Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: sadaboutcars on August 01, 2024, 09:44:54 pm
-
It's not clear to me whether my car was removed because I was classed as a persistent evader (which I was but I am not) or if it's because it was removed for "persistent unlawful parking" which is what it seems to suggest in this letter.
-
Classing someone who forgot to renew their permit as a 'persistent evader' is an abuse of what this means.
Usually it is:
A persistent evader is a person that has three or more outstanding PCN's that have not been paid, represented or appealed against within the statutory time limits.
and these is what they say in their rejection.
(https://i.ibb.co/F31T9V5/inGLrGB.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/dpMPY1B/6i4ye7w.png)
-
Post the rejection in full.
Ok I have uploaded it here. See the page with the pink highlights and the reverse of that.
https://imgur.com/a/sJBOU5O
-
Post the rejection in full.
I tried but it says the server is full.
-
Post the rejection in full.
-
Hi All,
Just wanted to let you know that I received a rejection letter to my representation.
One of the points I argued was that the council did not send a reminder to renew my permit. The rejection letter states that: "Having checked the permit record, I can see a reminder letter was set up automatically, however, it appears the system did not generate the renewal reminder letter to send out."
I have a date at the tribunal in which I will be using this statement as evidence for my case. Any further advice would be welcome.
-
From what I understand once I make formal reps I then risk paying the non-discounted rate for all the tickets. That's what I'm worried about if my case is not strong enough.
-
We know that emails aren't a written condition, but IMO this isn't the point.
It's whether such a condition does apply by virtue of custom and practice. There are no doubt reams of text books on contract law which include C&P. In short, just because it's not written does not mean it's not an enforceable term.
Thanks for this, do you know if their argument would hold up at a tribunal? Still unsure whether I should risk taking this all the way.
You haven't even taken the first step yet, so considerations of 'all the way' are premature IMO.
IMO, it is NOT a frivolous point and therefore may be advanced as regards PCN1. You would then get a reply. This might contain procedural improprieties which themselves are grounds for appeal irrespective of the initial defence.
But none of this is going to happen unless you make reps!
-
Thanks for this, do you know if their argument would hold up at a tribunal? Still unsure whether I should risk taking this all the way.
-
I don't have a suggestion for rewording this but would draw your attention to the LBTH terms and conditions for Residents Parking Permits para 8.1. From my previous experience with LBTH Parking (different circumstances to yours) their view was that a reminder email was just a courtesy and they aren't obliged to send one as 8.1 makes the resident responsible for tracking when the permit is due for renewal. Just a heads up for you on their likely response on that aspect.
https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/transport_and_streets/Parking/Terms_and_conditions/Resident_parking_permit_terms_and_conditions.aspx
-
Not sure if anyone is still reading this... but here is my challenge for the remaining PCN's I will then write a third version when it comes to challenging the impound PCN and towing fees. Let me know if I can improve on this as I have only submitted challenges now for 2 out of 6 PCN's:
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.
These are the three main reasons for my challenge:
1. The penalties as a whole including the towing fees far exceeds what is just, this should be treated as a continuous contravention (details below)*
2. Major discrepancy in the sequence of PCN numbers (details below)**
3. I ask kindly for discretion due to an oversight in not renewing, as I did not get a reminder (details below)***
*REASON 1*
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case; In respect of each PCN other than the first the argument of 'continuous contravention' may be advanced. I find that one continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remains at the
same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours. Therefore I am challenging all the PCN’s issued to me for the same offence, one of which I have paid already to remove my car from IMPOUND:
TT57609862 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 23/07/2024 Collingwood Street,
TT57633379 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 25/07/2024 Collingwood Street,
TT57610271 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 26/07/2024 Collingwood Street,
TT57633550 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 29/07/2024 Collingwood Street,
TT57636242 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 30/07/2024 Collingwood Street,
TT57666935 £0.00 SHD484X Issued 31/07/2024 Collingwood Street (impound PCN, paid)
**REASON 2**
This PCN dated the 25/072024 has a major discrepancy with the ticket number. If you look at the PCN numbers across the series of six PCN’s you will see that the PCN number for the 25th appears to be issued on the 29th. All the other PCN’s are in ascending numerical order, but the ticket number on the 25th is higher than the ticket number on the 26th (when it should be lower) and very similar to the ticket number on the 29th, as if they were given on the same day. I therefore believe this ticket has been issued fraudulently and represents a very serious breach of CEO protocol. I therefore believe that this ticket and all others should be canceled due to the potentially scandalous nature of the CEO’s offence.
