:39 and issued PCN at 10:44. This must have been just after I left the car.

See below:
[/img]



My concern is that this is the first time I have been made aware of the fine. It appears from the council's website (see below for screenshots) that they had put a PCN on my car, however, when I returned to my car it was not present and therefore I was not aware of the fine.



The penalty charge is now £105 and they have asked in the letter that I pay within 14days or they will refer to county court.

It states on the council website that I am unable to make representations as a charge certificate has been sent. However, the council might consider a representation under exceptional circumstances if I submit by post. I am hoping that the fact as this is the first time I am being informed of the PCN it would be considered an exceptional circumstance.


I would be grateful if you can advise if there is anything I can include in my letter to try and plead my case? to have the fine reduced back to the original fine.

many thanks

Sam
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 19:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 21:13
Post #21


Member


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



QUOTE (Cloud16 @ Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 20:55) *
Ok - on the tribunal website, it requests for me to explain my appeal - see below.



QUOTE
cp8759 - "detailed grounds to follow" in the grounds box and in due course we will write your representations for you.


Is the 'explain my appeal' box what you refer to as the ' grounds box'

Thanks


yep just write full submissions to follow


--------------------
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
Cloud16
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:04
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 20 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,506



Great - thanks I have submitted an appeal and written 'detailed grounds to follow' in the submission box. Fingers crossed. smile.gif


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 21:28
Post #23


Member


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



Let us know what dates/deadlines come back.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cloud16
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 21:04
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 20 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,506



I received this message today..



Followed by this mail...



The dates on the website show...



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:06
Post #25


Member


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



IMO, a waste of an opportunity.

You had the chance to bring the authority's procedural improprieties to their attention now, but instead they must wait for them 'to follow'.

Why?

NTO issued 26th Oct and deemed served on 30th Oct;
End of the 28-day period for making representations would therefore be 27 Nov;
Charge certificate issued 19 Oct and deemed served on 23rd Oct;
The certificate was therefore served at least 36 days 'before the enforcement authority would have been authorised to serve it..'

The regulations draw particular attention to this type of impropriety as follows:

In these Regulations “procedural impropriety” means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 Act, ....and includes in particular—

(b)in a case where an enforcement authority is seeking to recover an unpaid charge, the purported service of a charge certificate under regulation 21 of the General Regulations before the enforcement authority is authorised to serve it by those Regulations.


The authority acknowledged that the certificate was served prematurely but sought to ignore their gross failure, choosing instead to put it down to 'a system error'.

I respectfully request the adjudicator to allow my appeal and, if contested by the authority, to consider making a costs order.

No p*****g about, straight for the jugular and let Mr Passfield et al try and extricate themselves from this one.

I'm certain this could have been squeezed into the narrative box.

Even now I would suggest sending something similar to TPT, why let the system dictate progress, it's in your hands.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:39
Post #26


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:06) *
IMO, a waste of an opportunity.

You had the chance to bring the authority's procedural improprieties to their attention now, but instead they must wait for them 'to follow'.

Why?

NTO issued 26th Oct and deemed served on 30th Oct;
End of the 28-day period for making representations would therefore be 27 Nov;
Charge certificate issued 19 Oct and deemed served on 23rd Oct;
The certificate was therefore served at least 36 days 'before the enforcement authority would have been authorised to serve it..'

The regulations draw particular attention to this type of impropriety as follows:

In these Regulations “procedural impropriety” means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 Act, ....and includes in particular—

(b)in a case where an enforcement authority is seeking to recover an unpaid charge, the purported service of a charge certificate under regulation 21 of the General Regulations before the enforcement authority is authorised to serve it by those Regulations.


The authority acknowledged that the certificate was served prematurely but sought to ignore their gross failure, choosing instead to put it down to 'a system error'.

I respectfully request the adjudicator to allow my appeal and, if contested by the authority, to consider making a costs order.

No p*****g about, straight for the jugular and let Mr Passfield et al try and extricate themselves from this one.

I'm certain this could have been squeezed into the narrative box.

Even now I would suggest sending something similar to TPT, why let the system dictate progress, it's in your hands.


What waste of an opportunity. The council were given the facts and had the chance to cancel. They did not So now an appeal to TPT no submissions have yet been made and when they are will focus on the PI


--------------------
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 Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 23:04
Post #27


Member


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



With respect, this misses the point and reduces the likelihood of a costs order.

At present the authority do not know of an appeal, they have nothing to contest.

By bringing all relevant facts together at this stage means they would now have everything spelled out to them - the reps were a tad weak on this front.

And then if they decided to contest, the OP would be in a much stronger position to obtain a costs order, winning the appeal is a foregone conclusion.

