Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Rufeus on July 24, 2024, 02:38:50 pm
-
Thank you for your input, HC Anderson.
-
Perhaps an OOT along the following lines...
On *** I was contacted via text message by enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Claimant, City of London Corporation, regarding a postal PCN issued under the London Local Authorities Act 2003 in May 2022.
I had not received the PCN and therefore in June 2022 the authority issued a Charge Certificate to which I responded immediately. I received an automated response stating that the authority's normal practice was 'to respond within 15 days, although we might take longer during busy periods'.
They must have been busy because 15 weeks later I received a reply which in essence stated that I should wait for them to issue an Order for Recovery following which I could submit a Statutory Declaration to yourselves.
I therefore waited, and waited, and waited. In effect life events took over and I had also moved house before the authority issued the OfR on 29 November 2023. I repeat, 29 November 2023, virtually 1 year to the day since stating in their last letter 'please do not reply to this letter but await the Order for Recovery which will be issued in due course'.
I submit that the authority's actions have been neither fair nor reasonable in this matter and that their inexcusable delays have prejudiced my position to such an extent that I am now reliant upon your offices to reset the matter to at least provide me with a fair opportunity to challenge the PCN.
I respectfully ask that you accept my late Statutory Declaration for the reasons given above.
The above details were obtained pursuant to a Subject Access Request submitted by me immediately after being contacted by the authority's agents and are attached.
Wait for comments.
-
Apologies, HC Anderson, I posted the wrong link with the description.
Here it is:
Order for Recovery
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HCu0tNIrTB07w2Ccwa8yVOlj25Vkg7mO/view?usp=sharing
I've redacted the address for my privacy, but it is the old address. The one I moved from in July 2022.
-
Pl stop referring to Order to Recover. There is no such notice.
And pl stop posting a letter dated Nov. 2022 as if it was an OfR. It is not.
Where is it and to what address was it sent?
They've responded to your SAR therefore it should be in the bundle.
-
Documents:
- Response to my Challenge of the Charge Certificate https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xx8dfwhA5oD9pZgmkqjg-yGAyC0zHfy1/view?usp=sharing
- Order to Recover https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HCu0tNIrTB07w2Ccwa8yVOlj25Vkg7mO/view?usp=sharing
My first knowledge of the contravention was when I received a Charge Certificate on 08/06/22 (missing from the SAR)
I made an online challenge/representation on 20/06/2022 to which PTO acknowledged and responded by email.
I moved to a new address in July 2022. I unfortunately didn't notify them of a change of address. However, I had access to post at my old address for at least another 3 months but they only sent the Order for Recovery in November 2022. It's noteworthy that they said "We aim to deal with all enquiries within 15 working days (3 weeks)..." on 20/06/2022. Surely a response time of 5 months is unreasonable?
-
Where's the Order for Recovery?
You notified them of a change of address in July 2022.
Did you move subsequently before the OfR was issued?
An OOT is a request to submit a late statement and therefore you have to provide a compelling reason.
The OfR being wrongly addressed would be such a reason, but you need proof i.e. a copy of the OfR and your notification to the council of your address change.
-
While I'm awaiting any further advice regarding the PE2 and PE3 statements, I am going to send out the following to both the Information Officer (Sophie) and PTO regarding the exclusion of crucial data from the SAR request:
Dear Sophie Jordan–Dicey
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the SAR and the data enclosed therein.
There appears to be missing information, however. The following documents have not been sent:
1. Charge Certificate dated 08/06/2022 - This was the first correspondence I received to make me aware of my PCN, to which I made an online challenge/representation (attached acknowledgment from City of London PTO). I no longer have the charge certificate and require it.
2. The confirmation response to my challenge/representation dated 20/06/2022 - I have attached the email reference from my records. The fact that the Charge Certificate, listed above, and this correspondence have not been included in the SAR data concerns me that other data may have also been excluded.
3. Any notices and correspondence to your agents (including CDER group) relating to me and the PCN.
As previously communicated, my circumstances are such that an informed submission to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (which may only be submitted once and may not be amended) is predicated upon receiving all relevant information. The absence of crucial correspondence in the SAR data jeopardises the submission.
The stay of action for the Civil Enforcement Agency CDer Group has only been upheld until today, 02/09/24 as L. Burgess's correspondence states (attached). I will request a further stay of action due to the excluded data but urgently appeal for it to be issued and a review of the SAR procedure to be undertaken.
-
This is a shame as the PCN has serious defects and this is a GLA side road.
-
An update:
PTO has stayed enforcement action until 2 September. Yesterday, I received the SAR from Sophie at City of London.
