PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN code 12R, Threads merged
poboskie
post Tue, 3 May 2016 - 09:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,775



Hello to all,

Some advice would be greatly appreciated on this matter please.

I received a PCN from the council with code 12R on 04/03/16. I challenged the penalty by email on 15/03/16 asking for consideration as I did have a ticket but I mistakenly scratched the wrong month on the weekly visitor permit. I scratched February instead of March. I also provided the council with the 5 previous weekly visitor permits, hence they could see that I had valid permits on those dates and I was not trying to pull a fast one by using the same permit twice. I appealed to their good nature as at the time of scratching the ticket I was dealing with my autistic child who was unsettled. I received an email confirmation stating that they will respond within 10 working days. However, the council responded by mail over a month later (letter is dated 18/04/16) and denied my appeal. They gave me the option of paying the amount of £65 within 14 days of the letter after which case the penalty will revert to the full amount of £130.

Do I have a positive chance of contesting this PCN after the issue of the notice to owner? Please kindly help as a cannot afford this fine.

Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 3 May 2016 - 09:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 11:07
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



The purpose of the next stage, filing N244, is a final chance to correct errors that may have occurred in the
enforcement process.

N244 has a specific focus: The Judge can only look at - 'whether the TEC Court Officer was right to refuse your
Out of Time application'.


So, I need to be harsh, if not downright rude, to explain where you went wrong - THEN we can try and put it right.

TE7 - ? - WTF was that! It says nothing, explains nothing, refers to no specific documents other than some unknown "copy",
gives no dates of anything (the essential element of OOT) and doesn't refer to any attached evidence in support of your statement.

Hence the Ct Officer had to refuse.

---
So now, you have an opportunity to explain to a Judge what actually happened - and, imo, you have a good case if you can write it;
both Lewisham and TEC being possibly at fault.
Most Judges will accept that the general public cannot possibly know how to complete OOT and will look at all the facts again,
despite their limited brief for N244 I mentioned above.

To give you some encouragement, your post here yesterday made sense and told the story; so you can do it; just
needs tidying up.
I will also have to explain to you where the process went wrong.
I'll try to find time today.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poboskie
post Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 11:35
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,775



QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 11:07) *
The purpose of the next stage, filing N244, is a final chance to correct errors that may have occurred in the
enforcement process.

N244 has a specific focus: The Judge can only look at - 'whether the TEC Court Officer was right to refuse your
Out of Time application'.


So, I need to be harsh, if not downright rude, to explain where you went wrong - THEN we can try and put it right.

TE7 - ? - WTF was that! It says nothing, explains nothing, refers to no specific documents other than some unknown "copy",
gives no dates of anything (the essential element of OOT) and doesn't refer to any attached evidence in support of your statement.

Hence the Ct Officer had to refuse.

---
So now, you have an opportunity to explain to a Judge what actually happened - and, imo, you have a good case if you can write it;
both Lewisham and TEC being possibly at fault.
Most Judges will accept that the general public cannot possibly know how to complete OOT and will look at all the facts again,
despite their limited brief for N244 I mentioned above.

To give you some encouragement, your post here yesterday made sense and told the story; so you can do it; just
needs tidying up.
I will also have to explain to you where the process went wrong.
I'll try to find time today.


Thank you. I wrote an email to TEC in order to give my side of the chain of events, however I don't think it was taken into consideration. I will add it to Flickr now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 12:03
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Ok.
Not seeing anything yet..

The first two images of e-mails I can't make sense of.

4 is just generic info tagged onto any message but there is no message.

5 is your response to what? Just gobblydegook code from TEC shown?

and had you sent something before that?

This is important because your core issue is why you were late making a (correct) Witness Statement.

As I understand, you cocked up first and then TEC failed to advise you.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poboskie
post Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 12:46
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,775



For some reason Flickr will not upload my statement but it was a summary of what happened and along the line of what I posted here.

The pictures are in date order with the most recent event on top.

This post has been edited by poboskie: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 21:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 13:02
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Still need to understand the May/June exchange with TEC cos you need them as evidence.

----

So your N244 statement format should go something like this >

I now realise that I did not fully explain my reasons for needing to file a Witness Statement outside the normally
permitted time. I apologise for this and ask the Court to consider the more detailed information I offer.

My Witness Statement of 28th May 2017, within the permitted period, was not processed, being rejected as I had
made a mistake on the TE3 form.
I had ticked two boxes, not realising that this was not permitted, although both did actually apply.
Seeking advice from TEC Customer Services by e-mail I received no satisfactory response. (copy messages attached)
It was only when phoning them, on ------------, that it was made clear I needed to then also submit an application to file 'out of time'
along with a correct, single issue, Witness Statement.

I believe that explains my need to file the Witness Statement outside the normally permitted time and ask the Court
to revoke the Order of --------.



