Before I start and to save me doing so my PCN matched the Newham PCN in this thread word-wise. My contravention code is 01 of Parked a restricted street during prescribed hours.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...l=newham+single
The circumstances are as such..... I was distributing Thompsons directories door to door near Stratford. I took two bundles of thirty books, heavy stuff and did Maiden Street and White Road. My van was in Maiden Street on a single yellow line and while I was out of sight for a few minutes in White street it happened.
I confronted the CEO who told me that......
1) He gave me the three minutes observation time as instructed but that as he had seen no activity by the van he gave the ticket.
2) When he worked in Westminster they were instructed to observe for 20 minutes.
3) Now that he could see I was working from the van he would report the fact and I should write in and they would cancel it.
4) He nonetheless refused to take any pictures of the evidence like the van full of phonebooks.
5) He could not cancel tickets because they were banned from from doing so because of bribery risks.
6) I should have stopped in a residents bay from which I am allowed to load/unload because there he is obliged to observe for five minutes.
7) He took two ;pictures on his camera, one at 14.37 (observation start time on the ticket) and the other at 14.40 (time of contravention).
Now I'm not going to comment on any of this other than 2) and7).
2) If one is allowed 20 minutes to unload then 20 minutes is required. If local authorities can introduce an "observation time" of their choice then they are not observing the law but trying to hijack it.
7) Both these times are given in round minutes. That means that the observation time could be anything from 121 to 239 seconds.
Ok, so any comments on all this before you read further.........
..........Now read further. I was in the process of photcopying my paperwork from Thompsons including the map of my area of coverage and the PCN when I came across a massive howler. The street name given is Middle Road, not Maiden Road.
Ok, so how do I go about this for best effect. Unfortunately there is a Middle Road in Newham and the lack of postal district on the PCN is noteworthy....
In fact the PCN reads thus:
Street: Middle Road
Location: OS LP 1
What does OS LP 1 mean?
Any feedback?
OS LP 1 is their reference point.
Out side LP 1.
You will be in the best position to know what LP 1 is. Maybe lamp post, local pub, last property No.1.
I don't know but you may be able to ask them at the parking services department, just as a general enquiry.
Out side LP 1.
You will be in the best position to know what LP 1 is. Maybe lamp post, local pub, last property No.1.
I don't know but you may be able to ask them at the parking services department, just as a general enquiry.
You say the council's evidence comprises:
2 pics of your vehicle in Maiden Street;
1 PCN giving a location in Middle Street.
That's it, you don't need anything else. You simply make your challenge on the basis that the PCN refers to Middle Street whereas your vehicle was in Maiden Street as can be seen in the council's pics. The PCN is therefore invalid and you look forward to their confirmation that it's been cancelled. You do not need to, nor should you, refer to what you were doing - it's irrelevant.
2 pics of your vehicle in Maiden Street;
1 PCN giving a location in Middle Street.
That's it, you don't need anything else. You simply make your challenge on the basis that the PCN refers to Middle Street whereas your vehicle was in Maiden Street as can be seen in the council's pics. The PCN is therefore invalid and you look forward to their confirmation that it's been cancelled. You do not need to, nor should you, refer to what you were doing - it's irrelevant.
Since the PCN was handed to you, don't see how you could be lost, misled or in any way disadvantaged as to where contravention occured?. Other's will confirm this correct or not, but would consider your unloading exemption to be much more promising as an appeal point.
As for all threads, please post up all sides of the PCN, redacted etc, so they may be examined.
As for all threads, please post up all sides of the PCN, redacted etc, so they may be examined.
Self-evidently you were parked in Maiden Street and you may or may not have committed a contravention there. Who cares? That's not what you're alleged to have done in the PCN.
The wrong location is fatal to their case on its own.
The wrong location is fatal to their case on its own.
As you were parked on a Single Yellow Line during restricted hours, the issue of Loading and therefore Observation Time doesn't apply, even if it did, there is no minimum observation time laid down in the Legislation and Councils are free to decide their own - if Newham have decided that they will give 3 minutes (their "Parking Policy and Procedures" document says 2 minutes) then that's at their discretion. The fact that Westminster Council (according to this CEO) give an observation period of 20 minutes is irrelevant.
However, if the PCN says you were parked in Middle Road when you were in fact parked in Maiden Road, then I would make representation to the Council, on the grounds that "Contravention did not occur" as you clearly did not park in Contravention in Middle Road.
However, if the PCN says you were parked in Middle Road when you were in fact parked in Maiden Road, then I would make representation to the Council, on the grounds that "Contravention did not occur" as you clearly did not park in Contravention in Middle Road.
Thanks for your feedback but there are two things here.....
The first is that there IS a Middle Road in Newham but it is in E13, not E15, however, the postal district was not entered on the ticket so he they can always claim I'm making up the mistake ..... so the OS LP 1 thing needs to be established.
Regarding the two pictures I think he was bluffing because he would not have had the time to take his pictures and issue the ticket without me returning before he had finished (fact). However, there is nothing to prevent the council saying he took no pictures and was just saying that to calm the situation down whether he took them or not.
I am working on the assumption they are twisters and liars.
Aside from this I am also at issue with Thompson who won't issue a covering letter. They say it is my responsibility. I say that it is a shared responsibility, mine to pay obviously, but theirs also to deal with because by insisting the job is done where and when this sort thing can happen they are constructive in tickets being issued to contractors.....
....I am in the process of pointing out to them that if I appeal and lose then that means their operation is effectively stuffed because by default it becomes dependent on obliging others to break the law.
I have never come across anyone so unwilling to assist in such circumstances before.
The first is that there IS a Middle Road in Newham but it is in E13, not E15, however, the postal district was not entered on the ticket so he they can always claim I'm making up the mistake ..... so the OS LP 1 thing needs to be established.
Regarding the two pictures I think he was bluffing because he would not have had the time to take his pictures and issue the ticket without me returning before he had finished (fact). However, there is nothing to prevent the council saying he took no pictures and was just saying that to calm the situation down whether he took them or not.
I am working on the assumption they are twisters and liars.
Aside from this I am also at issue with Thompson who won't issue a covering letter. They say it is my responsibility. I say that it is a shared responsibility, mine to pay obviously, but theirs also to deal with because by insisting the job is done where and when this sort thing can happen they are constructive in tickets being issued to contractors.....
....I am in the process of pointing out to them that if I appeal and lose then that means their operation is effectively stuffed because by default it becomes dependent on obliging others to break the law.
I have never come across anyone so unwilling to assist in such circumstances before.
I'm glad there's a Middle Street in Newham, but what's the relevance to your case?
I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but their use of the wrong location is fatal. The PCN is not pining for the fjords, it's dead.
Just submit a challenge as mentioned above i.e. at the time of the alleged contravention your vehicle was parked in Maiden Street and you have photos from an employee of the council to prove this i.e. the CEO!!! Therefore, you could not have been committing the alleged contravention in Middle Street!!
I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but their use of the wrong location is fatal. The PCN is not pining for the fjords, it's dead.
Just submit a challenge as mentioned above i.e. at the time of the alleged contravention your vehicle was parked in Maiden Street and you have photos from an employee of the council to prove this i.e. the CEO!!! Therefore, you could not have been committing the alleged contravention in Middle Street!!
QUOTE (jewels2009 @ Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 08:36) 
Since the PCN was handed to you, don't see how you could be lost, misled or in any way disadvantaged as to where contravention occured?. Other's will confirm this correct or not, but would consider your unloading exemption to be much more promising as an appeal point.
