Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: cross_legend on April 15, 2024, 10:56:13 am
-
Yes I've already received the £303 court fee, and the PCN is gone.
I didn't ask for the PCN to be cancelled, it came as an added benefit which made my very happy.
Well done! And thank you very much for posting an update. All too often we don't get to hear the outcome.
" It turned out that the complaint process worked fine. The county council processed the complaint and agreed to pay me back the £303 and also cancelled the PCN which was totally out of my expectation."
Do I understand correctly that Cambridgeshire County Council have refunded the £303 court fee? Have you received the refund as yet?
-
Well done! And thank you very much for posting an update. All too often we don't get to hear the outcome.
" It turned out that the complaint process worked fine. The county council processed the complaint and agreed to pay me back the £303 and also cancelled the PCN which was totally out of my expectation."
Do I understand correctly that Cambridgeshire County Council have refunded the £303 court fee? Have you received the refund as yet?
-
A quick update: I paid £303 to request a review with hearing and retrieved the £303 back.
The process didn't go exactly as @cp8759 and I had expected. Actually the judge didn't issue an immediate cost order, but left a note in the court order allowing me to recover the cost after the proceeding has completed. In the mean while I found an administration error during county council's processing and filed an complaint. The county council agreed to comply with the court order and they also cancelled my original PCN as an added benefit.
On the hearing there were only me and the judge. The county council was absent although they have a legal representative covers the county court. The judge refused my request to issue a cost order. She gave several reasons:
1. There is no precedence that a cost order has been issued in the N244 review.
2. Section 75 of the CPR rules appears to be an separate and independent section, so the general rules of the unsuccessful party to pay the cost does not apply here.
3. N244 review is only part of the proceeding, not the whole proceeding, the unsuccessful party could only be decided after the whole proceeding has completed. The judge appeared to consider the whole PCN process as the whole proceeding.
It appeared to me that the judge had made her research for my case before the hearing. She strongly believed that she didn't have the legal authority to issue a cost order at that time, which she repeated multiple times.
However, the judge was empathetic of my situation, she agreed to leave the following in the court order:
3. The Applicant sought costs of the application against the Claimant. The Court allows the recovery of the court fee only being £303 to be paid by the Claimant at the conclusion of the proceedings.
(The judge mentioned that even if she was able to issue a cost order, she would never allow the cost of Mckenzie friend.)
Actually I am not sure whether the county council is obliged to comply with this order, because this is not a direct cost order. However, I have found another administration error during the county council's processing of my case, so I decided to try the county council's internal complaint process. It turned out that the complaint process worked fine. The county council processed the complaint and agreed to pay me back the £303 and also cancelled the PCN which was totally out of my expectation.
I hope this experience would be helpful for those in similar situations. Thanks a lot for @cp8759's help. The cost argument was well written, even though it didn't fully convince the judge. I actually believe @cp8759's argument is right, that a cost order should be issued in this case, because:
1. General rule is general rule, without explicit declaration it should apply.
2. TEC issued a court order for rejection of the TEC, the review is for this court order only, this is the whole case.
However the reality is that most judges share the same opinion (I vaguely recall that someone has said this before), so to get an immediate cost order we need to adjust the cost argument to make the judge to abandon their existing belief, to be the first one to issue a cost order in such case, which wouldn't be an easy task.
Thanks for everyone that has replied in this post!
-
@cross_legend I've responded to your PM.
-
The council.
But phone and ask first, only SAR if they won't play ball.
-
hi @H C Andersen, just realised SAR is subject access request. Should I do it now? To local council or to TEC? Thanks!
-
hi @H C Andersen, no I haven't asked for copies of the missing notices. I am not aware of how to do it, the TEC and CCC is slow in response and I don't know how it will help?
For the SAR, does it stand for Suspicious Activity Report? Whatever it is I've never submitted anything except to TEC and CCC. In my experiences here unreliable post services seem to be the norm so I never knew I can do something about it. Perhaps someone else or the estate management has submitted one, I am not sure. If you think that will help I can try ask.
Just going back to notices. OP have you asked for copies of the missing notices or, if not freely forthcoming, submitted a SAR?
-
Just going back to notices. OP have you asked for copies of the missing notices or, if not freely forthcoming, submitted a SAR?
