Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: NTO received two & a half years after apparent contravention
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
starb
I have received an NTO for PCN that was apparently issued on the 27/3/2012. On speaking to my ex-wife, who the car is registered to (although it is mine and she has never driven it) she advised that she received an NTO in 2012 and she sent it back giving them my details. She still has the letter she received back from them saying that they would contact me. This year her son had a bailiff visit at her house for, what we now know, is this ticket. They were completely baffled at the time because her son does not drive but they eventually pieced it together and it appeared that the council had been sending demands for payment in his name to the wrong flat at my address. Why they then sent the bailiffs to her address is anyones guess. And why they were sending notices to him at all is a complete mystery. Anyway, she appealed, once again gave them my details and hey presto, I get this NTO this month. For the record, I have never had a ticket on my windscreen and if I had, I would have paid it. I can't even remember this incident but I would never knowingly park illegally (the contravention is 'parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours' and the street is one that I park in.

Are there any grounds to appeal this or will I just have to pay it? At the very least I would hope to get the 50% reduced rate as this is the first notice I have had, but they are demanding the full charge of £70. Any advice would be gratefully received.

Enceladus
Please post up scrubbed scans of all sides of all pages of the NTO you received.
Also post up the 2012 letter that your wife has.

Scrubbed = obscure or redact your name & address (if applicable), the PCN number and the vehicle reg. Please leave visible all times, dates, location and council info.
Create a free account on a third party hosting service. I use http://tinypic.com with no complaints, there are plenty of others. Scan at the scanner default of 150 or 300 dpi. Please do not attempt to manipulate the image size in any way, shape form or fashion, the forum software will take there of that where necessary. Upload your scans/photos etc to the hosting site and simply copy and paste the provided IMG links into your posts on here. Et voilà, the images appear on the forum. Some judiciously placed pieces of cut up Post-it notes are good for obscuring if you don't want to edit the scan with Microsoft Paint or Photoshop Elements or whatever. Easy as falling of a bike once you have done the first one.

If you have no discount opportunity then you might as well fight this all the way to adjudication.

I would like to see the docs first, however I would be inclined to challenge the NTO on the basis that it has been served outwith the permitted timeframe in The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, ie the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date. It is therefore null and void and unenforceable. Challenge them to demonstrate how the NTO has been lawfully issued and served? And secondly, even if it has been lawfully served there has been an unreasonable delay, through no fault of yours and it is therefore neither fair or in the interests of justice to continue to enforce.

QUOTE
Time limit for service of a notice to owner

20. (1) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date.
(2) The relevant date—
(a)in a case where a notice to owner has been cancelled under regulation 23(5)(c) of these Regulations, is the date on which the district judge serves notice in accordance with regulation 23(5)(d);
(b)in case where a notice to owner has been cancelled under regulation 5 of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, is the date of such cancellation;
(c)in a case where payment of the penalty charge was made, or had purportedly been made, before the expiry of the period mentioned in paragraph (1) but the payment or purported payment had been cancelled or withdrawn, is the date on which the enforcement authority is notified that the payment or purported payment has been cancelled or withdrawn;
(d)in any other case, is the date on which the relevant penalty charge notice was served under regulation 9.
londonicon
from what you say, definate grounds for appeal
DancingDad
QUOTE
.........She appealed showing me as the owner.........


Which says there may be a lawful route for an NTO to be served.
How did she appeal? To Who ? And what cancelation notices did she get ?
hcandersen
The regs provide that:
1. A NTO may only be served on the person whom the authority believe was the owner at the time.
2. Owner has NOTHING to do with ownership, believe it or not, the owner is the person by whom the vehicle is kept. This is presumed to be the registered keeper unless the contrary is proved. So, who was keeping the vehicle on the date of the contravention?
3. In any event, if the authority accepted your wife's representations that she was not the owner and gave your name and address, then the authority had 6 months from the date of cancellation of HER NTO in which to serve a NTO on you.
They cannot use the '6- months' rule for any subsequent NTO which they cancelled and which also cited you as the owner. They have 6 months from the date of cancellation of her NTO to serve one on you IF she gave them your name and address. If she didn't, then procedurally they could serve one on you if your details were given when your son's NTO was cancelled. But as said by others, justice should be effected swiftly and any undue delay on their part would not go down well at adj.
We need to know exactly what your wife stated in the reps to her NTO regarding who was the owner. Please don't say 'your details' because this is vague. She gave your name and address at the time (or not, as the case may be) is the quality of detail which we need.
DancingDad
We do need a chain of dates and events to make sure that we can offer a suitable challenge.

