Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Re-issued Notice of Rejection Question
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
lashes1984
My car was clamped by Newlyn regarding an unpaid PCN. Timeline as follows:


PCN issued - 29.01.2015 - Did not receive
NTO issued - 02.03.2015
Formal Representations made - 08.03.2015 - Did not receive a response
Charge Certificate issued - 15.05.2015 - Contacted LA to inform that I didn't receive a NoR
Order of Recovery received - April 2016 - not sure of exact date
WS filed with TEC under Ground 2 - 07.04.2016
TEC Revoke OoR and cancel CC - 08.04.2016
Pre-Debt Reminder Notice - 07.06.2016
Charge Certificate issued - 23.06.2016
Car clamped 13.03.2017 - No NoE or OoR sent prior to this
OOT WS filed with TEC under Ground 2 - 13.03.2017
OOT refused 06.04.2017
N244 submitted 12.04.2017 - Still awaiting outcome

The LA alleged that they sent me NoR on 3 occasions yet I have never received them. But I managed to receive all the statutory notices bar the recent Order of Recovery.

The question that I want to ask is as per regs 23(7) is the council not supposed to refer the matter to the Adjudicator? The council have said to me that The Environment & Traffic Adjudicators at London Tribunals have since March 2016 required Local Authorities to re-issue any Notice of Rejection when such a Witness Statement is made under Ground 2 and notify them accordingly - Is this correct?

hcandersen
Ask London Tribunals!

The law requires the authority to refer the matter to the adjudicator:

'Where a witness statement has been served under paragraph (2)(b), © or (d), the enforcement authority shall refer the case to the adjudicator who may give such directions as he considers appropriate and the parties shall comply with those directions.'[i]

Parties, not party. The authority must notify LT who must must then notify them and you of their decision. The authority are not a postman for LT. If, as might be the case, the authority were directed to send a previous appellant a copy of a NOR, then that's fine. But the authority cannot then purport to usurp the powers of the adjudicator and not refer the matter in any subsequent case but just re-send a NOR.

Spk to LT and get them to confirm what should happen.
lashes1984
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 11:39) *
Ask London Tribunals!

The law requires the authority to refer the matter to the adjudicator:

'Where a witness statement has been served under paragraph (2)(b), © or (d), the enforcement authority shall refer the case to the adjudicator who may give such directions as he considers appropriate and the parties shall comply with those directions.'[i]

Parties, not party. The authority must notify LT who must must then notify them and you of their decision. The authority are not a postman for LT. If, as might be the case, the authority were directed to send a previous appellant a copy of a NOR, then that's fine. But the authority cannot then purport to usurp the powers of the adjudicator and not refer the matter in any subsequent case but just re-send a NOR.

Spk to LT and get them to confirm what should happen.


Thanks for this I thought this might be the case as I had a similar issue with another PCN and another LA, in that instance they cancelled the PCN.

This authority however allege that as of March 2016 the LT requires all LA's to reissue a NOR when a WS has been filed under Ground 2.

I contacted LT who confirmed what you have said and directed me to their website where it also makes it clear that the authority must refer to LT.
DancingDad
QUOTE
This authority however allege that as of March 2016 the LT requires all LA's to reissue a NOR when a WS has been filed under Ground 2.


Have you this in writing and does LT confirm?

Neither local authorities nor LT have the power to re-write the regulations.
While LT may have issued a blanket instruction to re-serve the NOR, I for one doubt it but if they did, how does this accord with each case on its own merits?

We have seen cases where LT have sanctioned (after the event at appeal hearing) enforcement authorities sending "threatening" letters outside the system but that is not the same as re-serving an official notice with no legislative powers behind it.
lashes1984
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 12:21) *
QUOTE
This authority however allege that as of March 2016 the LT requires all LA's to reissue a NOR when a WS has been filed under Ground 2.


Have you this in writing and does LT confirm?

Neither local authorities nor LT have the power to re-write the regulations.
While LT may have issued a blanket instruction to re-serve the NOR, I for one doubt it but if they did, how does this accord with each case on its own merits?

We have seen cases where LT have sanctioned (after the event at appeal hearing) enforcement authorities sending "threatening" letters outside the system but that is not the same as re-serving an official notice with no legislative powers behind it.