-
hi @Neil B, then if want to go with the hearing I should phone TEC maybe this Friday? The local county should be Cambridge County Court.
Your deadline is later than you think and you should liaise with cp 8759 on next moves.
I wouldn't phone TEC on a Friday either personally. Everyone wants to resolve things before the weekend and then on Monday they get all those hit by bailiffs over the weekend.
It's difficult to comprehend the enormity of TEC operations.
-
hi @Neil B, then if want to go with the hearing I should phone TEC maybe this Friday? The local county should be Cambridge County Court.
At the moment I was given the TE7 by TEC, I thought this was an easy process, didn't expect local authority and TEC would reject it. I did provide my correspondence with TEC which I still think until now should be the strongest proof. The other things about how the post service is not reliable could help you understand the situation, but I doubt they could be used as proof on court.
As per my understanding of the Calladine-Smith v Saveorder Ltd [2011] EWHC 2501 (Ch) ruling, the recipient can't just simply declare the mail is not received, some kind of proof is needed. The un-reliability of Royal Mail is hard to prove, especially hard to prove that I didn't get the specific mail in question, but my correspondence is a proof.
Thanks!
-
The problem is that can I send the N244 to TEC by email and pay online (this way I can do it on 24th), or I have to do this by royal mail? If it has to been done by royal mail then I have to leave more room for the time of delivery? Does anybody have any experience with it?
To file an N244 you would need to phone TEC and it is not advisable to do that on a Monday.
The agent will transfer you to ccbc fees who will take your payment and it is ccbc fees that you then send your N244 to, following their instructions.
We are still seeing significant delays in processing at TEC but I don't know if that affects N244s.
Your hearing will be transferred to your local county court, which is where incidentally?
--------
Pay attention to what HCA is saying for the moment.
Personally I have concerns about your case. You've now further explained the problems with mail but I can't comprehend why none of that appeared on your OOT application?
-
hi @H C Andersen, thanks for your advice, I checked the address on the old V5C, they are correct in all particulars. By the time of OfR was served, I haven't moved home so there was no confusion. The correspondences sent after moving home all arrived at my new address so there is no confusion either. By the time of OfR I did check my mailbox daily so if anything happens, whether it was royal mail's failure or someone picked my mailbox, it was out of my control, the mail just went astray.
Actually anywhere you can find references to this "Too late for Reps", I have marked them as "received" in my original post, either on the picture or on my summary of the "line of events". What I didn't post is the picture of Charge certificate and the Too late for Reps since their contents should be irrelevant to the question of why the TE7 is rejected.
I hope that answers your question. Your advice will always be welcomed!
Actually it's 2 notices missing. the 3rd one, council's response to late representation was received. I didn't post it here since I think it is irrelevant,
Doesn't help when info is withheld from a timeline.
My previous post asked you to compare your V5C with postcode finder because this is RM's database and represents the 'correct' version of addresses. DVLA don't cross-check, they simply record what's submitted. If, perhaps out of custom and practice, an occupier chooses to use a form of address which does not correspond to the finder database then that's their choice and risk. So..
..would you pl confirm that your V5C address is exactly as found in the finder database and that the CC was addressed to your first V5C address.
You've confirmed that your V5C address is 'always up to date'. However, experience suggests that this can take on different meanings.*
As regards other aspects of process which are implied by your account, the authority are required to use the DVLA RK address in all notices unless you notify them formally to the contrary. However, correspondence does not follow this rule. So, their objection to your OOT would be sent to the address you used in the OOT, similarly with other simple correspondence.
*- I had a case recently where the address used by an authority was not as per DVLA. The authority made simple mistakes in that they mis-formatted the address so that it took up an additional line in the address block and this meant that when entered on to the PCN the post code was missing. However, the CC had more room and was delivered, but the OfR didn't and wasn't.
In this process there is no substitute for physically checking.
-
Actually it's 2 notices missing. the 3rd one, council's response to late representation was received. I didn't post it here since I think it is irrelevant,
Doesn't help when info is withheld from a timeline.
My previous post asked you to compare your V5C with postcode finder because this is RM's database and represents the 'correct' version of addresses. DVLA don't cross-check, they simply record what's submitted. If, perhaps out of custom and practice, an occupier chooses to use a form of address which does not correspond to the finder database then that's their choice and risk. So..