Original PCN dated 27/3/12
NTO sent to Registered Keeper (Ex Wife) ???? 2012
She challenges on not being owner ? Gives your name and address ????? Correctly ?
Council sends new NTO (presumably) to A N Other at Flat x your address and you live in Flat y ???
How did you find this out ??
With no reply from AN Other, eventually bailiffs arrive at your wife's address. Why ?
Your wife appeals (Though warrant seems to be in AN Other's name (happens to be her son but no matter, it wasn't her so who did she appeal to ?)
Who cancelled the NTO on AN Other and on what date ?

We either have a chain of events here where the council have issued an NTO to you unlawfully as it is time barred OR there is a solid and lawful chain that allows the re-issue to you and any challenge is on excessive time only.

Paperwork and details are needed
starb
Thanks all for the replies; very helpful. I will scan the docs in tomorrow but in the meantime, chain of events as follows:
The original PCN was apparently on the 27 March 2012 at 21.00 (never received)
The ex-wife received a Charge Certificate dated 23 July 2012 (i mistakenly said an NTO in my first post, it was not) stating that a NTO was served on her on the 13th June 2012, which she claims she did not receive. She wrote to Cardiff Council at the beginning of August to say that she was not the driver or the keeper and gave them my CORRECT name and address. She received a Notice of Acceptance dated 9th August. The notice stated that they would send a new NTO to the 'notified keeper' and reserved the right to send my ex another NTO if I denied the transfer(?). I am the keeper and driver, always have been.
I have never received anything at all from the council about this at my address, which has always been the same (and I work for the council so I'm not difficult to find!)
Don't know exactly when, but completely out of the blue the bailiffs called at my ex-wife's house claiming that a Mr (insert her surname, which is not the same as mine, I'll say 'Jones') owed over £600 for a parking fine dating back several years. They had no specific details other than the council who issued the parking ticket. My ex contacted the council and after a lot of digging (she had no ticket number or any other info to go on) discovered that it was my car registration. The person she spoke to said that they had been sending demands to a Mr Jones (I am Mr Star) at Flat A (I live in Flat B). Understandably I did not receive any of these. How they got her son's name (who does not drive and is in America) I have no idea and the person my ex spoke to did not either. The council gave her the number of some sort of central office that deals with all council parking tickets, I believe, and they told her which form she needed to complete (she downloaded it) to get it all cancelled. She couldn't remember details but is going to look to see if she still has details of the form and the letter she received stating pretty much the same as the first Notice of Acceptance she received in 2012.
Hope this clarifies somewhat. I will scan in all the documents I have tomorrow.
Once again, many thanks for your help. It is very much appreciated.
hcandersen
Is the PCN number constant through all this tooing and froing?
Anyway, back to procedure:
Your ex received a CC.
She effectively made reps against the, as far as she was concerned, non-existent NTO which preceded the CC which the authority accepted. This puts her out of the frame and it was procedurally improper for the authority to intimate that they might continue to pursue her if her evidence didn't stack up and would have been unlawful for them to have served one. But in the event they didn't.
If we're talking of the same PCN, then the 6 months starts on the date on which her NTO was cancelled.


DancingDad
Okay, a little clearer.
Original CC and hence NTO (Which never arrived) cancelled, not by correct procedure but under council discretion. But nevertheless, from August 9th 2012, they have six months to serve a fresh NTO on the person they now believe to be the owner.
Which for some reason wasn't you but Mr Jones at Flat A.
This seems a total cock up by council who it seems cannot transcribe the correct details your ex gave. But as HCA says, they cannot, having accepted her claim not to be the owner retract and go back to her.

