PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - but no contact before bailliff action
RH172
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 18:30
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 10 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,887



This concerns an alleged parking ticket on 31 10 2016. My partner cannot recall a parking ticket - nor was there ever a Notice to owner or any other notice.

Nothing was received until Bailiff Letters started arriving from 11 August 2017 - a complete surprise. The letters were quite vague - headed Parking Penalty Charge - so we did not associate them with a PCN. We did not contact the Council - as we did not believe an offense had taken place and the vague nature of the letters.

We did write to the bailiff stating we had never received a parking ticket or a Notice to Owner - but they never directly acknowledged this point and weren't interested.[attachment=52777:andrew_j...pondence.pdf]

Eventually we were sent a very sloppy Warrant by the Bailiff. No court stamp and no signature. We did not take it seriously as we had had no notification of any court action or case.

When the Bailiff started to distrain we contacted the Council - and discovered it was indeed a PCN. We were advised by the Council to submit a TE7 and TE9 which we did.

On 7 Jan we received a rejection from TEC to our request to submit late evidence.

What do we do now? A N244 application?

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 18:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 18:35
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,294
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Who is the registered keeper and at what address?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RH172
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 19:14
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 10 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,887



My Partner is registered keeper - at our shared address
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 19:40
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,680
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



You've given us very little info.

Absent that, a question.

Any reason you can think of that a PCN or NtO might not have been delivered?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 19:48
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,148
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (RH172 @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 19:14) *
My Partner is registered keeper - at our shared address


What does the V5C ACTUALLY say for name and address. Please check it, don't assume it is correct.

How long have you lived at your current address?

This post has been edited by peterguk: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 20:10


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RH172
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 20:32
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 10 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,887



NeilB

There is no reason at all for the NtO and PCN to have not arrived.

All i can say is the Bailiff letters were the very first we know of the alleged offence.

When i received the TEC reply yesterday - there was another reply to a Mr A**** A** in London E6. One assumes they simply placed 2 replies in one envelope. So Mr A** will be missing his own reply. It isn't hard to make such mistakes in busy offices.

Peterguk

The V5 has the full name of my Partner on it and our shared address. So it is correct.

Peterguk

The V5 has the full name of my Partner on it and our shared address. So it is correct.

Peterguk

The V5 has the full name of my Partner on it and our shared address. So it is correct.

We have been at the same address for 8 years
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 20:40
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,680
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Ok, I'll tell you what we need in order to help.

A FULL timeline of every event, correspondence, visit, what levied, etc. Basically EVERYTHING.

We need to SEE ALL documents.
Images should be hosted externally, e.g. Tinypic, Flickr, Imgur. pasting full IMG or BB codes into
a response here: Not links or thumbnails.

That should take a while.

I'm out for about 90 minutes.
Others might help meanwhile.

If you get stuck with images, plenty of members here will help.

And just to save time, EVERYTHING means just that.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RH172
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 23:10
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 10 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,887



Here is flickr link for photos of all correspondence.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/142246841@N06/791VS1

Brief summary

11 august 2017 - letter from AJ Enforcement
Aug 2017. reply - stating no parking ticket, no notice to owner
31 Aug reminder from AJE
21 September. AJE reply 'cannot comment on matters pertaining to penalty charge notice'.
Sept 2017 - reply to AJE. 'no knowledge of parking ticket or notice to owner'. No knowledge of any court proceedings, and no warrant of control.
18 Oct - AJE letter enclosing warrant of control. Appears phoney.
22 November - AJE visit
TE7 and TE9 were submitted to TEC 24 November. The Council enforcement office acknowledged on the phone there appeared to have been irregular correspondence - as Lizzy had never contacted them prior to 23 November. I agreed - we did not know before that date what offence had allegedly been committed - and the fact it was in fact a PCN that had allegedly been issued.
30 November - Council acknowledge TE7 and 9 are received by TEC.
19 December - Council send copies of their representation to TEC responding to TE7/9. They contradict their telephone operator - stating NtO, charge certificate and Notice of debt registration with TE3 and TE9 were all posted to our address. They absolutely were never received. Even you can tell from reading this briefest summary - had those things been received we would have responded massively and immediately. It is however impossible to 'prove' non receipt of post. On this last matter - non post of an item is simply too easy. It cannot be coincidence at lease 3 items have gone missing. Indeed - with the TEC's decision of 7 Jan - i also received a decision against Mr A**** A** - that i have retained a copy of. The TEC simply put 2 decisions in the same envelope. It happens. What i cannot do is prove retrospectively that it did happen.
7 January - letter from TEC rejecting TE7/9 application.

You may email me on robert at exhales.co.uk if you would like documents emailed in a better format?

Many thanks.


robert at ejhales.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 23:13
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,680
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Edit.
we cross posted so I'll look at yours now.

While we're waiting I'll answer your main question.
QUOTE (RH172 @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 18:30) *
What do we do now? A N244 application?