I’ve listed, in chronological order, what was sent and point out what is missing in the spreadsheet image below. Any reference to correspondence since the start of this forum post is avoided to avoid repetition. I think it’s important to point out a few things:
- The SAR did not contain any correspondence between City of London and the agents/bailiffs
- The SAR is missing the Charge Certificate. This is the only correspondence I did receive at the time (but have lost it since)
- I moved to a new address on 16 July 2022, which is more than 3 weeks after I challenged the Charge Certificate notice (the time frame they estimate to deal with the enquiry). The next correspondence they sent was in November which is hardly reasonable.
https://imgur.com/TOKq9vH
I’ve also attached links to the redacted versions of the original correspondence that was included in the SAR including:
- PCN Notice https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oAkDPuS4xJLZ7-TLPswQAAcAcIHj41Ft/view?usp=share_link
- Response to my Challenge of the Charge Certificate https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xx8dfwhA5oD9pZgmkqjg-yGAyC0zHfy1/view?usp=sharing
- Order to Recover https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xx8dfwhA5oD9pZgmkqjg-yGAyC0zHfy1/view?usp=sharing
Questions:
- Is the contents of the SAR sufficient to complete the PE2 and PE3?
- If so, how do you suggest I approach it?
Let me know if anything else needs clarifying.
TIA
-
@Pressman: I appreciate your suggestion but having searched online about issuing a Rule 6 notice, I only find information aimed at legal professionals and is hard to understand in practical layman terms. It sounds like a good option if I was either legally savvy or engaged a legal advisor.
@H C Anderson: Thanks – I have contacted parking about the stay of action and await their response.
-
IMO, contact parking ASP, refer to this letter and ask whether they have instructed their agent to stay further action and for how long.
Keep the dialogue going.
If you don't get a response before the deadline then IMO pay and write to parking, refer to your-yet to be written letter- say you're disappointed to have not received a reply and consequently you have paid the debt purely as a tactical measure designed to minimise any potential liability and in no way may it be construed as an admission of liability for the penalty.
-
Based on the justifications provided by CDER, it is clear that issuing a Rule 6 Notice under the Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol is not just a suggestion, but a strategic move that can significantly enhance your case. This approach is more effective than relying on a Subject Access Request (SAR).
CDER has proactively set its own deadlines, underscoring the importance of issuing a Rule 6 Notice.
When CDER fails to comply with a Rule 6 Notice for the exchange of information and evidence, or they seek to delegate responsibility to a third party, it will seriously weaken any defence if you decide to pursue a claim for breaching the Enforcement Provisions. The court will view CDER's non-compliance as a sign of their unwillingness to cooperate, which could significantly impact their case.
Moreover, the deadlines under Rule 6 are more rigorous, compelling CDER to adhere to your timeline. This means that you can expect a more prompt and efficient exchange of information, which can be crucial in legal proceedings.
By contrast, the informal nature of communication under a SAR, combined with the absence of penalties for non-compliance, offers little leverage when dealing with bailiffs.
-
Having sent a response to Sophie following the recommended approach, I received this back:
https://imgur.com/cxadiJm
Considering it'll be coming up to the 21-day deadline this week, do you recommend paying the CDER bailiffs before they contact me again (with the hope of getting a refund)? Or should I wait a couple of days to see if I either receive the SAR data or for CDER to make another demand?
Thanks
-
Good re CDER.
But, it's outrageous that parking have interjected in a process which has nothing to do with them at this point.
I would write back to Sophie..
Dear ****
SAR Request *****
Thank you for your letter dated *** and I am reassured that at last the Corporation is processing my request. However, I have to set this against the enclosed letter from L. Burgess which, apart from being extra-procedural as regards a SAR, could also be seen as being intimidating. This arises because my circumstances are such that an informed submission to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (which may only be submitted once and may not be amended) is predicated upon receiving the information which you will supply, albeit perhaps not before the end of the period of 30 days, and yet L. Burgess makes it clear that they will only stay the actions of their agent for 21 days.
I would hope that you are able to reassure me that the left and right hands of the council are working together and that all further communications regarding my SAR will come from your office alone.
-
I responded to the PTO and separately sent the SAR directly to the Information Officer at City of London (along with HC Anderson's helpful wording)
The PTO has sent me this:
https://imgur.com/TB68a0U
https://imgur.com/KEfKh5J
The Information Officer has sent me this:
Subject Access Request (SAR) under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA)
We write in regard to your email as initially received by the City of London’s Parking Ticket Office on the 30 July 2024, and your further email of the 31 July 2024 as received by the Compliance Team, who are responsible for the management of SARs. We note that in both email you have requested access to the personal data, as attached, in relation to a PCN.