As for all threads, please post up all sides of the PCN, redacted etc, so they may be examined.
As for all threads, please post up all sides of the PCN, redacted etc, so they may be examined.
irrelevant
wrong location is a PCN killer
QUOTE (madandy @ Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 11:21)
Thanks for your feedback but there are two things here.....
The first is that there IS a Middle Road in Newham but it is in E13, not E15, however, the postal district was not entered on the ticket so he they can always claim I'm making up the mistake ..... so the OS LP 1 thing needs to be established.
Regarding the two pictures I think he was bluffing because he would not have had the time to take his pictures and issue the ticket without me returning before he had finished (fact). However, there is nothing to prevent the council saying he took no pictures and was just saying that to calm the situation down whether he took them or not.
I am working on the assumption they are twisters and liars.
Aside from this I am also at issue with Thompson who won't issue a covering letter. They say it is my responsibility. I say that it is a shared responsibility, mine to pay obviously, but theirs also to deal with because by insisting the job is done where and when this sort thing can happen they are constructive in tickets being issued to contractors.....
....I am in the process of pointing out to them that if I appeal and lose then that means their operation is effectively stuffed because by default it becomes dependent on obliging others to break the law.
I have never come across anyone so unwilling to assist in such circumstances before.
The first is that there IS a Middle Road in Newham but it is in E13, not E15, however, the postal district was not entered on the ticket so he they can always claim I'm making up the mistake ..... so the OS LP 1 thing needs to be established.
Regarding the two pictures I think he was bluffing because he would not have had the time to take his pictures and issue the ticket without me returning before he had finished (fact). However, there is nothing to prevent the council saying he took no pictures and was just saying that to calm the situation down whether he took them or not.
I am working on the assumption they are twisters and liars.
Aside from this I am also at issue with Thompson who won't issue a covering letter. They say it is my responsibility. I say that it is a shared responsibility, mine to pay obviously, but theirs also to deal with because by insisting the job is done where and when this sort thing can happen they are constructive in tickets being issued to contractors.....
....I am in the process of pointing out to them that if I appeal and lose then that means their operation is effectively stuffed because by default it becomes dependent on obliging others to break the law.
I have never come across anyone so unwilling to assist in such circumstances before.
Some Councils (I don't know if Newham is one of them) have a facility where you can view your PCN and any pictures taken to support the allegation online. It might be worth having a look to see what their evidence is.
As lamp-post numbers are done on a Street by Street basis, every Street in Newham will have a "Lamp-post 1".
Unfortunatley, Thompsons are quite right, it is your responsibility as the driver to ensure you park where you are allowed to do so, and they are under no obligation in Law to do anything. This, I believe, is one of the reasons for them not using their own vehicles to do their distribution.
What you need to do ASAP is write to the Council saying that the Contravention did not Occur (one of the Statutory Defences) as you were not parked in Middle Street at the time of the alleged contravention.
QUOTE (madandy @ Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 11:21)
Thanks for your feedback but there are two things here.....
As lamp-post numbers are done on a Street by Street basis, every Street in Newham will have a "Lamp-post 1".
Unfortunatley, Thompsons are quite right, it is your responsibility as the driver to ensure you park where you are allowed to do so, and they are under no obligation in Law to do anything. This, I believe, is one of the reasons for them not using their own vehicles to do their distribution.
As lamp-post numbers are done on a Street by Street basis, every Street in Newham will have a "Lamp-post 1".
Unfortunatley, Thompsons are quite right, it is your responsibility as the driver to ensure you park where you are allowed to do so, and they are under no obligation in Law to do anything. This, I believe, is one of the reasons for them not using their own vehicles to do their distribution.
Are you telling me that OS LP 1 is a lamp-post reference number? I was thinking OS = Ordnance Survey.
Regarding Thomsons I am fully aware of my sole responsibility there is more to this concerning another issue which ties in. Relating to this other issue is the question of my working beyond 8pm up to 11pm two days previously in Uxbridge which they say I should not.
All I am asking for is a letter confirming I was doing the work for them at the time and therefore legitimate
Also consider this. When working in Earls Court two months ago I stalled a cycling CEO who claimed that what I was doing did not constitute loading or unloading... never mind whether that is so or not but just take that possibility on board.
After receiving the ticket and the telephone rebuff I sent them a stiff letter pointing out two things. The first is that whilst I am fully responsible for paying the ticket to the council if they (Thompsons) specifically bar contractors from distributing after 8pm (or before 8am) and there are parking controls all day and if I say it cannot be done because of the risk of getting ticketed at the timers they require and they tell me I will not be paid then then they in turn are constructively responsible for the contractor having to take that risk.
Yes, I am liable for the ticket but they share a responsibility for my getting it.
However, the second thing relating to the Earls Court incident is that if I or somebody else were to receive a PCN on the grounds that distributing directories door to door does not constitute unloading and all appeals are lost then that is the end of Thompsons because they would be basing their enterprise upon obliging others to break the law.
I also distribute for the company that does Yellow Pages and they along with everyone else I have worked for have always made it clear that they would be only too willing to help out in any challenges.
I know this is a bit of a side thing but well worth relating. I now stairwell books at flats or leave them by the door instead of distributing (against the rules) because of private ticketers. This actually happened on the Hammersmith Estate. As I had two more buildings to go this guy calls out to me looking very displeased. I knew instantly it was the caretaker. He ran over and told me I must put the books through letterboxes and not leave them where the kids could get to them.
I instantly replied that yes, I'd really love to but with the signs everywhere I'd be at severe risk of getting a ticket when I'm up a stairwell.
His mood instantly changed and he told me he had been ticketed twice on the estate himself. I laughed at that and pointed out that the council would sort that out. He shook his head and told me that they use a private company and that the council say it is between him and them and they have an agreement that take no notice of the council and vice versa over individual cases and the council say it is nothing to do with them who gets ticketted or why.
He then told me I was quite right to be careful and to carry on stair-welling the books and not to bother taking them round the flats.
It's a bit of inside knowledge that makes me confident that "OS" means "outside" - believe it or not there is a set of 'approved abbreviations' that the Parking 'Industry' uses (another example would be "AWC" for "All Windows Checked" meaning they've not seen any Blue Badges, Residents Permits etc). Also, an Ordnance Survey refernce would be at least 6 digits long. I suppose a purist could say that it should be 'O/S' rather than 'OS' but that (IMHO) would be splitting hairs.
You need to do two things now:-
1. Post up a copy of the PCN (all sides) with the PCN number and your Registration number redacted - some Council PCNs do not contain some wording that is required by Law, which renders the PCN invalid and therefore unenforceable.
2. Write a letter (a 'representation') to Newham Council at the address given on the PCN, and tell them that you do not believe that you are liable for this PCN as you were never Parked in Middle Street - this will 'hold' the Penalty at the 50% discounted rate while they consider your representation.
You need to do two things now:-
1. Post up a copy of the PCN (all sides) with the PCN number and your Registration number redacted - some Council PCNs do not contain some wording that is required by Law, which renders the PCN invalid and therefore unenforceable.
2. Write a letter (a 'representation') to Newham Council at the address given on the PCN, and tell them that you do not believe that you are liable for this PCN as you were never Parked in Middle Street - this will 'hold' the Penalty at the 50% discounted rate while they consider your representation.
