Moved House, 15 months later Parking Services got in touch, PCN issued on double yellows, disabled badge

[gaz245]

Received a letter from my council (parking services)15 months after a PCN was issued saying I owe £95. Turned out they apparently sent the NTO to my old address, even though DVLA was informed of my new address. I contacted them and they have decided to reduce the payment to £60.

Now, here's the confusing bit:

I have asked for and received copies of the initial email I sent plus the rejection letter from the council, (both of which include my new address and my telephone number), but the NTO is not the original copy.

I had parked on double yellows to quickly get to my mates toilet, as I suffer with IBS(Irritable Bowel Syndrome). My blue badge was displayed, but in the panic to get to his house I dropped the clock onto to the floor.

So, how do I proceed;

 

1. Ask for the original NTO?
   
2. Appeal again on Medical Grounds?
   

Any further help would be greatly received

[patdavies]

There are no medical grounds in the allowable appeals process.

 

Your council are out of time - appeal on grounds of procedural impropriety. They sent the original NtO to an incorrect address as evidence by your email exchange and the DVLA data.

 

Refer then to r.20 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007

 

Time limit for service of a notice to owner

 

20.—(1) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date.

(2) The relevant date—

(a) in a case where a notice to owner has been cancelled under regulation 23(5)© of these Regulations, is the date on which the district judge serves notice in accordance with regulation 23(5)(d);

(b) in case where a notice to owner has been cancelled under regulation 5 of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, is the date of such cancellation;

© in a case where payment of the penalty charge was made, or had purportedly been made, before the expiry of the period mentioned in paragraph (1) but the payment or purported payment had been cancelled or withdrawn, is the date on which the enforcement authority is notified that the payment or purported payment has been cancelled or withdrawn;

(d) in any other case, is the date on which the relevant penalty charge notice was served under regulation 9.

[gaz245]

cheers patdavies,

 

Could I not put this down to a medical emergency?

 

The council are saying I didn't inform the DVLA soon enough and that they sent the letters to my new address (which I never received).

 

Is it the council that send the NtO then?

[gaz245]

Any ideas anyone?

[patdavies]

cheers patdavies,

 

Could I not put this down to a medical emergency?

 

I don't think so.

 

The council are saying I didn't inform the DVLA soon enough and that they sent the letters to my new address (which I never received).

 

Is it the council that send the NtO then?

Yes, it is the Council that issue the NtO.

 

How are the Council saying this, please don't tell me that you are phoning them ...?

 

I as see it from your first post, the Council and DVLA were well aware of your new address at the point you raised an informal appeal via email.

 

It is my view that they are now out of time. Appeal on the grounds of procedural impropriety and go all the way to the adjudicator. Explain the situation there and I am sure that the PCN will be quashed (if the Council even bother to turn up)

[green_and_mean]

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 wasn't in force 15 months ago so any PCN or NTO issued would be under the rta 1991.

[patdavies]

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 wasn't in force 15 months ago so any PCN or NTO issued would be under the rta 1991.

 

 

Good point.

[gaz245]

I don't think so.

 

How are the Council saying this, please don't tell me that you are phoning them ...?

 

I as see it from your first post, the Council and DVLA were well aware of your new address at the point you raised an informal appeal via email.

 

It is my view that they are now out of time. Appeal on the grounds of procedural impropriety and go all the way to the adjudicator. Explain the situation there and I am sure that the PCN will be quashed (if the Council even bother to turn up)

 

Not phoning them pat, they sent a letter stating that it is an offence not to inform the DVLA of change of address. Having read your message that they issue the NtO though, makes me think that the mistake has been made by them.

 

I could upload all the letters from them if that would explain it any better:???:

[patdavies]

Not phoning them pat, they sent a letter stating that it is an offence not to inform the DVLA of change of address.

 

 

They speak with forked tongue.

 

There is no requirement in law to change your address as long as you can be contacted via the address on the V5C.

 

Turned out they apparently sent the NTO to my old address, even though DVLA was informed of my new address. I contacted them and they have decided to reduce the payment to £60.

 

However, as you told us earlier, that DVLA had your new address some time ago (as did the Council) - they have cocked up pure and simple.

 

I am not sure of the time limits on issuing an NtO under the old RTA 1991 regime; hopefully somebody will be along who does know.

[lamma]

pat is correct - and they did speak with forked tongue. 1991 regs Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40) - Statute Law Database

[gaz245]

 

I then received several letters from Parking Services in 2009, 2 which I can't for the life of me find(have asked for copies). This is one from 29/01/2009, along with attachments.

 

I then asked for copies of the rejection letter and the NtO that they alledgedly sent me in 2007.