Dunno.
Firstly because we don't have the info we need and, specifically, -

because an N244 hearing is solely a review of the TEC Court Officer's decision to refuse your TE7.
Without knowing what you submitted or what the Council may have said in an objection to it, we can't yet
offer an opinion.
You also seem confused where you say 'submit late evidence'.
QUOTE (RH172 @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 18:30) *
We were advised by the Council to submit a TE7 and TE9 which we did.

On 7 Jan we received a rejection from TEC to our request to submit late evidence.

Maybe just a terminology thing but TE7 isn't about that?

Returning to the matter of how to proceed; we further don't know what is at stake, i.e. amounts and/or
goods levied or seized.

Can you see our predicament?

This post has been edited by Neil B: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 23:14


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 23:35
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,680
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Great stuff btw.

You might want to remove personal IDs and address from those docs and repost them.

Well your TE7 was poor - but I understand cos you have little to say.

Council objection seems reasonable, notwithstanding the claims you are making here.
What exactly are you claiming was said on the phone?
We may have some suggestions on that.

--
Bailiff entered 31/8, is that right?
Levied car but neither clamped nor removed that day?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RH172
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 00:15
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 10 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,887



Neil B

The bailiff has clamped a motorhome for a debt of $500 odd. This was done on 22 November. My choice is - pay #500 or somehow have this matter set aside and start again with a proper notice to owner.

What i want is to have the whole case set aside and to receive a correctly issued notice to owner.

This is an unbelievable chain of events 100% the result of the Council failing to notify us properly. Surely we are not a third world country - and are entitled to proper notification of court proceedings? The council made representations and we did not. Further when the TE7 / 9 were submitted requesting the ability to make representations - the Council were given another chance to state their case. I still have not stated mine.

When i spoke to the council parking enforcement - the lady acknowledged there had been no contact at all from us - and commented that she understood now why this was. It made sense to her - as i hope it does to you now - and as i am sure it would to a judge.

I filed the TE7 / 9 on the Council's advice - i thought it would give me an opportunity to make proper representations - and point out procedure had failed at the Council's end.

Thanks again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 00:57
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,680
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



I'll respond in the morning. Others might too.

There a few things you are misunderstanding about events, e.g. your reference to a Court case.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ford poplar
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 04:20
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,749
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Member No.: 24,962



Start by making SAR to Council for copies of all communications sent/received in relation to this PCN.
It may cost you £10 + 10p per A4 sheet. It will not suspend Bailiff action, but may provide sufficient evidence for a Court set aside application. Do not delay.

This post has been edited by ford poplar: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 04:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 11:29
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,680
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Just to clear up a couple of things. Then look at your options.
QUOTE (RH172 @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 00:15) *
Surely we are not a third world country - and are entitled to proper notification of court proceedings? The council made representations and we did not.

There were no 'proceedings' as you describe: Traffic penalties are simply 'registered' with TEC, effectively a big 'factory', with County Court status, dealing with many thousands of such registrations per day.
Notification, following registration, is by Council issue of the Order for Recovery.

QUOTE (RH172 @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 00:15) *
Further when the TE7 / 9 were submitted requesting the ability to make representations - the Council were given another chance to state their case. I still have not stated mine.

I don't understand this comment: On the TE7 you did state pretty much all you had to say, which, frankly, is very little.

QUOTE (RH172 @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 00:15) *
100% the result of the Council failing to notify us properly.
procedure had failed at the Council's end.

You have no evidence of this whatsoever that I can see? All you know is that you didn't receive three statutory notices.

I asked you to clarify what you felt was significantly said on the phone by the Council. It turns out it sounds like they
just pandered to your logic, in order to show sympathy. Nothing to suggest that they hadn't sent notices correctly?
But you are missing something; what if they really didn't and you could show so?
See Ford's reply. I'll add something in a mo.

As for prospects of an N244 application; some initial thoughts:-

TEC DJs know the applicable law and decide N244s daily. The majority concern having changed address, some where
there is clear evidence of Council wrongdoing and some who just don't know how to present.
To present an application basically saying nothing; I just can't imagine how that would be viewed.

Local DJs understand N244 but know SFA about traffic law. Personal appearance can be very costly if the
Council attend.

I'll talk more about N244 in a mo but basically you need something to substantiate your claim.
The law says that documents are deemed served unless you can show that they were not.

---
Meanwhile, you haven't mentioned the following:-

What is happening to the rest of your mail?

What was the PCN for exactly? And what evidence pics are there, including any showing PCN on
vehicle? (these are often available online)

This post has been edited by Neil B: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 11:36


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 12:27
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,348
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



One question that needs answering if an N244 is to succeed is - was the current name & address on the V5 the same as when the alleged contravention occurred on 31st Oct 2016 ? In other words was there any house move on or around that time?

If the address now and then is the same, and bearing in mind the only way the council obtain name and address details for sending the documents (NtO, CC, OfR), is from the DVLA record of the name and address on the V5, then if all three documents went astray, then at some point in the council getting the address from DVLA to them sending off the first document, the address was altered in some way to make its delivery impossible. Only the council can have done that. One document could go astray in the post, but three over a period of several weeks or months is much more problematic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 12:43
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,680
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 12:27) *
One document could go astray in the post, but three over a period of several weeks or months is much more problematic.

