DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 26556--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cambridge PCN OoT TE7 objected by local authority, waiting
TEC decision. N244 or not if rejected?
DIR By: cross_legend
Date: June 18, 2024, 8:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
hi [member=428]H C Andersen[/member], thanks for your advice, I
checked the address on the old V5C, they are correct in all
particulars. By the time of OfR was served, I haven't moved home
so there was no confusion. The correspondences sent after moving
home all arrived at my new address so there is no confusion
either. By the time of OfR I did check my mailbox daily so if
anything happens, whether it was royal mail's failure or someone
picked my mailbox, it was out of my control, the mail just went
astray.
Actually anywhere you can find references to this "Too late for
Reps", I have marked them as "received" in my original post,
either on the picture or on my summary of the "line of events".
What I didn't post is the picture of Charge certificate and the
Too late for Reps since their contents should be irrelevant to
the question of why the TE7 is rejected.
I hope that answers your question. Your advice will always be
welcomed!
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Actually it's 2 notices missing. the 3rd one, council's
response to late representation was received. I didn't post it
here since I think it is irrelevant,
>
> Doesn't help when info is withheld from a timeline.
>
> My previous post asked you to compare your V5C with postcode
finder because this is RM's database and represents the
'correct' version of addresses. DVLA don't cross-check, they
simply record what's submitted. If, perhaps out of custom and
practice, an occupier chooses to use a form of address which
does not correspond to the finder database then that's their
choice and risk. So..
>
> ..would you pl confirm that your V5C address is exactly as
found in the finder database and that the CC was addressed to
your first V5C address.
>
> You've confirmed that your V5C address is 'always up to date'.
However, experience suggests that this can take on different
meanings.*
>
> As regards other aspects of process which are implied by your
account, the authority are required to use the DVLA RK address
in all notices unless you notify them formally to the contrary.
However, correspondence does not follow this rule. So, their
objection to your OOT would be sent to the address you used in
the OOT, similarly with other simple correspondence.
>
> *- I had a case recently where the address used by an
authority was not as per DVLA. The authority made simple
mistakes in that they mis-formatted the address so that it took
up an additional line in the address block and this meant that
when entered on to the PCN the post code was missing. However,
the CC had more room and was delivered, but the OfR didn't and
wasn't.
>
> In this process there is no substitute for physically
checking.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 26559--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cambridge PCN OoT TE7 objected by local authority, waiting
TEC decision. N244 or not if rejected?
DIR By: Neil B
Date: June 18, 2024, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cross_legend link ---
>
> The problem is that can I send the N244 to TEC by email and
pay online (this way I can do it on 24th), or I have to do this
by royal mail? If it has to been done by royal mail then I have
to leave more room for the time of delivery? Does anybody have
any experience with it?
--- End Quote ---
To file an N244 you would need to phone TEC and it is not
advisable to do that on a Monday.
The agent will transfer you to ccbc fees who will take your
payment and it is ccbc fees that you then send your N244 to,
following their instructions.
We are still seeing significant delays in processing at TEC but
I don't know if that affects N244s.
Your hearing will be transferred to your local county court,
which is where incidentally?
--------
Pay attention to what HCA is saying for the moment.
Personally I have concerns about your case. You've now further
explained the problems with mail but I can't comprehend why none
of that appeared on your OOT application?
#Post#: 26562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cambridge PCN OoT TE7 objected by local authority, waiting
TEC decision. N244 or not if rejected?
DIR By: cross_legend
Date: June 18, 2024, 9:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
hi [member=13]Neil B[/member], then if want to go with the
hearing I should phone TEC maybe this Friday? The local county
should be Cambridge County Court.
At the moment I was given the TE7 by TEC, I thought this was an
easy process, didn't expect local authority and TEC would reject
it. I did provide my correspondence with TEC which I still think
until now should be the strongest proof. The other things about
how the post service is not reliable could help you understand
the situation, but I doubt they could be used as proof on court.
As per my understanding of the Calladine-Smith v Saveorder Ltd
[2011] EWHC 2501 (Ch) ruling, the recipient can't just simply
declare the mail is not received, some kind of proof is needed.
The un-reliability of Royal Mail is hard to prove, especially
hard to prove that I didn't get the specific mail in question,
but my correspondence is a proof.
Thanks!
#Post#: 26567--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cambridge PCN OoT TE7 objected by local authority, waiting
TEC decision. N244 or not if rejected?
DIR By: Neil B
Date: June 18, 2024, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cross_legend link ---
>
> hi [member=13]Neil B[/member], then if want to go with the
hearing I should phone TEC maybe this Friday? The local county
should be Cambridge County Court.
>
--- End Quote ---
Your deadline is later than you think and you should liaise with
cp 8759 on next moves.