Yep, I have an email from the Head of Parking stating this, but the person that I spoke to at LT didn't say this at all and all they said is that the LA has to refer to the Adjudicator.
Neil B
Does this relate to any of your other threads?
lashes1984
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 12:29) *
Does this relate to any of your other threads?


No I'm ashamed to say I have a number of outstanding PCN's with 3 different LA's.
Neil B
Ok.
So, what happened here? That is, in terms of addressing the issue when you received escalation notices in June?
QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 11:18) *
TEC Revoke OoR and cancel CC - 08.04.2016
Pre-Debt Reminder Notice - 07.06.2016
Charge Certificate issued - 23.06.2016

lashes1984
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 12:43) *
Ok.
So, what happened here? That is, in terms of addressing the issue when you received escalation notices in June?
QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 11:18) *
TEC Revoke OoR and cancel CC - 08.04.2016
Pre-Debt Reminder Notice - 07.06.2016
Charge Certificate issued - 23.06.2016



So if I seem dense, but I'm not sure what you mean.

All I know after I filed the Witness Statement on 07.04.2016, after the Revoking Order the Council allege they sent me a re-issued NoR (I only found this out after I submitted a Witness Statement).

If you see from my first post, after the 1st Charge Certificate was issued in May 2015, I didn't hear from the Council again until April 2016 when I received an OoR.

After the 2nd Charge Certificate in June 2016 I didn't hear anything until my car was clamped in March 2017.

I contacted the Council by email each time I received a Charge Certificate to explain that I didn't receive a response to my formal representation....and I didn't get any response back.
Bogsy
QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 11:50) *
This authority however allege that as of March 2016 the LT requires all LA's to reissue a NOR when a WS has been filed under Ground 2.


It would not suprise me if this was the case. Similarly, since Nov 2016 the Traffic Penalty Tribunal advised councils not to immediately refer witness statements made on grounds 2, 3, 4 to them, but instead to send a letter seeking payment of the penalty charge within 14 days. If it is not paid within 14 days of the letter then the council is to refer the case to them. This extra letter seeking payment is outside of the regulations but nonetheless it is clearly devised and promoted by TPT.
lashes1984
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 13:10) *
QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 11:50) *
This authority however allege that as of March 2016 the LT requires all LA's to reissue a NOR when a WS has been filed under Ground 2.


It would not suprise me if this was the case. Similarly, since Nov 2016 the Traffic Penalty Tribunal advised councils not to immediately refer witness statements made on grounds 2, 3, 4 to them, but instead to send a letter seeking payment of the penalty charge within 14 days. If it is not paid within 14 days of the letter then the council is to refer the case to them. This extra letter seeking payment is outside of the regulations but nonetheless it is clearly devised and promoted by TPT.


The Council reckons that this was since March 2016.

The Head of Parking has said that they sent me a letter asking for payment within 14 days at the discounted amount, or 28 days at the full amount or that I would need to make an appeal to LT.

Am I correct in saying that the fact that they didn't refer the matter to the LT after 14 days of requesting payment would be a procedural impropriety.
hcandersen
IMO, for an authority to send such a request outwith the context of referring the matter to the adj would be an abuse of process, by both the tribunal and the authority.

'We acknowledge TEC's revoking order dated **** and have cancelled the charge certificate dated ***. In accordance with ***'s instructions we are requesting you to pay the penalty no later than *** after which we will refer the matter to the adjudicator as required.

This letter does not affect your rights in this matter.'

..is one thing, but just sending a letter demanding payment is a total no-no.

Until I see TPT's, and possibly LT's, actual instructions is writing then I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance v send reinforcements, we're going to advance.

Chinese whispers, anecdote, received wisdom and miscommunication possibly?
Bogsy
In my opinion if you made a witness statement under ground 2 then the council committed a procedural impropriety by not immediately referring the matter to the adjudication service. This is what the regulations say "shall" happen. The adjudication service cannot give instruction that is contrary to regulations. I'd make a formal complaint to the council and to the adjudication service.
lashes1984
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 13:22) *
IMO, for an authority to send such a request outwith the context of referring the matter to the adj would be an abuse of process, by both the tribunal and the authority.

