Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: snarkmaiden on September 21, 2023, 12:37:14 am
-
I see you made four posts in a row, so I missed this part.
2) this feels like gaslighting, but I can confirm that I asked TEC to reconfirm the ate of 7th of July when I was first informed.
No it isn't gaslighting; how dare you suggest so.
It is a crucial question relevant to your position.
The debt could not have been registered on 7th July AND the OfR carry either an issue date or deadline date in September.
Somebody has made a mistake; I suggest you find out who ---- and asking again at the time doesn't cut the mustard. I've posed the question now because you need to check it.
-
=> in my case, the OfR turned up 8 weeks after the debt had been registered
So you've told us but I queried if you'd misheard the date of debt registration?
I suggest you check it again because, if it really was 7th July the WF have been seriously at fault and you can use that in an OOT application.
Incidentally, what date was the Charge Certificate?
-
If you've sent the forms to TEC you should still get an outcome, one way or the other.
Just to confirm, I sent the PE3 to TEC 4 times in total, and yes, "I got mail", but no the fairy godmother was not on duty, and all 4 were rejected as out of time. This included the 4th one, which included a copy of the OfR.
-
Not relevant now but in case someone else comes on this thread looking for information.
Once a Charge Certificate arrives and there is reason to wait for the Order for Recovery, it is important to be proactive, if the order is late, goes missing or the like and the deadline for automatic acceptance is missed, it all goes pear shaped.
Regular phone calls to the authority and or TEC are key.
Asking if the debt had been registered.
The moment the answer is yes, relevant forms can be downloaded from TEC, filled in and sent.
This was a really useful response from earlier in this thread, if it helps others, I've added a bit based on what I went through:
Once a Charge Certificate arrives and there is reason to wait for the Order for Recovery, it is important to be proactive, if the order is late, goes missing or the like and the deadline for automatic acceptance is missed, it all goes pear shaped.
=> in my case, the OfR turned up 8 weeks after the debt had been registered
Regular phone calls to the authority and or TEC are key.
=> in my case, TEC (Traffic Enforcement Centre) is not mentioned at all on the charge certificate, in order to be proactive you will need to research online for contact details and what you should be asking for (see below)
=> in my case, the authority (Waltham Forest) had very little information available, but were happy to direct me to automated payment facilities (both on the phone and online).
Asking if the debt had been registered.
=> you need to phone TEC with the PCN number from the charge certificate, and ask if the debt has been registered.
The moment the answer is yes, relevant forms can be downloaded from TEC, filled in and sent.
=> in my case, a PE3 form including statutory declaration was required, plus a PE2 form with statutory declaration (for "Out of Time" representations).
=> in my case, TEC were not able to confirm the date when "Out of Time" started and the PE2 became necessary, but they informed me that this should be stated on the Order for Recovery letter. In hindsight, it would have helped if I had asked TEC if my representation would be "Out of Time", i.e. if I was told "yes", then I would have known that a PE2 form would also be necessary.
=> in my case, the OfR did not include a PE2 form, it only had a PE3 form enclosed.
-
Interestingly, this appears to confirm my view that the text "dated 01/09/2023" on the OfR document (also attached for reference) is the issue date of that document (and not the payment deadline). The letter provides the option to pay "before 03/10/2023" which is 21 working days from 01/09/2023.
gnificant issue with the "time allowed" for PE3 representations in my case, perhaps others also.
Your imagination knows no bounds.
1/. It confirms nothing of the kind.
2/. That isn't 21 days; it's 22
3/. Working days are not what is counted anyway.
Please stop writing things as facts just to suit your flawed narrative.
Is there any chance at all that you could stop telling us what is happening according to you and actually start to listen?
Thanks,
1. "nothing of the kind"? It looks pretty similar, has similar timelines, and appears to be very relevant to me.
2. It is 21 working days from Monday 4th September through Monday 2nd October inclusive.
3. Fair enough, I'm not familiar enough to know if they use working days or calendar days.
To update on my original query (which was about the "time allowed" on the OfR), it seems that I could never have submitted a PE3 "in time", and that even if I did an instant representation to TEC, it would have been Out of Time.