Now to Mr Jones at Flat A. Presumably a series of notices arrived, were ignored by whoever lives in Flat A and eventually led to a debt and warrant being raised at the central clearing courts (TEC) in Northampton.
And I'm assuming that from that Bailiffs were in contact with Flat A, maybe even hammering on the door one morning as that is normal progression.
If the vehicle in question was there they would have likely clamped it but had you sold it, parked in garage ? (doesn't really matter, they didn't do that)
Now Flat A, or rather the occupant would have told the bailiffs that they were not Mr Jones, had no idea who that may be and at that point the bailiff action should have petered to a halt and the situation goes away from normal procedures.

For whatever reason, the bailiffs visited your Ex, still in pursuit of Mr Jones (which happens to be her son's surname).
While name isn't Jones is it a common surname, unique or was there first name or initials that specifically put son in the frame ?
If so, presumably, bailiffs tracked him to Ex's address via electoral role or similar database.
If not, son being chosen is random or bailiffs simply decided to revisit the first RK as the surname was the same.
First action is acceptable, second is not.

Then, ex wife was advised to appeal, from your description, to TEC and it seems they granted the appeal, made by your EX on behalf of Mr Jones.
Which I'm not certain that TEC can do without Mr Jones authorising it.
If they can, council can then AFAIK, serve a fresh NTO on whoever they believe to be the owner and again have 6 months to do so.

There are still anomalies to be answered and dates needed and I am certainly not saying that council should not be put to the test of proving they acted within the regs at every step. One error and the NTO is time barred, given the length of time in play, they need to prove not only correct procedure but also why, given the excessive delays, they believe it is justifiable to serve an NTO, even if they can, after 2 1/2 years
hcandersen
I agree in part.
At present, the only person in jeopardy is you as you have a NTO and if the PCN is the same then as only one person may be pursued, it's you. Everybody else is off the hook, hence why I've not commented on the tribulations of Mr. Jones because it's history, done and dusted.
In a nutshell, your case is:
I was served with a NTO dated **** in respect of a PCN issued on ****.
The authority had served an earlier NTO dated **** on another person (your ex-wife) in respect of this PCN. This was successfully challenged on the grounds that she was not the owner at the time and she gave them your name as the relevant owner.
This NTO was cancelled on or around *****.
The date of your NTO is more than 6 months after this date and is therefore invalid by virtue of regulation 20(1)(b) of the General Regs.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...ulation/20/made
As regards the authority's actions in respect of your wife, IMO these were not the exercise of discretion as such. An authority may consider reps made after the 28-day period even if a CC has already been issued and IMO this is what they did as it saves everybody the aggravation of proceeding with enforcement only to have the matter brought back to the NTO anyway.
You should therefore make reps on the basis of procedural impropriety because the NTO is invalid by virtue of the reference given above. It would make life simpler if you referred to the first NTO and that this was cancelled on the basis that that person was not the owner, an argument which the authority accepted. Those reps included your name and address as the owner, which was correct as you were the owner. The authority had a maximum period of 6 months from the date of cancellation of that NTO in which to serve a NTO on you. They did not.
DancingDad
I agree that's the approach to take and no need to mention Mr Jones. In fact or to mention the earlier NtO to the Ex.

As a person, OP has received an NTO that is against a PCN served (allegedly) over two half years ago. They have no knowledge of the original PCN nor can be expected to have any knowledge as the owner when they may not have been the driver at the time.
The obvious challenge, as has already been stated by many, is that it is time barred by virtue of Regulation 20(1)(b) of the General Regulations.
But I would go on to add that if the enforcement authority have reason to believe that they are allowed to serve an NTO by the regulations that they must include a full PCN history, redacted if needs be to protect personal details, but which shows the full and lawful chain of events leading to the delayed service.
And follow on that even if delayed service can be justified that enforcement of a PCN after this period would be unfair in common law and the PCN should be cancelled accordingly.

