Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Never received moved days after DVLAs
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Forresterblake1
I have a debt collection agent chasing me for a parking ticket from 18 Jan 2016. With a warrant our for me also!!!!!! For a ticket I have NEVER seen.

According to the Council via a phone call - they checked with DVLA for address of reg keeper on 1st Feb 16 - which we were still at the address at that time - issued the fine on 9th Feb 16 (and reminder on 06.04.16) - We moved on 7th Feb 16. When we moved we notified the that council tax department (our local authority) that we were moving address and they had our new address on the system.

All details changed with DVLA when we moved (no record of the actual date but will be requesting from DVLA).

We received ANOTHER different parking fine on 28 June 16 for the same prolific location to our new current address - which we contested and were successful.
So we had changed our address to the new address with the DVLA on or before 28 June 16.

On 16.06.16 the new tenant of the property returned the Councils letter to the - "no longer at this address".
On 07.06.17 (1 year later) council issues order of recovery (printed out on 12.06.17)
On 26.06.17 the tenant retuned the letter to the council - "no longer at this address"
On 21.05.18 Order of Recovery sent.
After a phone call with the council regarding the Debt Collection Agent - they informed me there was a visit made to the property also; Im unsure if it was from the debt collection company or the council themselves - to which I am sure that the tenant would have said that we have moved (again)

We received the debt collection agent letter on 4th Jan' 19. (Action required by 13.01.19 at 23.59pm TOMORROW)
Contact the council on 7th Jan '19 for the info gather on the above.

I had been advised to complete a TE9 & TE7 - to which I completed and returned - to stop the bailiffs. on 7 Jan 19
Within this I detailed that the council had our new details on 28 June 2016 as we had another ticket (ticket reference given on TE9 & TE7) and they should have sent to the new address or checked the DVLA again?

Had a response from the council TODAY and they have refused the witness statement / late statutory dec due to the fact that we were the registered keeper at the address the time of the contravention, and then they detail the dates that they took action - as listed above.

Q1/ Im not sure if the Balliffs are held off until the Traffic Enforcement Team make their decision or if now the Council have refused the TE9 & TE7; will the bailiff be allowed to carry on and proceed? Thus more costs mounting up for visits they may make or more action!

Q2/ I have read that the Traffic Enforcement usually side with the council but this is just a major admin error on the council behalf! We still to this day haven't seen the parking fine!? Am I likely to win the case - in your opinions?

Please help!!!! ASAP mellow.gif



DancingDad
Fooked unless you want to appeal the decision to refuse the Out of Time
Which costs, no guarantee of winning and little of getting costs back even if OOT accepted by District Judge.

To help us advise, please post the OOT request that you made and the objection letter from the council.
Limited time to appeal (N244) and may not be cost effective but let's see.

BTW, it is not that TEC side with councils, it is more often that people do not give enough to persuade TEC that council's norm (we sent all notices to address supplied by DVLA) is not persuasive. Or simply do not address why they are asking for Out of Time
Forresterblake1
Thanks for your response.

Yes I have the Local Councils wish to :oppose"the filing of witness statement / late stat dec that I'll attach.

I have also sent an email to the council to make a complaint for their poor efforts to trace the debtor correctly - as they have the new address on their systems a few months after the ticket was issued and still continued to send out letters. I have requested under the Data Protection act for them to send me all of the information on me.

Do you know if the bailiff have to hold off until the Traffic Enforcement Centre make their judgment? Can I add further evidence to the case after filing the TE9 & TE7?

Just trying to see hoe to add the documents.....

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:59) *
Fooked unless you want to appeal the decision to refuse the Out of Time
Which costs, no guarantee of winning and little of getting costs back even if OOT accepted by District Judge.

To help us advise, please post the OOT request that you made and the objection letter from the council.
Limited time to appeal (N244) and may not be cost effective but let's see.

BTW, it is not that TEC side with councils, it is more often that people do not give enough to persuade TEC that council's norm (we sent all notices to address supplied by DVLA) is not persuasive. Or simply do not address why they are asking for Out of Time



PLEASE SEE ATTTACHED
Neil B
QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:34) *
With a warrant our for me also!!!!!!

LOL. No, a warrant to recover the debt.

A few bits missing.
QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:34) *
All details changed with DVLA when we moved (no record of the actual date but will be requesting from DVLA).