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Wed, 27 Nov 2013 - 09:30)
It's a bit of inside knowledge that makes me confident that "OS" means "outside" - believe it or not there is a set of 'approved abbreviations' that the Parking 'Industry' uses (another example would be "AWC" for "All Windows Checked" meaning they've not seen any Blue Badges, Residents Permits etc). Also, an Ordnance Survey refernce would be at least 6 digits long. I suppose a purist could say that it should be 'O/S' rather than 'OS' but that (IMHO) would be splitting hairs.
You need to do two things now:-
1. Post up a copy of the PCN (all sides) with the PCN number and your Registration number redacted - some Council PCNs do not contain some wording that is required by Law, which renders the PCN invalid and therefore unenforceable.
2. Write a letter (a 'representation') to Newham Council at the address given on the PCN, and tell them that you do not believe that you are liable for this PCN as you were never Parked in Middle Street - this will 'hold' the Penalty at the 50% discounted rate while they consider your representation.
You need to do two things now:-
1. Post up a copy of the PCN (all sides) with the PCN number and your Registration number redacted - some Council PCNs do not contain some wording that is required by Law, which renders the PCN invalid and therefore unenforceable.
2. Write a letter (a 'representation') to Newham Council at the address given on the PCN, and tell them that you do not believe that you are liable for this PCN as you were never Parked in Middle Street - this will 'hold' the Penalty at the 50% discounted rate while they consider your representation.
1) Thanks for that but rather than post up my PCN for the reasons you stated now as I don't have the time I can cut a corner here by relating that it is printed identical in every way to this one:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...l=newham+single.
2) I will draft the letter later and post it here. One things I will do is to word it subtly avoiding any menbtion of the correct location. To that end I will demand to see images of the van on the basis that I want to see that a full three minutes were recorded in terms of seconds and of any restriction sign where I was parked.
That is of course a red herring. I just want to ensure that if they go ahead on the basis that it did happen in Middle Street I can have photographic evidence of theirs to prove otherwise.
What a waste of effort.
You have 100% guaranteed win, why are you dancing around the issue. Of course you mention the location, it's not a state secret.
But you do it your way, just make sure you don't trip yourself up by trying to be too clever.
You have 100% guaranteed win, why are you dancing around the issue. Of course you mention the location, it's not a state secret.
But you do it your way, just make sure you don't trip yourself up by trying to be too clever.
Yeah, you're right. Will do. Can always bring other stuff into play later if the worst.
Well, I was going to deal with it now but thought it might be a good idea to check their website and take copies of any photos....
I duly got my PCN up and clicked on the image symbols only to get this:-
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Please try the following:
Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
Click the Back button to try another link.
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
Internet Information Services (IIS)
Technical Information (for support personnel)
Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 404.
Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, and About Custom Error Messages.
So I phoned them and was informed that images have been down for a week and maybe I should try again Monday.
She told me this applied to all Newham images!!!!
I'm speechless!
I duly got my PCN up and clicked on the image symbols only to get this:-
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Please try the following:
Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
Click the Back button to try another link.
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
Internet Information Services (IIS)
Technical Information (for support personnel)
Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 404.
Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, and About Custom Error Messages.
So I phoned them and was informed that images have been down for a week and maybe I should try again Monday.
She told me this applied to all Newham images!!!!
I'm speechless!
You should have asked if your 14 day period for a discount will be extended. It is not your fault they have a problem.
You need to see the evidence before you can make a decision to pay the discount rate or go for an appeal.
Will do that tomorrow. Don't need to but why not.
I've noticed two London-wide changes in the last few weeks since Eric Pickles spoke out about use of camera cars......
Suddenly there are very few of them around.
CEO's have suddenly become very aggressively vexatious.
Always talk to them at the outset. If they are talkative they are ok. If they are saying as few words as possible they are waiting till your backs turned.
I got caught out in Newham by something I noticed at two other times on the same day. One comes through very high profile then 5-10 minutes later another comes through when everyone assumes danger is clear. On one occasion I spoke to one who rather grudgingly said I was ok then rushed back ti the van after just spotting the second one coming and he was very ****** off and not being able to issue the PCN.
I've noticed two London-wide changes in the last few weeks since Eric Pickles spoke out about use of camera cars......
Suddenly there are very few of them around.
CEO's have suddenly become very aggressively vexatious.
Always talk to them at the outset. If they are talkative they are ok. If they are saying as few words as possible they are waiting till your backs turned.
I got caught out in Newham by something I noticed at two other times on the same day. One comes through very high profile then 5-10 minutes later another comes through when everyone assumes danger is clear. On one occasion I spoke to one who rather grudgingly said I was ok then rushed back ti the van after just spotting the second one coming and he was very ****** off and not being able to issue the PCN.
It's an open and shut case - what's causing the delay? You know where you were, so what difference will photos make?
QUOTE (madandy @ Thu, 28 Nov 2013 - 18:13)
Will do that tomorrow. Don't need to but why not.
I've noticed two London-wide changes in the last few weeks since Eric Pickles spoke out about use of camera cars......
Suddenly there are very few of them around.
CEO's have suddenly become very aggressively vexatious.
Always talk to them at the outset. If they are talkative they are ok. If they are saying as few words as possible they are waiting till your backs turned.
I got caught out in Newham by something I noticed at two other times on the same day. One comes through very high profile then 5-10 minutes later another comes through when everyone assumes danger is clear. On one occasion I spoke to one who rather grudgingly said I was ok then rushed back ti the van after just spotting the second one coming and he was very ****** off and not being able to issue the PCN.
I've noticed two London-wide changes in the last few weeks since Eric Pickles spoke out about use of camera cars......
Suddenly there are very few of them around.
CEO's have suddenly become very aggressively vexatious.
Always talk to them at the outset. If they are talkative they are ok. If they are saying as few words as possible they are waiting till your backs turned.
I got caught out in Newham by something I noticed at two other times on the same day. One comes through very high profile then 5-10 minutes later another comes through when everyone assumes danger is clear. On one occasion I spoke to one who rather grudgingly said I was ok then rushed back ti the van after just spotting the second one coming and he was very ****** off and not being able to issue the PCN.
QUOTE
Will do that tomorrow. Don't need to but why not.
Why not indeed, they are pissing you around, return the compliment. You have an open and shut case, do them like they are trying to do you.
Just want to close off their saying I'M the one making in up a story about not being in that street.
It's dealing with rodents (as I did in my home). Having decided to seek out and block every hole or crack in my home I made sure the rest of the flat was totally sealed first before sealing up the known entry point in the kitchen.
Trust me on one thing. I have the wit to ready what others might do. About ten years ago I County Courted a woman for not paying what I was do for doing a move after she contrived that stuff was damaged.
In court she started by objecting to my suing her personally on the basis that it was her company I was doing the move for (which was by then going bust as I discovered later).
I then produced a document. It was a print-out from Companies House establishing that her company had not been set up at the time of the move.
Both she and the judge were gobsmacked......
It's dealing with rodents (as I did in my home). Having decided to seek out and block every hole or crack in my home I made sure the rest of the flat was totally sealed first before sealing up the known entry point in the kitchen.
Trust me on one thing. I have the wit to ready what others might do. About ten years ago I County Courted a woman for not paying what I was do for doing a move after she contrived that stuff was damaged.
In court she started by objecting to my suing her personally on the basis that it was her company I was doing the move for (which was by then going bust as I discovered later).
I then produced a document. It was a print-out from Companies House establishing that her company had not been set up at the time of the move.