And a council cancelling a CC is exercising its discretion to do so, they do not have to so has to be.
I am interested in the full history, not necessarily as part of the challenge but because knowledge is power. When, if council come back and say service of this NTO is lawful, I'd like to be in a position to pick holes in their reasoning for the adjudicators.
They have to give a reason or adjudication will simply say time barred. If that reason seems reasonable, and I've tried to show why it could, we need to blow a hole in it.
Perhaps I'm looking a few steps more then we need to at present.
hcandersen
It's always useful to look over the horizon, you never know what might be lurking in the dead ground.
But to return to my pedantic point, the CC was cancelled because they accepted reps against the NTO. If this wasn't the case,then how and why was that NTO cancelled, and it had to be because they served another one? IMO, there is nothing in the regs which prevents the recipient of an NTO from making reps for the first time at any time prior to the receipt of an OfR. While a CC may not be challenged, the underlying NTO may be. IMO, the OP needs to make the point regarding cancellation of the NTO because in the circumstances of this case the 6 months starts from the date of cancellation of that NTO under reg 5 of the Appeals regs and not for any other reason.
DancingDad
Strictly speaking, whether the challenge is against the NTO being timed out from first PCN or from cancellation of first NTO, makes little difference where we are now
Whether it's two and half or only one and a half years it's still well in excess of the six months allowed.

I'd prefer to play dumb on the first NTO and challenge from PCN, let council show the lawful chain of events that may indeed fall down at the first NTO cancellation.
I am still concerned that the second cancellation (Re MR Jones) could be being used so am looking for anything that can break the chain.
hcandersen
I do not see that Mr. Jones has any part to play in this and I wonder whether the OP might now be getting confused.
Make reps on the basis of procedural impropriety. Forget Mr. Jones as far as your reps are concerned, he's not your concern, after all you only know of these events because of your offline discussions with your ex. But as far as you are concerned there are 2 points on the procedural timeline: a PCN in 2012 and a NTO in 2014. If the authority want to bring your ex and Mr. Jones into the equation, then that's their choice, but don't make it for them.
PCN 2012
Your NTO 2014
Prima facie a procedural impropriety as > 6 months. It's THEIR task to prove their case.
starb
You lot really know your stuff! Thank you so much for taking the time to reply in such detail. I think I will go with leaving out anything to do with my ex-wife and her son and simply go with the procedural impropriety option. I'll let them explain why it's taken them two years to serve me with the NTO. This NTo is the first thing I have received as I did not get any original PCN (and in the very poor photos they have included with the NTO there is no obvious sign of one on my car). I will report back on what the council come back with. Again, your help is very much appreciated. I didn't have a clue what to do!
Enceladus
You have the current NTO and your wife has a letter from the Council apparently accepting her original representations. Please post them up before you do anything.

It is always best to double check the available evidence and you have already admitted that a NTO turned out to be a Charge Certificate. Posting up original documents is the tried and tested pillar underpinning the success of this forum. Those that don't post or jump the gun invariably end up in a mess.
starb
Good point, Enceladus! I've uploaded the NTO to me dated 8/7/14 (scan 6), the notice that the stat dec/witness statement has been filed to my ex-wife's son dated 29/6/14 (4), the Charge Certificate dated 23/7/12 (2) and the notice of acceptance sent to my ex-wife in August 2012 (1).

I also have the reverse of all these docs but they I don't have enough upload space here so I will do that in a separate post.

I was going to upload the reverses but it's saying I don't have enough space. It did that with the previous post and it took several attempts. I've tried a few times with no joy and have to go to work now so will try again later.
DancingDad
Two important points come out
1st is that 28 day deadline for challenge is on Wednesday, two days to go.... someone please check me on that.
Second is that Mr Jones is important, or at least the cancelation of his NTO via TEC.

This doesn't change the challenge that should be made but does give a clue that this will not be automatic cancellation.

IMO Points are:-
Contravention did not occur. I have no recollection of the events so can only deny that they happened.

Procedural Impropriety(s)
Original PCN never found on vehicle nor handed to driver so was not served.

Regulations put a finite time limit of 6 months for service of a Notice to Owner from date of PCN service. Given that original PCN is dated ?????2012, this period has been exceeded.

