Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Well done! And thank you very much for posting an update. All too often we don't get to hear the outcome.
" It turned out that the complaint process worked fine. The county council processed the complaint and agreed to pay me back the £303 and also cancelled the PCN which was totally out of my expectation."
Do I understand correctly that Cambridgeshire County Council have refunded the £303 court fee? Have you received the refund as yet?
Just going back to notices. OP have you asked for copies of the missing notices or, if not freely forthcoming, submitted a SAR?
Actually it's 2 notices missing. the 3rd one, council's response to late representation was received. I didn't post it here since I think it is irrelevant,
Doesn't help when info is withheld from a timeline.
My previous post asked you to compare your V5C with postcode finder because this is RM's database and represents the 'correct' version of addresses. DVLA don't cross-check, they simply record what's submitted. If, perhaps out of custom and practice, an occupier chooses to use a form of address which does not correspond to the finder database then that's their choice and risk. So..
..would you pl confirm that your V5C address is exactly as found in the finder database and that the CC was addressed to your first V5C address.
You've confirmed that your V5C address is 'always up to date'. However, experience suggests that this can take on different meanings.*
As regards other aspects of process which are implied by your account, the authority are required to use the DVLA RK address in all notices unless you notify them formally to the contrary. However, correspondence does not follow this rule. So, their objection to your OOT would be sent to the address you used in the OOT, similarly with other simple correspondence.
*- I had a case recently where the address used by an authority was not as per DVLA. The authority made simple mistakes in that they mis-formatted the address so that it took up an additional line in the address block and this meant that when entered on to the PCN the post code was missing. However, the CC had more room and was delivered, but the OfR didn't and wasn't.
In this process there is no substitute for physically checking.
Well you obviously won't ever get any sort of refund from TEC, TEC has judicial immunity because it exercises a judicial function.
It is correct to say that costs are a discretionary remedy, but then all costs in all cases are discretionary. There are enough books on the question of costs to fill several libraries, there are specialist costs lawyers and specialist cost judges, so there's no point in trying to summarise the immense body of law that exists on the question of costs. There are 64 pages of cases on https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/category/costs-2/ if you fancy reading some case law on the subject.
Suffice to say, the starting position is always that costs should follow the event and that rule only seems to be departed from when there is some truly compelling reason.
As for why costs are never awarded in Part 75 proceedings, that's because as far as we are aware nobody has ever asked, let alone provided a properly structured argument as to why they should be awarded (which is hardly surprising given how many people who deal with Part 75 have little to no familiarity with any over part of the CPR). Costs are very much a "don't ask, don't get" scenario.
OP, can we leave 'costs' to one side pl and get back to notices.
You say:
Postal PCN not received;
Charge Cert received;
Council's response to your late reps(you omitted these from you account but the council's objection shows they were made) not received;
OfR not received;
Council's objection received;
TEC's refusal letter received.
Shouts a problem with your address, not Royal Mail. They might deliver late, but 2 notices and a letter sent first-class??
Get out your V5C and check this address against postcode finder(https://www.royalmail.com/find-a-postcode). Is your V5C address the same in all particulars as listed on the RM site and is the V5C address the same in all respects as those on the CC AND is the address used on the council's objection - which you received- the same as the CC AND is the address you wrote on your OOT the same as the V5C?
(a) the Centre is deemed to be an office of the County Court; andSo it seems to be right that TEC is part of HMCTS and the fee is for the review. The local authority should be "the other party". I checked the letter from TEC, it appears TEC poses themself between local authority and me and make a "court decision without hearing". So even TEC has made a faulty decision it doesn't seem to be possible to get the fee back from them.
(b) any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is deemed to act as an officer of the County Court.
(a) the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful partyas @cp8759 has mentioned.
(4) In deciding what order (if any) to make about costs, the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including –
(a) the conduct of all the parties;
(b) whether a party has succeeded on part of its case, even if that party has not been wholly successful; and
(c) any admissible offer to settle made by a party which is drawn to the court’s attention, and which is not an offer to which costs consequences under Part 36 apply.
I doubt if you will get the N244 fee refunded, even if your review application is granted. Not unless you qualify for EX160 fee remission.
HMCTS (HM Courts and Tribunals Service) take the view that it is a fee for a review and won't refund. The TEC is part of the HMCTS. The Adjudicator can award costs against the Enforcement Authority but very rarely does. And certainly won't if you lost an appeal at the Tribunal.
The N244 fee issue was extensively discussed on PePiPoo and nobody has ever produced a solid case where a refund was actually received.
I vaguely recall that somebody traced the matter back to a memorandum from the Lord Chancellor's Office but that doesn't seem to be in the public domain.
Bailiff Advice Online should know.
@Nosy Parker would you be able to assist with this one if @Neil B and I provide the arguments?Who is Nosy Parker?
I'm keen to see how your costs argument goes with a case one day but dubious about this one.
What are the known problems with mail and what evidence of that was submitted with OOT; because I can't see how the EA are at fault here with their SoT?
[/quote