Both she and the judge were gobsmacked......
The CEO's notes will prove your case without you needing to do anything because it will show that the CEO was not in the road or are the conspiracy theorists going to suggest that these will be falsified for the sake of a mistake made in a PCN?
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 28 Nov 2013 - 19:01)
The CEO's notes will prove your case without you needing to do anything because it will show that the CEO was not in the road or are the conspiracy theorists going to suggest that these will be falsified for the sake of a mistake made in a PCN?
You obviously don't remember my case at Exeter Crown Court - doctoring a map.
Former council man walks free
By This is Devon | Posted: February 28, 2011
Comments (0)
A FORMER council officer was given an absolute discharge by a judge despite admitting falsifying a map relating to a parking ticket.
Geoffrey Urwin, 43, of Oxford Road, St James, admitted falsifying a document used in a motorist's appeal against a parking ticket. He has since lost his job at the city council.
But Judge Graham Cottle questioned why the case had ever been brought to Exeter Crown Court. Judge Cottle said: "Does the crown court exist to deal with this?"
And Fudge Cottle retired form the Exeter circuit and has now turned up on the Plymouth circuit.
Ok, I'm going to post this off asap.... any corrections? Note that I've put ALL my thoughts down and I'm amenable to being told to cut anything out.
Dear ******!
Here is my representation regarding PCN KB5788769U.
First and foremost the PCN is itself invalid and must be cancelled immediately because there is no correct street name.
Perhaps I should continue by stating that I was distributing Thompsons directories at the time in relation to a contract (absurdly described as a "route") off Stratford. Accompanying my contract was a street listing (I can supply) and a map with the area I was to cover marked out. I supply a copy of this along with a copy of the contract. The streets covered by myself are all linked in E15 and named on my large scale map and do not include any street named Middle Road. Indeed, no such street exists in E15.
Secondly, the CEO said he had taken pictures and that once he realised I was unloading after I pointed out to him he told me he would report that fact and that I should appeal and the ticket be cancelled.
To that end I decided to look online at the pictures and arrived at this online page:-
https://payit.newham.gov.uk/payments/sales/...ormDetails.aspx
On that page was the sentence:-
"If images of the parking, bus lane or moving traffic contravention have been recorded by the civil enforcement officer or camera operator they will appear below. Please note it can take up to 3 working days from the date of the contravention for images to be made available."
So I clicked on the images but none worked. Instead this page error message occurred:-
<<<<The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Please try the following:
Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
Click the Back button to try another link.
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
Internet Information Services (IIS)
Technical Information (for support personnel)
Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 404.
Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, andAbout Custom Error Messages.>>>>
At this I phoned the council only to be told the the images were not working owing to a long running problem nor had they be working for a week.
This is totally unacceptable. The use of a camera by the CEO was clearly for the purposes of evidence and if the evidence cannot be produced then the PCN cannot be fully or fairly considered until it is available to both sides and as a result the penalty process must be delayed until that happens. On those grounds aloine I am therefore requesting that, in the event of the PCN not being cancelled, the 14 days period for paying the discounted penalty be postponed until I am notified of their availability.
That said, there appear to be a conflation here by virtue of your statement that it can take up to three working days for such image to appear online at all.
If that is the case then clearly that effectively reduces the 14 days to pay the discounted penalty to 11 days down to 8 days and down to six if the PCN is issued in the three days preceeding Easter or Christmas.
There is also a conflation here between the use of "working days" on the website because it is not reflected by the deadlines stated on the PCN relating to working days.... sauce for the moose is sauce for the panda etc...
If the images cannot be produced then the process cannot proceed and if they can be produced then that is the point at which it proceeds.
Next point. The CEO told me he had observed the vehicle for three minutes as required and taken two pictures with times on them as evidence. (That is why it is essential for me to see the pictures).
That may be so but on the PCN it states: Observation Start Time: 14:37 and Time Of Contravention: 14:40.
Both those times are in hours and minutes only. This could mean anything from two minutes and two second to three minutes and fifty eight seconds. It is essential that the seconds are shown as they should be on the pictures.
However, this brings me to the next point. I was working unloading and distributing heavy directories which, to be fair to the CEO, he acknowledged after. However the fact that even he recognised that confirms that 3 minutes is totally inadequate as observation time. This issue has been commented upon many times by adjudicators upholding appeals and there is no way three minutes inactivity at a vehicle can prove anything.
Indeed, I would go further. The stationary vehicle is an inanimate object and can hardly be held liable for any contravention. Only the driver can and if the driver is unloading or distributing then the evidence would certainly be there in the form of open doors or gates to properties or of him/her nearby working door to door.
I fail to understand what observation of the vehicle is supposed to prove unless supported by observation within the vicinity to establish if the driver is working. I was out of sight of the CEO down a short dead end a few seconds walk away but by double-checking to see if he could establish what was I was doing on instead of focusing on the vehicle which was clearly irrelevant until 20 minutes were up the PCN was only going to be issued and incorrectly.
However, all that is bye the bye. According to the PCN the CEO claims that I am responsible for a contravention in Middle Road. I was not nor i there a Middle road in the vicinity.
Please cancel this PCN forthwith.
Dear ******!
Here is my representation regarding PCN KB5788769U.
First and foremost the PCN is itself invalid and must be cancelled immediately because there is no correct street name.
Perhaps I should continue by stating that I was distributing Thompsons directories at the time in relation to a contract (absurdly described as a "route") off Stratford. Accompanying my contract was a street listing (I can supply) and a map with the area I was to cover marked out. I supply a copy of this along with a copy of the contract. The streets covered by myself are all linked in E15 and named on my large scale map and do not include any street named Middle Road. Indeed, no such street exists in E15.
Secondly, the CEO said he had taken pictures and that once he realised I was unloading after I pointed out to him he told me he would report that fact and that I should appeal and the ticket be cancelled.
To that end I decided to look online at the pictures and arrived at this online page:-
https://payit.newham.gov.uk/payments/sales/...ormDetails.aspx
On that page was the sentence:-
"If images of the parking, bus lane or moving traffic contravention have been recorded by the civil enforcement officer or camera operator they will appear below. Please note it can take up to 3 working days from the date of the contravention for images to be made available."
So I clicked on the images but none worked. Instead this page error message occurred:-
<<<<The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Please try the following:
Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
Click the Back button to try another link.
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
Internet Information Services (IIS)
Technical Information (for support personnel)
Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 404.
Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, andAbout Custom Error Messages.>>>>
At this I phoned the council only to be told the the images were not working owing to a long running problem nor had they be working for a week.
This is totally unacceptable. The use of a camera by the CEO was clearly for the purposes of evidence and if the evidence cannot be produced then the PCN cannot be fully or fairly considered until it is available to both sides and as a result the penalty process must be delayed until that happens. On those grounds aloine I am therefore requesting that, in the event of the PCN not being cancelled, the 14 days period for paying the discounted penalty be postponed until I am notified of their availability.
That said, there appear to be a conflation here by virtue of your statement that it can take up to three working days for such image to appear online at all.
If that is the case then clearly that effectively reduces the 14 days to pay the discounted penalty to 11 days down to 8 days and down to six if the PCN is issued in the three days preceeding Easter or Christmas.
There is also a conflation here between the use of "working days" on the website because it is not reflected by the deadlines stated on the PCN relating to working days.... sauce for the moose is sauce for the panda etc...
If the images cannot be produced then the process cannot proceed and if they can be produced then that is the point at which it proceeds.