What is the 'docref' date on your V5 ?

How much is the bailiff asking?

QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:34) *
Q1/ Im not sure if the Balliffs are held off until the Traffic Enforcement Team make their decision

Yup.
And that decision cannot be made before 21st Jan.
Did you e-mail your application to TEC?
Forresterblake1
Phew - no warrant out for my arrest then cool.gif

Car has now been sold so no records of the log books - although I could possibly contact the person who brought the car from me. PCN ticket is £113 (should be about £60 from the initial ticket I think) + £75 Compliance fee.

Ok - glad that we have till 21st

Emailed over to TEC.
Neil B
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:59) *
Fooked unless you want to appeal the decision to refuse the Out of Time
Which costs, no guarantee of winning and little of getting costs back even if OOT accepted by District Judge.

Faced with a pathetic attempt at objection from the Council and the very unfortunate timing I normally wouldn't hesitate
to N244.
I also never quite understand why the £100 fee is written off as irrecoverable when Council stupidity creates the need for OOT.
(Complaint to Council when case resolved; escalate to LAO)

BUT
With only £188 being sought the net gain, initially, is just £43.
AND
By the time it's decided the bailiff is likely to find an excuse to add the enforcement fee of £235.
So you'd have to win.
I think you probably would win but no guarantees.

One thing against you - mail redirection?

One odd thing here is the two OfRs ?
Not sure that's legal. Need to have a read up.

You need to phone TEC first thing Monday. 0300 123 1059.

Don't start debating with them things you don't understand.
Just ask -
-- When was the debt registered ?
-- Has it been registered a second time? When? If so, what address was used?

-- When was the warrant granted?
-- Has the warrant been extended?
-- What address is on the warrant? Has it been changed? If so, when?
cp8759
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 17:52) *
I also never quite understand why the £100 fee is written off as irrecoverable when Council stupidity creates the need for OOT.
(Complaint to Council when case resolved; escalate to LAO)

I've been thinking about this and I'm not convinced it is irrecoverable at all. Nothing in CPR Part 75 or Practice Direction 75 mentions costs at all. Rule 44.2 says

(1) The court has discretion as to –
(a) whether costs are payable by one party to another;
(b) the amount of those costs; and
(с) when they are to be paid.

(2) If the court decides to make an order about costs –
(a) the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party; but
(b) the court may make a different order.


So in principle, I can see no reason why an order for costs cannot be sought. If the council's objection is unreasonable (as would appear to be the case here) I would say a persuasive case could be put to the county court as to why an order for costs should be made in the normal way.
Neil B
Thanks for that cp; I've always thought common sense supports this.
DancingDad
Always felt the same CP and known that rules allow it.
But simple fact is that DJs do not seem to grant costs.
This may simply be because people do not ask or ask based on little or incorrect justification.
hcandersen
The point about costs is surely not whether in principle they may be awarded but whether in practice they would be.

We are not considering reimbursement by the court, we're looking at an order being made against a party to the proceedings. The threshold, implicitly, would be high because costs are not issued willy nilly just because one party loses.

So what have the council done wrong in resisting the OP's application?

On the basis of hard evidence..nothing.

Anyone can write that they moved and that the issue is around an unfortunate mix-up of dates, but where is the evidence? As far as I can see, it all boils down to claims and telephone calls. IMO, not the stuff of which costs orders are made.


The OP's error, and someone's got to say it, is not coming here sooner.

Anyway, 'tis premature until TEC respond.
cp8759
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 09:12) *
We are not considering reimbursement by the court, we're looking at an order being made against a party to the proceedings. The threshold, implicitly, would be high because costs are not issued willy nilly just because one party loses.

This is completely wrong. We are very used to the principle of no costs orders being made on this forum, as the jurisdiction we normally deal with is that of the tribunals. In the County Court however, the normal rule is that "Costs follow the event", i.e. the winning party is entitled to their costs unless there is some reason to over-ride the general rule. There is an exception for small claims, where CPR 27.14 explicitly dis-applies the general rule, but Part 27 isn't relevant here. Nothing in Part 75 dis-applies the general rule.

The practical difficulty is that an order for costs would need to be applied for in the normal way, i.e. making an application under CPR Part 23, "General Rules about Applications for Court Orders", and the application fee for this is £255. While the fee would simply be added to the amount sought (making the total payable by the council £355 or £510, + out of pocket expenses + litigant time at £19 per hour), and in principle the outcome should be predictable (the council would need to persuade the court not to follow the general rule, and we know they're not the sharpest when it comes to arguing the finer points of the law), it's still a risk.