TT57609862 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 23/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57633379 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 25/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57610271 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 26/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57633550 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 29/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57636242 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 30/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57666935 £0.00 SHD484X Issued 31/07/2024 Collingwood Street (impound PCN, paid)
***REASON 3***
I have been a resident of Tower Hamlets for six years now. For each year that I have held a residential parking permit, I receive a reminder to renew my residents permit. This year I did NOT receive a reminder. I have attached a screen-shot showing all the previous saved reminders in my inbox, along with the dates for each of them. As you will see here, there is no reminder for 2024, the year in which my latest resident parking permit expired.
I have received a reminder in all previous years without fail, since June 2021. Because of this, the council has established a precedent for renewal of permits. A change in this precedent is what has caused my failure to renew the permit on time. As I have not been notified of a change in procedure, I assume this to be a technical error, in which case a technical error on behalf of the council should not be grounds for penalising a resident.
For avoidance of doubt, I have logged into my account on "towerhamlets.tarantopermits.com" and verified that my account details show the correct email address. As the correct email address is listed there, there should be no reason that I did not receive a reminder, except that of a technical nature with the council's systems.
As the council failed to notify me that the permit was to be renewed and the attendant conditions e.g. cost, instructions and links for renewal etc... something which was established custom and practice for at least the past four years, I believe this PCN should be canceled.
From a legal standpoint: When someone as myself applies for a permit they enter into an agreement with the council, an agreement which in this instance was breached by the council. It doesn't matter whether this agreement states that the council will notify you, custom and practice (which may be taken to form part of the contract) is that you have in the past notified me on every occasion. It therefore follows that I should not be penalised for the council's failure to uphold this well established agreement.
Sincerely,
XXX
-
I don't know what time it was removed, I didn't even realise it was gone until the next day.
The documentation should tell you because otherwise how would you know the following:
until the appropriate period has elapsed since the giving of that penalty charge notice in respect of the contravention.
(4) In this regulation—
“the appropriate period” means—
(a)
in the case of a vehicle as respects which there are 3 or more penalty charges outstanding, 15 minutes;
(b)
in any other case 30 minutes;
Update, the PCN time was 10:41, the towing time was 14:32 so it looks like I won't be able to argue this point.
In short, if they removed before 30 minutes had elapsed then this is a procedural impropriety unless 3 or more PCNs etc. etc.
And how would you know unless the time of removal is in evidence?
-
Here is my first attempt at a challenge for the oldest of the PCN's. For the remaining PCN's I will have more points to argue and not just the failure to remind me bit. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this so far. Any feedback on the below would be appreciated as I have five more of these to write.:
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice.
I have been a resident of Tower Hamlets for six years now. For each year that I have held a residential parking permit, I receive a reminder to renew my residents permit. This year I did NOT receive a reminder. I have attached a screen-shot showing all the previous saved reminders in my inbox, along with the dates for each of them. As you will see here, there is no reminder for 2024, the year in which my latest resident parking permit expired.
I have received a reminder in all previous years without fail, since June 2021. Because of this, the council has established a precedent for renewal of permits. A change in this precedent is what has caused my failure to renew the permit on time. As I have not been notified of a change in procedure, I assume this to be a technical error, in which case a technical error on behalf of the council should not be grounds for penalising a resident.
For avoidance of doubt, I have logged into my account on "towerhamlets.tarantopermits.com" and verified that my account details show the correct email address. As the correct email address is listed there, there should be no reason that I did not receive a reminder, except that of a technical nature with the council's systems.
As the council failed to notify me that the permit was to be renewed and the attendant conditions e.g. cost, instructions and links for renewal etc... something which was established custom and practice for at least the past four years, I believe this PCN should be canceled.
From a legal standpoint: When someone as myself applies for a permit they enter into an agreement with the council, an agreement which in this instance was breached by the council. It doesn't matter whether this agreement states that the council will notify you, custom and practice (which may be taken to form part of the contract) is that you have in the past notified me on every occasion. It therefore follows that I should not be penalised for the council's failure to uphold this well established agreement.