Firstly, please note that your original email of the 30 July 2024, has not been passed on to the Compliance Team and as such we were unaware of your request until your further email of the 31 July 2024. As we have now been informed of your request, we log the request within our records and begin the SAR process.
In regard to your SAR note that you requested access to personal data in relation to the following:
(OP NOTE: My original SAR request repeated here)
This request will now be processed, and we aim to respond by 30 August 2024.
Please note that SARs are required to be responded to within one month of receipt of the request, under the regulations set out by the UK GDPR and integrated by the Data Protection Act 2018.
We note that you would like us to also send a copy of the SAR response by post to you, and therefore we ask that you please provide further information as to the postal address you would like us to send the response to.
The DPA 2018 contains some exemptions to, and constraints on, disclosure, which may need to be considered in relation to the information requested.
If you have any queries, please contact me on the information shown below, or see the information available on our website: Data Protection Policy - City of London
Yours sincerely,
Sophie Jordan–Dicey
Compliance Manager – DP & FOI
Comptroller and City Solicitor’s Department
0207 332 1243
Information.officer@cityoflondon.gov.uk
Data Protection Policy - City of London
It's good that the PTO has renewed the hold on CDER's enforcement action for another 21 days. I hope I receive the data from the SAR before that.
Thanks for all the help.
-
Then IMO send another!
On *** I sent the attached email which formed a SAR.
On **, I received the attached response from Parking Services.
May I please request that the Corporation of the City of London processes my SAR in accordance with GDPR requirements and your own policies and not pass to someone who, as the reply makes clear, is not able to discharge your duty.
I would add that the time imperative which applied for my first request is now even more pressing and I trust you will therefore give my request the urgency required.
-
I sent it to the email address listed on the letter: pto@cityoflondon.gov.uk
-
To whom did you send your SAR?
It has nothing to do with parking services or parking/road traffic legislation as such and your reply should have come from the council department charged with dealing with all SARs.
-
I've received a very unhelpful response to my SAR from City of London PTO referring me to the PCN link on their website that contains no reference to the PCN correspondence:
https://imgur.com/ZEneQwF
This is my draft response:
Dear L Burgess, Parking Ticket Office, City of London
In my previous email sent 30/07/24, I asked for all correspondence regarding regarding PCN CL59095142.
The web link that you provided does not reference any of the notices and correspondence issued by the council and their enforcement agents including letters, dates, and the associated address(es).
I refer, once again, to the subject access request that I sent in my previous email and attached herein. Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law.
If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you as mentioned in the same letter.
Do you think my response is adequate?
Thanks
-
Thanks for clarification, Incandescent
-
If you're Out-of-Time, you have to submit both forms together; one is the actual declaration, the other is to request to submit out-of-time.
-
The SAR has been sent to pto@cityoflondon.gov.uk
While I'm waiting for their response, is there anything I can do to trigger the OOT (and in turn, delay the bailiffs?)
Do the PE2 and PE3 have to be submitted together? Or is it possible to submit one that doesn't rely on any information I'll be waiting on the SAR?
Thanks
-
Thanks for the feedback, H C Andersen.
I tend to agree – the stress about having my family exposed to the fear, and potential experience, of bailiffs arriving at our door is not something I want.
As nobody else has given any alternative thoughts, I'll send the SAR this afternoon (along with your suggested amendment). If their response takes longer than the elapsed 21 days then I might pay the bailiffs before proceeding with the rest of the challenge.
-
Boxing and coxing with your current address is pointless IMO. In fact, I recommend you pay the bailiff.
Why?
Because this caps your liability and if your OOT is successful then the bailff's fees would be refunded in addition to the surcharged penalty and you'll be back to regular procedure. If your OOT is unsuccessful then, as you implied, do you really think you could play cat and mouse with the bailiff? The authority has a warrant from the court and you have a life to lead. Let's keep things simple IMO.
As regards your draft, they (as in the council who IMO do NOT, as implied, refuse to answer SAR requests on a whim and do not need their arms twisting with extra- procedural legal action) do not need or want to know about the why of your request. You could substitute this with 'As the registered keeper of vehicle **** I require all notices and correspondence issued by the council and their enforcement agents to me in respect of PCN ********.
-
Thanks to everyone for your input. There's some contradicting advice and I appreciate everyone is suggesting what they think is best.