Yep.
and hence why 'other' mail is important. If nothing else went a stray then it indirectly supports OP's
standpoint rather than negating it.

One source of possible info is the Council 'log' for the PCN.
All Councils have versions of these, with varying titles; basically a list of every action taken in relation
to the PCN, i.e. docs sent, correspondence received, dvla applications and responses. Some show every time
someone opens the file.
Obviously try to get a copy of this.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 13:13
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,680
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Re potential N244 application.

- Deadline 23rd.

- I have no experience of how such a case would be viewed by a Judge so have no opinion on chances.

- If postal. only your submissions are initially considered. The Council may not contribute further - BUT, either
party has 7 days to object to the result.*

- If personal, noting OP's non-status, you MAY NOT represent your partner (ime). You are not permitted to speak
at all aiui, only the respondent (debtor).

- Whichever fee is paid, is NON-REFUNDABLE, irrespective of outcome.

- If a personal hearing, Council may contest and may attend. In such cases, it is not unheard of for them to
make a claim for costs, which can be considerable.

*If a Council object to a non-hearing, successful N244, I understand this is then set for personal hearing review.
Presumably the Council would then have to pay a £255 fee and presumably you are locked into the process.
I'm not sure on this and my concern is whether a costs claim by the Council might apply?

Bearing all that in mind and the limitation of my lay knowledge, you should seek legal advice.
You should not take my comments as 100% correct.

Since I see you've read my 11.29am post, I'll just clear something else up.

This forum generally takes those seeking help and the info they give, at face value; we are
not judgemental.

If responses seem negative then it is only because we are stating the reality of your situation and
potential outcomes, based on our experience and our knowledge of procedures.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RH172
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 15:47
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 10 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,887



Thanks Neil B and others. In answer to some questions.

* I have had no trouble with other post. hence it is a mystery why we have had no notification at all until the Bailiff started writing. It was too late at that point to make representations.
* You are correct - i can produce no ovidence of non receipt of post - That is impossible anyhow. I have not moved. All i can do is show meticulous records since 11 August when this farce started.
* the TEC decision was posted 7 Jan. With that i had a decision against Mr A**** A** too. So he will not have received his decision. Yet i wager TEC can 'prove' that they sent it. Just they sent it to me. It happens - and i have proof of this, and the envelope.

Do i take a chance with an N244? Do i get the chance to ague my case in front of a judge? If id do i may take that. Do i pay for a full hearing or written representations?

Has anyone done this before?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 18:33
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,680
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (RH172 @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 15:47) *
Has anyone done this before?

Zillions but if you mean of us here, yes but I can't recall any like yours.

QUOTE (RH172 @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 15:47) *
Do i take a chance with an N244? Do i get the chance to ague my case in front of a judge? If id do i may take that. Do i pay for a full hearing or written representations?

You can't do anything; only your partner can.
Details should be on TEC refusal or, failing that, website. I've also tried to explain the pros and cons of the options.
Additionally, personal hearings are transferred to your local County Court.

Bottom line answer: If this was personally my own, no, I would not make such an application.
Others might feel differently.

QUOTE (RH172 @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 15:47) *
* You are correct - i can produce no ovidence of non receipt of post - That is impossible anyhow.

No: Both Ford Poplar and myself have suggested avenues you might investigate.


QUOTE (RH172 @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 15:47) *
All i can do is show meticulous records since 11 August when this farce started.

I certainly wouldn't detail that, for reasons best left.

But if I can just address your logic on this bit -
QUOTE (RH172 @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 15:47) *
* the TEC decision was posted 7 Jan. With that i had a decision against Mr A**** A** too. So he will not have received his decision. Yet i wager TEC can 'prove' that they sent it. Just they sent it to me. It happens - and i have proof of this, and the envelope.

This is coincidental and nothing to do with your case. If I understand you correctly, you cite this as an example of how
mail can go astray? Have I got that right?
Well, firstly, it's one piece of mail not three but the more significant issue follows.
It's an 'example', so, effectively, you propose to use it to teach a Judge how to reason? To say they should conclude that your
three items, from a different sender, were never delivered?
To cap it all, the example, unrelated, administrative error you cite will be one from his/her own Court!
Good luck with that.

--
I understand this is difficult; been there, done that.

But you need to start looking at this differently and weigh up the financial costs of the various possible
outcomes.

You currently owe £423 (I'm unclear where you get "500 odd" from?). The motorhome would need
to be worth circa £1,500, in normal terms, to cover that, at my rough guess.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 18:40


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 18:56
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,148
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



As already suggested, your biggest problem is convincing a judge that 3 pieces of mail have gone missing.

All sent out automatically from the same sender, so effectively 3 random acts within a sausage factory.

The natural conclusion is the problem exists at your end. You say you've checked your V5 is correct, and not just assumed. No shared mailbox? And no one in household that would want to hide the items of mail, not realising the issue would result in bailiffs etc.....?


--------------------
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: Thursday, 22nd November 2018 - 11:42
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.