The best way to test this of course would be if someone on a low income, and who qualifies for a full remission of fees, could test it out.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 09:12) *
Anyway, 'tis premature until TEC respond.

Agreed.
Neil B
Just a note.
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 16:57) *
And that decision cannot be made before 21st Jan.

Is based on Practice Direction 5.4 to Civil Procedure Rule 75

5.4 A court officer will deal with the application without a hearing. The matter will not be dealt with until at least 14 days after the
date on which the application notice and statutory declaration or witness statement were served on the authority.


But a word of warning:
Where, as here, a Council objects promptly, I've seen TEC ride roughshod over that direction.
hcandersen
deleted.

@cp, if it were as easy as 'costs follow event' then we should advise accordingly.

IMO, it is not and we do not, and for good reason.

And on reflection, what is the event?

Reg 23(3) of the General Regs simply refers to an application to a District Judge. Implicitly this is in the singular, but in practice it is potentially a two-part event: firstly to TEC and then to a DJ in person. The council haven't refused to accept an out of time application because it is not a decision for them to make; they've simply expressed a view.

It must therefore follow as a matter of common-sense that the application to the DJ is actually a request to set aside or vary a prior judgment of the court. As I read it, this is a request to review the decision of the court officer. In this respect all a council do is to submit their evidence to the court. In this case they have applied correct procedure: it's not their task to join up an owner's dots. And in the absence of hard evidence, IMO they were acting properly to oppose the application. After all, the OP submitted no evidence as to when they moved, or when they updated their V5C/when any notification was sent to DVLA, and if there's no evidence then it didn't happen as far as TEC are concerned. (PS and explicitly criticising the council's officers for the OP's own shortcomings would endear them to no-one).

The OP would submit better evidence which might tip the balance, but this could hardly be laid at the door of the council.

So in the particular of this case, IMO the OP would have no hope of recovering costs against the council, but in the general situation as the N244 is to set aside a prior court decision, there is no reason why a council should be penalised unless they have manifestly acted improperly or unlawfully in submitting evidence to the court. In effect, if an applicant is unsuccessful with TEC but successful with a DJ then the application fee could be considered to be the price of not submitting a compelling case in the first instance.
cp8759
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:41) *
deleted.

@cp, if it were as easy as 'costs follow event' then we should advise accordingly.

IMO, it is not and we do not, and for good reason.

The principle in civil litigation is that costs follow the events, this is only displaced where statute or court rules dictate otherwise. This is Civil Procedure, nothing to do with the General regs.
Bailiff Advice
QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 17:23) *
Phew - no warrant out for my arrest then cool.gif

Car has now been sold so no records of the log books - although I could possibly contact the person who brought the car from me. PCN ticket is £113 (should be about £60 from the initial ticket I think) + £75 Compliance fee.

Ok - glad that we have till 21st

Emailed over to TEC.


Can I ask an odd question. What time did you send your Out of Time forms (TE7 and TE9) to TEC?
Forresterblake1
The out of time as sent at 11.39am and i believe that the council would have received it by 4 pm and then dealt with it the next day? Thats what I was advised by TEC.

I have requested all data on both tickets to be sent & also the information from the council tax department under the data protection act. To include the copies of the return to sender envelops.

I have made a formal complaint to the council also.

I can also gain my old tenancy agreement and date when we handed in our notice I'm sure. I also have my removal company invoice.
Neil B
QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 20:03) *
I have requested all data on both tickets to be sent & also the information from the council tax department under the data protection act. To include the copies of the return to sender envelops.

I have made a formal complaint to the council also.

I can also gain my old tenancy agreement and date when we handed in our notice I'm sure. I also have my removal company invoice.

Make the call to TEC , with the questions I gave you and report back.
hcandersen
I have made a formal complaint to the council also.


About what? They served the PCN on the address provided by DVLA.

I can also gain my old tenancy agreement and date when we handed in our notice I'm sure. I also have my removal company invoice.

I have requested all data on both tickets to be sent & also the information from the council tax department under the data protection act. To include the copies of the return to sender envelops.