I understand Pressman's concern about giving my current address. What I haven't mentioned is that the V5C address was changed to my current address this year (before this became an issue). Would that not mean that the bailiffs would get hold of it quite easily?
There seems to be a lot of layman's guidance online about issuing a SAR but the Rule 6 is sparse and complicated.
In the meantime I have drafted a SAR and attached it for review (redacted any personal details).
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pu180kf3aascp8xpkdjrz/Letter_CityofLondon_SAR_240726.pdf?rlkey=arv88x2wrakug4pn2dsbcd7iu&st=jf3u4b2f&dl=0
Any feedback is welcome.
Thank you.
-
I recommend not giving a SAR because Rufeus must keep his address confidential, and registrants demand this evidence, which is why they prefer and encourage a SAR rather than Rule 6.
Penalties for failure to comply with an SAR are minimal, whereas failure to respond with a Rule 6 notice can impact the level of costs if a claim follows, which is many thousands.
-
If you're worried about getting an SAR right, don't be! The burden is actually on the organisation to treat anything that looks like an SAR as an SAR.
As long as you prove who you are and you make it clear what you want the organisation to tell you, you'll be fine. The Information Commissioner has a guide to making an SAR here:
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/getting-copies-of-your-information-subject-access-request/how-to-make-a-subject-access-request/
...but I think their guidance to organisations on how to recognise an SAR might actually be more useful to reassure you:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/right-of-access/how-do-we-recognise-a-subject-access-request-sar/
-
The OP is confused enough by a SAR, so realistically and proportionately I suggest they stick with it.
OP, see pages 10-11. Note that a SAR does NOT have to follow any specified format:
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/assets/about-us/access-to-information/data-subjects-rights-policy-may-2024.pdf
The email address is given, and note that it has nothing to do with parking, this is about personal data.
The fact that CDER are communicating by email suggests that they don't have a current address at which to execute the warrant. But OP, there's time enough for speculation AFTER you've started the data gathering process. So get busy pl.
-
A SAR is not necessary as it is only for getting personal data about you held by a registrant.
Instead, consider issuing a Notice under Rule 6 of the Pre-action Conduct and Protol. This compels the respondent to disclose the information you need to verify any potential impropriety that could lead to a claim. You also have the option to use an alternate address for service, which can help protect your current address from being disclosed.
A bailiff cannot serve a Notice on the reception because that is not where you live.
-
Thanks, Pressman and H C Anderson.
Is there perhaps a SAR template anywhere that could help? I've searched on the forum but can't find any mention of it.
If not, I'll try and find one elsewhere.
Some other questions:
- If I submit and SAR, surely I'd need to give my current address for the documents to be sent? Or do you know if it can be done by email to avoid that getting to the bailiffs?
- Although the property named on the V5C (a flat) is not accessible, there is a reception that services the rest of the building that wasn't affected by the fire. The bailiffs can't serve a notice of enforcement there can they? Would they have to serve me in person?
-
OP, you do not owe £514 unless:
CDER have served a Notice of Enforcement, and
CDER have visited the property named in the warrant for the purposes of execution.
There is no imperative for the council to refuse your request, they're perfectly able and permitted to supply the docs without a SAR. But they want to play hardball.
Submit a SAR and refer to notices and communications from the council AND their agents.
AND once an OOT is submitted the council MUST suspend enforcement until a decision is served. This could be several weeks.
So it's NOT the council's 21 days v their response to a SAR, it's the time it takes TEC to process your OOT v the council's duty under GDPR.
-
It's unlikely a data protection request will take months, but I don't have any first-hand experience to speak from.
Let me clarify the process. The Notice of Enforcement, issued for a traffic debt, expires after 12 months from the date of issue. However, this expiration only terminates the enforcement, not the liability for the debt.
If the PTO puts a 21-day hold, then that is at their discretion; they can arbitrarily revoke the hold at any time.
I am not hopeful a PE2 will succeed, and if it fails, then that will re-ignite the enforcement, and that's £514. My understanding, and someone else might put me right, is that PE2 only suspends enforcement, so the suspension is lifted. If the PE2 fails, the process continues from where it left off.
If you leave things where they are, then you might get a few more text messages, but enforcement will be difficult without your address. I see your previous address is a flat, currently empty, so getting anything there is unlikely to come to more than text messages.
-
Contact the PTO and ask for copies of the notices and correspondence issued by the council as you need these details for your OOT. And 21 days from when?
I've contacted the assistant at the PTO and they've said that I can't get these re-issued without going through a data protection request which could take months (definitely longer than the 21 days I have). He also said that I don't need any of them for the forms.