I hope that is useful for others in a similar situation.
-
but when I queried if authority for a warrant would also be on a circa 5-day turnaround (i.e. as per my communications with TEC), the conversation took a very negative/strange turn. The TEC call handler couldn't assist in any way, and was extremely evasive when I continued to probe. I was trying to figure out if I had at least 5 days breathing space, but did not get any such suggestion fro
I should think they were confused --- because I haven't a clue what you are talking about?
-------------
You have told us that TEC told you the debt was registered on 7th July? I think you must have misheard that because neither end of the OfR could then be dated September.
I suggest you ask WF for a full history of actions and notices issued in your case and --- if they don't cooperate, make that a Subject Access Request.
--------------
I'm at a loss to understand why you've now paid when you had the protection of that last WF letter?
Just to respond on these:
1) I was trying to find out if an authority for a warranty had been issued (it hadn't), then trying to find out if it would take 5 days for TEC to issue one (i.e. working to the same response times as my correspondence with TEC). I did not get a clear answer to this second query.
2) this feels like gaslighting, but I can confirm that I asked TEC to reconfirm the date of 7th of July when I was first informed.
3) Thanks, I'll give that a go.
4) Given the inconsistencies and delays in previous communications, I don't perceive any protection from that last WF letter. Bearing in mind that TEC confirmed that my representation to them was "out of time", I think it was reasonable to expect further action imminently.
-
Interestingly, this appears to confirm my view that the text "dated 01/09/2023" on the OfR document (also attached for reference) is the issue date of that document (and not the payment deadline). The letter provides the option to pay "before 03/10/2023" which is 21 working days from 01/09/2023.
gnificant issue with the "time allowed" for PE3 representations in my case, perhaps others also.
Your imagination knows no bounds.
1/. It confirms nothing of the kind.
2/. That isn't 21 days; it's 22
3/. Working days are not what is counted anyway.
Please stop writing things as facts just to suit your flawed narrative.
Is there any chance at all that you could stop telling us what is happening according to you and actually start to listen?
-
but when I queried if authority for a warrant would also be on a circa 5-day turnaround (i.e. as per my communications with TEC), the conversation took a very negative/strange turn. The TEC call handler couldn't assist in any way, and was extremely evasive when I continued to probe. I was trying to figure out if I had at least 5 days breathing space, but did not get any such suggestion fro
I should think they were confused --- because I haven't a clue what you are talking about?
-------------
You have told us that TEC told you the debt was registered on 7th July? I think you must have misheard that because neither end of the OfR could then be dated September.
I suggest you ask WF for a full history of actions and notices issued in your case and --- if they don't cooperate, make that a Subject Access Request.
--------------
I'm at a loss to understand why you've now paid when you had the protection of that last WF letter?
-
Paying at tis stage does not automatically close the PCN but you may have to remind the council of that if and when.
If TEC accept what you have sent... I have to say I doubt it but the fairy godmother dept may be working... then by rights, council ought to re-issue the PCN and you can reclaim moneys already paid.
If it is cancelled back, any penalty, fees etc are also cancelled back to where the process broke down.
-
If you've sent the forms to TEC you should still get an outcome, one way or the other.
-
Just to round this off:
1) I'm still waiting on a reply from TEC to tell me if my PE3 was accepted as an in time declaration.
2) given the rampant process / procedure problems which have now escalated to debt registration / potential bailiff action (completely outside of my knowledge or control), I decided that the risk of this escalating further was too much, and I've paid the PCN.
In simple terms, it seems that it is possible (probable?) that bailiffs would turn up at some point, and that could be very traumatic for family members if I am not around at the time.
Also, this is not a case of me changing address before now (lots of these PE3/PE2 cases seem to relate to address changes / DVLA records), but there is a chance that I will be changing addresses in the next few months, and I don't need to add that complexity into a drawn out process of appeals / London tribunals etc.