..would you pl confirm that your V5C address is exactly as found in the finder database and that the CC was addressed to your first V5C address.
You've confirmed that your V5C address is 'always up to date'. However, experience suggests that this can take on different meanings.*
As regards other aspects of process which are implied by your account, the authority are required to use the DVLA RK address in all notices unless you notify them formally to the contrary. However, correspondence does not follow this rule. So, their objection to your OOT would be sent to the address you used in the OOT, similarly with other simple correspondence.
*- I had a case recently where the address used by an authority was not as per DVLA. The authority made simple mistakes in that they mis-formatted the address so that it took up an additional line in the address block and this meant that when entered on to the PCN the post code was missing. However, the CC had more room and was delivered, but the OfR didn't and wasn't.
In this process there is no substitute for physically checking.
-
hi @cp8759, thanks for your explanation.
Yesterday afternoon I sent a email to CCC, asking whether they are willing to settle it at the original amount of £35, together with all the evidences (TE7, TE9, correspondence with TEC). I have suspected that TEC might not have forwarded all the evidences to CCC, because they are sent to TEC as mail attachments with the TE7 form. If CCC still reject my proposal then it could be something the judge will consider while assessing the cost, at least from my understanding of the CPR.
Here is what I an going to do: I will wait until next Monday which is 24th June (TEC rejection dated 12th so this should be the 12th day, leaving some room for processing) for CCC's response. If they reject or no response is received then I will file the N244 with hearing.
The problem is that can I send the N244 to TEC by email and pay online (this way I can do it on 24th), or I have to do this by royal mail? If it has to been done by royal mail then I have to leave more room for the time of delivery? Does anybody have any experience with it?
Another issue is that if I am away from home, will this become a problem for the hearing? For example the notice for the hearing is not received while I am away or the hearing is scheduled at a date I can't attend?
Well you obviously won't ever get any sort of refund from TEC, TEC has judicial immunity because it exercises a judicial function.
It is correct to say that costs are a discretionary remedy, but then all costs in all cases are discretionary. There are enough books on the question of costs to fill several libraries, there are specialist costs lawyers and specialist cost judges, so there's no point in trying to summarise the immense body of law that exists on the question of costs. There are 64 pages of cases on https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/category/costs-2/ if you fancy reading some case law on the subject.
Suffice to say, the starting position is always that costs should follow the event and that rule only seems to be departed from when there is some truly compelling reason.
As for why costs are never awarded in Part 75 proceedings, that's because as far as we are aware nobody has ever asked, let alone provided a properly structured argument as to why they should be awarded (which is hardly surprising given how many people who deal with Part 75 have little to no familiarity with any over part of the CPR). Costs are very much a "don't ask, don't get" scenario.
-
Actually it's 2 notices missing. the 3rd one, council's response to late representation was received. I didn't post it here since I think it is irrelevant, but I've marked in the picture with red font that it was received.
The address on V5C is always correct, otherwise I won't get the charge certificate or anything else. The last 2 notices, council's objection and TEC's refusal came to the new address I am living now. The moving was after the order for recovery date, I updated V5C records on time and so far I haven't have any post issues here.
I can't explain why royal mail first class is not reliable, the fact I know is that all post services around the apartment I lived are awful.
- The first day I moved in, there was a notice on the bulletin board from estate management: "check your mailbox regularly or you risk having them picked, especially those containing bank cards"
- When I returned home I often found mail with envelope sticking out of the mailbox so anyone can take them easily.
- In the facebook group we constantly see people shouting "where is my parcel?", "whose parcel is this?". I've personally forwarded a parcel delivered to my address while it should be others.
- I once subscribed to a magazine, 2 out of 12 issues were missing.
Around last September when the PCN was served I checked up my mailbox every several days. But by the time the order for recovery was issued, that's January, I did check my mailbox daily because I was expecting the order for recovery to arrive. But no, it was not there.
OP, can we leave 'costs' to one side pl and get back to notices.
You say:
Postal PCN not received;
Charge Cert received;
Council's response to your late reps(you omitted these from you account but the council's objection shows they were made) not received;
OfR not received;
Council's objection received;
TEC's refusal letter received.
Shouts a problem with your address, not Royal Mail. They might deliver late, but 2 notices and a letter sent first-class??
