PCN Out of Time Declaration refused - Help!

andy22222

Hi guys, any help here much appreciated.

I have just had a pcn out of time declaration REFUSED by Northampton Crown Court on the basis that Hackney Council's contention that a Notice to Owner and a further letter were both sent out FIRST CLASS constituted proof that I had received them.

Thus they REFUSED my appeal to have the original Notice to Owner reissued. I would LOVE to have appealed the PCN but cannot as the first I knew about it (following the actual ticket) was a bailiffs letter demanding £360.

It means that at no point have I actually been able to appeal this bloody ticket which was issued erroneously.

My understanding that a Statutory Declaration / Witness statement outlining that nothing had been received would lead to the original PCN being re-issued and thus enable us to appeal. I cannot quite fathom why it's been refused. Does the council saying they have posted the Notice to Owner 1st class now constitute sufficient proof in a court of law that I have received it?

Shall I just suck it up and pay the bloody £360 now owed and never get my chance to appeal??

Looking into it a bit further, it seems that almost all statutory declarations are now refused by TEC, for whatever reason, it seems that they are in the pockets of the bailiffs / councils and just rubber stamp their refusals. From what I can gather my next step needs to be to file an N244 form and actually request a personal hearing (£75) in a local district court rather then a TEC one (see above).

The problem I have with that is that the ticket was issued to be, but the notice to owner, etc gets send to my mum! So all this appeal is in her name, and whilst nothing was received, she does not fancy a morning in court.

Again, help. Anyone had any experience of successfully appealing a refused out of time notice WITHOUT a personal hearing?

HappyMJ

So your mum now has a CCJ? Is that correct?

andy22222

that's not my understanding, no.

the parking PCN was lodged with the northampton court as per usual, so not a CCJ.

peter_the_piper

andy22222 wrote: »

Hi guys, any help here much appreciated.

I have just had a pcn out of time declaration REFUSED by Northampton Crown Court on the basis that Hackney Council's contention that a Notice to Owner and a further letter were both sent out FIRST CLASS constituted proof that I had received them.

Thus they REFUSED my appeal to have the original Notice to Owner reissued. I would LOVE to have appealed the PCN but cannot as the first I knew about it (following the actual ticket) was a bailiffs letter demanding £360.

It means that at no point have I actually been able to appeal this bloody ticket which was issued erroneously.

My understanding that a Statutory Declaration / Witness statement outlining that nothing had been received would lead to the original PCN being re-issued and thus enable us to appeal. I cannot quite fathom why it's been refused. Does the council saying they have posted the Notice to Owner 1st class now constitute sufficient proof in a court of law that I have received it?

Shall I just suck it up and pay the bloody £360 now owed and never get my chance to appeal??

Looking into it a bit further, it seems that almost all statutory declarations are now refused by TEC, for whatever reason, it seems that they are in the pockets of the bailiffs / councils and just rubber stamp their refusals. From what I can gather my next step needs to be to file an N244 form and actually request a personal hearing (£75) in a local district court rather then a TEC one (see above).

The problem I have with that is that the ticket was issued to be, but the notice to owner, etc gets send to my mum! So all this appeal is in her name, and whilst nothing was received, she does not fancy a morning in court.

Again, help. Anyone had any experience of successfully appealing a refused out of time notice WITHOUT a personal hearing?

Go straight to pepipoo.com, register and post there. This seems to be wrong to me but they know more than most on there.

Coupon-mad

andy22222 wrote: »

Hi guys, any help here much appreciated.

I have just had a pcn out of time declaration REFUSED by Northampton Crown Court on the basis that Hackney Council's contention that a Notice to Owner and a further letter were both sent out FIRST CLASS constituted proof that I had received them.

Thus they REFUSED my appeal to have the original Notice to Owner reissued. I would LOVE to have appealed the PCN but cannot as the first I knew about it (following the actual ticket) was a bailiffs letter demanding £360.

It means that at no point have I actually been able to appeal this bloody ticket which was issued erroneously.

My understanding that a Statutory Declaration / Witness statement outlining that nothing had been received would lead to the original PCN being re-issued and thus enable us to appeal. I cannot quite fathom why it's been refused. Does the council saying they have posted the Notice to Owner 1st class now constitute sufficient proof in a court of law that I have received it?