We should remember that the application form is an early opportunity to bring matters to the authority's attention. We are not talking about counter-punching their defence - which is often the tactical purpose of 'to follow', they don't have one!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 23:12
Post #28


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 23:04) *
With respect, this misses the point and reduces the likelihood of a costs order.

At present the authority do not know of an appeal, they have nothing to contest.

By bringing all relevant facts together at this stage means they would now have everything spelled out to them - the reps were a tad weak on this front.

And then if they decided to contest, the OP would be in a much stronger position to obtain a costs order, winning the appeal is a foregone conclusion.

We should remember that the application form is an early opportunity to bring matters to the authority's attention. We are not talking about counter-punching their defence - which is often the tactical purpose of 'to follow', they don't have one!


With respect the representations set out exactly the reason why they had served the CC early and that this is a PI. The council become aware of an appeal when the tribunal tell them one has been registered. They are aware of the PI and tried anyway to bluff it. The appeal will be on almost identical terms as the representations so, Whilst I agree costs should be sought no detriment to the chances of that happening occurs by not submitting straight away . But if the OP wants to that's their choice


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:09
Post #29


Member


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



I think the chances of a costs order are increased now, because if the council chose not to contest, the decision not to cancel at the reps stage can be attacked as being wholly unreasonable.

IMO a costs order is always more likely when an authority DNCs a case when faced with a "ground to follow" appeal.


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:14
Post #30


Member


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



'The council become aware of an appeal when the tribunal tell them one has been registered.'


But they'll only know the grounds and what's facing them when they get the narrative - 'to follow" leaves everyone in limbo.

And it is a mistake to presume that the officers dealing with appeals are the same as those who have been involved to date, in particular who signed off the NOR. They could be the custodians of the brain cell and realise the impossibility of the council's position.

Tell them now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:27
Post #31


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:14) *
'The council become aware of an appeal when the tribunal tell them one has been registered.'


But they'll only know the grounds and what's facing them when they get the narrative - 'to follow" leaves everyone in limbo.

And it is a mistake to presume that the officers dealing with appeals are the same as those who have been involved to date, in particular who signed off the NOR. They could be the custodians of the brain cell and realise the impossibility of the council's position.

Tell them now.


QUOTE
who signed off the NOR. They could be the custodians of the brain cell and realise the impossibility of the council's position.



If so it must be broken, because they must have realised when they read the representations. the appeal is fairly straight forward, it needs to expand only a little on the representation as to the issue of a NTO after the date of CC and after the date of representations (in reality a letter sent in response to the CC)

I am happy to draft something for the OP to send straight away, because I see no benefit in seeing the council case first in this instance.

i am giving thought to accepting the contravention occurred thus limiting any response from council or need for determination by an adjudicator to the PI. Thoughts on this would be appreciated

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:27


--------------------
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
Neil B
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:52
Post #32


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:14) *
And it is a mistake to presume that the officers dealing with appeals are the same as those who have been involved to date, in particular who signed off the NOR. They could be the custodians of the brain cell and realise the impossibility of the council's position.

I understood that was you point when you criticised the approach of PMB and cp last night.
I see the point but that's the Council's problem imho.


--------------------
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 Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:09
Post #33


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:14) *
They could be the custodians of the brain cell and realise the impossibility of the council's position.

Yes, and if they cancel now the council will have been wholly unreasonable for not cancelling earlier.


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 16:19
Post #34


Member


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



Do not understimate the obduracy and stupidity of this council.

In my (D-i-l's) case - premature service of docs, exactly the same- they fought on to a hearing.

Yes I won, yes I got costs awarded but ONLY because I had brought their failures to their attention in the interim between registering the appeal and hearing. See what being a Pepipoo poster does biggrin.gif

But I still had to argue my case at a hearing - the brain cell having gone AWOL during that period

I'm simply feeding back the benefits of my experience. Yes it's a PI and that's grounds for a successful appeal.

But costs is another matter.

Tell them, and tell hem again if necessary before they have to compile their evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 17:13
Post #35


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 16:19) *
Do not understimate the obduracy and stupidity of this council.

In my (D-i-l's) case - premature service of docs, exactly the same- they fought on to a hearing.

Yes I won, yes I got costs awarded but ONLY because I had brought their failures to their attention in the interim between registering the appeal and hearing. See what being a Pepipoo poster does biggrin.gif

But I still had to argue my case at a hearing - the brain cell having gone AWOL during that period

I'm simply feeding back the benefits of my experience. Yes it's a PI and that's grounds for a successful appeal.

But costs is another matter.

Tell them, and tell hem again if necessary before they have to compile their evidence.