Get out your V5C and check this address against postcode finder(https://www.royalmail.com/find-a-postcode). Is your V5C address the same in all particulars as listed on the RM site and is the V5C address the same in all respects as those on the CC AND is the address used on the council's objection - which you received- the same as the CC AND is the address you wrote on your OOT the same as the V5C?
-
Well you obviously won't ever get any sort of refund from TEC, TEC has judicial immunity because it exercises a judicial function.
It is correct to say that costs are a discretionary remedy, but then all costs in all cases are discretionary. There are enough books on the question of costs to fill several libraries, there are specialist costs lawyers and specialist cost judges, so there's no point in trying to summarise the immense body of law that exists on the question of costs. There are 64 pages of cases on https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/category/costs-2/ if you fancy reading some case law on the subject.
Suffice to say, the starting position is always that costs should follow the event and that rule only seems to be departed from when there is some truly compelling reason.
As for why costs are never awarded in Part 75 proceedings, that's because as far as we are aware nobody has ever asked, let alone provided a properly structured argument as to why they should be awarded (which is hardly surprising given how many people who deal with Part 75 have little to no familiarity with any over part of the CPR). Costs are very much a "don't ask, don't get" scenario.
-
OP, can we leave 'costs' to one side pl and get back to notices.
You say:
Postal PCN not received;
Charge Cert received;
Council's response to your late reps(you omitted these from you account but the council's objection shows they were made) not received;
OfR not received;
Council's objection received;
TEC's refusal letter received.
Shouts a problem with your address, not Royal Mail. They might deliver late, but 2 notices and a letter sent first-class??
Get out your V5C and check this address against postcode finder(https://www.royalmail.com/find-a-postcode). Is your V5C address the same in all particulars as listed on the RM site and is the V5C address the same in all respects as those on the CC AND is the address used on the council's objection - which you received- the same as the CC AND is the address you wrote on your OOT the same as the V5C?
-
I checked Part 75.2 of CPR, it states:
(a) the Centre is deemed to be an office of the County Court; and
(b) any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is deemed to act as an officer of the County Court.
So it seems to be right that TEC is part of HMCTS and the fee is for the review. The local authority should be "the other party". I checked the letter from TEC, it appears TEC poses themself between local authority and me and make a "court decision without hearing". So even TEC has made a faulty decision it doesn't seem to be possible to get the fee back from them.
I also checked Part 44.2 of CPR. It does state in 2(a) that:
(a) the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party
as @cp8759 has mentioned.
But judging from the context around, this order of costs is fully at the judge's discretion. And in 4) it also states:
(4) In deciding what order (if any) to make about costs, the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including –
(a) the conduct of all the parties;
(b) whether a party has succeeded on part of its case, even if that party has not been wholly successful; and
(c) any admissible offer to settle made by a party which is drawn to the court’s attention, and which is not an offer to which costs consequences under Part 36 apply.
This might explain what @Enceladus provided that the judge rarely does this. Inspired by 4(c), I wonder whether it's good idea to write to CCC to ask them to settle the PCN at it's initial value £35? If they refuse or do not respond, may be it will add to our ammunition if we want to run the cost argument?
I doubt if you will get the N244 fee refunded, even if your review application is granted. Not unless you qualify for EX160 fee remission.
HMCTS (HM Courts and Tribunals Service) take the view that it is a fee for a review and won't refund. The TEC is part of the HMCTS. The Adjudicator can award costs against the Enforcement Authority but very rarely does. And certainly won't if you lost an appeal at the Tribunal.
The N244 fee issue was extensively discussed on PePiPoo and nobody has ever produced a solid case where a refund was actually received.
I vaguely recall that somebody traced the matter back to a memorandum from the Lord Chancellor's Office but that doesn't seem to be in the public domain.
Bailiff Advice Online (https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/) should know.
-
I doubt if you will get the N244 fee refunded, even if your review application is granted. Not unless you qualify for EX160 fee remission.
HMCTS (HM Courts and Tribunals Service) take the view that it is a fee for a review and won't refund. The TEC is part of the HMCTS. The Adjudicator can award costs against the Enforcement Authority but very rarely does. And certainly won't if you lost an appeal at the Tribunal.
The N244 fee issue was extensively discussed on PePiPoo and nobody has ever produced a solid case where a refund was actually received.