Sincerely,
XXXX
-
Actually if I look up the PCN online and see the photos from the enforcer, you can actually see the tow hooks behind the wheel in one of the photos...
EDIT although it had more than three PCN's at that time so is this irrelevant?
-
I don't know what time it was removed, I didn't even realise it was gone until the next day.
The documentation should tell you because otherwise how would you know the following:
until the appropriate period has elapsed since the giving of that penalty charge notice in respect of the contravention.
(4) In this regulation—
“the appropriate period” means—
(a)
in the case of a vehicle as respects which there are 3 or more penalty charges outstanding, 15 minutes;
(b)
in any other case 30 minutes;
In short, if they removed before 30 minutes had elapsed then this is a procedural impropriety unless 3 or more PCNs etc. etc.
And how would you know unless the time of removal is in evidence?
-
I don't know what time it was removed, I didn't even realise it was gone until the next day.
If they have legal basis under the secondary priority then won't they just go with that basis as justification?
-
It's not a 'court', it's adjudication.
The TMA does NOT define 'persistent evader'(contrary to what's stated in the 'policy') the SoS's Guidance does and clearly the authority's idea is incorrect: it is NOT about how many PCNs have been issued, it's about unpaid PCNs and as a PCN is NOT a demand for payment - merely notice that payment is required and would be demanded of the keeper - then 'unpaid' cannot occur until the payment period for a NTO has lapsed.
None of your PCNs has even got to the NTO stage.
The ONLY legal basis I can see under this so-called policy(I need to see the intro to the document to find out its status) is therefore the 'second priority' of resident's bay.
But you won't know until they actually tell you in writing.
I repeat my previous comment, IMO they have no chance.
Edit - at what time was your vehicle removed?
-
Thank you, I have added the back of the impound PCN on the same link: https://imgur.com/a/sJBOU5O
Still wondering if anyone has any thoughts on why the number PCN for the 25th has a higher ticket number than the one on the 26th:
TT57609862 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 23/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57633379 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 25/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57610271 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 26/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57633550 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 29/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57636242 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 30/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57666935 £0.00 SHD484X Issued 31/07/2024 Collingwood Street (impound PCN, paid)
-
Pound docs, for convenience:
(https://i.imgur.com/BfVK5wt.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yzKChWF.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ol2sg7T.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/mPyYg6W.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZrFAgjC.jpeg)
Please could you add the back of the PCN, in case of errors in the 'small print'.
Back of PCN added above.
-
Hi H C Andersen,
Thanks for your thoughts and for looking into this.
Is this link still not working for you? The impound docs are here:
https://imgur.com/a/sJBOU5O (if not working in safari try another browser. Works for me on Chrome and Tor)
Also, did you see the drive folder that stamfordman posted, it seems to outline the Tower Hamlets policy for removals in the doc titled Policy - Vehicle Removals and Relocations V4:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13NkOAkg8CDLQtYAj9Z5KP5lwv4y-9hWW
But if I understand your last reply correctly, this policy won't hold up in court if it does not "'have regard to' the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance"?
-
I suggest that the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance is consulted as well as the RTRA and regs issued thereunder.
A council MUST have a written policy regarding removal of vehicles;
This policy must 'have regard to' the SoS's Guidance.
So, they had to have towed under their policy and if this included reference to 'persistent evaders'(which it is obliged to do) then this must 'have regard to' the Guidance.
It is not possible to know upon which provision in their policy they relied until this is declared by them. The tired argument of 'we're allowed to remove a vehicle issued with a PCN' won't wash nowadays.
So, on what lawful basis did the council(I use this term because it is a power vested in the council) remove the vehicle after having issued five previous PCNs?
IMO, the reps against the tow and its associated PCN are:
(f)that the penalty charge or other charge paid to secure the release of the vehicle exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;
You would expand on this with:
Continuous contravention therefore only the first PCN would have been valid. It therefore follows that the sixth PCN, which is the council's basis for removing the vehicle, is invalid and consequently any associated removal.
