3. Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane  (Read 3157 times)

0 Members and 36 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #15 on: »
There is absolutely no possibility of a CCJ; the legal process was carefully written to exclude this.

If you submitted reps, and got no reply and then a CC arrived, you need to wait until the council register the debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre, (the "court" with no courtrooms or judges). You can then submit a Witnss Statement that you submitted reps but did not get a reply. TEC then revert the process back to that stage and the council must then pass the matter to the adjudicators.
Logged
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #16 on: »
Hi all,

I was about to post again to ask how long they had to file this with the TEC when I found the TE3 on the doormat yesterday.

The last comment suggested I submit a witness statement advising I’d not received a response to my appeal. The statement form predicates this on the fact that I did so within 28 days. As advised previously, I believe my appeal fell a few days late of that timeframe and the correspondence preceding that made no reference to how long I had to lodge my appeal (and scant details as to how I should).

Will this fall against my favour with the TEC?
Logged
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #17 on: »
The date of posting of your NTO was *** (NOT when received but when posted)?
By what means did you submit your formal reps?
Logged
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #18 on: »
NTO was posted 16/12/25. I sent my appeal on 29/01/26, eventually via their website (wasn’t very clear). There was no mention on the NTO I received that I had 28 days to appeal though.
Logged
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #19 on: »
You submitted reps well outside the 28-day period as you can see.

I suspect there was reference to this period, couched in terms such as 'representations made outside the 28-day payment period may be disregarded' along with 'where representations have been received within the 28-day period or received outside this period but not disregarded we will respond to you within 56 days'..

If you post the NTO we can check.

As you say, strictly speaking you don't fit within the WS grounds which is a shame because IMO unless the council have the SoS's authorisation for their non-regulatory sign with its purported restriction you have a strong case.
Logged
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #20 on: »
It might seem convenient (or inconvenient, depending on how you look at it), but having grabbed hold of the NtO, I notice I only have pages 1 and 3:

https://imgpile.com/p/6JOMVtH#wU0Zzs8

https://imgpile.com/p/6JOMVtH#D85gsG6

I don’t remember seeing a page 2 and I find it interesting that their other letters have all been printed double-sided, but not this.

The question is whether the original plan to refer back to the unanswered appeal carries any weight, and whether bending the rules on the WS would be permitted. I certainly had not received the charge certificate before I sent my appeal, though they can say with legitimacy that they posted it before I did (22/01/26).

Any further thoughts? I’m wary of taking this too far if the case is essentially dead in the water in the eyes of the TEC.
Logged
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #21 on: »
At least Liverpool won.
Logged
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #22 on: »
As much of a red as I am, are you recommending I fold my hand at this point?
Logged
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #23 on: »
Can anyone offer a second opinion? Absolutely no offence to tincombe but @Incandescent offered a different POV, presumably knowing I had appealed after more than 28 days…
Logged
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #24 on: »
Quote from: ThriftyParker on Today at 02:19:44 pm
Can anyone offer a second opinion? Absolutely no offence to tincombe but @Incandescent offered a different POV, presumably knowing I had appealed after more than 28 days…
I didnt know you submitted out of time. Form TE9 states the time period 28 days for the box to tick that reps were submitted, but there was no response.
Logged
Re: Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane
« Reply #25 on: »
In short, according to you:

1. You did receive a form titled Notice to Owner;
2. You submitted reps.

You problem arises because, unbeknown to you before making reps, your NTO was incomplete and did not carry any information on the time limits for submitting reps. In consequence you missed the 28-day statutory deadline.

So, does this give you grounds to submit an out of time request to TEC and which box should you tick.

IMO, yes and the box which states you did not receive the NTO because you did not receive a NTO in its mandated form, therefore a NTO was not served.

Wait for others.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  3. Liverpool, 30-Parked for longer than permitted, Love Lane