'We acknowledge TEC's revoking order dated **** and have cancelled the charge certificate dated ***. In accordance with ***'s instructions we are requesting you to pay the penalty no later than *** after which we will refer the matter to the adjudicator as required.

This letter does not affect your rights in this matter.'

..is one thing, but just sending a letter demanding payment is a total no-no.

Until I see TPT's, and possibly LT's, actual instructions is writing then I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance v send reinforcements, we're going to advance.

Chinese whispers, anecdote, received wisdom and miscommunication possibly?


Without having received the letter that they allege they sent me after the Revoking Order I can't really comment on its contents. But I doubt that they even intended to refer the matter to the Adjudicator based on the fact that a Charge Certificate was issued shortly after.
lashes1984
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 13:24) *
In my opinion if you made a witness statement under ground 2 then the council committed a procedural impropriety by not immediately referring the matter to the adjudication service. This is what the regulations say "shall" happen. The adjudication service cannot give instruction that is contrary to regulations. I'd make a formal complaint to the council and to the adjudication service.


I've made a formal complaint to the Council which is currently being investigated at Chief Exec. Problem is my car has remained clamped since March 2017.
hcandersen
Still awaiting outcome of your N244 application dated 12 April!

Have you chased this up with TEC?
lashes1984
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 13:53) *
Still awaiting outcome of your N244 application dated 12 April!

Have you chased this up with TEC?


Yes I have they said it can take up to 10 weeks before a decision is made.
lashes1984
So the local authority have provided me with the guidance that they are referring to (attached). Does this override statutory regulations? To me the guidance reads as a recommendation, but others may have a view. Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Neil B
So which bit are they referring to?

I didn't and don't think I needed, go much past the enlarged and boldened -

"The referral obligation itself is MANDATORY"
lashes1984
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 23 May 2017 - 13:38) *
So which bit are they referring to?

I didn't and don't think I needed, go much past the enlarged and boldened -

"The referral obligation itself is MANDATORY"


So glad you saw that bit, because that was the first bit that I noticed!

The bit there are referring to is the possible scenarios and recommendations. But that is it for me its only a recommendation.

Unfortunately I just found out that my N244 application has been refused and the DJ found in favour of the LA.

That leaves me in a right bind as my car is still clamped and I've tried appealing to the better nature of the LA but no luck so far. The bailiffs wanted 593!

Any suggestions where I go from here.
Neil B
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 23 May 2017 - 13:38) *
So which bit are they referring to?

I didn't and don't think I needed, go much past the enlarged and boldened -

"The referral obligation itself is MANDATORY"

Ok I've seen it further on and how it fits with your case.

It's ridiculous to put the matter back in the hands of the EA.

And what kind of result m9nitoring do ET&A do on the 'no action' referrals? Diddly I guess.

QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Tue, 23 May 2017 - 13:49) *
Unfortunately I just found out that my N244 application has been refused and the DJ found in favour of the LA.

As your other but if we don't get to see them we can't comment.
lashes1984
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 23 May 2017 - 13:52) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 23 May 2017 - 13:38) *
So which bit are they referring to?

I didn't and don't think I needed, go much past the enlarged and boldened -

"The referral obligation itself is MANDATORY"

Ok I've seen it further on and how it fits with your case.

It's ridiculous to put the matter back in the hands of the EA.

And what kind of result m9nitoring do ET&A do on the 'no action' referrals? Diddly I guess.

QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Tue, 23 May 2017 - 13:49) *
Unfortunately I just found out that my N244 application has been refused and the DJ found in favour of the LA.

As your other but if we don't get to see them we can't comment.


I haven't received the DJ's decision just called and got the bad news over the phone. I had trouble uploading to the forum which is why I didn't post.

I'm going to ask LA if they can exercise discretion. Funny thing was I wasn't even asking them to cancel, but give me the opp to pay or appeal. I'm backed into a corner as my car was clamped and I didn't receive the OoR or NoE from the bailiffs.
DancingDad
So LT are saying that the NOR (in cases where it has not been received) should be reserved and if the recipient neither appeals or pays, a new charge certificate can be served and then, after the event, the EA can complete its mandatory duty by referring to LT as no action required?

