DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 68824--------------------------------------------------
       Re: At Bailiff Stage - Camden, drove through a restricted street
       (prohibition on certain types of vehicles)
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: April 26, 2025, 11:17 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I still suggest you submit a Subject Access Request to Camden.
  HTML https://www.camden.gov.uk/your-rights
       You are still flying blind without sight of these.
       #Post#: 68828--------------------------------------------------
       Re: At Bailiff Stage - Camden, drove through a restricted street
       (prohibition on certain types of vehicles)
   DIR By: ChloeApple
       Date: April 26, 2025, 12:10 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi Pressman, thank you so much - your comments and advice are
       crystal clear, as ever!
       Hi HC - thanks, I will certainly look into the subject access
       request. Though to be honest, if I can get to the point of
       Camden issuing a new PCN for £65, I will just pay that as I am
       fairly sure I am liable.
       Kind regards
       Chloe
       #Post#: 68836--------------------------------------------------
       Re: At Bailiff Stage - Camden, drove through a restricted street
       (prohibition on certain types of vehicles)
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: April 26, 2025, 1:26 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Personally, I think your chances of getting TEC to revoke the
       Order for Recovery etc. are slim. Therefore, you might have to
       consider alternative, non-procedural, approaches. To do which
       you need to see the trail of evidence i.e. SAR.
       #Post#: 68876--------------------------------------------------
       Re: At Bailiff Stage - Camden, drove through a restricted street
       (prohibition on certain types of vehicles)
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: April 27, 2025, 5:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       But is "court proceedings" relevant here, because adjudication
       is not a court, as I understand it.
       #Post#: 68880--------------------------------------------------
       Re: At Bailiff Stage - Camden, drove through a restricted street
       (prohibition on certain types of vehicles)
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: April 27, 2025, 5:47 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Correct. Pre-action protocols don't apply.
       In any event, a SAR WOULD establish everything the OP needs(to a
       point) and it's not an either/or, it's a twin-pronged approach.
       And the 'registered office' is something of a red herring.
       Registration in this sense is a requirement of Companies Acts
       but the address which is at issue here is the one given to the
       lease company by the OP's company for correspondence purposes.
       This does not have to be the company's registered address.
       And if it was the registered address and the OP knows that only
       'important' mail is forwarded then how on earth would routine
       correspondence regarding the lease be exchanged?
       But we don't know that the registered address was used because
       we haven't seen any notices, including the one which the OP does
       have.
       A SAR would show which address was used by the authority.
       #Post#: 68894--------------------------------------------------
       Re: At Bailiff Stage - Camden, drove through a restricted street
       (prohibition on certain types of vehicles)
   DIR By: Grant Urismo
       Date: April 27, 2025, 7:30 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I think it's important to remember that the endgame here is
       played out in front of an adjudicator not a court, and the
       documents being asked for are ones that the law requires the
       Council to serve as part of the PCN process.
       If a DSAR did take over a month and/or result in incomplete or
       redacted documents being provided, far from hindering the
       defence, it would actually provide an excellent reason for the
       adjudicator to kick out the PCN and deliver a stern telling off
       to the Council without even considering any of the other merits
       of the case.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 2
   DIR Previous Page