I vaguely recall that somebody traced the matter back to a memorandum from the Lord Chancellor's Office but that doesn't seem to be in the public domain.
Bailiff Advice Online (https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/) should know.
-
I am just wondering whether it is CCC or TEC that will be the unsuccessful party suppose the judge is willing to grant the cost?
The relevant practice direction in CPR 75 says -
"Any review of that order by a district judge will only be a review of the decision to refuse the application for further time for filing a statutory declaration or witness statement."
Based on that I would say the unsuccessful party would be TEC as your application has been refused by a TEC Court Officer.
-
hi let me answer @Neil B 's question first:
The reason why I didn't do ... all boils down to one answer "I didn't know". This is the first time I got a ticket. If I get one in the future then I will know that to follow the payment portal should be the most effective way...
As to whether the mail should be considered served, I found a reply from law stackexchange (https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/16452/is-there-a-legal-requirement-in-the-uk-to-receive-physical-post), where it says "The case made it clear that the same law also sets a condition, where if the letter was not received at said mailbox, or too late received, the notice is to be deemed not served. The receiver is not required to prove that the letter has not arrived in the mailbox.". The article it refers to is not accessible now, but by searching with keywords in the link I managed to find the case: Calladine-Smith v Saveorder Ltd [2011] EWHC 2501 (Ch) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2501.html, and an interpration here https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7bc60d03e7f57eb1a9e). In my case my correspondence with TEC might be deemed as "contrary intention" perhaps?
Then back to @cp8759, my general feeling is that TE7 is routinely denied and the higher cost of N244 becomes a utility to prevent people from reviewing rather than give them a fare chance. This doesn't seemed to be right and I will be glad to do my share to make a counter case. I understand no one can guarantee it will work, but if you do think we have a fare chance to win then I can take the risk. Just please do make the argument strong and make sure either @Nosy Parker or you will be present.
Your reasoning about Part 27 and Part 75 seems to be convincing. I am just wondering whether it is CCC or TEC that will be the unsuccessful party suppose the judge is willing to grant the cost? Will that become a problem for the county judge to come to a decision and for me to collect the fee back later?
-
@cross_legend the standard rule in county court proceedings is that the unsuccessful party has to pay the costs of the successful party, there is no requirement to show fault or unreasonable behaviour or anything of the sort. Part 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules disallows most costs in the small claims track, but these are Part 75 proceedings and not Part 27 proceedings, so the small claims track rules are irrelevant.
@Nosy Parker is a solicitor so if he's available it avoids any questions around rights of audience. In the alternative I could attend as your McKenzie friend, but whether I would be allowed to speak on your behalf would be at the absolute discretion of the judge.
As long as we can put together a proper witness statement exhibiting all the key documents, including in particular your correspondence with TEC, we should have more than enough to persuade the judge that on the balance of probabilities the OfR was not received and therefore an out-of-time application should be allowed. The point that then needs to be argued is that as the unsuccesful party, the applicant (i.e. the council) should pay the respondent's costs (i.e. your costs).
However we cannot guarantee that you will recover your costs, so ultimately you need to decide whether you want to take the risk of pursuing this further.
-
The window of TE9 submission is 21 days,
It's 36 days in practice, plenty of time for TEC to have answered you, but ---
Why didn't you just pick up the phone and ask them, or CCC or why didn't you follow progress on the CCC payment portal?
You have focussed on this single issue and not enlarged here, or on your TE7 on your brief comment about postal problems; the normal essence of an OOT application. Nor do you seem to have supported your TE7 with any kind of evidence. The law deems you to have received the OfR; it doesn't need any special post.
I can't fault the CCC SoT but you may have a case against TEC, possibly best dealt with by way of a complaint?
We'll see what cp8759 has to say.
-
hi @Neil B, this is also the question I am concerning, because in order to claim the court fee back we not only need to prove my original OoT application is reasonable but also the local authority and TEC are at fault by not allowing it.
My defence is like this: The first letter I sent to TEC asking whether my debt has been registered was sent on the 18th day after the order for recovery was sent. The window of TE9 submission is 21 days, so the enquiry letter was sent within the window. If I had received the order for recovery, I would send the TE9 directly. So this should be a valid proof I didn't receive the order for recovery although I am eagerly awaiting. While the local authority's argument is that they have sent the order for recovery and royal mail didn't return it, so they consider I received it, even though it is not a signed for mail and I am still asking TEC for whether the debt was registered at the same time. At least it looks to me that my proof should be the stronger one and should be accepted.