 

 

Note: The rejection letter had my new address on it and the NtO is not the original(see date).

[green_and_mean]

The fact that they replied to you at a different address on the NOR is not relevant, you can use any address to appeal. However to be served correctly the NTO should be served to the registered keeper at the address given by the DVLA.

[gaz245]

".....The fact that they replied to you at a different address on the NOR is not relevant, you can use any address to appeal. However to be served correctly the NTO should be served to the registered keeper at the address given by the DVLA......"

 

Does this mean I can't do anything with regards to the fact that they knew my address from the first email I sent then?:?

 

 

 

 

 

Someone suggested the "within formula"!

 

Within adds an extra day to pay which is not allowed. The 28 days includes the date of issue. Within extends that by 1 day. PCN invalid as a result. Is this correct?

Edited March 2, 2009 by gaz245

[gaz245]

Anyone know how I could quote the "within formula"?

Edited March 2, 2009 by gaz245
Message went in twice??

[wheelergeezer]

Deleted By Wg

Edited July 17, 2009 by wheelergeezer

[lamma]

".....The fact that they replied to you at a different address on the NOR is not relevant, you can use any address to appeal. However to be served correctly the NTO should be served to the registered keeper at the address given by the DVLA......"

 

Does this mean I can't do anything with regards to the fact that they knew my address from the first email I sent then?:?

 

Someone suggested the "within formula"!

 

Within adds an extra day to pay which is not allowed. The 28 days includes the date of issue. Within extends that by 1 day. PCN invalid as a result. Is this correct?

 

Yes

[nero12]

Yes

Ive seen this ticket somewhere else.

 

totally non compliant. Utter rubbish rta 1991 ticket. MOSES V barnet

 

within 28 days

payment slip not part of ticket.

 

nto

 

taken without consent, and tick box instaed of boxes.

 

Total rubbish

[nero12]

Ive seen this ticket somewhere else.

 

totally non compliant. Utter rubbish rta 1991 ticket. MOSES V barnet

 

within 28 days

payment slip not part of ticket.

 

nto

 

taken without consent, and tick box instaed of boxes.

 

Total rubbish

Ok Gaz245

 

I have it on good authority that you maybe are a bit unsure about the advice being given.

 

Mate this ticket is total rubbish along with the NTO.

 

follow the boys on CAG , Pepipoo and PCF (and maybe you have phoned easter rantzen LOL)

 

This ticket is coblers, a slam dunk one which has been rubished for ages, even in high court.

 

They are trying it on mate. what else can we say

[gaz245]

I have a question. Are you registered disabled becasue you have IBS or is there a different (don't have to say) medical reason?

 

Thanks for that advice wheelergeezer, I receive WPMS (war pensioner's mobility service) which entitles me to the blue badge.

[gaz245]

Ive seen this ticket somewhere else.

 

totally non compliant. Utter rubbish rta 1991 ticket. MOSES V barnet

 

within 28 days

payment slip not part of ticket.

 

nto

 

taken without consent, and tick box instaed of boxes.

 

Total rubbish

 

 

you are correct nero12 & lamma, I've also posted on penaltychargesforum and pepipoo. Never put all your eggs in one basket lol.

 

I have got good advice from everyone on these sites, I just wanted to put up as good a case as possible.

 

I'm not to clear on the "...taken without consent, and tick boxes instead of boxes..." advice that you have given though?

Edited March 2, 2009 by gaz245

[Howard0181]

I agree with the above reasons why the NTO is invalid.

 

Out of interest on the parking issue could you not argue the alighting exemption?

[nero12]

I agree with the above reasons why the NTO is invalid.

 

Out of interest on the parking issue could you not argue the alighting exemption?

LOL The op woudnt need to argue the toss about any exemtion. The only exemption that applies here would be the payment.

 

This paperwork is so full of holes it doesnt come near to being compliant,

It is therefore an illegal demand for money.

 

A well worded letter should slam this farce straight in the bin. where it belongs.

[gaz245]

I agree with the above reasons why the NTO is invalid.

 

Out of interest on the parking issue could you not argue the alighting exemption?

 

 

That's interesting, what's that one about then?

[crem]

 

I'm not to clear on the "...taken without consent, and tick boxes instead of boxes..." advice that you have given though?

 

Nero is pointing out that the "taking without consent" box requires the support of something like a police report, which therefore doesn't allow for a claim that it was taken without consent but not reported to the police.

 

The "tick box" statement implies you may only tick ONE box, whereas legally you may tick as many boxes as you feel apply to your case.

 

By not making these points clearly, the PCN is not stating the true legal position you have and is therefore invalid as "council impropriately".