Standard post parking ticket appeal - what recourse if "not received" by borough?

[Norholt]

I received two (now three) parking tickets from Brent for briefly unloading a commercial vehicle on a single yellow line. I appealed, they wrote back to say that because my father is the legal owner of the vehicle they cannot consider my appeal.

 

After discussing the matter with Brent, they requested hire documents showing that I was the keeper of the vehicle. I sent counter-signed hire documents by standard Royal Mail post, and heard nothing back for around a year (?). I concluded that the matter was closed.

 

Suddenly my father has recieved correspondance from Brent, stating that court action is imminent over the parking tickets. He called them, and they claim never to have received the hire documents. They claim that it is too late to appeal or send further documents.

 

I don't believe them, but because I didn't send recorded delivery I can't prove it. Do I have a legal basis to challenge Brent on their claim that they didn't receive my documents?

 

Thanks

[green_and_mean]

I'm confused is the vehicle hired or owned by your father?

[Norholt]

It's owned by my father, I am the sole user of the vehicle, therefore we have a formal hire agreement stating that I have the vehicle on longterm hire from him. Does that make sense?

[green_and_mean]

You will have to await the order for recovcery and then make a witness statement you nade reprrsentations but never received a reply.

[buzby]

It is the driver of the vehicle at tbe time of the offence who is responsible for the penalty. You were foolish not to have followed up the documentation trail, but there is no point crying over spilt milk. There is no legal basis to challenge the non delivery of the documentation so long ago. The pragmatic approach is to pay the tickets and move on, as you are not disputing the validity of the tickets as issued.

[green_and_mean]

It is the driver of the vehicle at tbe time of the offence who is responsible for the penalty. .

 

No it is the owner or hirer if subject to a hire agreement who is liable.

[Norholt]

it's easier to be pregmatic when each fine hasn't tripled to £180. Actually I am disputing the validity of one of the tickets, and the basis for the other two. Green_and_Mean, what you say is as I suspected - however it means allowing my parents to wait for further letters, I wondered if there was another (pro-active) solution that would be less stressful for them. Thanks for your contributions so far.

[buzby]

The recipient of the ticket has the responsibility to pay. The liability in the ABSENCE of the penalty being paid is then passed to the RK. However the prospect of challenging an out-of-time single ticket whilst still not paying the undisputed ones then trying to modify the process to minimise the inconvenience to a relative seems skewed, it is fiddling round the sides whilst ignoring the primary issue.

 

The 'system' is there to make people pay up. Even if you miss the opportunity to have a valid appeal, learn from it. A refusal invariably means the problems multiply as do the costs, if money is no object, go for it. But if it is, and it stresses others unjustly, then the best approachbis to end it asap.

[Norholt]

The primary issue is surely that none of the tickets were for parking offences, according to the boroughs guidlines - (I've spared you the details, but one ticket wasn't even issued, as the photo on the penalty documents shows). They were also appealed according to guidlines.

 

Yes, there are lessons - I should have posted the appeal & hire documents by recorded delivery. But there is more to the appeal than seeking to save £540. It's also about standing up to the bullies. Someone who demands money that they aren't entitled to, and threatens to take it by force, is a thief. That's how I feel about them as an organisation (obviously not as individuals), and I don't intend to stand for it if I can help it.

 

Thanks for your continued input.

[buzby]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that they are thieves - however, it was your failing to play the game with the rules provided. I'n not unsympathetic, but I've learned a lot about playing within their rules and not beating myself up when I missed the statute relevant dates to challenge.

[green_and_mean]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that they are thieves - however, it was your failing to play the game with the rules provided. I'n not unsympathetic, but I've learned a lot about playing within their rules and not beating myself up when I missed the statute relevant dates to challenge.

 

I think you are being a bit unfair! The OP sent back proof that the recipient of the PCN(s) (his father) was not liable as the vehicle was subject to a hire agreement as required as a respomse to the NTO. The Council should then have cancelled the NTO and reissued it to the hirer. The Council failed to receive the documents and now he is having to deal with the result of this loss.