You still think this is relevant and places a duty on the council as regards the address for service of notices unrelated to council tax. But it doesn't, so pl get off this, it's a distraction.

What you do need is evidence of the date on which DVLA received and actioned your change of RK details. It's that straightforward. And yet nowhere have you referred to DVLA, which begs the question: why?
Bailiff Advice
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:29) *
And that decision cannot be made before 21st Jan. It is based on Practice Direction 5.4 to Civil Procedure Rule 75

5.4 A court officer will deal with the application without a hearing. The matter will not be dealt with until at least 14 days after the
date on which the application notice and statutory declaration or witness statement were served on the authority.


But a word of warning:
Where, as here, a Council objects promptly, I've seen TEC ride roughshod over that direction.


You are absolutely right Neil that TEC should not have dealt with this matter for at least 14 days. My understanding of this is because, all OOT applications received by TEC before the 'cut off' time of 4pm will be PROCESSED that day. It is a myth that bailiff enforcement is placed on hold that same day because it isn't.

'Processing' of the application consists of electronically entering the applications onto the TEC database. Next, by the end of the day, TEC will send an EMAIL to each local authority with details of PCN numbers, respondents name.......and on what 'ground' the OOT has been submitted. On receipt of the email from TEC, the relevant local authority must immediately instruct the relevant bailiff company to place all enforcement 'on hold'. The enforcement company would be aware of the OOT by mid morning the next 'working day'.

This is the important part.......the following day, TEC will send the TE7 and TE9 to the local authority. This is done by Royal Mail and not by email.

In this particular case, I would suspect that it would not have been until January 9th that the local authority would have even received the TE7 and TE9. The very same day that they rejected the application. I would suspect that they had rejected the application based merely upon being made that the OP had stated that he had not received the Penalty Charge Notices. In fact, reading the 'rejection', there is no indication that the author had even read the contents of the TE7.
Neil B
QUOTE (Bailiff Advice @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 23:32) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:29) *
And that decision cannot be made before 21st Jan. It is based on Practice Direction 5.4 to Civil Procedure Rule 75

5.4 A court officer will deal with the application without a hearing. The matter will not be dealt with until at least 14 days after the
date on which the application notice and statutory declaration or witness statement were served on the authority.


But a word of warning:
Where, as here, a Council objects promptly, I've seen TEC ride roughshod over that direction.


You are absolutely right Neil that TEC should not have dealt with this matter for at least 14 days.

They haven't yet, as far as we know. We only have the copy of Council objection.

I'm interested in the TWO OfRs, which I can't see could possibly happen, from my understanding of CPR.
Neil B
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 22:32) *
[I have requested all data on both tickets to be sent & also the information from the council tax department under the data protection act. To include the copies of the return to sender envelops.


You still think this is relevant and places a duty on the council as regards the address for service of notices unrelated to council tax. But it doesn't, so pl get off this, it's a distraction.

Agree on the CT but I think he has a fair point on Council's inaction on returned notices, when they had the reason for those
returns in their parking enforcement system.
That being so, once the CC was returned they could not lawfully register the debt as they had knowledge contrary to the
application details required for registration.

We excuse Councils using the first gleaned DVLA address a little too readily imo.
Don't Councils have a duty of care? --- and that, I think, is the OP's point.
Forresterblake1
Sorry for my lack of knowledge / understanding - whats the OfRs huh.gif huh.gif

Spoke to the TEC today and apparently the bailiff are held off until they make their judgement.

I didn't redirect mail unfortunately - will do if I move again!!!!!

I have been advised that the council don't keep a record on any numberplate on their system now (different to what the lady told me on my initial call)
It just puzzles me when the council have a policy in place to chase debts owed & that they encourage the sharing of information between departments to help collect debts. I am waiting for a call back from the "parking guru" in their office .......Im sure I won't get anywhere with this!

I would like to know the legal obligations that companies have when they receive numerous return to senders, no longer at the address and are told by the tenant face to face that they aren't at address anymore . How should they investigate that fact.

I know that they could say I was just saying I didn't live at the property but after being told 3 times - surly they don't think that someone can try and hide from something that won't go away????
Neil B
QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 11:30) *
Spoke to the TEC today

Where are the answers to the specific questions I gave you? !
hcandersen
As interesting as it might be, I don't see where the council's response time or methodology gets us.