Given that the PCN dates back from 2022, the statutory 12-month expiry of the Notice is likely to lapse, and the enforcement ends, hence the text messages.
When I asked about this with the PTO they said that because they have my original challenge on file this won't affect any expiry. He also said that although he can't guarantee it, I have a strong chance of it being accepted because of my first appeal on 20 June 2022.
Filing a PE2 will reveal your current address, prompting the issuance of a new warrant. CDER will start visiting without sending a Notice of Enforcement, as they believe the statutory notice requirement was already met by notifying your previous address.
If the 21 day hold notice has been placed with the bailiffs, they can't do anything until the lapse, right? I need to supply my current address on the PE2 and PE3 to get a response for trying to reduce the costs of the predicament. If everything fails I'll have to pay the bailiffs regardless?
-
Thank you for your response.
CDER are demanding £514
I lived at the address on my V5C from 2010 but moved to my current address in July 2022. I still own the property noted on the V5C and had access to the post until the fire in August 2023 (but obviously this doesn't need to be shared if it helps my case).
I'll contact PTO and ask for copies.
The 21 days notice to the bailiffs (confirmed by the PTO) is from today 24/07/24.
-
If the PCN is from 2022, the amount due will be £514.
You must confirm the address on the Warrant with the City of London. If you have received a text message, it suggests that the bailiffs may not have your current address and have yet to be successful in locating your vehicle using an ANPR camera. Refrain from giving your current address; otherwise, they will pass it on to bailiffs.
Filing a PE2 will reveal your current address, prompting the issuance of a new warrant. CDER will start visiting without sending a Notice of Enforcement, as they believe the statutory notice requirement was already met by notifying your previous address.
Given that the PCN dates back from 2022, the statutory 12-month expiry of the Notice is likely to lapse, and the enforcement ends, hence the text messages.
-
How much are CDER demanding?
Pl confirm that your address in 2022 was the same as on your V5C and how long you'd lived at that address.
The person who I spoke to at the PTO was helpful and has put the Bailiffs on hold for 21 days and told me I can file a PE2 and PE3 and I don't have to explain anything about what has passed since my last challenge:
Contact the PTO and ask for copies of the notices and correspondence issued by the council as you need these details for your OOT. And 21 days from when?
-
Hello,
I hope you can help and will appreciate any input.
I've received text messages from CDER in the past few months that looked like many other scams (images below) so I ignored them. Yesterday I received a Baliff Warrant of Control text message that also looked suspicious but was obviously concerning.
https://imgur.com/GYF4b9G
https://imgur.com/YeAg1VX
I followed up this morning and it turns out this is for a PCN from 2022. The backstory is that I never received the original notice (apparently issued 02/05/22) in the post. I did receive the follow-up Charge Certificate dated 08/06/22 outlining a traffic contravention with a penalty charge amount and a 50% increase of £65. I challenged this online, stating that I did not receive the original notice so hadn't had the opportunity to pay the penalty charge or make representations. There is an email confirmation of my appeal.
https://imgur.com/t40Dvyy
https://imgur.com/gFzuARP
Since then I never received any response to my challenge. After contacting the City of London Parking Ticket Office (PTO) this morning they state that they sent me a response dated 02/11/22 and then again on 29/11/23. I never received it so assumed it had been cancelled.
Last year August my flat, the property where my vehicle was registered, burnt down and I've not had access to the property since. Obviously, I never received anything past August 2023. I don't have any analog documentation as it's been 2 years since I appealed.
The person who I spoke to at the PTO was helpful and has put the Bailiffs on hold for 21 days and told me I can file a PE2 and PE3 and I don't have to explain anything about what has passed since my last challenge:
Thank you for your recent communication.
As requested I can confirm that a hold of 21 days has been placed with the bailiffs, whilst you’re in the process of a filing a Statutory Declaration Out of Time.
PE2: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-pe2-application-to-file-a-statutory-declaration-out-of-time
PE3: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-pe3-challenge-an-unpaid-penalty-charge-notice
Contact Details for Traffic Enforcement Centre who will be processing the application.
Email: tec@justice.gov.uk
Telephone: 0300 1231059
Postal address: Traffic Enforcement Centre
Northampton County Court
5th Floor St Katharine’s House
21-27 St Katharine’s Street
Northampton, NN1 2LH
Regards
PTO Team
This is obviously extremely concerning. I'm happy to pay the original fine as that was never the issue. I'd appreciate help in filling in the PE2 and PE3 to give me the best chances of getting rid of the bailiffs.