Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: traz on January 16, 2025, 10:25:56 pm
-
What are the chances of winning if I take this to the London Tribunal?
Also, would anyone be willing to represent me? I’ve never been to the London Tribunal before, so I’m not sure how I'd do in there.
Its pretty routine stuff, now done on the phone or video these days. Somebody on here may offer to represent you, but it's not something I do. YOu would rely on y our original representations, plus their sending unlawful debt collection letters to you when no debt exists.
-
What are the chances of winning if I take this to the London Tribunal?
Also, would anyone be willing to represent me? I’ve never been to the London Tribunal before, so I’m not sure how I'd do in there.
-
In view of the shenanigans in the early part of this thread, I think I would take them to London Tribunals, and risk the extra £65. You can then present the adjudicator with their threatening letters that, essentially, are illegal demands for payment of a debt that doesn't exist until registered at TEC. However, it's your money.
-
I’ve received a response from Westminster. Is there any point in pursuing this further, or should I just pay the fine? I noticed that instead of addressing me with 'Dear [Full Name]', they only used the first initial and my surname—but I assume that probably doesn’t make any difference.
Thanks!
-
Would this be a TE9 that I get sworn at the county court?
Statutory Declaration is Form PE3, and if you're 'out-of-time', you also need to submit Form PE2. This asks for permission to submit the SD out-of-time.
-
Would this be a TE9 that I get sworn at the county court?
-
You need to get a statutory declaration witnessed at a county court (free) or solicitor.
-
Should I fill out and send a PE3 to TEC?
-
I have finally received the order for recovery. I assume the next step is to fill and send the PE3 form to TEC?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We've seen councils sending their own letters chasing payment but I've not seen them outsourced to a bailiff. The letters should of course set out reasons why the charge certificate can be ignored and payment not made.
-
These letters are shameful and a blot on the reputation of City of Westminster, because no debt exist until the PCN is registered at the Traffic Enforcement Centre so to say a sum of money is owing is deeply mendacious. Letters like this have been seen on this forum before with a couple of other London councils, and also on the old Pepipoo site.
My view is that it is unlawful intimidation and this needs to get in front of an adjudicator. I would go further and call it malfeasance and the person who authorised such letters should now be in jail, but I admit I am a bit of a 'hanging judge' in these matters !
I reiterate; these letters are totally outside the enforcement process defined in law.
-
These are the three letters sent from Marston Recovery.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please post the others.
These letters would seem to my eye to be illegal intimidation. Certainly they are outside the legal process. We have seen this sort of thing before from other London councils who clearly see it as a clever wheeze to get the money in and avoid the Traffic Enforcement Centre process. Many people will be scared and pay-up, which is what they want.
The bottom line is that no debt exists until the PCN is registered at TEC.
+1
-
Please post the others.
These letters would seem to my eye to be illegal intimidation. Certainly they are outside the legal process. We have seen this sort of thing before from other London councils who clearly see it as a clever wheeze to get the money in and avoid the Traffic Enforcement Centre process. Many people will be scared and pay-up, which is what they want.
The bottom line is that no debt exists until the PCN is registered at TEC.
-
Received another letter from Marston Recovery today. This is the third letter.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
okay thanks. I'll check again next week. Would it be okay if someone can explain a little bit on what's happening.
So I'm waiting for the order of recovery to be registered with the TEC and then I will file a PE3 stating I did not receive the notice of rejection. Is that right?
This guide explains it all.>
https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/charge-certificates-london-local-authorities-and-tfl-act-2003-london-l-1805/
-
okay thanks. I'll check again next week. Would it be okay if someone can explain a little bit on what's happening.
So I'm waiting for the order of recovery to be registered with the TEC and then I will file a PE3 stating I did not receive the notice of rejection. Is that right?
-
Keep checking with TEC - say again in 2 weeks. You don't want to miss the order for recovery and you don't need it to file a statutory declaration that you didn't get the rejection, only that you know it's been raised.
-
I called the TEC and they said it is currently not registered with them.
-
Okay, thank you I will call Traffic Enforcement Centre tomorrow.
Yes I made representation - how good I don't know but I still made representation.
The names and address is right on all the letters.
-
So you've had two of these - this is outrageous. I really don't think Westminster has any authority to hound people at charge certificate stage with a bailiff.
Call the Traffic Enforcement Centre tomorrow and see if the debt has been registered against the PCN. Not getting a rejection gives you an automatic referral to the tribunal - did you make reps as per their instructions?
Have they got the right name and address.
(https://i.imgur.com/5DKeZct.jpeg)
-
I received two letters from marston recovery. These letters came with a two day gap.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
There's only one letter from Marston you've posted and it's out of order as it's a pre debt registration letter.
What else is there?
-
I made an appeal to Westminster council. They did not send a notice of rejection. Instead they issued me with a charge certificate (linked below). I then received 2 letters from Marston Recovery (linked below). Am I correct in understanding that I need to fill out a PE3 form and send it to TEC?
Also in the TEC form where it asks for the applicant, that would be City of Westminster not myself, right?
This is so strange because this is the second time this has happened to me. Previously TFL did this so I filled out a PE3 form and now Westminster council.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The problem you've got is that if your main point in the appeal is that the video doesn't show the sign, (like a helluva lot of other videos we see), the council can present photos of the sign in their evidence pack. In addition, the adjudicator can look at GSV same as us and see the sign. OK, the GSV view is for a particular month and year, but the civil law test of "on the balance of probabilities" applies, NOT "beyond all reasonable doubt, (the criminal law test).
The above will only be tested at London Tribunals as the council will just refuse your reps.
So my view is you need to find something else.
-
That's right I tuned left against a straight ahead arrow. Yes the sign isn't visible in the clip.
How would I find those cases that could help? Anything I could search on the forum?
-
So you turned left against a straight ahead arrow? The sign isn't shown from that view and maybe some cases on tribunal that could help.
I seem to recall a case on the old forum here.
(https://i.imgur.com/4a2kJiW.gif)
-
Received a PCN from Westminster for failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign. I got into a little altercation with who seemed like the caretaker for a residential building on the street just before the signal who was arguing that I couldn't stop there. I didn't realise there was a forward sign on the traffic light.
Not much of an excuse but those are the events that took place that day.
Are there any grounds on which I can make an appeal?
[attachment deleted by admin]