Not only did the OP not provide compelling evidence of their notification to DVLA to TEC, they didn't provide it to the council either.

We consulted DVLA, who gave us this address and despite the owner's protestations to the contrary no evidence has been forthcoming to suggest that this is more than a registered keeper simply failing in their legal duty to notify DVLA of their change of details in a reasonable time. Takes 5 minutes to write and on the basis of the OP's account is wholly accurate.

And how to counter this truth?

1. Provide evidence of the dates DVLA were notified of and then changed the RK details.
2. Less solid but potentially relevant, provide more details of the June 2016 PCN.

OP, pl give us the dates and events for June 2016.
PCN, challenge(how and when); NTO(addressed to whom and at what address e.g. let old address be A and new address B etc.

Was the sequence of the combined events regarding the same RK and VRM..?
PCN 1 to A, while RK lived at B;
CC to ...on ....
OfR for PCN 1...
PCN(postal/by hand) on...

etc.

Instead of vague assertions, for the same VRM and RK does OfR to address A at the same time as NTO to address B apply?

Who knows?
Neil B
QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 11:30) *
...Im sure I won't get anywhere with this!

And you won't if you don't listen.

We need to establish some basic facts and clear up some anomalies.
I gave you questions to ask TEC, in post #6

--
Also see HCA's latest.
Forresterblake1
Neil B - What questions are you referring to?

HC - a request has been given to the DVLA for the date we changed the address (obviously it was before July 2016 when we received the other ticket)

Sorry I am a new users and I am not sure on your revelations that your using.
Thanks
Neil B
QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 13:36) *
Neil B - What questions are you referring to?

QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 11:56) *
I gave you questions to ask TEC, in post #6
Forresterblake1
Don't start debating with them things you don't understand.
Just ask -
-- When was the debt registered ? TCM SAID THAT THEY COULD'NT SEE AS A 2nd WAS ISSUED - looking back on my notes from call to council on Monday 7th Jan - the first was 7 June 17

-- Has it been registered a second time? When? If so, what address was used? - 21 May 18

-- When was the warrant granted? TCM Simply said that it "was obviously extended by a 1year" ????

-- Has the warrant been extended? AS ABOVE

-- What address is on the warrant? Originally old address

Has it been changed? If so, when? bailiff changed on 10 Dec 19 - approved on 27 dec 19


HCA -
As interesting as it might be, I don't see where the council's response time or methodology gets us.

Not only did the OP not provide compelling evidence of their notification to DVLA to TEC, they didn't provide it to the council either.
I didn't have any evidence at this stage as I don't have a log book as when sold the car we gave the information and didn't keep the old slips etc as when moved had a clear out. I have required information form DVLA for more info

We consulted DVLA, who gave us this address and despite the owner's protestations to the contrary no evidence has been forthcoming to suggest that this is more than a registered keeper simply failing in their legal duty to notify DVLA of their change of details in a reasonable time. Takes 5 minutes to write and on the basis of the OP's account is wholly accurate.
I have contacted the estate agent too see if they still hold records of the tenancy agreement / end date which they don't. However I have a removal company invoice.

And how to counter this truth?

1. Provide evidence of the dates DVLA were notified of and then changed the RK details. REQUESTED DATES AND TILD THIS MAY TAKE UPTO 3 WEEKS
2. Less solid but potentially relevant, provide more details of the June 2016 PCN. This PCN was challenged and council were out of time to respond apparently so didnt pursue the debt,

OP, pl give us the dates and events for June 2016. 25th July 2016 first notice was given on the ticket from 28 June 16, I believe (l wrote lost of notes but not 100% on exact dates)
PCN, challenge(how and when); NTO(addressed to whom and at what address e.g. let old address be A and new address B etc. PCN was in New address and was challenged and apparently the council didn't respond in time so the debt was written off / challenge was accepted?!

Was the sequence of the combined events regarding the same RK and VRM..? Sorry whats a VRM
PCN 1 to A, while RK lived at B; PCN 1 was sent to old address when they carried out dvla check (but moved out few days after they don't the check
CC to ...on .... What does CC mean
OfR for PCN 1...What doest this mean?
PCN(postal/by hand) on...1st PCN was a CCTV ticket, sent by post?! 2nd ticket was opposed by us by post (as there was a box on the fine to write your case - completed and sent back)

etc.