Shall I just suck it up and pay the bloody £360 now owed and never get my chance to appeal??

Looking into it a bit further, it seems that almost all statutory declarations are now refused by TEC, for whatever reason, it seems that they are in the pockets of the bailiffs / councils and just rubber stamp their refusals. From what I can gather my next step needs to be to file an N244 form and actually request a personal hearing (£75) in a local district court rather then a TEC one (see above).

The problem I have with that is that the ticket was issued to be, but the notice to owner, etc gets send to my mum! So all this appeal is in her name, and whilst nothing was received, she does not fancy a morning in court.

Again, help. Anyone had any experience of successfully appealing a refused out of time notice WITHOUT a personal hearing?

Can't see that you have posted on pepipoo yet? You should:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

I have bolded the part in your post that is the correct procedure for your Mum (if she is the Owner). It's not a Court as such, quite informal I believe, pepipoo will advise you.

Ravanelli

I was under the impression that with a late statuary Declaration that it is not the Court who decide whether to accept it, they pass it on to the Council who decide.

WhiteHorse

andy22222 wrote: »

I have just had a pcn out of time declaration REFUSED by Northampton Crown Court on the basis that Hackney Council's contention that a Notice to Owner and a further letter were both sent out FIRST CLASS constituted proof that I had received them.

This is one of the crazy things in English law that needs to be changed.

If the government writes to you via the post, it is automatically deemed to have been delivered. They are not required to furnish proof.

If on the other hand, you write them, the same principle does not apply. You have to furnish proof.

peter_the_piper

Have you posted yet on pepipoo? ~If not your post on here will be unlikely to receive the expert help you need.

peter_the_piper

WhiteHorse wrote: »

This is one of the crazy things in English law that needs to be changed.

If the government writes to you via the post, it is automatically deemed to have been delivered. They are not required to furnish proof.

If on the other hand, you write them, the same principle does not apply. You have to furnish proof.

This does work both ways, the dvla cannot claim that they have not rec'd your mail and at the same time claim that as a letter from them was sent then it was deemed to have been rec'd.

andy22222

cheers all, my post on pepipoo is up here for anyone interested... I am a new user so can't post links on here, so you'll have to add an htt etc on the front of this link!

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=65938&pid=638738&mode=threaded&start=#entry638738

I've now just got to make a call on whether to just suck up the £360 bailiffs charges or file this n244... to summarise:

- I got a parking ticket on my mums car (doh) when I was parked FULLY legally
- I always wait for the notice to owner before appealing so I can check the details, times, etc are right & know what I am appealing
- I told my mum to keep an eye out for any parking fine correspondance

(and to be honest I totally forgot about it)

- the next contact we had was a bailiffs letter demanding £360
- so we filed a 'witness statement out of time' saying that nothing had been received via post
- and this was refused as the council claimed two letters were sent by them.

All I would like is the opportunity to appeal the original fine with the council, as I'm 100% sure it was issued erroneously. But for that to happen I now need to file an N244 and request a hearing from a district judge, I believe 'stating that you wish to set aside the Officer of the Court's order'.

My mum is happy to sign another witness statement / N244 saying that neither the notice to owner nor the order for recovery were received as they were not. But she's not willing to waste a day going to court to try and, as she sees it, help me avoid a parking fine.

So I guess my question here is, is that TEC have already ruled against me that the council saying they have sent two letters first class constitutes proof I have received them, then is there any point taking this further?

And if so, what am applying for with the N244?

- to have the decision set aside and the out of time application to be accepted
- and simply repeating once again that we did not receive either the notice to owner NOR the order for recovery, as if we had have done the appeal would have been submitted immediately.

It's really frustrating, because all I want is for the appeal against the fine to be heard and be allowed to pass through the relevant channels.

Cheers for any help you can offer.

WhiteHorse

peter_the_piper wrote: »

This does work both ways, the dvla cannot claim that they have not rec'd your mail and at the same time claim that as a letter from them was sent then it was deemed to have been rec'd.

It really does only work one way. There have been precedents set on this very subject.

Outrageous, but so.