Next point. The CEO told me he had observed the vehicle for three minutes as required and taken two pictures with times on them as evidence. (That is why it is essential for me to see the pictures).
That may be so but on the PCN it states: Observation Start Time: 14:37 and Time Of Contravention: 14:40.
Both those times are in hours and minutes only. This could mean anything from two minutes and two second to three minutes and fifty eight seconds. It is essential that the seconds are shown as they should be on the pictures.
However, this brings me to the next point. I was working unloading and distributing heavy directories which, to be fair to the CEO, he acknowledged after. However the fact that even he recognised that confirms that 3 minutes is totally inadequate as observation time. This issue has been commented upon many times by adjudicators upholding appeals and there is no way three minutes inactivity at a vehicle can prove anything.
Indeed, I would go further. The stationary vehicle is an inanimate object and can hardly be held liable for any contravention. Only the driver can and if the driver is unloading or distributing then the evidence would certainly be there in the form of open doors or gates to properties or of him/her nearby working door to door.
I fail to understand what observation of the vehicle is supposed to prove unless supported by observation within the vicinity to establish if the driver is working. I was out of sight of the CEO down a short dead end a few seconds walk away but by double-checking to see if he could establish what was I was doing on instead of focusing on the vehicle which was clearly irrelevant until 20 minutes were up the PCN was only going to be issued and incorrectly.
However, all that is bye the bye. According to the PCN the CEO claims that I am responsible for a contravention in Middle Road. I was not nor i there a Middle road in the vicinity.
Please cancel this PCN forthwith.
I've read shorter novels.
It's structured poorly, has no focus and seems to be nothing more than a polemic (you seem to like obscure words). As one of my favourite TV characters said: "it started poorly, tailed-off a bit in the middle and the less said about the ending, the better."
By way of example, you start by stating that "there is no correct street name", by which I assume you mean that the location given in the PCN is incorrect. However, you don't offer any explanation until you get to the last sentence, by which time the reader might have given up the will to live.
Good luck.
It's structured poorly, has no focus and seems to be nothing more than a polemic (you seem to like obscure words). As one of my favourite TV characters said: "it started poorly, tailed-off a bit in the middle and the less said about the ending, the better."
By way of example, you start by stating that "there is no correct street name", by which I assume you mean that the location given in the PCN is incorrect. However, you don't offer any explanation until you get to the last sentence, by which time the reader might have given up the will to live.
Good luck.
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 1 Dec 2013 - 08:02)
I've read shorter novels.
It's structured poorly, has no focus and seems to be nothing more than a polemic (you seem to like obscure words). As one of my favourite TV characters said: "it started poorly, tailed-off a bit in the middle and the less said about the ending, the better."
By way of example, you start by stating that "there is no correct street name", by which I assume you mean that the location given in the PCN is incorrect. However, you don't offer any explanation until you get to the last sentence, by which time the reader might have given up the will to live.
Good luck.
It's structured poorly, has no focus and seems to be nothing more than a polemic (you seem to like obscure words). As one of my favourite TV characters said: "it started poorly, tailed-off a bit in the middle and the less said about the ending, the better."
By way of example, you start by stating that "there is no correct street name", by which I assume you mean that the location given in the PCN is incorrect. However, you don't offer any explanation until you get to the last sentence, by which time the reader might have given up the will to live.
Good luck.
Thanks for your feedback.
It is good to see that those whgo had worse educations than your ill be disrespected and left as confused as before. That is precisely what the corrupt system feeds off.
Regarding obscure words I trust that you will be at the forefront of any campaign to stop the use of words like adjudicator, contravention, impropriety, minimis, procedural, representation, vexatious etc by councils and adjudicators when dealing with penaltychargenotices by civilenforcementofficers and approveddevices.
Regarding your "will to live comment" I did make it clear at the beginning that I had put ALL my thoughts down and asked for advice on anything to cut out. Yourt "will to live comment" therefore effectively only repeats my own thoughts on this prospective reply and therefore say nothing that I have not already stated.
Still, I guess those snooping on us from the local authorities will have appreciated the content and tone of your posting so maybe it had a good use after all.
All you need to do is write to Newham Council and tell them that you are not liable for the PCN as the Contravention did not Occur because you were never Parked in Middle Road E13 and send them a copy of the instruction ("route") from Thomson's as proof.
This will generate either a letter stating they have decided to accept your representation and have cancelled the PCN or a letter stating that they have rejected your representation (Notice of Rejection) and why along with a form to go to Adjudication at PaTAS.
All the stuff you've put down in your draft letter about the problems with their IT, vehicles not being liable etc is irrelevant.
If they do reject, please post up a copy of the Notice of Rejection on here, so that advice can be given.
This will generate either a letter stating they have decided to accept your representation and have cancelled the PCN or a letter stating that they have rejected your representation (Notice of Rejection) and why along with a form to go to Adjudication at PaTAS.
All the stuff you've put down in your draft letter about the problems with their IT, vehicles not being liable etc is irrelevant.
If they do reject, please post up a copy of the Notice of Rejection on here, so that advice can be given.
You posted your appeal draft last night at nearly 8 o'clock, so there may well not be many replies. Sorry you got upset at HCA's response, but we do have to be a bit harsh, in order to make appelants realise that this is a game to be played carefully. Councils can be ruthless, venal, rapacious, and grasping, and with some it is all of these !
Please note that although the taking of photographs is now commonplace, it is not a legal requirement for PCNs issued on the vehicle or to the driver.
I drafted something you could use: -
Please note that although the taking of photographs is now commonplace, it is not a legal requirement for PCNs issued on the vehicle or to the driver.
I drafted something you could use: -
QUOTE
Dear Sirs!
I wish to challenge PCN KB5788769U.dated dd/mm/yyyy
Invalid PCN
The PCN is invalid because at no time was I parked on the street named on the PCN. In fact a simple examination of the map shows there to be no street of that name in the vicinity. As a PCN is required by law to contain the location of the alleged contravention, (as well as the time and date), this error renders the PCN null and void, therefore I request and require you to cancel the PCN immediately.
Yours faithfully
A.N.Other
I wish to challenge PCN KB5788769U.dated dd/mm/yyyy
Invalid PCN
The PCN is invalid because at no time was I parked on the street named on the PCN. In fact a simple examination of the map shows there to be no street of that name in the vicinity. As a PCN is required by law to contain the location of the alleged contravention, (as well as the time and date), this error renders the PCN null and void, therefore I request and require you to cancel the PCN immediately.
Yours faithfully
A.N.Other
Pasha any use ?
http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Pasha%20v%20...2090279728).doc
http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Pasha%20v%20...2090279728).doc
Actually I reduced it slightly but included the point that since the issue is where the driver is involved in loading/unloading activity is the relevant matter the observation period did not occur since it involved the CEO merely observing the the vehicle without checking the vicinity to see if he could see the driver which is something I have seen CEO's do very rarely.
Of course the possibility of their saying I was actually in Middle Road was there but before I did my final draft I had the idea of looking at Middle Road on Streetview and lo and behold, it would not matter if they made such a claim because it has no parking controls!
Of course the possibility of their saying I was actually in Middle Road was there but before I did my final draft I had the idea of looking at Middle Road on Streetview and lo and behold, it would not matter if they made such a claim because it has no parking controls!
I ought to add that I check for the pics again out of curiosity. They are STILL unavailable.