Instead of vague assertions, for the same VRM and RK does OfR to address A at the same time as NTO to address B apply? What is VRM???? So sorry but I really don't understand the other abbreviated words either.

Who knows?


[i]PLEASE NOTE: I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TRAFFIC LAWS, REFERENCES YOU MAKE ETC - PLEASE BARE WITH ME! I APPRECIATE THE ASSISTANCE[/i]
John U.K.
PCN - Penalty Charge Notice
NtO - Notice to Owner
VRM - Vehicle Registration Mark {licence plate number]
CC - Charge Certificate
OfR - Order for Recovery
CCTV - Closed Circuit TeleVision
RK - Registered Keeper [name on V5 (log-book)]
Neil B
I presume you mean TEC not TCM ?
And they're not being very helpful >
QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 14:19) *
-- When was the debt registered ? TCM SAID THAT THEY COULD'NT SEE AS A 2nd WAS ISSUED
I don't believe the Court does not have that record. And who said 'issued', you or them? When a debt is registered they just record that,
they don't 'issue' anything; just authorise the Council to serve an OfR.

- looking back on my notes from call to council on Monday 7th Jan - the first was 7 June 17

-- Has it been registered a second time? When? If so, what address was used? - 21 May 18
And the address used?
And anyway, they can't register a debt twice !


-- When was the warrant granted? TCM Simply said that it "was obviously extended by a 1year" ????
No it's not obvious at all is it! I'm not even sure they can extend? Certainly very limited circumstances if so.

-- Has the warrant been extended? AS ABOVE

-- What address is on the warrant? Originally old address

Has it been changed? If so, when? bailiff changed on 10 Dec 19 - approved on 27 dec 19
I guess you mean 18 -- and that's the only bit that sounds about right.


TEC Customer assistants are normally helpful. I think you were unlucky getting a lazy one.
Forresterblake1
Thank you for the info!!!!

The 2nd time it was reg to the old address and they only had the new address when the bailiffs looked into.

I spoke to the "parking guru" from the council; he has said - which I was presuming after reading your posts is that:

They basically do not alter from the process after applying for the VRM (getting techie now) - they don't action any return to sender letters - they continue to send to the address as per the RK address. He has advised that I contact the old utility companies and get the proof of change of address from them...only thing is - it was so long ago - i changed when I moved and I had a good clear out of old paperwork when I moved! Also said that if i wanted to add evidence then Id have to appeal the decision against the TEC if they decline my argument!

I have emailed them to ask them if they can add evidence onto the case and also how they comply their investigation into this.

I am just frustrated that they ignored the "return to sender - no longer at this address" twice.

Feeling very doubtful about this now.

I know that its not a massive amount but its just so frustrating when I had moved and they ignored the return to senders, had my current address within the council tax departments records - if they followed their debt recovery policy in effectively by sharing information with other departments to recover debts in a timely and effective manor (ie council tax dept) then this could have been avoided but Guess that I giving them work to do!!!!
Neil B
QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 17:31) *
I have emailed them to ask them if they can add evidence onto the case and also how they comply their investigation into this.

Presumably you mean emailed TEC and the answer will be no.


QUOTE (Forresterblake1 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 17:31) *
Also said that if i wanted to add evidence then Id have to appeal the decision against the TEC if they decline my argument! .

And we're trying to establish if this is worthwhile.
The process is called an N244 application and costs £100.
We simply don't have time to explain everything in detail so I suggest you Google N244 in relation to parking.
The crux of the matter is, did you receive the statutory notices. You didn't but you need to show why and back it up with evidence.

You need also to read my warning in the earlier parts of post #6.

--
Meanwhile, you should try TEC again with those questions and press them to look into how the Council came to issue two OfRs (following registration of the debt}
and a year apart? It's just not possible.
If no luck, try that question on the Council; it might just worry them.
Forresterblake1
Yes - emailed TEC.

IO have found utility bills and final council tac bill also, my only small issue is that we had an initial removal date of 01 Jan 2016 so I informed the council - then we extended till 10 Feb 2016 so I need to call the council tax team and hope that they have the extra month that I am missing, which was paid :-)

I will look at the N244 in more detail tomorrow in that case.

I will try them again but the purpose of these questions is to help determine if a N244 is worth trying - is that correct?

I will also be forwarding the evidence I have to the council in the meantime - maybe they will drop the fees (ha ha)
.
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.