WTF is LT playing at?
They are sanctioning unlawful service of a CC, EA's not referring and there is nothing I've read so far that requires the EA to include any sort of explanatory note.

Doesn't help as you seem to have fallen foul of OoT and N244.
Bogsy
The whole LT recommended process is flawed. For instance this is what LT recommend

Possible scenarios and recommended enforcement authority action:
1. A notice of rejection has been served.
The enforcement authority should re-serve the notice of rejection to the statement maker/declarant and allow a further 28 days to appeal.


So the council are being directed by LT to serve a Notice of Rejection despite that it will be served more than 56 days after the council received formal representations!!!!! LT are actually encouraging a PI.

I think the OP needs to make a formal complaint to the council and to LT and if the process is not set back to his satisfaction then proceed to the ombudsman. The law is on the OP's side. This fiasco is just about LT trying to reduce their workload.
lashes1984
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Tue, 23 May 2017 - 16:22) *
The whole LT recommended process is flawed. For instance this is what LT recommend

Possible scenarios and recommended enforcement authority action:
1. A notice of rejection has been served.
The enforcement authority should re-serve the notice of rejection to the statement maker/declarant and allow a further 28 days to appeal.


So the council are being directed by LT to serve a Notice of Rejection despite that it will be served more than 56 days after the council received formal representations!!!!! LT are actually encouraging a PI.

I think the OP needs to make a formal complaint to the council and to LT and if the process is not set back to his satisfaction then proceed to the ombudsman. The law is on the OP's side. This fiasco is just about LT trying to reduce their workload.


I have made a formal complaint to the council and will make a formal complaint to LT. Obviously in a difficult situation as my OOT refused and car is still clamped.

QUOTE (Bogsy @ Tue, 23 May 2017 - 16:22) *
The whole LT recommended process is flawed. For instance this is what LT recommend

Possible scenarios and recommended enforcement authority action:
1. A notice of rejection has been served.
The enforcement authority should re-serve the notice of rejection to the statement maker/declarant and allow a further 28 days to appeal.


So the council are being directed by LT to serve a Notice of Rejection despite that it will be served more than 56 days after the council received formal representations!!!!! LT are actually encouraging a PI.

I think the OP needs to make a formal complaint to the council and to LT and if the process is not set back to his satisfaction then proceed to the ombudsman. The law is on the OP's side. This fiasco is just about LT trying to reduce their workload.


I have made a formal complaint to the council and will make a formal complaint to LT. Obviously in a difficult situation as my OOT refused and car is still clamped.
hcandersen
OP, you keep avoiding the key issue of what you submitted in your OOT and N244 and I don't know why. These are so important as to render complaints etc. at this stage premature.

Post them.

The judge was wrong to refuse your N244 based on your account if presented with the correct facts which are that the authority served a CC UNLAWFULLY. They therefore did not come to court with 'clean hands'.

The only lawful action permitted by the authority post-receipt of TEC's revoking order was to refer the matter to the adjudicator, but they didn't. The law would not support them in this unlawful action unless you failed to put the facts in front of the judge e.g. you focused on not getting the second OfR in time as opposed to the fact that the CC and therefore the OfR were unlawful.

IMO, this is not over. But you're going off half-cock, again, by complaining to the council. About what?

You must write to TEC after you've posted your OOT etc. At present YOU do not know what the authority told TEC in order to get the second CC issued. But either it was disingenuous in leaving out the authority's failure and/or TEC acted improperly. I cannot see TEC issuing an OfR based on the truth as you've told us.

But if you won't post the OOT etc. how are we supposed to help?
lashes1984
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 23 May 2017 - 16:56) *
OP, you keep avoiding the key issue of what you submitted in your OOT and N244 and I don't know why. These are so important as to render complaints etc. at this stage premature.

Post them.

The judge was wrong to refuse your N244 based on your account if presented with the correct facts which are that the authority served a CC UNLAWFULLY. They therefore did not come to court with 'clean hands'.

The only lawful action permitted by the authority post-receipt of TEC's revoking order was to refer the matter to the adjudicator, but they didn't. The law would not support them in this unlawful action unless you failed to put the facts in front of the judge e.g. you focused on not getting the second OfR in time as opposed to the fact that the CC and therefore the OfR were unlawful.