I believe if I go to hearing the judge will most likely allow the N244. But whether the judge will deem ignoring my proof as a fault, I am not sure. This is what I would like to hear from you. Thanks!
@Nosy Parker would you be able to assist with this one if @Neil B and I provide the arguments?
Who is Nosy Parker?
I'm keen to see how your costs argument goes with a case one day but dubious about this one.
What are the known problems with mail and what evidence of that was submitted with OOT; because I can't see how the EA are at fault here with their SoT?
[/quote
-
@Nosy Parker would you be able to assist with this one if @Neil B and I provide the arguments?
Who is Nosy Parker?
I'm keen to see how your costs argument goes with a case one day but dubious about this one.
What are the known problems with mail and what evidence of that was submitted with OOT; because I can't see how the EA are at fault here with their SoT?
-
@Nosy Parker would you be able to assist with this one if @Neil B and I provide the arguments?
-
hi @cp8759, sorry to have you wait for such a long time. I got the TEC's decision today. Without any surprise they rejected my application and the cost of an N244 with hearing has risen to £303. The response letter is attached at the end.
Now back to our topic, do you think my case stands a chance to run the argument to claim the court fee back? And if you think it does, would you find a McKenzie friend to the court with me?
I look forward to hearing from you!
(https://i.imgur.com/ZQEAG4i.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/vFJhEfw.png)
-
Thanks for all the helping advices!
@cp8759 I am interested to do the hearing if you all are waiting for a case to run the cost argument. Please do evaluate my evidences to see whether they are strong enough to back it.
From what I've seen from other people's experience, it's not difficult to win the N244 at hearing. But I am not quite familiar the relevent laws and procedures, without a McKenzie friend the chance to win the cost back is close to zero, then probably I will just pay the OfR.
On the other hand, if you have already considered the cost argument before and do find my case to be a suitable one then I will be happy to run it. The TE7 process is supposed to give people like me a fair chance, but by using the preventive court fees TEC and local authorities can arbitualy deny any application and leaving cost to us.
I will post the TEC's decision once I get it, and please let me know whether a McKenzie friend is available.
Thanks!
-
Unless you're on a low income in receipt with a qualifying benefit for "fee remission" then there is zero chance of recovering your N244 fee.
That is not correct, in the county court costs normally follow the event. Most people who submit an N244 cannot recover costs because it's usually their fault anyway for not updating the V5C (plus they don't know how to argue their corner on the question of costs), but there is no rule of law that says the costs rules in CPR Part 44 (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-44-general-rules-about-costs) do not apply to Part 75 (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part75) proceedings.
@cross_legend at this point all you can do is wait. If the application is refused then the next step would be an application but realistically to get a fair outcome you need to request a hearing and you would probably want one of us to attend as a McKenzie friend (you certainly won't get costs if there is no hearing).
For now just let us know what the outcome is.
@Neil B this might be the case where we can finally run the costs argument we've previously discussed.
-
Unless you're on a low income in receipt with a qualifying benefit for "fee remission" then there is zero chance of recovering your N244 fee.
I can't figure out from the documents posted what the alleged contravention is, or where it happened, or when it happened. So I can't really offer an opinion on whether or not you would prevail if the case got to the Adjudicator. However if you did get the case to the Adjudicator and then lost, the likely outcome is £70. £70 because the OfR will be revoked and the Charge Cert cancelled saving you £34.
As things stand the bill is £104 to close the matter. Versus an outlay of £212 (£108 + £104) if your N244 is not successful; for N244 fee plus PCN. Or a likely outcome of £178 outlay (£108 + £70) if your N244 is successful.
It's not about justice, it's about indirect taxation and the collection of it. Unfortunately you're unlikely to do better than £104.
It pains me to suggest such, but perhaps this is a case of cut your losses.
You're right about the type of hearing. A £108 on the papers requires a snappy well written submission to succeed. A £255 (uneconomic) hearing in person is very likely to succeed.
-
What a pity you didn't come on here when you got the CC, as we could have advised you on submitting a WS without needing the paper OfR.
