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.

Messages - tyuiop

Pages: [1]
1
The address has not changed and is correct.
I didn't receive a rejection letter - otherwise I would have responded to it. I can't remember what it was in March that I received that led me to call that day - I thought it was the bailiffs threatening charges but their timeline suggests that they weren't involved at that point, so it's a bit confusing. I phoned the bailiffs who told me to speak to the council, who suggested I filled in forms for the TEC (which took multiple attempts because the advice wasn't quite correct, and because it was all done by mail)

2
I just contacted the bailiffs and they confirmed the same as your maths. 114 + 75 compliance fee + 235 enforcement stage

I think I have come to the acceptance stage that I need to pay regardless of the fact I believe none of this ever should have happened.

While it feels like no-one in the council has cared about the fine being incorrect, it's a silver lining to find that there are people on here who are helping others out at times of need, when otherwise losing faith in people. Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts on my case.

3
I didn't receive a rejection notice, I only received something at the end of march which led me to ring them back on the date they mentioned.
I was given advice by the council about what papers to send to the TEC, which was actually incorrect and sent back to me with advice for more forms to fill. This delayed the TEC process, during which the bailiff cost went up to £424. This is the cost they are currently asking for. According to the maths you gave me, it should be £415 though?

4
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond.

no change in address, I honestly have no explanation for not receiving the rejection notice
I believed that they would easily see the error in making the fine

the summary suggests that the permit is only valid for that street, which 1. doesn't have parking on it, and 2. the permit is for a zone which their own website dictates the area of, so I see that as incorrect
I couldn't attach any images, so I've put the summaries on the drive:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RBJSlvxmD-ez9SAH0YEaRJppkX7qAIcK?usp=sharing

5
Hi everyone, I'd really appreciate some advice. Ultimately, I'm trying to work out whether to throw in the towel and pay a fine (which I believe is unfair) or is there a way to fight it?

September 2023 I had a letter saying I'd been fined for 'parking without clearly displaying a permit...' I didn't actually have anything on my windscreen to pick up, but online they have photos of it stuck on my car, and have taken a photo of my car with a permit for zone I, and the sign saying zone I. I've parked there many times without issue. I appealed and expected that to be the end. I didn't hear until months later when bailiffs were involved. I phoned the council who said they denied the appeal ages ago; I didn't receive a letter, and they won't send me a copy. They read out the reasoning: '...visitors permits are issued so that residents of properties located within residence permit parking scheme areas may have visitors with cars. As the name implies, only for used when visiting the resident permit holder. *The location where permit is registered to* is a considerable walking distance from the location where you had parked, and is wholly reasonable to have parked closer.'
Of note, the place where it's registered to is approx 200m away, and doesn't have any parking around it.

I appealed with the TEC ('late witness statement), saying I hadn't received any letters - and that appeal was recently refused while I was away, so the bailiffs are visiting again demanding money. It was over 2 weeks ago so that verdict cannot be appealed.

The council, TEC, traffic penalty tribunal, all say they don't have any suggestions.

Is there any way to get someone with common sense to look at the original reason for the fine and be able to overturn this?

Thanks for reading.

Pages: [1]