OP, until we see the pound paperwork in full then it's not possible to know whether 'procedural impropriety' might be additional grounds. (See edit below)
As regards the other PCNs, you can submit informal reps against each and I suggest that similar grounds apply:
(e)the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;
This arises because the council failed to notify you that your permit was to be renewed and the attendant conditions e.g. cost etc, something which was established custom and practice for at least the past ** years, see copies of previous emails below. IMO, when you apply for a permit you enter into an agreement with the council, an agreement which in this instance was breached by them. IMO, it doesn't matter whether this agreement states that the council will notify you, custom and practice(which may be taken to form part of the contract) is that they did notify you. It therefore follows that you should not be penalised for their failure. Of course they might rebut this by showing you an email which they sent, but at least you would then know.
In respect of each PCN other than the first the argument of 'continuous contravention' may be advanced.
Wait for others.
Edit: I don't think things bode well for the council.
I haven't found their policy, but did come across this:
The Parking Enforcement Plan (PEP) is long overdue an update, having being last updated over 15 years ago.
Which must mean that it does not 'have regard to' the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance published October 2022 and this is a procedural impropriety.
Notice of proposed decision first published: 11/06/2024
Decision due: 11 Sep 24 by Cabinet
The Notice is probably inclusion in the council's Forward Plan, but the key point is that a decision would not be taken until 11 Sept. To use council planning jargon, while weight may occasionally be attached to emerging policies and plans, this must be limited. IMO, whatever the PEP might propose and however many iterations it's had before 11 Sept. are not relevant: the current policy is what's current and it doesn't comply with the Traffic Management Act's requirements and therefore 'procedural impropriety' are legitimate grounds for each PCN.
https://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=147357&Opt=0
-
Thanks for the link stamfordman! That's a lot to go through but at a glance I can already see some useful info.
Do you have any thoughts on the sequence of the PCN numbers? It almost looks to me like the enforcement officer issued me two tickets on the 29th?
I'm not sure if they did actually notice my permit had expired earlier as when it happened last time I got ticketed right away. They are probably just used to seeing my car always in the same spot and didn't bother scanning it for a couple weeks.
-
This isn't anything to do with 'persistent evaders' and Mr Anderson is misleading here.
The PCN relevant to the impounding is the one used to impound.
Tower Hamlet's vehicle removal policy (most recent one we have) says for code 12:
Primary priority only if vehicle has been in place for three or more days without moving.
So this could have been removed on the first PCN given they no doubt noted it was without a permit for 2 weeks before this.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13NkOAkg8CDLQtYAj9Z5KP5lwv4y-9hWW
-
Hi Again,
I need to submit my first challenges today or tomorrow, any last tips for that?
Also did anyone else find the ticked number of the one issued on the 25th suspicious?
Looking at the PCN numbers in order, the 25th seems out of sequence, as if it was issued on the 29th?:
TT57609862 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 23/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57633379 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 25/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57610271 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 26/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57633550 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 29/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57636242 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 30/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57666935 £0.00 SHD484X Issued 31/07/2024 Collingwood Street (impound PCN, paid)
-
Good local knowledge.
So OP, we must look at probabilities. Would the council be able to show that a reminder email was sent to your registered email account in time?
IMO, probably.
But the key question remains: why remove after PCN 6? Why not after 2, 3, 4 etc?
Not sure about the email thing. I will definitely use that as part of my challenge. Usually when I receive an email like that I will snooze it until a few days before expiry so that I get a second reminder to renew.
Your previous reply on this thread regarding the reason for towing is interesting, as I'm now thinking that they might have towed my car because of this unpaid ticket from December. Which I have paperwork showing why it was unpaid so maybe that's grounds for a refund on the towing part of all this.
-
I live in Tower Hamlets and they are still sending out renewal emails for resident permits about 4 weeks before expiry/renewal date. I just got my email and renewed online no problem. It's an automated reminder system so I don't think they can 'forget' you as such but emails do sometimes disappear into cyberspace never to be seen again by no fault of either sender or receiver. So I keep a diary reminder separately.
The email address they use is whatever you have registered in their 'parking permit portal' so it might be worth you logging in to your account and looking in My Account>View my details to check what email address is listed.
Hi, I did as you suggested and checked my account details on the tower hamlets permit site. My email address is there and is correct. The screenshot I shared showed all the other permit reminders I have received going back to 2021.