IMO, this is not over. But you're going off half-cock, again, by complaining to the council. About what?

You must write to TEC after you've posted your OOT etc. At present YOU do not know what the authority told TEC in order to get the second CC issued. But either it was disingenuous in leaving out the authority's failure and/or TEC acted improperly. I cannot see TEC issuing an OfR based on the truth as you've told us.

But if you won't post the OOT etc. how are we supposed to help?



I definitely do want everyones help so will post docs tonight. Problem I have is I didnt realise about the procedural impropriety of re-issued NoR and 2nd CC and OoR until after the fact.
lashes1984
I tried to post the docs using Tinypic, but it kept saying that I had reached the maximum upload allowed.

So here it is the N244 and OOT...as HCA mentioned correctly I failed to notice at the time that they didn't refer the matter to the Adjudicator. I was more focussed on the fact that I didn't receive the OoR or the NoE from the Bailiffs before my car was clamped.

The other thing I want to ask is that the initial Charge Certificate was issued in May 2015 but an Order of Recovery was issued until March/April 2016 - does the length of time between the 2 notices seem a bit excessive or is that the norm with some LA's.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
John U.K.
QUOTE
I tried to post the docs using Tinypic, but it kept saying that I had reached the maximum upload allowed.


It sounds as if you were trying to attach them. Try this

Do not attach docs/photos, but use this method:
Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0
for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems.
STAGE 1 takes care of resizing. If you use Tinypic for Stage 2, on the left each image in Tinypic is a list of links. Highlight and copy the entire link 'for forums' from the list for each image - beginning with IMG and ending /IMG (include all the square brackets [] }, and paste each link into your post. Each copied and pasted link will embed a thumbnail link in your post.

Using the attachment method is not advised as it means quickly running out of attachment space.
Redact/obscure personal details, PCN no. Reg No.

Also post up a GSV (Google Street View) link to the location.
LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.
Neil B
If tinypic reached a limit? there are plenty of others: flickr, photobucket, etc.

Initial observation from brief read.

The Judge was deciding if TEC CO wrong to refuse your OOT. Where is the focus on that?
What had Enfield said when contesting your OOT? Did you get a copy of this?

1-16 are nothing to do with this latest application.
It only needed - 'came about following --', which might then have flagged up the unlawful actions
of Enfield after thhe first revoking order.

I'm unsure how to go about getting another bite.
hcandersen
As I suspected, so don't blame the judge.

I still suggest you write to TEC, admit your mistake in failing to address the key issues in your OOT and subsequent N244. But you would hope that even at this late stage and in the interests of justice TEC would look again at the issue. AND stress the way in which you think they've been misled by the authority with whom they might chose to engage irrespective of whether they look afresh at your OOT.

Factual timeline (ONLY as it affects the issue, do not go back to the flood)
This relates to PCN ****, VRM ******

**** TEC authorise *** council to issue an OfR;
***** TEC issue revoking order pursuant to your witness statement made under grounds that you made representations to the authority in accordance with the regulations but did not receive a NOR;

As TEC are aware, on receipt of the revoking order the authority were under a mandatory duty to refer the matter to the adjudicator.

They did not. Instead they embarked on a course of action which was ultra vires i.e. they served another charge certificate and it was this which gave rise to a subsequent authorisation by TEC on application of the authority to issue an OfR.

The rest, as they say, is history i.e. you did not receive the OfR and TEC and a district judge refused your OOT application against the CC (because primarily you didn't refer to the unlawful CC) and you are up a creek, but hopefully TEC could throw you a paddle.

You should be grateful if they would look again at the following:
Their revoking order dated ****
The authority's request for an OfR (you do not know the date)
The enclosed note from London Tribunals that this PCN has never been referred to them for a decision (or whatever you can get, but I suggest you get something. Phone them.)

You would ask them to note that the power to issue the CC did not exist and therefore TEC were misled by the authority as regards their request to issue an OfR which was similarly improper. You would ask that TEC revoke the OfR and direct the authority to cancel the CC. Tell them you have copied this to the Director of the council department which deals with parking - find out their name and address the copy to them by name (IMO, this is how you complain).