I am keen to keep going at this, but I assume that there is no formal PCN process once the PCN is paid, is this correct?
I'm also considering a FOI request on the original PCN to establish which communications were issued & when, and I also need to check that there are no other PCNs in process (ridiculous as that may sound).
-
No, you don't need to secure your car at this point.
I take that comment back. There IS potential for bailiff action at the moment.
You could ask TEC if WF have sought authority for a warrant?
Thanks for going back to that for me, I was wondering why bailiff action would not be a potential next step here.
I phoned TEC last week, and they confirmed that no authority had been requested for a warrant at the time of calling, but when I queried if authority for a warrant would also be on a circa 5-day turnaround (i.e. as per my communications with TEC), the conversation took a very negative/strange turn. The TEC call handler couldn't assist in any way, and was extremely evasive when I continued to probe. I was trying to figure out if I had at least 5 days breathing space, but did not get any such suggestion from the responses.
In the meantime, I received the attached letter from "on behalf of Parking Services", so it could be Waltham Forest, or NSL, I don't know which.
Due to the dates/timing of my communications, this is likely in response to my emails of 4th June and 23rd August to "wfpcn@nsl.co.uk".
Interestingly, this appears to confirm my view that the text "dated 01/09/2023" on the OfR document (also attached for reference) is the issue date of that document (and not the payment deadline). The letter provides the option to pay "before 03/10/2023" which is 21 working days from 01/09/2023.
This also directly contradicts the information I received from TEC, i.e. that the debt was registered on 7th July 2023, and that representations received >21 days thereafter require an "out of time" statutory declaration.
Unless I'm missing something, there appears to be a significant issue with the "time allowed" for PE3 representations in my case, perhaps others also.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
No, you don't need to secure your car at this point.
I take that comment back. There IS potential for bailiff action at the moment.
You could ask TEC if WF have sought authority for a warrant?
-
See what comes back from the new PE3.... though I predict a rejection.
You have e-mail Guv. :o :o
-
Forget the PCN for the moment, the process you are stuck in is purely proceedural, rights or wrongs of the PCN are irrelevant and should not be mentioned within any conversation with TEC.
See what comes back from the new PE3.... though I predict a rejection.
-
I don't want to post up full details for all and sundry,
Game over.
-
So here are more details on the PCN itself, it is a short "no entry" section of road.
I don't want to post up full details for all and sundry, but I do want to appeal this.
Location is here : https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5876215,-0.032535,3a,75y,302.74h,81.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7HABpdO2IAkdiEnfTWcEjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
There are a couple of points which I would like to clarify during the appeal:
1) at which point is the No Entry enforceable, is it at the road markings (where exactly?), or on a line between the signs at either side; and
2) when has an contravention occurred, is it when any point of a vehicle crosses the point, or when the full vehicle has crossed.
Probably irrelevant, but this section has only been marked No Entry within the past few years, most likely as part of LTN initiatives.
The video shows that the vehicle stopped at the No Entry point, and reversed into the parking space on the left.
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So I've checked the Waltham Forest PCN viewer, and there is no case history resource available. But I will post up the images shortly.
PCN is for a contravention 51 Failure to Comply with a no entry restriction.
This has just gone out to TEC, based on a conversation with them this morning:
Please see attached form PE3 including Statutory Declaration in relation to PCN FRXXXXXXXX
I am requesting that this is processed as an “in time” representation, as I believe there are anomalies between the information held by TEC and the documentation which I have received to date.
Attachments :
Attachment 1 (1 page) : Form PE3 including Statutory Declaration which I request is treated as an “in time” representation.
Attachment 2 (1 page) : Order for Recovery “Dated 01/09/2023”. This was received by me by 4th September 2023, and supports my request that this is treated as an “in time” representation.
Related information to Attachment 2 : I spoke to Joanna at TEC at 1015 on 21st September 2023, who explained that a debt had been registered with TEC on 7th July 2023. I believe that the Out of Time decision is incorrectly being based on the date of debt registry (7th July 2023), instead of the date of the Order for Recovery (1st September 2023, see Attachment 2).