Regarding HCAndersens response that:-
"It's structured poorly, has no focus and seems to be nothing more than a polemic (you seem to like obscure words). As one of my favourite TV characters said: "it started poorly, tailed-off a bit in the middle and the less said about the ending, the better......"
There is a point to rambling replies which is summed up by his comment "However, you don't offer any explanation until you get to the last sentence, by which time the reader might have given up the will to live."
That may come naturally but it is partially a deliberate tactic of mine because generally it can and does provoke an equally rambling but template response if there is a NOR which instantly opens the door to my claiming that the NOR is invalid because it failed to respond to reasonable points raised that denying me the opportunity to make an INFORMED decision as to how to proceed.
Regarding HCAndersens response that:-
"It's structured poorly, has no focus and seems to be nothing more than a polemic (you seem to like obscure words). As one of my favourite TV characters said: "it started poorly, tailed-off a bit in the middle and the less said about the ending, the better......"
There is a point to rambling replies which is summed up by his comment "However, you don't offer any explanation until you get to the last sentence, by which time the reader might have given up the will to live."
That may come naturally but it is partially a deliberate tactic of mine because generally it can and does provoke an equally rambling but template response if there is a NOR which instantly opens the door to my claiming that the NOR is invalid because it failed to respond to reasonable points raised that denying me the opportunity to make an INFORMED decision as to how to proceed.
I have had no reply so out of curiosity, bearing in mind that by tomorrow 45 days will have passed, I looked online and saw that I am now expected to pay the full penalty.
I suspect there may be the possibility of their feigning not receiving my appeal and it does occur to me that they may have exceeded the time limit to reply but there are two other things of note.
First off, the facility for looking at pictures online still does not work.
The second thing is that having wondered the time limits for them to reply I decided to check with the relevant act so I looked at the PCN and yes, it does give the contravention code and yes, it does state what it is.
However, it does not state what the relevant Act is nor indeed is any Act or Statute whatsoever mentioned.
Does this invalidate the the PCN because the "contravention" as stated on the PCN cannot therefore relate to any particular law, act or statute and in that in turn means that I am unable to see precisely where I stand regarding the law and the rules - put another way, this is them putting themselves above the law.
My PCN's template is identical to the PCN here.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...l=newham+single
I suspect there may be the possibility of their feigning not receiving my appeal and it does occur to me that they may have exceeded the time limit to reply but there are two other things of note.
First off, the facility for looking at pictures online still does not work.
The second thing is that having wondered the time limits for them to reply I decided to check with the relevant act so I looked at the PCN and yes, it does give the contravention code and yes, it does state what it is.
However, it does not state what the relevant Act is nor indeed is any Act or Statute whatsoever mentioned.
Does this invalidate the the PCN because the "contravention" as stated on the PCN cannot therefore relate to any particular law, act or statute and in that in turn means that I am unable to see precisely where I stand regarding the law and the rules - put another way, this is them putting themselves above the law.
My PCN's template is identical to the PCN here.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...l=newham+single
If your PCN is identical to the one you mentioned then it does state the relevant Act - it's at the top of the second/back page in bold type.
Why are you looking for a complex defence? You were not parked on the Road stated on the PCN at the time it was issued, so the Contravention did not occur - this renders the PCN invalid and therefore unenforceable.
Why are you looking for a complex defence? You were not parked on the Road stated on the PCN at the time it was issued, so the Contravention did not occur - this renders the PCN invalid and therefore unenforceable.
QUOTE
I have had no reply so out of curiosity, bearing in mind that by tomorrow 45 days will have passed, I looked online and saw that I am now expected to pay the full penalty.
I suspect there may be the possibility of their feigning not receiving my appeal it's not an appeal, it's a challenge and it does occur to me that they may have exceeded the time limit to reply there isn't one but there are two other things of note.
I suspect there may be the possibility of their feigning not receiving my appeal it's not an appeal, it's a challenge and it does occur to me that they may have exceeded the time limit to reply there isn't one but there are two other things of note.
You posted on 27 Nov.
QUOTE
rather than post up my PCN for the reasons you stated now as I don't have the time
, and here we are, over 40 days later and still no PCN.The more one looks at this thread objectively, the more suspicious one becomes. But hey ho, it's your money or maybe it's not? Maybe you're not the owner and won't get the NTO, or maybe you don't exist - we haven't seen any primary docs yet, have we?
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Mon, 6 Jan 2014 - 08:30)
If your PCN is identical to the one you mentioned then it does state the relevant Act - it's at the top of the second/back page in bold type.
Why are you looking for a complex defence? You were not parked on the Road stated on the PCN at the time it was issued, so the Contravention did not occur - this renders the PCN invalid and therefore unenforceable.
Why are you looking for a complex defence? You were not parked on the Road stated on the PCN at the time it was issued, so the Contravention did not occur - this renders the PCN invalid and therefore unenforceable.
Amazing how one can focus so much on the small print one misses the large print.
Well, I looked at the relevant act and I am now baffled. Am I looking at the right thing when I am looking at this:- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/3 ....29 and 15 days, 25% discount?
I am NOT looking for a complex defence. Why make a statement based upon something I have not touched on? I am merely pointing out that a reply is way overdue and that this may be an attempt to pretend they did not receive my appeal..... I still have an outstanding 17 month old Charge Certificate from Haringay who pulled the same trick.
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 6 Jan 2014 - 09:06)
QUOTE
I have had no reply so out of curiosity, bearing in mind that by tomorrow 45 days will have passed, I looked online and saw that I am now expected to pay the full penalty.
I suspect there may be the possibility of their feigning not receiving my appeal it's not an appeal, it's a challenge and it does occur to me that they may have exceeded the time limit to reply there isn't one but there are two other things of note.
I suspect there may be the possibility of their feigning not receiving my appeal it's not an appeal, it's a challenge and it does occur to me that they may have exceeded the time limit to reply there isn't one but there are two other things of note.
You posted on 27 Nov.
QUOTE
rather than post up my PCN for the reasons you stated now as I don't have the time
, and here we are, over 40 days later and still no PCN.The more one looks at this thread objectively, the more suspicious one becomes. But hey ho, it's your money or maybe it's not? Maybe you're not the owner and won't get the NTO, or maybe you don't exist - we haven't seen any primary docs yet, have we?
You seem obsessed by conspiracy theories regarding myself, and whilst I do not argue with your claiming you are looking at the thread objectively this is Pepipoo, not Facebook and your objectivity should be focused upon the subject of the thread, the PCN involved rather than scoring personal points. The pedanticism of whether it is an appeal or a challenge is absurd considering that a challenge against an decision that goes against you (in this case the issue of the PCN) is effectively an appeal and vice versa. Regarding the time limit to reply (or not) is there not a time limit within which they may send and NTO or NOR?
Your obsession with the primary docs is, generally speaking, like your obsession over informal wording on this thread, extremely counter-productive and unhelpful. Like many others I do not have the means or know how to do this without going to an internet place and spending time and money and whilst I would do so if essential my relating to an identically worded PCN on here should suffice. We all waste enough time and money as a result of the actions of the local authorities and now you want us to waste more when a link will suffice.
......which brings me onto your idiotic suspicions and conspiracy theories regarding myself. Even if I did post up the PCN it would be scrubbed so even if I did so you still would not know if I existed or not.
Finally, I did state that the photos are still inaccessible on their website with my getting this which I click on a disabled image icon:- https://payit.newham.gov.uk/payments/Parkin...26/05397148.JPG
Since I could only reach that page by entering both PCN and a resgistration numbers in the first place that is proof that both myself and the PCN exist or that neither exists nor does my vehicle and that the mere existence of Newham Council is a figment of my imagination too.