[buzby]

Only marginally. No good can come of no response. There's no chance for a 'no news is good news" stance will be effective. I've learned many years ago that if there possibly any failing that can disadvantage me, I take the necessary steps to ensure my back is covered. Glasgow City Council are notorious for slow responses, yet the motorist is constrained to a fixed timeframe irrespective of what they do. Fair? Of course not, but I'm damn sure I'll sit back and assume it'll be OK. It is this negligence that makes the protestations after-the-event weak. When you remember the costs after court will be even higher (Victim Surcharge anyone?) as will prolonging it in an attempt to juggle with hirer niceties that may ultimately also be unsuccessful.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

This is really odd. What's all this talk of court? What has Scotland got to do with it? Its a London Borough we are talking about here.

 

OP has not even said whether an NTO was issued for the PCNs.

 

OP can you give a better picture please, ideally scan, cleanse of personal data and post what you have received.

[buzby]

???

Paragraph 3 of the OPs original post might be a clue. The Glasgow comment is self-evident, unless you are suggesting that only London Bourghs are incompetent?

[green_and_mean]

???

Paragraph 3 of the OPs original post might be a clue. The Glasgow comment is self-evident, unless you are suggesting that only London Bourghs are incompetent?

 

They get registered as a civil debt at county court, wich doesn't incure any victim surcharge.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

???

Paragraph 3 of the OPs original post might be a clue. The Glasgow comment is self-evident, unless you are suggesting that only London Bourghs are incompetent?

 

If this is to what you are referring:

 

Suddenly my father has recieved correspondance from Brent, stating that court action is imminent over the parking tickets

 

Then this only adds to confusion because we still have no info re an NTO and courts are only involved as an administrative function.

 

Reference to Glasgow is also a red herring because that is in Scotland where a different legislative framework applies.

[Jamberson]

This whole sitiuation needs clarifying.

 

 

I received two (now three) parking tickets from Brent for briefly unloading a commercial vehicle on a single yellow line.

You say "you" received them. How? Attached to the vehicle, or by post? If by post, how might they have obtained your name and address?

 

 

I appealed, they wrote back to say that because my father is the legal owner of the vehicle they cannot consider my appeal.

This implies you appealed after an NTO was posted out. If that's not the case, then you were given false advice. Was anything prior to your appeal posted to you? How do they know you were the driver? Or did they in fact send documents to the vehicle keeper?

 

Suddenly my father has recieved correspondance from Brent, stating that court action is imminent over the parking tickets.

What does it say specifically about court action?

[Norholt]

Hi Jamberson, I'll try to clarify my explanation.

 

I recieved a parking ticket from Brent, placed on my windscreen.

 

Brent sent the paperwork for this ticket to my Dad, who is the legal owner of the vehicle. They also sent him paperwork for another ticket, though this ticket had not been affixed to my windscreen and indeed, the photograph of the vehicle on the paperwork shows no ticket.

 

My Dad posted the paperwork to me, the keeper of the vehicle, and I appealed both tickets.

 

Brent responed to me, stating that they could not accept my appeal. They also wrote to my Dad explaining the same thing. We spoke to them on the phone, Brent explained that they could only consider my appeal if I demonstrated that I was the keeper of the vehicle by forwarding the relevant documentation - in this case, a hire agreement.

 

I forwarded a copy of my hire agreement, signed by my dad and I, along with an explanatory letter from my Dad to Brent.

 

A year passed. I received a third ticket, and appealed this citing the hire documents as evidence that I was keeper of this vehivle.

 

My Dad recently contacted me to say he had recieved further correspondance from Brent regarding the various parking tickets, in which they threaten further action. He telephoned them, and they claimed to have to hire document on file (though they do have my appeals). They apparently said to him that he must wait for further letters from them, in which they will cite a date for a court hearing or something like that. He must then submit a witness statement to address the matter. (I know I'm being a bit vague here).

 

I don't like my business causing problems for my parents. However I don't have the means to resolve the tickets, also all of them are unfair. Moreover I am sure Brent have simply misfiled the hire documents, which would have enabled them to consider my appeals. I hoped that there was an alternate course of action, besides the one desribed above, which would allow me to ensure that Brent revise their stance and address me to resolve all these tickets.