Attachment 3 (1 page) : My cover letter to TEC, sent my email after 4pm 14th September 2023, outlining the reasons why my representation is within the time allowed.
Attachment 4 (2 pages) : copy of 2x emails from me to TEC on 14th September 2023, and response from TEC on 20th September 2023.
Attachment 5 (2 pages) : proof of postage and delivery for my original representation to TEC on this matter, sent 6th September 2023, and received 7th September 2023.
-
... it looks like an erroneous OfR sent exactly 8 weeks later than it should have been.
No it isn't as Dad and I have both explained.
What you've shown isn't a case history and, as you said, doesn't show much but why are you obscuring details? That stops us looking at things for ourselves.
No, you don't need to secure your car at this point.
DO NOT attempt to complete a PE2 without posting a draft here first.
Is there a case history that I can access and upload? I am not aware of what this is.
Bear with me while I get another email off to TEC today by 4pm, and I can put up info on the PCN itself.
-
I suspect I know the answer but have you an actual copy of the Order??
In post #2 above (pdf)
-
I suspect I know the answer but have you an actual copy of the Order??
-
... it looks like an erroneous OfR sent exactly 8 weeks later than it should have been.
No it isn't as Dad and I have both explained.
What you've shown isn't a case history and, as you said, doesn't show much but why are you obscuring details? That stops us looking at things for ourselves.
No, you don't need to secure your car at this point.
DO NOT attempt to complete a PE2 without posting a draft here first.
-
Forgot to add this chronology:
1-6-2023 : Date of Charge Certificate
4-6-2023 : I emailed the council using the contact details on the CC, no response
<< 7-7-2023, I found out on 21-9-2023 that the debt had been registered on 7-7-2023 >>
23-8-2023 : I emailed the council using the contact details on the CC, no response
1-9-2023 : OfR received on either 2nd or 4th September, "Dated 01/09/2023"
... it looks like an erroneous OfR sent exactly 8 weeks later than it should have been.
-
PCN summary attached, not much to see really, the "NoDR sent" comment is probably not relevant here.
The conversation with TEC earlier this morning was very clear, the "Dated 01/09/2023" was not the deadline.
I believe the deadline would be around 22nd Sep (calendar days), or 29th Sep (working days).
- but these September dates are largely irrelevant, as it should have been sent 2 months prior, and been "Dated 07/07/2023".
A contributing factor may be that the debt is registered by the council with TEC.
The OfR letter is sent by the council (not by TEC), and I do believe this is an error on the council's part of several weeks.
I am doing the following:
- resending the PE3 (without a PE2), but including a copy of the OfR and requesting that this is treated as an "in time" representation
- I am going to get a PE2 witnessed, and submit a PE2 & PE3 together. Thanks for the suggested wording, I will pop up my own draft, in the hope that it helps others
- I am going to have to spend yet more time on this, trying to figure out the potential next steps, i.e. if I need to move the vehicle to an unknown location
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If the debt was really registered on 7/7 then the deadline would have been 12/8 so not a lot is making sense.
But you need to let us look.
-
No, I don't routinely keep envelopes, but it was received on either 2nd or 4th September.
I've phoned the TEC this morning, and have discovered that the debt was registered on 7th July 2023 with them.
It seems that the OfR (sent by the council) should have been dated 7th July 2023, not 1st Sep 2023.
As I suggested on PP and Neil has said here, the date is likely the deadline, not the date of order.
If we work with that, it gives substance to the OOT
But as Neil says...lets see what you have in writing, like the case history
Reason for being late.....
Order for Recovery not received until 2nd September, after the deadline of 1st September.
Date registered with TEC 7/7/23 which makes the late arrival questionable.
Though whether postal delays or delays with raising the Order is unknown.
Plus something on not being familiar with the form and thinking that the prominent date was the date of notice and time taken to understand and correct the error.
