Free Traffic Legal Advice

So I've checked the Waltham Forest PCN viewer, and there is no case history resource available. But I will post up the images shortly.
PCN is for a contravention 51 Failure to Comply with a no entry restriction.

This has just gone out to TEC, based on a conversation with them this morning:
Please see attached form PE3 including Statutory Declaration in relation to PCN FRXXXXXXXX
I am requesting that this is processed as an “in time” representation, as I believe there are anomalies between the information held by TEC and the documentation which I have received to date.

Attachments :
Attachment 1 (1 page) : Form PE3 including Statutory Declaration which I request is treated as an “in time” representation.
Attachment 2 (1 page) : Order for Recovery “Dated 01/09/2023”. This was received by me by 4th September 2023, and supports my request that this is treated as an “in time” representation.
Related information to Attachment 2 : I spoke to Joanna at TEC at 1015 on 21st September 2023, who explained that a debt had been registered with TEC on 7th July 2023. I believe that the Out of Time decision is incorrectly being based on the date of debt registry (7th July 2023), instead of the date of the Order for Recovery (1st September 2023, see Attachment 2).
Attachment 3 (1 page) : My cover letter to TEC, sent my email after 4pm 14th September 2023, outlining the reasons why my representation is within the time allowed.
Attachment 4 (2 pages) : copy of 2x emails from me to TEC on 14th September 2023, and response from TEC on 20th September 2023.
Attachment 5 (2 pages) : proof of postage and delivery for my original representation to TEC on this matter, sent 6th September 2023, and received 7th September 2023.

I don't want to post up full details for all and sundry,

Game over.

See what comes back from the new PE3.... though I predict a rejection.

You have e-mail Guv.  

Quote from: Neil B on September 21, 2023, 12:17:52 pm

No, you don't need to secure your car at this point.

I take that comment back. There IS potential for bailiff action at the moment.

You could ask TEC if WF have sought authority for a warrant?

Thanks for going back to that for me, I was wondering why bailiff action would not be a potential next step here.

I phoned TEC last week, and they confirmed that no authority had been requested for a warrant at the time of calling, but when I queried if authority for a warrant would also be on a circa 5-day turnaround (i.e. as per my communications with TEC), the conversation took a very negative/strange turn. The TEC call handler couldn't assist in any way, and was extremely evasive when I continued to probe. I was trying to figure out if I had at least 5 days breathing space, but did not get any such suggestion from the responses.

In the meantime, I received the attached letter from "on behalf of Parking Services", so it could be Waltham Forest, or NSL, I don't know which.
Due to the dates/timing of my communications, this is likely in response to my emails of 4th June and 23rd August to "wfpcn@nsl.co.uk".
Interestingly, this appears to confirm my view that the text "dated 01/09/2023" on the OfR document (also attached for reference) is the issue date of that document (and not the payment deadline). The letter provides the option to pay "before 03/10/2023" which is 21 working days from 01/09/2023.
This also directly contradicts the information I received from TEC, i.e. that the debt was registered on 7th July 2023, and that representations received >21 days thereafter require an "out of time" statutory declaration.

Unless I'm missing something, there appears to be a significant issue with the "time allowed" for PE3 representations in my case, perhaps others also.




[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

If you've sent the forms to TEC you should still get an outcome, one way or the other.

but when I queried if authority for a warrant would also be on a circa 5-day turnaround (i.e. as per my communications with TEC), the conversation took a very negative/strange turn. The TEC call handler couldn't assist in any way, and was extremely evasive when I continued to probe. I was trying to figure out if I had at least 5 days breathing space, but did not get any such suggestion fro

I should think they were confused --- because I haven't a clue what you are talking about?

-------------
You have told us that TEC told you the debt was registered on 7th July? I think you must have misheard that because neither end of the OfR could then be dated September.

I suggest you ask WF for a full history of actions and notices issued in your case and --- if they don't cooperate, make that a Subject Access Request.

--------------
I'm at a loss to understand why you've now paid when you had the protection of that last WF letter?

Quote from: snarkmaiden on September 25, 2023, 10:50:57 pm

but when I queried if authority for a warrant would also be on a circa 5-day turnaround (i.e. as per my communications with TEC), the conversation took a very negative/strange turn. The TEC call handler couldn't assist in any way, and was extremely evasive when I continued to probe. I was trying to figure out if I had at least 5 days breathing space, but did not get any such suggestion fro

I should think they were confused --- because I haven't a clue what you are talking about?

-------------
You have told us that TEC told you the debt was registered on 7th July? I think you must have misheard that because neither end of the OfR could then be dated September.

I suggest you ask WF for a full history of actions and notices issued in your case and --- if they don't cooperate, make that a Subject Access Request.

--------------
I'm at a loss to understand why you've now paid when you had the protection of that last WF letter?

Just to respond on these:
1) I was trying to find out if an authority for a warranty had been issued (it hadn't), then trying to find out if it would take 5 days for TEC to issue one (i.e. working to the same response times as my correspondence with TEC). I did not get a clear answer to this second query.
2) this feels like gaslighting, but I can confirm that I asked TEC to reconfirm the date of 7th of July when I was first informed.
3) Thanks, I'll give that a go.
4) Given the inconsistencies and delays in previous communications, I don't perceive any protection from that last WF letter. Bearing in mind that TEC confirmed that my representation to them was "out of time", I think it was reasonable to expect further action imminently.

Not relevant now but in case someone else comes on this thread looking for information.
Once a Charge Certificate arrives and there is reason to wait for the Order for Recovery, it is important to be proactive, if the order is late, goes missing or the like and the deadline for automatic acceptance is missed, it all goes pear shaped.
Regular phone calls to the authority and or TEC are key.
Asking if the debt had been registered.
The moment the answer is yes, relevant forms can be downloaded from TEC, filled in and sent.

This was a really useful response from earlier in this thread, if it helps others, I've added a bit based on what I went through:
Once a Charge Certificate arrives and there is reason to wait for the Order for Recovery, it is important to be proactive, if the order is late, goes missing or the like and the deadline for automatic acceptance is missed, it all goes pear shaped.
=> in my case, the OfR turned up 8 weeks after the debt had been registered

Regular phone calls to the authority and or TEC are key.
=> in my case, TEC (Traffic Enforcement Centre) is not mentioned at all on the charge certificate, in order to be proactive you will need to research online for contact details and what you should be asking for (see below)
=> in my case, the authority (Waltham Forest) had very little information available, but were happy to direct me to automated payment facilities (both on the phone and online).

Asking if the debt had been registered.
=> you need to phone TEC with the PCN number from the charge certificate, and ask if the debt has been registered.

The moment the answer is yes, relevant forms can be downloaded from TEC, filled in and sent.
=> in my case, a PE3 form including statutory declaration was required, plus a PE2 form with statutory declaration (for "Out of Time" representations).
=> in my case, TEC were not able to confirm the date when "Out of Time" started and the PE2 became necessary, but they informed me that this should be stated on the Order for Recovery letter. In hindsight, it would have helped if I had asked TEC if my representation would be "Out of Time", i.e. if I was told "yes", then I would have known that a PE2 form would also be necessary.
=> in my case, the OfR did not include a PE2 form, it only had a PE3 form enclosed.