Other Compelling Reasons
Given the excessive time between alleged service of the PCN and service of the NTO, even if this somehow is allowed under the regulations, it serves no useful purpose in traffic management and as I have no recollection or knowledge of the original events, it would be grossly unfair under common law to enforce. In that respect I ask that you exercise discretion and cancel the PCN.

Should Cardiff CC decide to continue, I require full details of the PCN history including any photographs and CEo notes that the council may rely on to prove lawful service and the original contravention
Enceladus
QUOTE (starb @ Mon, 4 Aug 2014 - 10:12) *
I also have the reverse of all these docs but they I don't have enough upload space here so I will do that in a separate post.

I was going to upload the reverses but it's saying I don't have enough space. It did that with the previous post and it took several attempts. I've tried a few times with no joy and have to go to work now so will try again later.

Why didn't you follow the instructions in my post #2 above?
QUOTE
Scrubbed = obscure or redact your name & address (if applicable), the PCN number and the vehicle reg. Please leave visible all times, dates, location and council info.
Create a free account on a third party hosting service. I use http://tinypic.com with no complaints, there are plenty of others. Scan at the scanner default of 150 or 300 dpi. Please do not attempt to manipulate the image size in any way, shape form or fashion, the forum software will take there of that where necessary. Upload your scans/photos etc to the hosting site and simply copy and paste the provided IMG links into your posts on here. Et voilà, the images appear on the forum. Some judiciously placed pieces of cut up Post-it notes are good for obscuring if you don't want to edit the scan with Microsoft Paint or Photoshop Elements or whatever. Easy as falling of a bike once you have done the first one.


And yes your opportunity to challenge the PCN expires on Wednesday. Do Cardiff do online challenges or fax? It should say so somewhere on the NTO?

starb
I literally did not have time as I have had an (three) emergency placements (I am a foster carer) and it's bedlam. THis is the first five minutes I've had to myself and I suspect I won't be awake for much longer!

It states on the NTO that I must make reps before the end of the 28 day period, states at 7/8/14. I looked online and got this message when I entered my PCN details: 'Your representations can not be accepted electronically at this stage of the legal process for the following reasons.

1. A Notice to Owner has been sent to the registered owner/keeper of the vehicle. The owner/keeper must complete and sign the Notice to Owner.

2. A Charge Certificate has been issued and therefore the registered owner/keeper no longer has the right to make representations to the Council. The options available to the registered owner/keeper are set out in the Charge Certificate'


I have quickly noted the comments you've all made and cobbled together the following. It's a bit repetitive so any thoughts on amendments would be great. I will post this first class tomorrow. Getting it there by Wednesday is ok isn't it?


Registration: BU51 TWZ
Representations:
• Procedural impropriety: That is, an original PCN was never found on my vehicle in 2012 nor was one handed to the driver, so was not served. Should you wish to proceed, I would ask that you demonstrate how the PCN has been lawfully served.
• Regulations state that there is a time limit of 6 months for service of a Notice to Owner from the date of the PCN service. The original PCN was dated 27/3/2012 so this period has been exceeded. This unreasonable delay means that this is neither fair nor in the interests of justice to pursue.
• Given the excessive amount of time between the alleged service of the PCN and service of the NTO, even if allowed under the regulations, it serves no useful purpose in traffic management and as I have no recollection or knowledge of the original events, it would be grossly unfair under common law to enforce. In that respect I ask that you exercise discretion and cancel this PCN.
Should Cardiff County Council decide to continue, I require full details of the PCN history including any photographs and CEO notes that the council may rely upon to prove lawful service and the original contravention.
Enceladus
QUOTE (starb @ Tue, 5 Aug 2014 - 00:32) *
It states on the NTO that I must make reps before the end of the 28 day period, states at 7/8/14.

