City of Westminster - failing to drive in the direction show (32 d)

Please post the others.
These letters would seem to my eye to be illegal intimidation. Certainly they are outside the legal process. We have seen this sort of thing before from other London councils who clearly see it as a clever wheeze to get the money in and avoid the Traffic Enforcement Centre process. Many people will be scared and pay-up, which is what they want.

The bottom line is that no debt exists until the PCN is registered at TEC.

+1

These are the three letters sent from Marston Recovery.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

These letters are shameful and a blot on the reputation of City of Westminster, because no debt exist until the PCN is registered at the Traffic Enforcement Centre so to say a sum of money is owing is deeply mendacious. Letters like this have been seen on this forum before with a couple of other London councils, and also on the old Pepipoo site.

My view is that it is unlawful intimidation and this needs to get in front of an adjudicator. I would go further and call it malfeasance and the person who authorised such letters should now be in jail, but I admit I am a bit of a 'hanging judge' in these matters !

I reiterate; these letters are totally outside the enforcement process defined in law.

We've seen councils sending their own letters chasing payment but I've not seen them outsourced to a bailiff. The letters should of course set out reasons why the charge certificate can be ignored and payment not made.

I have finally received the order for recovery. I assume the next step is to fill and send the PE3 form to TEC?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Should I fill out and send a PE3 to TEC?

You need to get a statutory declaration witnessed at a county court (free) or solicitor.

Would this be a TE9 that I get sworn at the county court?

Would this be a TE9 that I get sworn at the county court?

Statutory Declaration is Form PE3, and if you're 'out-of-time', you also need to submit Form PE2. This asks for permission to submit the SD out-of-time.

I’ve received a response from Westminster. Is there any point in pursuing this further, or should I just pay the fine? I noticed that instead of addressing me with 'Dear [Full Name]', they only used the first initial and my surname—but I assume that probably doesn’t make any difference.

Thanks!

In view of the shenanigans in the early part of this thread, I think I would take them to London Tribunals, and risk the extra £65.  You can then present the adjudicator with their threatening letters that, essentially, are illegal demands for payment of a debt that doesn't exist until registered at TEC. However, it's your money.

What are the chances of winning if I take this to the London Tribunal?
Also, would anyone be willing to represent me? I’ve never been to the London Tribunal before, so I’m not sure how I'd do in there.

What are the chances of winning if I take this to the London Tribunal?
Also, would anyone be willing to represent me? I’ve never been to the London Tribunal before, so I’m not sure how I'd do in there.

Its pretty routine stuff, now done on the phone or video these days. Somebody on here may offer to represent you, but it's not something I do. YOu would rely on y our original representations, plus their sending unlawful debt collection letters to you when no debt exists.