TEC are not LT and are not bound by the latter's so-called guidance to authorities.
lashes1984
QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 24 May 2017 - 11:22) *
If tinypic reached a limit? there are plenty of others: flickr, photobucket, etc.

Initial observation from brief read.

The Judge was deciding if TEC CO wrong to refuse your OOT. Where is the focus on that?
What had Enfield said when contesting your OOT? Did you get a copy of this?

1-16 are nothing to do with this latest application.
It only needed - 'came about following --', which might then have flagged up the unlawful actions
of Enfield after thhe first revoking order.

I'm unsure how to go about getting another bite.


In all honesty I don't think my N244 was particularly well thought out and I probably focussed on issues that weren't relevant at the time. Enfield haven't sent me a copy of the contesting statement, but in the gist of it was that everything was sent to the address that DVLA had for me and nothing was returned to them undelivered.

I have been provided with the audit history for this PCN and it doesn't say anything about a NoR being issued on 08.04.2015 as they allege, but there is an entry for a NoR being re-issued on 17.06.2015, after I contacted them when I received a CC. But I didn't receive their letter dated 17.06.2015. They also apparently sent me a OoR on 22.08.2016, but I didn't receive this and no WS was submitted. A 3rd OoR was issued 12.01.2017 which again I didn't receive hence why my car is now clamped.

I'm not sure how to go forward either.
lashes1984
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Wed, 24 May 2017 - 12:01) *
As I suspected, so don't blame the judge.

I still suggest you write to TEC, admit your mistake in failing to address the key issues in your OOT and subsequent N244. But you would hope that even at this late stage and in the interests of justice TEC would look again at the issue. AND stress the way in which you think they've been misled by the authority with whom they might chose to engage irrespective of whether they look afresh at your OOT.

Factual timeline (ONLY as it affects the issue, do not go back to the flood)
This relates to PCN ****, VRM ******

**** TEC authorise *** council to issue an OfR;
***** TEC issue revoking order pursuant to your witness statement made under grounds that you made representations to the authority in accordance with the regulations but did not receive a NOR;

As TEC are aware, on receipt of the revoking order the authority were under a mandatory duty to refer the matter to the adjudicator.

They did not. Instead they embarked on a course of action which was ultra vires i.e. they served another charge certificate and it was this which gave rise to a subsequent authorisation by TEC on application of the authority to issue an OfR.

The rest, as they say, is history i.e. you did not receive the OfR and TEC and a district judge refused your OOT application against the CC (because primarily you didn't refer to the unlawful CC) and you are up a creek, but hopefully TEC could throw you a paddle.

You should be grateful if they would look again at the following:
Their revoking order dated ****
The authority's request for an OfR (you do not know the date)
The enclosed note from London Tribunals that this PCN has never been referred to them for a decision (or whatever you can get, but I suggest you get something. Phone them.)

You would ask them to note that the power to issue the CC did not exist and therefore TEC were misled by the authority as regards their request to issue an OfR which was similarly improper. You would ask that TEC revoke the OfR and direct the authority to cancel the CC. Tell them you have copied this to the Director of the council department which deals with parking - find out their name and address the copy to them by name (IMO, this is how you complain).

TEC are not LT and are not bound by the latter's so-called guidance to authorities.


Thanks so much for your response.

Honestly, I don't blame the judge I just wish I'd come here earlier for advice.

Interestingly, at the time I submitted this N244, I submitted 2 others (different LA). My defence in those 2 cases was very mediocre and actually I had no valid reason for submitting the WS out of time. The same judge who heard this N244 also heard those 2, but in those instances he granted my application!

I will do as you suggested and hope for the best.
Bogsy
For those who are interested, for comparison here is the TPT recommended letter that they put together and expect councils to serve before referring ther matter to them.

Authority Address


Dear Mr Smith

The County Court has sent us a copy of your recent Witness Statement/ Statutory Declaration.

The Order for Recovery and the Charge Certificate have been cancelled but the County Court order did not cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

This means that the penalty charge of £… is outstanding.


We note what you have said in the Witness Statement/Statutory declaration but:

We have no record of having received any representations from you.

We did receive your representations and sent a Notice of Rejection to you on ……….