Please post up the remaining pages of the NTO.
Your 28 days expire on Wednesday the 6th.

hcandersen
OP, how can I put this?
Stop wasting time.
You must get your reps in by no later than 6th which is tomorrow.
You are not presenting a case to the Supreme Court, you are making reps which in all probability they will reject and we will go to adj. This is reality.
The other reality is that if your reps are not made in time, then they may disregard them and you would have lost.
Submit your reps and stop faffing about. You have your primary line of defence, the rest is of secondary importance at this time.
Sorry to be blunt.
starb
Yes err..thankyou? As I said it's going first class today.
hcandersen
Can you send a version online or by email as well? 1st class post is presumed delivered on Thurs, the second working day after posting.
I don't want to get into a discussion regarding the distinction between 'made' and 'received', but IMO you should ensure that your reps are with them by no later than tomorrow.
And get proof of posting and don't send recorded.
If email/online is not available, then go for the guaranteed delivery next day 1st class service.
Enceladus
Is there a fax number mentioned somewhere on the PCN?
DancingDad
If you have not sent reps yet, why not ?? And DO NOT delay because of what is below, send them NOW. Don't forget the PCN number as a reference and your postal address.
And as said, I would use a guaranteed next day delivery service AND duplicate with first class (with certificate of posting). Will cost a fiver or so but if the challenge is not there tomorrow, you could be back in charge certificate timing and no chance to appeal. Keep all receipts safe.

Phone council general contact number is 029 2087 2087
Get a phone number for parking dept. Do not try to argue case with them, you simply need to explain that your option to appeal online is blocked and have they an email address you can use ?? Don't panic if they say no or if they tell you it is now too late to make reps (they are wrong) your primary route is post..guaranteed delivery. If they will accept email, send the reps that way as well, if not, we are simply building more points for the future.
Get the name of whoever you speak to, specifically ask that they note the contents of the call and you make immediate notes. Preferably record the call (mobile phone)

For the future if needed, not now.
The probability is that the online option has been blocked because the system is looking at original PCN timing. And no one has reset it. No matter, get a screenshot of the option screen and online message.
With future challenges (appeal to adjudicator) we will include that the option to make a challenge online was blocked, despite being in time. By blocking the option that is clearly allowed, Cardiff CC have taken a step not allowed under the regulations to fetter your rights to make a challenge. This is a procedural impropriety.
starb
Thank you all. Forms off in time by first class (duplicate) and guaranteed next day. Phone call placed (with no joy, as to be expected) but details noted. Thanks all for the advice. I will keep you posted on the response.
Enceladus
Glad to here that's done!

However one letter is unlikely to get your NTO cancelled but you might strike lucky. Please post up any response as promptly as possible. So while we are waiting please post up the remaining pages of the NTO.


Mad Mick V
If this case ends up at adjudication, which I doubt, the following case (via mr mustard) might be relevant in terms of undue delay and consequent unfairness:-

PATAS 2130453008

There has been a great deal of unexplained delay in this case. The Notice to Owner was issued on 24th August 2011. However the Charge Certificate was only issued on 22nd March 2013. The Council has not given any explanation for the level of delay before issuing the Charge Certificate and obtaining registration of the debt at Court. In my judgement there is a compromise of Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention here. It is a problem for the Adjudicator to give a fair hearing in the case if the delay has potentially affected the recollection of events by either the Appellant or the parking attendant. Also, for this enforcement to be lawful the Council has a duty to exercise its powers with reasonable expedition and fairness. I note the case of R-v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex p. Doody (1994) (House of Lords) per Lord Mustill : "Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances" . I have also considered Davis-v- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ( PAS 1970198981) where it was considered that a delay of more than 2/3 months in responding to an appellant's representations was prima facie evidence of unfairness in the absence of explanation . I am not satisfied that the local authority has conducted the timetable of this enforcement with reasonable expedition and that, as a result, there is an unfairness. For both of these reasons I find that the appropriate Direction here is that the Penalty Charge Notice must now be cancelled.