-
OP, I know what I say might sound harsh, but its purpose is to give you focus.
Unless the council have regularly sent emails, let's say for the past 3 years but without prior notice did not do so this year, then it's no-one's fault but yours.
Also, adjust your perspective pl. All the CEO knew, and all the council know until you engage with them, is that a 33 year-old car with an expired resident's permit was parked in a short-supply resident's parking place for which residents, through the permit system, pay the council to enforce in order to maximise their chances of being able to park somewhere near their homes.
Of course they removed your car.
IMO, there's no responsibility or liability which attaches to them for doing so if they followed procedure.
I can't see any docs in your link - these are needed in order to examine the propriety of the PCN and removal.
As regards the other PCNs, the 14-day discounts expire progressively from 5-12 August. This means that you cannot be considered a 'persistent evader' and raises the question of why remove after the 6th PCN. This is for the authority to justify.
Hi, Yes they have been sending me reminders by email every year and this year they have not. My screenshot shows this in my email.
Not sure why you can't see either of my links? I tested both of them on Chrome and TOR and they do work.
I think I understand what you are saying about the persistent evader, so none of the PCN's in the last 10 days would count towards this? Is that what you mean? If so they must have been referring to the one from December that I challenged, filled a witness statement on and is still not updated in their system.
-
Good local knowledge.
So OP, we must look at probabilities. Would the council be able to show that a reminder email was sent to your registered email account in time?
IMO, probably.
But the key question remains: why remove after PCN 6? Why not after 2, 3, 4 etc?
-
I live in Tower Hamlets and they are still sending out renewal emails for resident permits about 4 weeks before expiry/renewal date. I just got my email and renewed online no problem. It's an automated reminder system so I don't think they can 'forget' you as such but emails do sometimes disappear into cyberspace never to be seen again by no fault of either sender or receiver. So I keep a diary reminder separately.
The email address they use is whatever you have registered in their 'parking permit portal' so it might be worth you logging in to your account and looking in My Account>View my details to check what email address is listed.
-
OP, I know what I say might sound harsh, but its purpose is to give you focus.
Unless the council have regularly sent emails, let's say for the past 3 years but without prior notice did not do so this year, then it's no-one's fault but yours.
Also, adjust your perspective pl. All the CEO knew, and all the council know until you engage with them, is that a 33 year-old car with an expired resident's permit was parked in a short-supply resident's parking place for which residents, through the permit system, pay the council to enforce in order to maximise their chances of being able to park somewhere near their homes.
Of course they removed your car.
IMO, there's no responsibility or liability which attaches to them for doing so if they followed procedure.
I can't see any docs in your link - these are needed in order to examine the propriety of the PCN and removal.
As regards the other PCNs, the 14-day discounts expire progressively from 5-12 August. This means that you cannot be considered a 'persistent evader' and raises the question of why remove after the 6th PCN. This is for the authority to justify.
-
Hi,
Yes I checked spam and trash as well. No reminder this year.
I can see my car from the window of my flat. If there was a suspension planned it would be clear from there. Unfortunately I did not see the PCN's from my window.
When I leave the house I never go in the direction where my car is parked. I know I'm at fault but without a reminder the tally of all the fees seems excessive.
But also I spend large amounts of time out of town for work or travel. So sometimes I just can't be around to check.
What's madness to me is that the council can't link a reg + ticket to the owner so that people get notified by email when they receive a PCN.
-
It's hard to see much to go on - they gave you over 2 weeks after permit expiry before issuing PCNs and we've seen a lot more than five issued before impounding but I suggest asking for discretion due to an oversight in not renewing and it seems you didn't get a reminder - have you checked spam/junk mail? You may get some if not all cancelled.
It's madness not to check a car every few days in London because bays are often suspended especially in boroughs such as Tower Hamlets.
Is there a reason why you didn't check the car/signs?
-
sure, here's a list, I noticed something strange here about the one on the 25th and how the numbers make it seem like it was issued after the one on the 26th?