There is no record of any appeal being made by you to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal

As the County Court has revoked the Charge Certificate, you now have the opportunity to pay the penalty at the original charge of £….

TO PAY

Please visit www.authority.gov.uk /payments to make this payment.

OR AWAIT ADJUDICATOR DIRECTONS

If you decide not to make payment of the penalty charge or the payment is not received within 14 days the case will be referred to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and the independent Adjudicator will decide what should happen next.

The Adjudicator may contact you if they need further clarification about your case.

Yours sincerely
DancingDad
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Wed, 24 May 2017 - 17:10) *
For those who are interested, for comparison here is the TPT recommended letter that they put together and expect councils to serve before referring ther matter to them.

Authority Address


Dear Mr Smith

The County Court has sent us a copy of your recent Witness Statement/ Statutory Declaration.........


Which makes sense and, most importantly, tells the recipient exactly what is happening.

Would that LT and London Authorities acted as sensibly !
lashes1984
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 24 May 2017 - 20:18) *
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Wed, 24 May 2017 - 17:10) *
For those who are interested, for comparison here is the TPT recommended letter that they put together and expect councils to serve before referring ther matter to them.

Authority Address


Dear Mr Smith

The County Court has sent us a copy of your recent Witness Statement/ Statutory Declaration.........


Which makes sense and, most importantly, tells the recipient exactly what is happening.

Would that LT and London Authorities acted as sensibly !


Enfield emailed me yesterday the letter they sent me after I filed the first WS. All it said was I was being given a further 14 days to make payment at discounted rate, 28 days at full rate or I would need to lodge an appeal and that LT have been notified of my statement. Nothing in there about the matter being referred to LT for a decision.
Neil B
QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Wed, 24 May 2017 - 12:05) *
I have been provided with the audit history for this PCN

and where is that?
lashes1984
QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 24 May 2017 - 21:16) *
QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Wed, 24 May 2017 - 12:05) *
I have been provided with the audit history for this PCN

and where is that?


I'll post up in the morning.
lashes1984
Letter from LA and PCN history attached
lashes1984
So after I contacted TEC, here's their reply below:


Please note, if you wish to review the District Judges order you will need to complete a further N244 application notice. Copies of forms can be found on http://www.justice.gov.uk/forms.
In section 3 of the N244, you will need to request to review the District Judges order and reasons as to why you are making the application. If applying outside of 7 days of the order, you will need to provide reasons for doing so. The fee for this application is £255.00. Alternatively, you can apply for help with fees via https://www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees.
Once processed, your application will be transferred to your local county court for a hearing. I hope this assists with your query. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate in contacting the courts.

Any suggestions on how I should proceed?


This is the reply for London Tribunals:

Dear Sir or Madam

I write in response to your email of 24 May 2017.
Please be advised that London Tribunals have no involvement with the issuing or enforcement of Penalty Charge Notice. London Tribunals’ role is to consider appeals against penalty charge notices issued by the 33 London Local Authorities, London Councils and Transport for London. The Adjudicators, who make up the tribunal, are therefore only able to consider matters relating to an appeal through the appeals procedure.
The Enforcement Authority, the London Borough of Enfield, has informed me that following the issuing of the Revoking Order, they resent the Notice of Rejection on 15 April 2016. I have checked our system and we have not received an appeal from you. In the absence of an appeal not being registered the Enforcement Authority issued a further Charge Certificate and then a further Order for Recovery. I have been further informed that the matter is now with the bailiffs. I suggest you seek independent legal advice on what course of action is now open to you.

Regards
Case Management Team
Bogsy
One thing you could do is submit an appeal to LT. They have the power to register a "late" appeal.

Miscellaneous powers of adjudicators

15.—(1) An adjudicator may, if he thinks fit—

(a)extend the time appointed by or under this Schedule for the doing of any act notwithstanding that the time appointed has expired;


At least by doing this you get to explain to them the confusion caused by the matter not being immediately referred to the adjudication service in accordance with regulations and how their recommendation that the council deviate from the regulations contributed to your appeal being submitted at this late stage. If you decide to give it a go then best to post up here what you write for guidance.
lashes1984
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Thu, 25 May 2017 - 16:24) *
One thing you could do is submit an appeal to LT. They have the power to register a "late" appeal.