Mick
starb
Hello all,
Well I've finally had a reply - a rejection of course. Actually it is dated the beginning of the month but they are still not putting the correct flat number on it and it's going downstairs to the other flat therefore I've only received it this morning. Some points to note: they've put the colour of the car as black: it is blue; I haven’t parked on double yellows – I believe it was a turning point. They have offered me the reduced rate of £35 as they rejected all the points on my appeal, and they have given me a further 28 days to appeal again. I am going to, so should I be sending anything different this time? I maintain there has been an excessive delay (because they were sending it to totally the wrong person) and there was no notice on my car (although one can be seen in the photo). Should I bring my ex-wife’s son into it (in my appeal – not literally)? This is what I put in my last appeal:

Representations:
• Procedural impropriety: That is, an original PCN was never found on my vehicle in 2012 nor was one handed to the driver, so was not served. Should you wish to proceed, I would ask that you demonstrate how the PCN has been lawfully served.
• Regulations state that there is a time limit of 6 months for service of a Notice to Owner from the date of the PCN service. The original PCN was dated 27/3/2012 so this period has been exceeded. This unreasonable delay means that this is neither fair nor in the interests of justice to pursue.
• Given the excessive amount of time between the alleged service of the PCN and service of the NTO, even if allowed under the regulations, it serves no useful purpose in traffic management and as I have no recollection or knowledge of the original events, it would be grossly unfair under common law to enforce. In that respect I ask that you exercise discretion and cancel this PCN.

Should Cardiff County Council decide to continue, I require full details of the PCN history including any photographs and CEO notes that the council may rely upon to prove lawful service and the original contravention.

Your wisdom, as always, much appreciated.













post image
DancingDad
It's off to TPT you go unless you really want to pay the discount.

I assume no PCN history included with reply ???

You also say the rejection was still sent to flat below ?

What address was on the NTO you just challenged?
And is it still to Mr Jones or have they corrected name at least ?
Mr Mustard
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 6 Aug 2014 - 10:21) *
If this case ends up at adjudication, which I doubt, the following case (via mr mustard) might be relevant in terms of undue delay and consequent unfairness:-

PATAS 2130453008

There has been a great deal of unexplained delay in this case. The Notice to Owner was issued on 24th August 2011. However the Charge Certificate was only issued on 22nd March 2013. The Council has not given any explanation for the level of delay before issuing the Charge Certificate and obtaining registration of the debt at Court. In my judgement there is a compromise of Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention here. It is a problem for the Adjudicator to give a fair hearing in the case if the delay has potentially affected the recollection of events by either the Appellant or the parking attendant. Also, for this enforcement to be lawful the Council has a duty to exercise its powers with reasonable expedition and fairness. I note the case of R-v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex p. Doody (1994) (House of Lords) per Lord Mustill : "Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances" . I have also considered Davis-v- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ( PAS 1970198981) where it was considered that a delay of more than 2/3 months in responding to an appellant's representations was prima facie evidence of unfairness in the absence of explanation . I am not satisfied that the local authority has conducted the timetable of this enforcement with reasonable expedition and that, as a result, there is an unfairness. For both of these reasons I find that the appropriate Direction here is that the Penalty Charge Notice must now be cancelled.

Mick


The above was a PATAS decision (which I was going to add, it is one of several similar ones) and the OP will end up at TPT as he is outside London, and no-one adjudicator binds another but, given the delay I think that TPT would be very unhappy with Cardiff. How very "kind" of them to offer to let you pay half. They must be really desperate for cash.
starb
Dancing Dad - everything they sent is on that post. They finally have the right name but the address is the same one they have been sending things to (despite my giving them the correct flat number) addressed to both myself and previously, my ex's son.

Don't really want to pay up but wondering if it's worth any more hassle. I've already made my appeal, so is it worth saying the same thing again? I have to say had I received the original ticket I would have just paid it if I was illegally parked, but their sending letters addressed to the wrong person at the wrong address and then sending bailiffs to my ex-wife's house to scare her poor teenage son has really annoyed me.

Mr Mustard, they are desperate for cash. I should know, I work for them (which makes their inability to get my address right all the more shocking).

DancingDad
Wrong address is fatal to enforcement.
Delayed service is fatal to enforcement.

I'd fight on but your choice.

We would love to help with all the ammo you need
starb
You had me at 'fatal to enforcement'! So how best to proceed Dancing Dad? The 14 day period in which I can pay the discounted rate expires on Monday so should I get in my appeal before then?
DancingDad
14 day period only affects discount offer.
You have 28 days to appeal to TPT starting with date NOR was served.