As your V5 was up-to-date I cannnot understand why the council objected to your WS other than greed for the money. They say the documents were not returned as undeliverd; what a statement ! They are still with Royal Mail !!
However, now it is a matter of the best option financially. In your case with no bailiff fees, it might be best to pay-up, but I realise this means the council "get away with it". On the other hand if you pay for a CC judge review on the papers and lose, you've lost the £110 plus there is still the OfR penalty. If you win, the PCN is still outstanding but you could then submit reps or pay the discount. I have to say, I'd be tempted to pay for at least a papers-based review.
Don't just go on my advice, wait until a few others have contributed so you get a balance of views. It is clear to me that current regulations are now totally out of touch with reality, and all the statutory documents should at least be sent by tracked mail. This does not cost hugely more than First Class mail and anyway, the councils can well afford it. London councils make many millions from traffic penalties.
-
hi All,
I am so glod to find this forum. Briefly speaking I lived in a flat and royal mail service here was unreliable. The original PCN was lost, I got a charge certificate, waited for order or recovery but never got one.
The best evidences I have for the missing order of recovery is that I have sent a mail to TEC querying whether order of recovery has been servied or not, and that happened to be within 21 days of the alledged date of order of recovery (If I had got the order of recovery, why asking order for recovery instead of sending the TE9 directly?). I have also followed a TE9 sent blindly, without getting any response from TEC, without knowing whether an order for recovery has been sent or not, but that was outside of 21 days. Then at last I have to file the TE7 out of time application.
Unfortuantely the TE7 was objected by local authority. Searching in the forum it looks like most TE7 will be objected by local authority and TEC will most likely allow the objection.
And then I will face the hard choice of whether to go with the N244 or not due to the preventive fee.
This is the lastest response I got from local authority, objecting the out of time witness statement. This is the first time I know the exact date of order of recovery was served is 18 Jan, which proved my first letter to TEC is withint 21 days.
(https://i.imgur.com/gUEcGms.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RHJhPPq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5IXvm41.jpeg)
-------- Line of events -----------
15/09/2023 PCN (lost), 14/11/2023 charge certificate (recieved), 10/11/2023 representation sent by email, 13/12/2023 Too late for Reps (received), 18/01/2024 Order of recovery served (lost).
05/02/2024: This my first letter to TEC, querying the order of recovery because I am wondering the order of recovery might get lost again.
(https://i.imgur.com/bTKd79H.jpeg)
27/02/2024: Without any response from TEC, I send a second letter with a TE9 from their website, hoping it could hit whether the order of recovery is served or not.
(https://i.imgur.com/OIlD7kD.jpeg)
06/03/2024: Then on 6 March I got a response from TEC, indicating the TE9 is out of time and I have to fill a TE7:
(https://i.imgur.com/DYNDEYa.jpeg)
06/03/2024: I reacted promptly on the same day:
(https://i.imgur.com/tY8bg8Y.jpeg)
With the TE7
(https://i.imgur.com/CGvmUhd.jpeg)
10/04/2024: Then on 10 April I got the reciept from TEC:
(https://i.imgur.com/AKMmLnX.jpeg)
11/04/2024: And on 11 April I got the objection from local authority as posted above.
------- End of events ----------
So my question is:
1. Is there anything I can do at the moment to persude TEC to allow my TE7?
2. If the TE7 is rejected as I expected, what is the chance to win if I file a N244, with my correspondence with TEC as the proof of not recieving the order of recovery? Judging from common sense, there is no point asking for order of recovery if I did get it. However, I am not familiar with British laws so I am not sure whether it will stand on court.
3. If I go with the N244, hearing or not? Is a judge without hearing as fair as one with hearing?
4. If there is a chance to win the N244, then is there a further chance to challegne the £100 or £255 fees and to get them back? It looks to me these non refundable fees are deliberately designed to prevent the N244, so that TEC and local authorities can freely object and reject the TE7 without duely consider the actual circumstances, thus deprive us our legal rights. Regarding the lost of mails, I can understand local authorities did nothing wrong, it is the problem with roymal mail. However, there is also nothing wrong from my side, so disregarding my TE7 does looks to be something wrong on the part of local authority and TEC. I am a bit surprised that these preventive fees run for so many year without being challanged.
Thanks a lot for any help!