Miscellaneous powers of adjudicators

15.—(1) An adjudicator may, if he thinks fit—

(a)extend the time appointed by or under this Schedule for the doing of any act notwithstanding that the time appointed has expired;


At least by doing this you get to explain to them the confusion caused by the matter not being immediately referred to the adjudication service in accordance with regulations and how their recommendation that the council deviate from the regulations contributed to your appeal being submitted at this late stage. If you decide to give it a go then best to post up here what you write for guidance.


Ok I am going to definitely give this a go.

Do you think I should still submit a N244 as well? My car is still clamped and I don't want the bailiffs to come round and try to remove it.
Bogsy
Yes I would engage with the court if you are in a position to. My suggestion is ancillary action that if worded well might just make LT pause for thought and do the decent thing.
lashes1984
QUOTE (Bogsy @ Thu, 25 May 2017 - 16:44) *
Yes I would engage with the court if you are in a position to. My suggestion is ancillary action that if worded well might just make LT pause for thought and do the decent thing.


Ok thanks so much for the advice.

I will draft up something tonight for both a N244 application and appeal to LT and post on here....any comments/suggestions around wording and editing would be greatly appreciated.
Neil B
I've got a fe thoughts but no time.

So just one.
At £255 fee this will be a personal hearing and it's usual for that to take place at your
local County Court.
The problem there is that the local DJ may have little or no knowledge of the relevant legislation
and considerable leading may be necessary.

Just a thought for members.
lashes1984
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 25 May 2017 - 20:44) *
I've got a fe thoughts but no time.

So just one.
At £255 fee this will be a personal hearing and it's usual for that to take place at your
local County Court.
The problem there is that the local DJ may have little or no knowledge of the relevant legislation
and considerable leading may be necessary.

Just a thought for members.


So submitting a N244 isn't a good idea?

I have thought about just admitting defeat and paying up...but now I have the added complication of...the EA who clamped my car although certificated at the time of the clamp is no longer certificated and can't work until he attends a hearing. So when I contacted the bailiff company to point this out they were unwilling to discuss or even accept payment and said I must wait until I receive an email/letter from them!

So now I can't pay, I can't appeal (or I can try never a guarantee) and my only option is to pay the Courts even more money!
hcandersen
I'd go for the N244. And make it a personal hearing.

And get your story clear as discussed. Your failure to make the correct argument does NOT excuse the authority's actions. You accept that the first DJ reached the correct decision on the basis of your argument. You apologise for involving the court again but you feel that the interests of justice require this.....

IMO, LT can be dealt with in parallel.
lashes1984
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 25 May 2017 - 21:44) *
I'd go for the N244. And make it a personal hearing.

And get your story clear as discussed. Your failure to make the correct argument does NOT excuse the authority's actions. You accept that the first DJ reached the correct decision on the basis of your argument. You apologise for involving the court again but you feel that the interests of justice require this.....

IMO, LT can be dealt with in parallel.


Ok. Will draft something for both N244 and LT and post here for editing/suggestion around wording as I have a tendency to focus on issues that are not always relevant...
Neil B
QUOTE (lashes1984 @ Thu, 25 May 2017 - 21:18) *
So submitting a N244 isn't a good idea?

I didn't quite mean that.
You might actually get a good opportunity to present your case and the nonsensical events that have caused
you this nightmare.

I just suggest you might need to be well armed with the salient parts of legislation.
Bogsy
If at the end of the day neither LT or the DJ act favourably and you have to pay up in full then you must submit a formal complaint to the council and to LT so that the ombudsman can investigate. The ombudsman has the power to find maladministration and refund you and compensate you. You have nothing to lose if this is the only route left. I'll happily help construct a complaint.

LT has no legal authority to give directions about cases that have not yet been referred to them. Therefore their recommended letter is ultra vires. The regulations approved by Parliament clearly say that when a witness statement is made under ground 2, 3 or 4 and approved by the county court then the case "shall" be referred to adjudication. The regulations do not say re-send a copy of the notice of rejection and if this is not paid or appealed carry on and serve another charge certificate.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.