If the authority object, I request that the objection focuses on when the Order was raised and posted, not simply that notices were sent to the proper address. The only reason for missing the deadline was that the Order did not arrive in good time.
Not relevant now but in case someone else comes on this thread looking for information.
Once a Charge Certificate arrives and there is reason to wait for the Order for Recovery, it is important to be proactive, if the order is late, goes missing or the like and the deadline for automatic acceptance is missed, it all goes pear shaped.
Regular phone calls to the authority and or TEC are key.
Asking if the debt had been registered.
The moment the answer is yes, relevant forms can be downloaded from TEC, filled in and sent.
-
I'll try again >
So let's have a look at that evidence.
[/quote]
The evidence you said you found, presumably online.
It sounds like a case history.
-
No, I don't routinely keep envelopes, but it was received on either 2nd or 4th September.
I've phoned the TEC this morning, and have discovered that the debt was registered on 7th July 2023 with them.
It seems that the OfR (sent by the council) should have been dated 7th July 2023, not 1st Sep 2023.
-
Do you happen to have the envelope for the OfR? Is there a postmark?
-
- I have managed to access the PCN evidence, and in the summary it states "NoDR Sent"
So let's have a look at that evidence because you seem to be being a bit coy.
And, looking back, were you following on pepipoo the numerous threads about dealing with a Charge Certificate? I ask because you seem to have gone your own way; not least 'posting' something that should always be e-mailed.
It's largely pointless arguing with TEC but, to put your mind at rest, the question you should be asking them is >> On what date was the debt 'registered'?
-
The OfR was not dated 1/9/23; that was your deadline.
I know it's confusing but that's a typical template used by many councils.
-
OfR attached, showing "Dated 1-9-2023" I don't have the original letter, but it was not received before 1-9-2023, I believe it was received on the 2nd or 4th Sep.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Moved from here : http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=151472&pid=1793990&mode=threaded&start=#entry1793990
Hi All, new poster here, I am trying to get Form PE3 submitted without also needing PE2 (Out of Time).
I have an Order for Recovery of unpaid penalty charge Form PE2
Applicant : London Borough of Waltham Forest
Date of contravention : 16-4-2023
Total : £204 (195+9)
Dated : 1-9-2023
- the background is that I did not receive the original PCN, and found out about it at Charge Certificate stage, so I waited for the OfR so that I could appeal it.
- I want to go through the appeal process as the PCN in question is causing quite a few local issues on the street (I will put up detail in due course)
- I have managed to access the PCN evidence, and in the summary it states "NoDR Sent"
Following this:
6-9-2023 : I sent the PE3 by registered post, this was signed for on 7-9-2023
12-9-2023 : I received a reply dated 11-9-2023 stating that my Statutory Declaration was received "outside the timescale allowed", and that a PE2 would also be required.
14-9-2023 : I sent an email query to TEC asking why my submission was deemend "outside the time allowed". I have not received a reply to this email yet.
14-9-2023 (email, after 4pm) : I sent all of the correspondence back, along with a letter stating that the application was made in time, and requesting that it was processed as submitted.
20-9-2023 : email response received, stating that my Statutory Declaration was received "outside the timescale allowed", and that a PE2 would also be required.
20-9-2023 (email, after 4pm) : I have resent the original statutory declaration form PE3, along with a short letter highlighting that it is submitted within 21 days of the Order for Recovery.
It looks like I will need to get form PE2 completed, and resubmit a new PE3, but what is the "timescale allowed" for submission of PE3, without an accompanying PE2?
My best guess at this stage is:
6-9-2023 : my original postal submission was valid but was rejected in error / or it is easier & quicker for TEC to reject, I don't know.
14-9-2023 : my second submission by email contained my PE3 form, with a stamp from TEC (received 7-9-2023) on it. Technically, this could be deemed new information so it should have been re-witnessed.
20-9-2023 : obviously I am not getting my hopes up, but there is nothing in the information in front of me which suggests that I am outside of the "timescale allowed" for submitting a PE3.