Author Topic: Bailiff - TEC did not acknowledge receiving my in time witness statement and refused my late TE9 for PCN not received.  (Read 68 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

pocketrocket

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi everyone,

I received a charge certificate with a charge of 165  in April 2022 however I never received a PCN and NTO before that. I responded by requesting original PCN reissued in the hope of getting discounted rate which was refused however I was offered to pay 110.

I received a Order of Recovery in May 2023 and submitted a witness statement on time by email to get the original PCN re-issued.

I received a Notice of Enforcement in February 2024 so I contacted TEC that I had submitted TE9 on time and they advised me to submit a late witness statement and TE7. I did as advised and also attached the original email and witness statement as proof to show that I had submitted my witness statement on time.

The council disputed my late witness statement by saying that I likely received the PCN and that I did not submit a valid late witness statement without specifying why it's not valid. The court refused my late witness statement without giving any reasoning behind their decision (so much for the transparency).

This is really outrageous as I did attach the proof of submitting the witness statement on time and it seems like the court just decided without looking at the case files. I have attached all the documents below. Can someone please advise me what should I do now? Any help is appreciated.


1. Charge Certificate

2. Correspondence

3. Correspondence 1

3. Correspondence 2

4. Order of recovery

5. Order of recovery

6. On Time Witness Statement TE9

7. Proof of TE9 submission on time

8. Marston

9. TE7-1

10. TE9 2

11. Hounslow TE9 Response

12. Hounslow TE9 Response

13. Hounslow TE9 Response

14. Hounslow TE9 Response

15. TEC decision

16.  TEC decision
« Last Edit: June 11, 2024, 06:45:33 pm by pocketrocket »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: +106/-4
    • View Profile
@pocketrocket if you want to pursue this matter further, you'll have to file an application for a review by a district judge. Providing all your paperwork is in order (including specifically the original email to tec, of which we only have a partial redacted copy) then it should be winnable and in principle you should be able to recover your costs.

You can request a decision on the papers for 119, but with any decision on the papers you always run the risk that some crucial point gets overlooked. You could also ask https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/ to write the application for you for a nominal fee.

However the safest approach would be to request a hearing and ask for one of us to attend the hearing with you as a McKenzie friend (I would do so for a nominal fee on a no-win-no-fee basis), but the court costs for a hearing would be 303 and while I think you have an arguable case that costs should follow the event, there are no guarantees.

You therefore need to decide what strategy you wish to pursue. While I'm pretty sure it is possible to get the order for recovery revoked, if you don't get the 303 court fee back then it might be more expensive than just paying now.

In principle I think a very strong argument can be made that you should get the 303 fee back from the council, but obviously all litigation carries an element of risk.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

NightSoul

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Some due diligence is needed on the website you are promoting. Search Sheila Harding bailiffs.

pocketrocket

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thank you for the advice. I have simply paid to save myself time and avoid headaches though I do agree that I had a reasonably good case. I have made an official complaint to the TEC for not handling the WS.

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1693
  • Karma: +47/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Thank you for the advice. I have simply paid to save myself time and avoid headaches though I do agree that I had a reasonably good case. I have made an official complaint to the TEC for not handling the WS.
You can still submit your witness statement. Paying the bailiff has no effect on this procedure.

Enceladus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
I see that your original Witness Statement was submitted to the TEC by email on the 17th May 2023.

Did you receive an acknowledgement email? Normally if you email the TEC you get an acknowledgement email  within a few minutes. Doesn't mean that they've read or actioned your email, just that they've received something.

No acknowledgement email implies that the balance of probability is that the email was not delivered to the TEC.

In the 12 months of financial 2022-2023 zero costs were awarded by the Adjudicator against Hounslow. If you had made an N244 application and did not qualify for EX160 fee remission then you would not have had your filing fee refunded. It's an anomaly in the system that is unfair to to the appellants, ie you.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: +106/-4
    • View Profile
In the 12 months of financial 2022-2023 zero costs were awarded by the Adjudicator against Hounslow. If you had made an N244 application and did not qualify for EX160 fee remission then you would not have had your filing fee refunded.
The adjudicator would not award costs for county court proceedings, a costs order would be made by the district judge sitting in the county court. I'm sure this has never happened because nobody has ever taken the point that costs follow the event (and if you don't ask for costs you don't get them).
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order