Wrongfully Accused

donboon

My mother is in her 80's and holds a Blue Badge and is the registered keeper of a disabled vehicle.
Last year my step-father and brother drove to London to see a concert in the same car but my Step-father forgot to display his Blue Badge in the Window after parking. It was 10.20pm when the ticket was written out and the vehicle wasn't wrongly parked. When the fine arrived my step-father intercepted it and began his defence. He clearly stated that both he and my brother were responsible for parking the car. He didn’t mention my mother because she wasn’t there and he didn’t want her to worry. He went through all the appeal procedures over a year and didn’t let my mother know what was going on. He suffers from Bi-polar disorder and heart problems.

Despite his admission and appeals the decision was upheld and my mother is still named on the the fine. My step-father secretly engaged solicitors in the firm belief that the Council would use their discretionary powers to discharge the penalty. As the year went by the fines and solicitors’ fees grew into thousands of pounds until eventually my step-father couldn’t keep it secret any longer and suffered a severe nervous breakdown followed by a suicide attempt. At that point my mother and I found out so I wrote to the Mayor of Hackney. He was sympathetic but still upholds the penalty offices decision which means the Bailiff’s will be turning up soon.

Am I right in thinking that something is seriously wrong here? My mother knew nothing of the offence so was unable to respond to the letters and even if she did know about it why was she targeted for something she clearly didn’t do. The letter from the Mayor’s office clearly backs up my statement so why isn’t he able to see the same?

Any advice would be welcome.

Orford

With council PCN's the registered keeper is ultimately liable.

Slightly concerned that a solicitor has charged hundreds/thousands? when no actual court is involved in the process and once all apeal avenues have been exhausted would not be able to acheive anything. What exactly did he do for his money?

Trebor16

If this was deliberately concealed from the registered keeper by her partner and she had no knowledge would it be possible for her to argue for it to go back to the Notice to Owner stage by means of a declaration at the county court?

donboon

Orford wrote: »

With council PCN's the registered keeper is ultimately liable.

Slightly concerned that a solicitor has charged hundreds/thousands? when no actual court is involved in the process and once all apeal avenues have been exhausted would not be able to acheive anything. What exactly did he do for his money?

Not all the costs have come from solicitors fees but as much has come from Bailiffs.

Why would the registered keeper still be responsible if the person who committed the offence made that clear from the outset. My step-father owned up to the offence from the outset and made every effort to get the case dismmissed through the appeals. This is all on record and confirmed by the Mayor.
There was no intent to cover up but I think its pretty obvious that the penalty office failed to acknowledge who was to blame.
Would making a statement on oath stating that she knew nothing about the matter until my step-father was admitted into hospital a year after the offence took place bring a halt to the proceedings and if so how should my mother go about doing it.

Sirdan

Why would the registered keeper still be responsible if the person who committed the offence made that clear from the outset.

Frankly I am absolutely amazed that having been through all this time and trouble with Solicitors and Bailiffs no-one has made this plain to you.


Simply the LAW provides for a Council issued PCN the owner is liable for the charge regardless of who actually parked the vehicle. END OF.

Who is to blame is not relevant the LAW is clear the owner is liable.

EVEN if the owner does not know the wrong parking occurred,they are still liable.

However if the owner had all correspondence withheld from them by a third party they may be able to offer this as mitigation as to why they have not paid the original charge, none the less whilst this may negate some of the extra charges levied the owner is still liable for the original charge.

In the most simple terms for a Council PCN appeal all the way to the independent adjudicator but if you lose there then you have to pay ..or face bailiffs.

donboon

Sirdan wrote: »

Frankly I am absolutely amazed that having been through all this time and trouble with Solicitors and Bailiffs no-one has made this plain to you.


Simply the LAW provides for a Council issued PCN the owner is liable for the charge regardless of who actually parked the vehicle. END OF.

Who is to blame is not relevant the LAW is clear the owner is liable.

EVEN if the owner does not know the wrong parking occurred,they are still liable.

However if the owner had all correspondence withheld from them by a third party they may be able to offer this as mitigation as to why they have not paid the original charge, none the less whilst this may negate some of the extra charges levied the owner is still liable for the original charge.

In the most simple terms for a Council PCN appeal all the way to the independent adjudicator but if you lose there then you have to pay ..or face bailiffs.

Well the reason I didn't know is simply because I haven't been dealing with it until my step-father attempted suicide and the whole sordid afair became known.
I'm grateful for your advice as it will save me from prolonging the agony with my parents.
I can't accept on principle that the owner should be held responsible for something they had no control over however there are many such issues with our legal system and no doubt there will be many more.
I still think it worth appealing to the Mayor on behalf of my mother but at what cost to my step-father.

I'll post any results
Kind regards

alex21

So sorry to hear of all this worry and upset in your family. My heart truly goes out to your step father, carrying this burden until it became too much. I am unable to offer any advice on this matter but I do send heartfelt good wishes for his full recovery. God bless.

Orford

donboon wrote: »

. In the town where I live I'm a local councillor and featured regularly in the local press and in forums across the country.

In one of your previous post you admit to being a local councillor, so I am slightly surprised that you had no idea about registered keeper liability with regard to PCN's.

Where you may be able to reduce the amount owed is the fees that the bailiffs have charged. They are notorious for adding unlawful fees to their bill. how much are they charging?

AlexisV

The issue seems to have originated from the driver intercepting mail marked for the keeper unfortunately.

vax2002

This is a penalty, you can not appeal penalties in court as they are not fines as ruled by judges.
They are however summary justice which is illegal in international law and under human rights legislation, "no punishment without crime"
Nobody has pressed this point yet.

Sirdan

vax2002 wrote: »

This is a penalty, you can not appeal penalties in court as they are not fines as ruled by judges.
They are however summary justice which is illegal in international law and under human rights legislation, "no punishment without crime"
Nobody has pressed this point yet.

That said I would rather appeal a Council PCN at the adjudicator. If I lose I have to pay the penalty.
However if these matters were dealt with on a "no punishment, no crime" basis I (and many others) would be deterred from appealing because to lose would mean a criminal record.

On balance decrimilization seems preferable. This leads us to owner liability.
If no such liability existed then everyone would be using the "not me driving" defence for Council PCNs, clearly HMG were not prepared to allow that and as we know they are trying to move in a similar direction with private ticketing.
It would seem perverse to run a system where akin to a Police FPN the owner has a duty to name the driver for a Council PCN and if they do not then they may commit a criminal offence.
Either Council administered parking matters are decriminalized or they are not.

I would imagine that in introducing owner liability for Council PCNs legislators envisaged that in the majority of cases the driver would be known to the owner and as such the owner could request the money from the driver. Clearly if the driver refused then the owner would have to carefully consider their relationship with that driver and whether their continued use of the vehicle was desirable !

PS Can you tell us under which international law summary justice is "illegal" and where is this human rights legislation you refer to ?"