That may well be enough to sort it but we also need to bring to the Judge's attention that a second Witness Statement
should never have been necessary, as no second NtO should have been issued. Potentially seeking a refund of the £100 fee.

Note also, that you must, initially, only refer to the latest WS as that is all the Court is concerned with at the moment -
for the core decision.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 13:15
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,923
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



To post a pic so it shows here, upload to Flickr, then click on it. Go the curved arrow bottom right, click on that, and you'll see a choice of links - select BBCode and copy and paste here, like this:

IMG_20170809_081118 by A A, on Flickr

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 13:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 13:45
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Just need to say this as well.

We haven't seen the bailiff letter. Not greatly needed but it gave you a little time - probably about to expire if not already.

So, while I'm trying to help you with this you must be aware of the imminent threat.

Last demand £278 but if they visit £235 added and possibly another £110.

So, ideally, we need to get your ducks in a row and application made by 4pm tomorrow (too late to make 4pm today).

Yes, it isn't fair but it's what we have to work with.

If you want to proceed - ask TEC for the correct N244 form NOW - so you can see what needs completing.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poboskie
post Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 21:20
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,775



QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 13:02) *
Still need to understand the May/June exchange with TEC cos you need them as evidence.


I filed the second TE3 form on 28/05/17. I was informed that it was refused by email on 31/05/17. However, I didn't see the refusal until 08/06/17 at which point I contacted TEC by email to seek further advise as their email was ambiguous. I received acknolegment to my email but I never received a reply. It wasn't until I received the notice of enforcement that upon contacting TEC, it was explained to me that I needed to file an out of time TE7 and attach the TE3 along with it. TEC did not explain what needed to be done, simply that I should tick only one box on the witness statement and explain that the copy sent for amendment was not received. I must had that I was not sent an actual copy for amendment, the email simply refused my witness statement on the basis I had ticked 2 boxes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poboskie
post Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 21:40
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,775



Im not sure what I am doing wrong but when I paste the bbcode, it does not show the picture. Simply the copy and paste.

However, I have added the bailiffs letter.

This post has been edited by poboskie: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 21:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 00:04
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Yes I've got the gist; you don't need to repeat it.

Copies of the e-mails might help but, since you made your WS bang on the deadline 28/5/2017 then you were already out of
time while trying to get clarification from TEC.
So we best concentrate on the fact you submitted a really poor OOT TE7 and now wish to offer the proper information.
(this is not at all unusual and nothing to feel particularly embarrassed about; how were you to know.)

So your reason for filing late is that - you cocked the TE3 and got auto-rejected at 'in-time' attempt.

--
Then, secondly, we need to bring to the Judge's attention that you shouldn't be having to make a second
WS at all. You need to understand this >
When your first WS, last year, was successful, the Council were required to refer the matter to the adjudicator for
directions (normally resulting in a hearing on the original issues) NOT issue a new NtO as they claim they did on 29/11/16.
So really, your original thoughts were correct, you've been tucked up by a cock-up that originated at the Council.

It pains me to say but there are further complications.
It's rather late so it will probably be morning before I explain.

---
Meanwhile, please ask questions on anything you need clarified.

and do be aware, as I said earlier, of the imminent threat from the bailiff.





--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poboskie
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 10:58
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,775



TEC have advised that the N244 can be downloaded from their website and either emailed or posted to them including payment.

After bringing both issue to the judge's attention, should i also include a a statement of facts? Also, should I ask for a refund of the fee?
What order should I ask the court to make and why?

Could you please elaborate on the further complications?

Thank you.

This post has been edited by poboskie: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 11:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 11:16
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (poboskie @ Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 11:58) *
After bringing both issue to the judge's attention, should i also include a a statement of facts?


Basically, everything you need to say about what has happened goes in box 10 as a SoF is easiest but type it up separately rather
than squeeze in the box.

I'll come back on your other questions.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 12:24
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Poboskie.

I've been having a hard think about this and a conversation with an expert friend.

I now think it may be better not to proceed with the N244 and cut your losses.
It would simply be wrong of me to suggest you pay £100 if I cannot be certain you will win.

There is no doubt that Lewisham have acted unlawfully, TEC may have been unhelpful along the way
(and TEC may even have issued a wrongly worded revoking Order on 22/11/16)

BUT
the fact remains, the N244 Judge has limited powers. They may only look at whether or not the
TEC Court Officer was right to refuse your OOT application (TE7).

They may easily then, take the view that the TEC CO was right to refuse, based on the
information you gave, which was - zero.

I personally believe that some Judges might indeed look further, at the bigger picture, in the
interests of justice but we simply can't know that they will.

If you want an expert opinion I suggest you contact http://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/contact-bailiff-advice

--
It isn't a fair system but it's all we have for now.

Others here might well disagree, I don't know.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poboskie
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 13:06
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,775



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 12:24) *
Poboskie.

I've been having a hard think about this and a conversation with an expert friend.