I wouldn't phone TEC on a Friday either personally. Everyone
wants to resolve things before the weekend and then on Monday
they get all those hit by bailiffs over the weekend.
It's difficult to comprehend the enormity of TEC operations.
#Post#: 26570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cambridge PCN OoT TE7 objected by local authority, waiting
TEC decision. N244 or not if rejected?
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 18, 2024, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just going back to notices. OP have you asked for copies of the
missing notices or, if not freely forthcoming, submitted a SAR?
#Post#: 26576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cambridge PCN OoT TE7 objected by local authority, waiting
TEC decision. N244 or not if rejected?
DIR By: cross_legend
Date: June 18, 2024, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
hi [member=428]H C Andersen[/member], no I haven't asked for
copies of the missing notices. I am not aware of how to do it,
the TEC and CCC is slow in response and I don't know how it will
help?
For the SAR, does it stand for Suspicious Activity Report?
Whatever it is I've never submitted anything except to TEC and
CCC. In my experiences here unreliable post services seem to be
the norm so I never knew I can do something about it. Perhaps
someone else or the estate management has submitted one, I am
not sure. If you think that will help I can try ask.
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Just going back to notices. OP have you asked for copies of
the missing notices or, if not freely forthcoming, submitted a
SAR?
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 26579--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cambridge PCN OoT TE7 objected by local authority, waiting
TEC decision. N244 or not if rejected?
DIR By: cross_legend
Date: June 18, 2024, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
hi [member=428]H C Andersen[/member], just realised SAR is
subject access request. Should I do it now? To local council or
to TEC? Thanks!
#Post#: 26612--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cambridge PCN OoT TE7 objected by local authority, waiting
TEC decision. N244 or not if rejected?
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 18, 2024, 3:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The council.
But phone and ask first, only SAR if they won't play ball.
#Post#: 26621--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cambridge PCN OoT TE7 objected by local authority, waiting
TEC decision. N244 or not if rejected?
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 18, 2024, 4:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1502]cross_legend[/member] I've responded to your PM.
#Post#: 51502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cambridge PCN OoT TE7 objected by local authority, waiting
TEC decision. N244 or not if rejected?
DIR By: cross_legend
Date: December 31, 2024, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A quick update: I paid £303 to request a review with hearing and
retrieved the £303 back.
The process didn't go exactly as [member=1]cp8759[/member] and I
had expected. Actually the judge didn't issue an immediate cost
order, but left a note in the court order allowing me to recover
the cost after the proceeding has completed. In the mean while I
found an administration error during county council's processing
and filed an complaint. The county council agreed to comply with
the court order and they also cancelled my original PCN as an
added benefit.
On the hearing there were only me and the judge. The county
council was absent although they have a legal representative
covers the county court. The judge refused my request to issue a
cost order. She gave several reasons:
1. There is no precedence that a cost order has been issued in
the N244 review.
2. Section 75 of the CPR rules appears to be an separate and
independent section, so the general rules of the unsuccessful
party to pay the cost does not apply here.
3. N244 review is only part of the proceeding, not the whole
proceeding, the unsuccessful party could only be decided after
the whole proceeding has completed. The judge appeared to
consider the whole PCN process as the whole proceeding.
It appeared to me that the judge had made her research for my
case before the hearing. She strongly believed that she didn't
have the legal authority to issue a cost order at that time,
which she repeated multiple times.
However, the judge was empathetic of my situation, she agreed to
leave the following in the court order:
3. The Applicant sought costs of the application against the
Claimant. The Court allows the recovery of the court fee only
being £303 to be paid by the Claimant at the conclusion of the
proceedings.
(The judge mentioned that even if she was able to issue a cost
order, she would never allow the cost of Mckenzie friend.)
Actually I am not sure whether the county council is obliged to
comply with this order, because this is not a direct cost order.
However, I have found another administration error during the
county council's processing of my case, so I decided to try the
county council's internal complaint process. It turned out that
the complaint process worked fine. The county council processed
the complaint and agreed to pay me back the £303 and also
cancelled the PCN which was totally out of my expectation.
I hope this experience would be helpful for those in similar
situations. Thanks a lot for [member=1]cp8759[/member]'s help.
The cost argument was well written, even though it didn't fully
convince the judge. I actually believe
[member=1]cp8759[/member]'s argument is right, that a cost order
should be issued in this case, because:
1. General rule is general rule, without explicit declaration it
should apply.
2. TEC issued a court order for rejection of the TEC, the review
is for this court order only, this is the whole case.
However the reality is that most judges share the same opinion
(I vaguely recall that someone has said this before), so to get
an immediate cost order we need to adjust the cost argument to
make the judge to abandon their existing belief, to be the first
one to issue a cost order in such case, which wouldn't be an
easy task.
Thanks for everyone that has replied in this post!
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page