My opinion is that you appeal on exactly the same points plus:-

Procedural Impropriety:- Various
Failing to consider. Noting that they have read the points while not answering them does not show any consideration. Especially when the point is that they are massively outside deadlines.
They explain in great detail why the PCN was served, even have some photos on file. Will not give a brief breakdown of relevant dates to show lawful service.
The closest they get is to say that all correspondence etc and such a general statement does not fly in comparison to the detail given otherwise.

You didn't say if NTO was addressed correctly or not. But no matter. The regulations require that notices are served on the "Proper Address" If at sometime you have given them your proper address and they have continued to use the flat below, they have failed to use the proper address.

We really could do with a better understanding of dates of various happenings to be 100% certain. Date of cancelation of the bailiffs enforcement would be good if your ex has found the letter. Otherwise, we move forward with requiring the council to show lawful service within dates.

I would like to get a written narrative down, without too many holes, that you can give to an adjudicator on the day of the hearing, if only to reinforce why you have doubts and to show the comedy of errors that this enforcement has become.

starb
Ok Dancing Dad, below are accurate dates. Ex-wife did not receive anything saying bailiff enforcement was cancelled. She simply had the notice in June of her filing a stat dec/witness statement in her son's name.

Timeline
27/3/12 Council say NTO put on car. Never seen.
13/6/12 Date council claim an NTO was sent to ex-wife. Nothing received by her.
23/7/12 Charge certificate received by ex-wife. She writes back to give them my details as driver.
9/8/12 Notice of acceptance received by ex-wife
Nothing further to either of us until…
6/2014 Bailiff’s turn up at ex-wife’s house looking for her son for this parking fine. Ex-wife speaks to council who advise they have been sending correspondence to my building, wrong flat number, addressed to her son. Cannot explain why, possibly because he has the same surname as her and someone read ‘ex-husband’ in her letter and made that assumption (letters sent to Mr XXX did not use a first name). Ex-wife files stat/dec witness statement in his name again giving my name and address
29/6/14 notice that the stat dec/witness statement has been filed, addressed to my ex-wife's son
8/7/4 NTO received by me, correctly addressed. I send in appeal.
1/9/14 Notice of rejection of representations received by me although sent to wrong flat number again(95 instead of 95b)
Bluedart
QUOTE (starb @ Wed, 17 Sep 2014 - 19:46) *
Ok Dancing Dad, below are accurate dates. Ex-wife did not receive anything saying bailiff enforcement was cancelled. She simply had the notice in June of her filing a stat dec/witness statement in her son's name.

Timeline
27/3/12 Council say NTO put on car. Never seen.
13/6/12 Date council claim an NTO was sent to ex-wife. Nothing received by her.
23/7/12 Charge certificate received by ex-wife. She writes back to give them my details as driver.
9/8/12 Notice of acceptance received by ex-wife
Nothing further to either of us until…
6/2014 Bailiff’s turn up at ex-wife’s house looking for her son for this parking fine. Ex-wife speaks to council who advise they have been sending correspondence to my building, wrong flat number, addressed to her son. Cannot explain why, possibly because he has the same surname as her and someone read ‘ex-husband’ in her letter and made that assumption (letters sent to Mr XXX did not use a first name). Ex-wife files stat/dec witness statement in his name again giving my name and address
29/6/14 notice that the stat dec/witness statement has been filed, addressed to my ex-wife's son
8/7/4 NTO received by me, correctly addressed. I send in appeal.
1/9/14 Notice of rejection of representations received by me although sent to wrong flat number again(95 instead of 95b)


Don't you mean PCN was put on car on the 27/3/12 and not the NTO
starb
Yes that is what I should have put. My bad!
DancingDad
I suspect, given the dates, that council may be able to show service of each NTO as within time.
But to date they haven't.
They also have to justify the second NTO to Mr Jones which from what is said they can't except by admitting an error. Service to someone NOT in the frame is a clear PI and though not directly prejudicial to you (which could tempt an adjudicator to ignore it) it has directly led to excessive delays. Which does affect your ability to defend the original PCN.

Service of your NOR to the wrong address is an absolute PI that no adjudicator should ignore.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.