Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Proof of formal representation
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
JB127
Hi

1. PCN placed on vehicle by LB Greenwich for failing to display valid ticket in council leisure centre car park.

2. Informal representation made online stating that valid ticket was on display and that we still have valid ticket. (acknowledgement email received)

3. Informal representation rejected by LB Greenwich.

4. Notice to owner received with image taken from nearside of dash that does not show offside where ticket was displayed.

5. Formal representation made online with image of ticket uploaded. (no acknowledgement email received)

6. Charge Certificate received

7. Email sent to LB Greenwich parking services requesting that they review their records as I believe that formal representation was made - I also mentioned that I did not receive an acknowledgement email. Email politely urging them to reconsider all evidence before moving into more formal and costly proceedings etc.

8. Received a "timed out" message from LB Greenwich's mailserver 2 days later suggesting that email was not delivered.

9. Forwarded original email to LB Greenwich from different email account requesting delivery and read receipts. Delivered successfully but no read receipt.

10. Waited a few days but still no response so phone call made to LB Greenwich who acknowledged receipt of email and stated that they would consider an get back to me

11. Received letter today that basically repeats the what the charge certificate states.

So after a few hours of searching it seems that I now wait for the Order for Recovery and I can then return a TE9 witness statement. My one area of concern is should this be further pursued by LB Greenwich (through PATAS?) how can I prove that I completed the online form? I know that the date was either the 23rd or 24th Oct and it was mid-morning, but I did it at work where I have no browser history (which would be a bit flimsy as proof anyway?)

I guess this may be the equivalence of things getting lost in the post so there must be some precedence. LB Greenwich state that they have no record of my representation but I doubt that they have checked their server logs for activity under my PCN ref etc

Any advice at this stage would be most welcome, I hope that the above summary is sufficient. All of LB Greenwich's communications seem to have been served correctly and timely, it is just very frustrating that they are not willing to let me resubmit my formal representation and save us both time, effort etc.

As an aside, if you are confident that the contravention did not occur in the first place, how obliged are you to follow what seems to be increasingly confusing processes (do I really need to get the TE9 countersigned at a county court etc?). At the moment, it seems that I am more at fault for unsuccessfully submitting my formal representation rather than the alleged contravention!

Look forward to any helpful responses
mashkiach
Make an FoI on their system downage.
JB127
QUOTE (mashkiach @ Tue, 16 Dec 2014 - 19:23) *
Make an FoI on their system downage.


Thanks mashkiach, just submitted one. Also tried my IT department at work for web history but they claim to not record it - find that very hard to beleive!

Do you have any experience on how "lost correspondence" is viewed within these processes? I take it that at these early stages reasonableness and common sense don't get a look in as the Authorities have nothing to loose by calling your bluff? I'm just bit daunted by the whole county court, witness statement etc though I guess it's just paperwork.

Cheers
hcandersen
You're getting ahead of yourself. One step at a time.

If you are confident that you made reps in accordance with the instructions in the NTO within the 28-day period provided, then you would complete the witness statement when you receive the OfR and send to TEC within the period specified. They will revoke the order and direct that the CC is cancelled. The authority must either cancel the PCN or refer the matter to PATAS at which stage the adjudicator will issue directions. They MAY request info from you that reps were made, but they might not. If the former, then apparently you do not have a copy and could not supply. If the latter, then they would direct that the matter be dealt with as an appeal which you would submit to PATAS as directed.
JB127
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 16 Dec 2014 - 19:46) *
You're getting ahead of yourself. One step at a time.

If you are confident that you made reps in accordance with the instructions in the NTO within the 28-day period provided, then you would complete the witness statement when you receive the OfR and send to TEC within the period specified. They will revoke the order and direct that the CC is cancelled. The authority must either cancel the PCN or refer the matter to PATAS at which stage the adjudicator will issue directions. They MAY request info from you that reps were made, but they might not. If the former, then apparently you do not have a copy and could not supply. If the latter, then they would direct that the matter be dealt with as an appeal which you would submit to PATAS as directed.


OK hcandersen, point taken. Think I was just getting a bit wound up with RB Greenwich refusing to be reasonable and looking at the appeal, but looking at other threads on here I shouldn't be surprised should I - just been lucky not have a PCN since 2006 (took about 9 months to get that one cancelled).

I will have a clear conscience when completing the witness statement so as you infer, I don't really have anything to worry about (if all proceeds as it should...)

Cheers
mashkiach
It is very important to find out if you have made your representation in time. First of all the 56 days would have lapsed any you by right should win. Secondly if you have made your representation within the discount time you stand to loose it now.
This is why I passionately hate the online forms as the councils swindle and can claim whatever.
If there was a downage and the adjudicator agrees that you have made the representation he would be wrong to treat it as a PATAS case as the 56 days have long passed. But knowing the limitations of them we can not bank on it.
hcandersen
The adj would have to treat a '56-day' case as an appeal.

Yes, the reps are deemed accepted if the authority have not served a response, but this has to be enforced otherwise the process would grind on to bailiffs and become messy. The adj (and TEC) are the enforcers.
mashkiach
It is deemed (only treated as) made and yet 56 days lapsed without a notice of rejection. However if you have proof of making your representation than the authority may not do other than serve a notice of acceptance.
Chaseman
Where on-line appeal forms are concerned it is always wise to put on a Delivery Receipt request. Don't bother about a Read Receipt. It's not your concern whether a council reads an e-mail any more than you can determine whether they have actually read a letter that was pushed through their letterbox. But if you have proof of delivery, then a lot of the problems that OP has here would evaporate.
JB127
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Wed, 17 Dec 2014 - 13:40) *
Where on-line appeal forms are concerned it is always wise to put on a Delivery Receipt request. Don't bother about a Read Receipt. It's not your concern whether a council reads an e-mail any more than you can determine whether they have actually read a letter that was pushed through their letterbox. But if you have proof of delivery, then a lot of the problems that OP has here would evaporate.


RB Greenwich have a fairly basic 4-5 stage web-form. I know that I completed it, but whereas I received an acknowledgement email at informal reps stage (also online), I got no acknowledgement email at formal reps (in hindsight, I should have taken a screenshor). This is pretty much the basis of my original post - how can I prove that I represented? and I suppose, what happens if I can't prove that I represented? If all that happens is that it goes to Order of Recover, I then submit a TE9 witness stamenent and then finally someone considers the alleged contarvention itself, I don't have anything to be worried about? After all, RB Greenwich have provided one image that shows the dashboard from the nearside but does not show the dash on the offside (obscured by the bulge of the instrument console) where the ticket (we still have) was displayed. On this basis I am very confident that an adjucicator would find in my favour (I hope)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.