The reality is that the LA probably just thought this was not one to pick a fight with. I doubt they will go to the expense of re-signing. I suspect they will continue to issue PCNs collecting from those who pay and cancelling those who put up an informed and robust challenge. Its called exercise of discretion and LAs do it all the time.

Were you loading or unloading?

And good luck to you for that! If anyone wants to use that argument though they deserve to have the full picture.

Yes you can! Minier -v- London Borough of Camden http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Minier,%20T-bar,%20effect%20of%20absence%20edited%20version.pdf

And subsequently trumped in the case of parking penalties by the judicial review in the matter of De Crittenden v National Parking Adjudication Service the judgment of which is here: http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/De_Crittenden.pdf And also addressed here: http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Henney-v-Camden.pdf And here: http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/RobinTownsendvTFL.pdf And this final case specifically refers to the Sunderland case this is an appropriate quote: It seems to me that to pursue the Bill of Rights Act in relation to parking offences will require considerable resources. It may be the sort of approach to indulge in if one were to win the lottery. Absent that, I suggest that pursuit of this avenue is a flight of fancy equivalent, perhaps, to the notion of winning the lottery!

If you head the letter "Without Prejudice" and state in the body that the payment is made without any limit of liability, your conscience can be clear and satisfy Crem's concern.

In which case that will be a procedural impropriety as it should be referred to adjudicators.

In which case that will be a procedural impropriety as it should be referred to adjudicators.

To whom is the latest documentation addressed and how did you get to have it? As I see it, you are facing two difficulties. The NTO sets out the manner and methodology by which the owner can make representations against it. From the LAs perspective they did not receive such representations. However, I believe that a reasonable LA, having provided an e-mail address, should have treated the e-mail you sent as having been sent by or on behalf of the owner. You are not the owner so are not entitled to pursue the matter unless you can demonstrate you are acting as the owner's representative in this matter. I do think that you will probably have to wait for the Order for Recovery and proceed on the basis as set out in this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?131121-Council-Parking-Fine....-but-NO-PCN-or-NTO-received-Advice!(1-Viewing)-nbsp I believe you will need to say that you made representations against the NTO but no response was receieved.

I missed the link too. Of course it is always possible for it to be re-posted.

Personally, I expect PPCs to lobby for legislation to legitimise private enforcement and regulate it in a manner similar to DPE with a statutory independent appeals process as part of the quid pro quo. I certainly cannot see private parking enforcement becoming outlawed in its entirety (although their current methods may be).

Did you get an NTO and if so what did you do with it?

I expect it's under motorway regs unless you have passed an "End of motorway" sign.

You may find that they can if it is a matter over which the police have jurisdiction. I would also be wary that if the attempt was to avoid a police authorised removal it may be "an attempt to pervert the course of justice" matter.

You report it to the Police.

It's not a matter of whether or not the bus co can be arsed to defend, it is a matter of commercial reality. It may well cost less to bung a couple of grand to someone than to spend more on lawyers defending, not to mention management time, which you will not recover even if you successfully defend. Its the most effective commercial use of resources. Some claimants know this and cynically exploit it to their advantage.

I think that there is a commonly held perception that police controlled Traffic Wardens tend to exercise a bit more discretion (often thought of as common sense) when issuing PCNs with the primary objective of keeping traffic moving. On the other hand, the perception of Civil Enforcement Officers is that they tend not to display such flexibility and that their motivation is more towards issuing larger numbers of PCNs (for reasons to do with personal targets and/or corporate targets towards revenue raising). Whether this perception is true or not matters less than recognising the rule that perception is reality for the perception holder. Personally I happen to think that it has more to do with the fact that there are more CEOs that there were Traffic Wardens but there are other less influential matters.

Then that may be a case for costs but not compensation.

Then no, not a chance!

OP, I would have a long, hard rethink about your approach to this position. As thing stand the book is well and truly flying towards you!

I think what I am trying to say is that I would not acknowledge, at this stage, knowing that the LA say the reps were not received. I cannot see that it helps and I can see that it could harm the case.

Personally I would say that you made representations which were mailed as instructed but that no response was received from the Local Authority.

Have to say I'm kinda sorry to see this split from the original post. Although much of the discussion has nothing to do with the template letters I drafted some time ago, I was enjoying the prospect of getting up to a million views! Hey ho!

In this case it won't matter what you know. If the sender can produce evidence that your wife signed for it at the address to which it was sent then in law she has accepted it as your agent. That you have to accept. If whoever is acting in a judicial capacity finds as a fact the document signed for is what the sender claims it to be then you are stuffed on that point too. If an agent fails to inform their principal of an act done on the principal's behalf the agent may be liable to the principal for any loss suffered. Basic law of agency stuff.

I don't think that it would be enough to get you done for perjury but you would have received the letter as your wife would have received it acting as your agent. The fact that she failed to pass it on is a matter between you and her.