I now think it may be better not to proceed with the N244 and cut your losses.
It would simply be wrong of me to suggest you pay £100 if I cannot be certain you will win.

There is no doubt that Lewisham have acted unlawfully, TEC may have been unhelpful along the way
(and TEC may even have issued a wrongly worded revoking Order on 22/11/16)


Thank you, I appreciate your help.
If I pay the demanded £278, would I have any other opportunity for someone of authority to look into this matter?
Or is it the case that once paid, nothing more can be done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 13:53
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



You could ask the local Govt Ombudsman to look.

Or make a formal complaint to Lewisham.

Probably both.



--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poboskie
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 14:46
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,775



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 13:53) *
You could ask the local Govt Ombudsman to look.

Or make a formal complaint to Lewisham.

Probably both.


I am right in thinking that paying the bailiffs first and then complaint would be the safe thing to do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 16:02
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,866
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



@NeilB, admirable amount of work.

Could I say that the reason for the WS was not zero, this is being confused with the OOT: the OP gave 2 reasons instead of one and these were mutually exclusive in NORMAL circumstances.

But we're not dealing with normal circumstances.

The ONLY reason that the OP was confused by the WS and stepped outside the procedure was because the authority acted UNLAWFULLY.

I think the OP should put this to a DJ in writing.

But they need only the info required, which spares the DJ 90% of what the OP's written so far.

The relevant facts:
Background
On *** TEC issued a revoking order in respect of PCN ***** on the grounds that I had made representations to the authority but not received a response.
Pursuant to this decision, the authority were required to refer the matter to the adjudicator.
They did not.
Instead, they claim that they issued a fresh NTO, which itself was procedurally improper/unlawful.
I did not receive this alleged NTO which the authority then followed with a charge certificate and Order for Recovery.
I completed the witness statement but mistakenly put forward two grounds - despite the fact that in the circumstances of my case both applied (i.e. I had still not received a response to my original representations and had not received the alleged NTO) I was supposed to submit only single grounds.
My witness statement was refused but I was not notified of this until *** which was beyond the period allowed to submit a witness statement.
On receipt of this refusal and following discussion with TEC as to why and my options I submitted a modifed witness statement with single grounds on *** with an application file out of time.
My application was refused.

OP, is this where we are?

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 17:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 16:28
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 17:02) *
Could I say that the reason for the WS was not zero, this is being confused with the OOT:

No. I wasn't confused. I was referring to the refusal to grant permission to file a WS out of time being because the OOT
application, TE7, gave zero reason for being late: Literally, zero, except gobblydegook.

-
Not read further yr post yet.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 17:08
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,103
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Your summary is correct HCA - with one caveat:

The first TEC revoking Order 22/11/16.
Something reminds me, in my head, that TEC send two different Orders depending on whether the matter is
to be referred to the adjudicator or a new NtO issued.
The one we have might be the wrong one - but I can't find an example of the other to compare.
We might then be able to cite TEC at fault.

On whether to proceed I based my final advice on CPR 75 PD 6.3; the remit of the Judge.

I know we've had this discussion before and I broadly agree with you that Judges should apply a wider remit, not least in
the interests of justice.

If it was mine I think you know I'd go for it; been there, done that and iirc did get a Judge to look beyond
the remit of 6.3.
But this is not my hundred quid.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poboskie
post Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 17:11
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,775



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 10 Aug 2017 - 16:02) *
@NeilB, admirable amount of work.

Could I say that the reason for the WS was not zero, this is being confused with the OOT: the OP gave 2 reasons instead of one and these were mutually exclusive in NORMAL circumstances.

But we're not dealing with normal circumstances.

The ONLY reason that the OP was confised by the WS and stepped outside the procedure was because the authority acted UNLAWFULLY.

I think the OP should put this to a DJ in writing.

But they need only the info required, which spares the DJ 90% of what the OP's written so far.

The relevant facts:
Background
On *** TEC issued a revoking order in respect of PCN ***** on the grounds that I had made representations to the authority but not received a response.
Pursuant to this decision, the authority were required to refer the matter to the adjudicator.
They did not.
Instead, they claim that they issued a fresh NTO, which itself was procedurally improper/unlawful.
I did not receive this alleged NTO which the authority then followed with a charge certificate and Order for Recovery.
I completed the witness statement but mistakenly put forward two grounds - despite the fact that in the circumstances of my case both applied (i.e. I had still not received a response to my original representations and had not received the alleged NTO) I was supposed to submit only single grounds.
My witness statement was refused but I was not notified of this until *** which was beyond the peeriod allowed to submit a witness statement.
On receipt of this refusal and following discussion with TEC as to why and my options I submitted a modifed witness statement with single grounds on *** with an application file out of time.
My application was refused.

OP, is this where we are?


Yes it is. The deadline to appeal to a DJ is August 12th.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Saturday, 24th February 2018 - 15:58
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.