Your obsession with the primary docs is, generally speaking, like your obsession over informal wording on this thread, extremely counter-productive and unhelpful
It's called evidence.
Are you the registered keeper?
It's called evidence.
Are you the registered keeper?
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 6 Jan 2014 - 11:25)
Your obsession with the primary docs is, generally speaking, like your obsession over informal wording on this thread, extremely counter-productive and unhelpful
It's called evidence.
Are you the registered keeper?
It's called evidence.
Are you the registered keeper?
Yes.... I am the registered keeper.
My only consideration ATM is, to be fair to everyone, is that having had no reply to date with the sum owed as shown on the website increased to the full amount I have to be prepared to be taken round the houses by them irrespective of all other considerations.
QUOTE (madandy @ Mon, 6 Jan 2014 - 12:28)
Yes.... I am the registered keeper.
If you are the RK (and the V5 has your present address) then, irrespective of whether they reply to your informal reps, sooner or later they will send you the NtO when you can make formal representations.
I strongly recommend you keep any reps brief and to the point as previously suggested by Incandescent rather than the War & Peace version.
What a massive fuss over nothing! I had a very similar case a few months back, sent off an appeal saying that I was not parked where the ticket said I was, and the ticket was cancelled, end of story. My appeal was maybe 3 lines at most, that's really all you need.
QUOTE (geekman @ Mon, 6 Jan 2014 - 15:45)
What a massive fuss over nothing! I had a very similar case a few months back, sent off an appeal saying that I was not parked where the ticket said I was, and the ticket was cancelled, end of story. My appeal was maybe 3 lines at most, that's really all you need.
Well, that ius your story but my ONLY issue at the moment is that they have not replied at all and might be lining up for claiming my rep was not received in time.... As I stated earlier I have an outstanding CC from Haringay currently in a stalemate situation arising precisely from their doing that.
On 22nd January I received this:-
Thank you for writing to us.
Your comments and notes of the civil enforcement officer have been considered and looked at.
A decision has been made to cancel the Penalty Charge NBotice due to the Civil Enforcement Officer's error regarding the name of the street.
In conclusion I can confirm that I have cancelled the above Penalty Charge Notice and the case is now closed.
Yours Sincerely,
Mr S. Chauvet.
Now there is one general issue I was wondering about.
I knew the content of the letter before opening it because of the East London postmark.
However, the address inside the letter is:-
London Borough Of Newham,
Parking And Traffic Enforcement,
Po Box 1125,
Warrington WA55 1EJ
T+44 (0) 20 8430 2000.
With the heat off, does it invalidate or affect the integrity of the/a letter if:-
(i) The address given in the letter is in a different area from the post-code on the envelope - lame point maybe but....
(ii) The address carries a phone number in a different locality thus ensuring that the location of the respondent is ambiguous.
(iii) The address of the signatory is given as a postbox - i.e should not the address of a signed letter be from where the signatory is physically located and contactable.
Any ideas on this one for the future?
Thank you for writing to us.
Your comments and notes of the civil enforcement officer have been considered and looked at.
A decision has been made to cancel the Penalty Charge NBotice due to the Civil Enforcement Officer's error regarding the name of the street.
In conclusion I can confirm that I have cancelled the above Penalty Charge Notice and the case is now closed.
Yours Sincerely,
Mr S. Chauvet.
Now there is one general issue I was wondering about.
I knew the content of the letter before opening it because of the East London postmark.
However, the address inside the letter is:-
London Borough Of Newham,
Parking And Traffic Enforcement,
Po Box 1125,
Warrington WA55 1EJ
T+44 (0) 20 8430 2000.
With the heat off, does it invalidate or affect the integrity of the/a letter if:-
(i) The address given in the letter is in a different area from the post-code on the envelope - lame point maybe but....
(ii) The address carries a phone number in a different locality thus ensuring that the location of the respondent is ambiguous.
(iii) The address of the signatory is given as a postbox - i.e should not the address of a signed letter be from where the signatory is physically located and contactable.
Any ideas on this one for the future?
Well done.
On the address; the council has likely contracted out a lot of the back office work to SERCO, Capita or BPA.
The Secretary of States guidance says only the enforcement authority should deal with formal appeals, so I don't know how they get round that one.
Mick
On the address; the council has likely contracted out a lot of the back office work to SERCO, Capita or BPA.
The Secretary of States guidance says only the enforcement authority should deal with formal appeals, so I don't know how they get round that one.
Mick
Because despite running to over 40 posts, this thread hadn't got past the informal stage.
Wrong street = no contravention was raised at the start and once presented to the council they conceded the point.
No fuss, no bother.
Wrong street = no contravention was raised at the start and once presented to the council they conceded the point.
No fuss, no bother.
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 30 Jan 2014 - 15:46)
Well done.
On the address; the council has likely contracted out a lot of the back office work to SERCO, Capita or BPA.
The Secretary of States guidance says only the enforcement authority should deal with formal appeals, so I don't know how they get round that one.
Mick
On the address; the council has likely contracted out a lot of the back office work to SERCO, Capita or BPA.
The Secretary of States guidance says only the enforcement authority should deal with formal appeals, so I don't know how they get round that one.
Mick
QUOTE
The Secretary of States guidance says only the enforcement authority should deal with formal appeals, so I don't know how they get round that one.
And neither do I.
And another one that has been over looked. TEC code of practice stipulates that only the authority that made the designation order can claim the debt. So how come agents are allowed to claim an unpaid penalty that is not theirs?
Okay guys, swings and roundabouts here but I just got a Charge Certificate for my 18 month old Haringay PCN which, of course I will deal with elsewhewre, but this point about who and where I got it from is again reflected so let's deal EXCLUSIVELY with address issues here in the general context and not the issues concerning the Harringey PCN and Charge Certificate.
First off, I was on my way out and given my only seeing the CROYDON postal stamp I spent the next hour racking my brain over where I could hacve falen foul of TFL.
Upon returning I noticed on the front it said RETURN ADDRESS: PO Box 38996, London, N22 9AF.
Inside it tells me that it has been issued by the Traffic Enforcement Centre at NORTHAMPTON COUNT COURT and tells me that if I need more time toi file a statement I should contact THEM AT NORTHAMPTON or send any witness statement to them.
However, it says that if I have any query regarding the original penalty charge I should contact the local authority.
my general though is that the courts should be neutral but who is doing what here and once again is there some kind of compromise......
.....the big question being that of how it is that a document from a Court in Northampton comes with Croydon postmark and a Harringay return address. Where does Croydon come into it anyway?
First off, I was on my way out and given my only seeing the CROYDON postal stamp I spent the next hour racking my brain over where I could hacve falen foul of TFL.
Upon returning I noticed on the front it said RETURN ADDRESS: PO Box 38996, London, N22 9AF.
Inside it tells me that it has been issued by the Traffic Enforcement Centre at NORTHAMPTON COUNT COURT and tells me that if I need more time toi file a statement I should contact THEM AT NORTHAMPTON or send any witness statement to them.
However, it says that if I have any query regarding the original penalty charge I should contact the local authority.
my general though is that the courts should be neutral but who is doing what here and once again is there some kind of compromise......
.....the big question being that of how it is that a document from a Court in Northampton comes with Croydon postmark and a Harringay return address. Where does Croydon come into it anyway?