 

I had a vague idea that I might be able to provide a statement confirming that I posted the hire documents a year ago, cite Royal Mail standard delivery as a method deemed 'reliable' for the task, and cite some unknown statute requiring Brent to turn the clock back on their process.

 

It would seem there such a provision does not exist... I just though I'd enquire.

[Jamberson]

Usually, the Council will not accept an agreement made between two private parties, even if in writing, as a hire agreement, unless your father is running a proper vehicle hire company. You mention a formal agreement, but it is not clear that this is sufficient for him to transfer liability over to you. It may or may not be, depending how the council see it.

 

Until he has dealt with it by advising them that he had the vehicle out on hire to you, and they have accepted this and issued you with formal notices, then he remains responsible for all appeals and/or payments. They will not accept appeals from you while his name is on the official documentation - which it is at present.

 

I think the "court hearing" is in fact the statutory declaraion process. Courts are involved but only in a processing role - there is no court case or hearing. The step he could take is to file statutory declarations on the outstanding PCNs, on the basis that he made representations (ie, his note about you being responsible) but did not receive a response. This is the statutory declaration process and he will have to do this, not you.

 

If he is successful, then he will have the cases reverted to NTO stage, and HE can seek once again to transfer liability to you, which may or may not succeed.

 

I can see that you want to sort this out without hassle for him, but alas it's not going to be that easy. My advice to him is to go over the letters they sent him carefully. They have to advise him of his rights and options, and so these letters will spell the situation out. If in doubt, ask on here for guidance.

[Norholt]

Thanks for your explanation, we'll probably do as you say.

[Al27]

If he is successful, then he will have the cases reverted to NTO stage, and HE can seek once again to transfer liability to you, which may or may not succeed.

 

Just sign his name on the NtO. It's easier. That they have spat the appeal back at you just because the driver has appealed is ludicrous.

 

The TMA 2004 state Representations are to made by the 'recipient', but the 'person making those representations' can appeal to the Adjudicator.

 

Because 99% of councils will accept Representations from anyone, you have the situation where a person who was not a receipient of the NtO might receive a Rejection and he can appeal to the Adjudicator, even though he might not know the owner from Adam.

 

An Adjudicator will not look favourably on a council who reject Representations straight off because of this issue in my opinion. It's a waste of tax payers money when the council could have just considered the Reps themselves.

[Jamberson]

Just sign his name on the NtO. It's easier. That they have spat the appeal back at you just because the driver has appealed is ludicrous.

 

Trouble is, you can only make one formal rep. If joe bloggs makes a rep on your PCN saying something like "the CEO wasn't wearing his hat", it will be rejected. You will remain liable for the debt and will have no recourse to make representations yourself. That's why the liable party has to make the rep, and the council are right to insist on this, in my view.

[green_and_mean]

Just sign his name on the NtO. It's easier. That they have spat the appeal back at you just because the driver has appealed is ludicrous.

 

The TMA 2004 state Representations are to made by the 'recipient', but the 'person making those representations' can appeal to the Adjudicator.

 

Because 99% of councils will accept Representations from anyone, you have the situation where a person who was not a receipient of the NtO might receive a Rejection and he can appeal to the Adjudicator, even though he might not know the owner from Adam.

 

An Adjudicator will not look favourably on a council who reject Representations straight off because of this issue in my opinion. It's a waste of tax payers money when the council could have just considered the Reps themselves.

 

I guess you would also find it 'ludicrous' if Courts refused to allow any Tom. Dick or Harry to turn up and enter a plea of guilty or not guilty on behalf of someone else? The law is quite clear only the owner/hirer of a vehicle can make reps to the NTO. If you start accepting reps from 3rd parties it breaks down the entire system with keepers getting charge certificates and visits from baliffs without making reprsentations or getting notices of rejection. A clue to the reason is one of the grounds being' I was never the owner' if the driver replied to the NTO and used this grounds it would be true but they would be making a false representation as the NTO wa not addressed to them.