TT57609862 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 23/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57610271 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 26/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57633379 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 25/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57633550 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 29/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57636242 £65.00 SHD484X Issued 30/07/2024 Collingwood Street
TT57666935 £0.00 SHD484X Issued 31/07/2024 Collingwood Street (impound PCN, paid)
Also, in case it's relevant I challenged this one back in december, was not notified of a decision and then had to do a witness statement to say I was not notified. So it is still outstanding:
TT56540975 £130.00 SHD484X NTO/Enf. Notice Sent 20/12/2023 Collingwood Street
Contravention codes are all 12R
-
Do a list of all the PCNs and include the dates and contraventions/codes and note the one that was used to impound the car.
-
Here is a search in my email showing a history of permit expiration reminders. There was no reminder this year: https://imgur.com/a/kfolNeB
-
Here is the paperwork from the pound. https://imgur.com/a/sJBOU5O
(Don't think that the car make reflects my disposable income. It is a 1991 model I paid £1650 for many years ago.)
I've been doing a bit more research and found that when multiple PCNs are issued for one contravention sometimes the total penalty can be considered exorbitant.
Is this my best angle of approach? I'm still within the 14 day challenge period, my concern is that if I challenge now I may end up having to pay £130 per PCN if I loose my appeal?
-
PS, out of the stack six PCN's that he told me were outstanding I only found five on my car. But he gave me the PCN numbers so that I can look them up online.
-
Hi,
Thanks so much for your reply.
You were right that the removal looked disproportionate, that is because I didn't have the full picture until an hour ago when I collected my car.
I made sure to be very civil to the attendant at the car pound, as there's no reason for me to take my anger out on him. So I paid the £305 which included one £65 PCN (for the date the car was towed) plus the towing fee and a day of storage.
(I find it crazy that they just snatch your car without telling you, if I happened to park around the corner it could have been weeks before I noticed it missing and it might have been when I needed to use it most.)
He showed me the file they held on my car that was stamped in red something like "repeat violator" I can't remember the exact wording and after talking to him further he revealed that I had a further six PCN's all issued in the last ten days. I immediately thought that someone must have been removing them from my car but when He let me into the lot to retrieve my car there was a stack of PCN's under the wiper.
I have a view of my car on the street but it seems that from my kitchen window a tree branch was blocking the part of the windshield where the tickets were sitting. So although I see my car from afar everyday, I did not see the PCNs. Also, I have not driven since June.
In summary, the penalty for me forgetting to renew my permit and for not noticing the PCNs has now totalled £305 + 6 x 65 = £695. That does not include the ULEZ charge I will have to pay driving home today.
It seems I'm at fault here but if anyone has any ideas of how to reduce this I would very much appreciate that.
I've made some pretty terrible financial blunders this year. I would be happy to post the location, and all the paper work but if there's no hope for my case then I will just get to paying these.
Thanks again
-
A sad, but all to common situation in London, but you've not asked us for any advice as far as I can see. However, what I can say, in the absence of any real and useful information from yourself, is that removal of the car looks totally disproportionate if you are a lapsed permit holder and all that has happened is your permit has expired by just under a month; a PCN would surely have been sufficient to "encourage" you to get your permit renewed.
It's not all totally bad news, however. By towing your car and charging you, it means that even if you end up at London Tribunals, you have already paid all there is to pay, and could get some or even all of it back. There are no additional costs in taking the matter to London Tribunals, but first you must submit representations to the council. When reps to the council are rejected, you can take them to London Tribunals.
So if you want help with this and also with an appeal at London Tribunals, we need to know all about the circumstances that gave rise to (1) non-receipt of permit reminder, (2), location of parking, and(3) all the paper work given to you at the pound posted-up here. Have a read here and update your thread accordingly: -
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
-
So I looked out my kitchen window this evening and noticed my car was missing. I thought it must have been stolen but then I checked TRACE and the reality is the council stole it...
The reason for removal stated on Trace is:
"In a residents shared use place without permit"
And this is true, my resident permit has expired on the 7th or July! I did not realise this and I received no reminders or anything about it nearing expiry.
To make it worse I don't seem to have received a PCN. Or a PCN was issued and it was then removed from my vehicle so I did not know I had a fine at all.
Now the car impound want £200 for the removal fee, £65 for the PCN which I never received and £40 a day for storage. The car was taken on the 31st according to Trace so it looks like I'll be paying £305 or £345 to get my car back tomorrow.
I'm so sick of living in this city.