QUOTE (madandy @ Fri, 31 Jan 2014 - 16:04)
Okay guys, swings and roundabouts here but I just got a Charge Certificate for my 18 month old Haringay PCN which, of course I will deal with elsewhewre, but this point about who and where I got it from is again reflected so let's deal EXCLUSIVELY with address issues here in the general context and not the issues concerning the Harringey PCN and Charge Certificate.
First off, I was on my way out and given my only seeing the CROYDON postal stamp I spent the next hour racking my brain over where I could hacve falen foul of TFL.
Upon returning I noticed on the front it said RETURN ADDRESS: PO Box 38996, London, N22 9AF.
Inside it tells me that it has been issued by the Traffic Enforcement Centre at NORTHAMPTON COUNT COURT and tells me that if I need more time toi file a statement I should contact THEM AT NORTHAMPTON or send any witness statement to them.
However, it says that if I have any query regarding the original penalty charge I should contact the local authority.
my general though is that the courts should be neutral but who is doing what here and once again is there some kind of compromise......
.....the big question being that of how it is that a document from a Court in Northampton comes with Croydon postmark and a Harringay return address. Where does Croydon come into it anyway?
First off, I was on my way out and given my only seeing the CROYDON postal stamp I spent the next hour racking my brain over where I could hacve falen foul of TFL.
Upon returning I noticed on the front it said RETURN ADDRESS: PO Box 38996, London, N22 9AF.
Inside it tells me that it has been issued by the Traffic Enforcement Centre at NORTHAMPTON COUNT COURT and tells me that if I need more time toi file a statement I should contact THEM AT NORTHAMPTON or send any witness statement to them.
However, it says that if I have any query regarding the original penalty charge I should contact the local authority.
my general though is that the courts should be neutral but who is doing what here and once again is there some kind of compromise......
.....the big question being that of how it is that a document from a Court in Northampton comes with Croydon postmark and a Harringay return address. Where does Croydon come into it anyway?
Well, firstly, you need to start a new thread for this issue otherwise the title of the original will be misleading and, in any case, now refers to a non-event.
Do you ever consider that life might be easier if you didn't so readily try to find fault? That is, to think some things are relevant and you might be able to find fault with them to your advantage?
The matter of varying addresses is simply explained by the fact that much enforcement work and the related admin is outsourced and hence addresses have little meaning.
Moving on.
I can't see how you have what you describe as a) a Charge Cert and it being b) issued by TEC (Northampton).
TEC don't issue Charge Certs.
Where you refer to it commenting on the possibility of extra time to make a Witness Statement, then it sounds more like the next document in the process, the Order for Recovery?
But since you consistently decline to show any documents, as others have commented, how would we know and be able to quickly clarify, without that issue alone running to another twenty posts?
If there is indeed another case with which you are concerned, then people will expect to SEE the relevant documents rather than listen to your largely irrelevant speculations on what each might mean.
People want to help. It is YOUR responsibility here to allow and help them to do that.
+1
Apologies to all for this. It is an Order for recovery..... shouldn't have posted with someone breathing down my neck to log off.
I will be dealing with this issue from PCN to Order For Recovery in another thread but......
I stress that I added this issue of the conflation of addresses here etc solely on the basis that the issue is similar to the one relating to the Newham PCN on this thread and given that an Order For Recovery is a court document from a Court in Northampton addressed to myself I find it odd that it should carry the instructions to send it to a N15 address if undelivered and arrive with a Croydon postmark.
Another small point, should not an order from a court carry a signature from someone? There is no signature.
Do you ever consider that life might be easier if you didn't so readily try to find fault? That is, to think some things are relevant and you might be able to find fault with them to your advantage?
The matter of varying addresses is simply explained by the fact that much enforcement work and the related admin is outsourced and hence addresses have little meaning.
I did not "find fault." I was asking if there was fault. I thought they MIGHT be relevant and have sought wiser council. If you focus on what i write, the subject I write about and your take on that we progress. If you apply yourself to making sweeping assumptions about me personally we stand still.
Taking your explanation of varying addresses, I do not see how a routine document like an Order For Recovery issued by a County Court gets to be posted from an address in Croydon nor how a court document if undelivered should be returned to anywhere but the court or the address it was sent from.
In saying that is not me finding fault but finding what might be fault and seeking the advice of those more knowledgable than myself. I always post here on the basis that wiser council prevails.
I will be dealing with this issue from PCN to Order For Recovery in another thread but......
I stress that I added this issue of the conflation of addresses here etc solely on the basis that the issue is similar to the one relating to the Newham PCN on this thread and given that an Order For Recovery is a court document from a Court in Northampton addressed to myself I find it odd that it should carry the instructions to send it to a N15 address if undelivered and arrive with a Croydon postmark.
Another small point, should not an order from a court carry a signature from someone? There is no signature.
Do you ever consider that life might be easier if you didn't so readily try to find fault? That is, to think some things are relevant and you might be able to find fault with them to your advantage?
The matter of varying addresses is simply explained by the fact that much enforcement work and the related admin is outsourced and hence addresses have little meaning.
I did not "find fault." I was asking if there was fault. I thought they MIGHT be relevant and have sought wiser council. If you focus on what i write, the subject I write about and your take on that we progress. If you apply yourself to making sweeping assumptions about me personally we stand still.
Taking your explanation of varying addresses, I do not see how a routine document like an Order For Recovery issued by a County Court gets to be posted from an address in Croydon nor how a court document if undelivered should be returned to anywhere but the court or the address it was sent from.
In saying that is not me finding fault but finding what might be fault and seeking the advice of those more knowledgable than myself. I always post here on the basis that wiser council prevails.
Edit
Okay, so continuing on this theme of conflicting addresses and postboxes and taking into account Mad Micks points thus I have to relate (in example only) to my Haringey PCN (which I will be starting a dedicated thread on) where I received a Charge Certificate on the basis that the did not receive my representation in time thus:-
I get a PCN and I have a set time in which to respond. The address is a post box number in Lancing (could be anywhere). They claim they did not receive my reply in time. Now this poses a question taking Mad Micks point on board.
If the council must deal with it themselves then does that mean that they have employees in Lancing doing it or does that mean they are then forwarded to Haringey or the relevant local authorities home patch?
In other words, does this not compromise the time allowed for posting? Does using a post box number render recorded delivery unreliable?
You think that's all? I've kept envelopes and while their correspondence is signed off with the Lancing PO Box number as if the sender has been reply from inside a post box by the sea, the stamp on the envelope is London N22.
Does this mean that local authorities forward post before attending to it or sending it on thus conflating deadline dates, does this mean they do not deal with it themselves as they should? Any ideas?
I get a PCN and I have a set time in which to respond. The address is a post box number in Lancing (could be anywhere). They claim they did not receive my reply in time. Now this poses a question taking Mad Micks point on board.
If the council must deal with it themselves then does that mean that they have employees in Lancing doing it or does that mean they are then forwarded to Haringey or the relevant local authorities home patch?
In other words, does this not compromise the time allowed for posting? Does using a post box number render recorded delivery unreliable?
You think that's all? I've kept envelopes and while their correspondence is signed off with the Lancing PO Box number as if the sender has been reply from inside a post box by the sea, the stamp on the envelope is London N22.
Does this mean that local authorities forward post before attending to it or sending it on thus conflating deadline dates, does this mean they do not deal with it themselves as they should? Any ideas?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.