The context of this post made at post 26 would have been more helpful


--------------------
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
Cloud16
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 20:09
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 20 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,506



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 23:06) *
IMO, a waste of an opportunity.

You had the chance to bring the authority's procedural improprieties to their attention now, but instead they must wait for them 'to follow'.

Why?

NTO issued 26th Oct and deemed served on 30th Oct;
End of the 28-day period for making representations would therefore be 27 Nov;
Charge certificate issued 19 Oct and deemed served on 23rd Oct;
The certificate was therefore served at least 36 days 'before the enforcement authority would have been authorised to serve it..'

The regulations draw particular attention to this type of impropriety as follows:

In these Regulations “procedural impropriety” means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 Act, ....and includes in particular—

(b)in a case where an enforcement authority is seeking to recover an unpaid charge, the purported service of a charge certificate under regulation 21 of the General Regulations before the enforcement authority is authorised to serve it by those Regulations.


The authority acknowledged that the certificate was served prematurely but sought to ignore their gross failure, choosing instead to put it down to 'a system error'.

I respectfully request the adjudicator to allow my appeal and, if contested by the authority, to consider making a costs order.

No p*****g about, straight for the jugular and let Mr Passfield et al try and extricate themselves from this one.

I'm certain this could have been squeezed into the narrative box.

Even now I would suggest sending something similar to TPT, why let the system dictate progress, it's in your hands.



I think I can still upload this information - would you advise or not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 14:21
Post #37


Member


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



Yes make your submission now, There is no benefit in delaying

Post what you intend to send here first for review


--------------------
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
Cloud16
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 18:17
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 20 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,506



I am able to include all the summary info below as advised by hcanderson, and can upload the NTO and CC as evidence. Would you agree that this is enough information?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to request that you consider my appeal.

NTO issued 26th Oct and deemed served on 30th Oct;
End of the 28-day period for making representations would therefore be 27 Nov;
Charge certificate issued 19 Oct and deemed served on 23rd Oct;
The certificate was therefore served at least 36 days 'before the enforcement authority would have been authorised to serve it..'

The regulations draw particular attention to this type of impropriety as follows:

In these Regulations “procedural impropriety” means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 Act, ....and includes in particular—

(b)in a case where an enforcement authority is seeking to recover an unpaid charge, the purported service of a charge certificate under regulation 21 of the General Regulations before the enforcement authority is authorised to serve it by those Regulations.


The authority acknowledged that the certificate was served prematurely but sought to ignore their gross failure, choosing instead to put it down to 'a system error'.

I respectfully request the adjudicator to allow my appeal and, if contested by the authority, to consider making a costs order.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 20:46
Post #39


Member


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



Take out "if contested by the authority", the regulations say (my emphasis):

13.—(1) The adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses, but may, subject to subparagraph (2) make such an order—

(a) against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn his appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being allowed) if he is of the opinion that that party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that his conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable; or
(b) against an enforcement authority where he considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.


Given the wording of the regulations, the decision of the council not to cancel at the representations stage is wholly unreasonable and the fact that they might chose not to contest cannot save them now.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 20:47


--------------------
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
Cloud16
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 18:14
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 20 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,506



Thanks for your reply.

I have now received a message from the tribunal before I have been able to upload the above summary and it is good news.
The message is:

Dear Tribunal,

After further review of this case, the Council has decided to no contest this case. Unfortunately there is no option on the system to no contest the case.

It is unfortunate that there was an administration error by the Council's contractors whereby an incorrect notice was sent out e.g. issued a Charge Certificate under Section 21 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 instead of a Notice to Owner form under Section 19 of the regulations.

The Council however picked up on this administrative error and reverted the cases back to the correct progression and issued a Notice to Owner to the appellant, the Notice to Owner was issued 1 week after the charge certificate. The premature of the charge certificate had not disadvantaged the appellant.

Based upon the above the council has decided whilst it rectified the situation as soon as it was alerted to the administrative error, on this occasion not to pursue the PCN.

The Council would like to remind the appellant that failure to abide by the parking restrictions and failure to display a valid permit in the future could result in further PCNs being issued.

______________________

I have been asked if:


I would like the Adjudicator to decide my case now
This means the Adjudicator will decide the case based on the evidence, comments and messages that have been submitted. It is generally the fastest way to get a decision. You will be notified when a decision is made.


I would like a Telephone Hearing
You will be asked for the times that are most convenient for you to take part in the telephone hearing. Telephone hearings are a conference call between you and the adjudicator. The authority may also take part.
______________________________________________

I assume as there is no option on the system to 'no contest the case' they have given me this option. I assume I should just request them to decide my case?

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:49
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