Author Topic: "This history is virtually one procedural impropriety from start to finish."  (Read 2154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 662

The sequence of events in this case appears to be as follows.
a) The Council sent the Appellant's correctly addressed PCN by mistake to the wrong address, to  a Mr Coppell, including it with another PCN issued to that gentleman.
b) When Mr Coppell sensibly returned it to the Council with a note of explanation the Council wrote back threatening prosecution for opening someone else's mail. This would be bad enough , but the Council did not even send have the sense to send that letter to Mr Coppell but instead sent it to the Appellant  - who of course at that stage had received nothing

c) Fortunately the Appellant correctly guessed from the Council's letter what must have happened and asked for the PCN to be reissued to her and for an opportunity to settle at the discounted rate..
d) The Council's response was to issue a rejection notice. This was clearly not received by the Appellant. Possibly that too was sent to an incorrect address.
e) Not having had any response to the rejection notice the Council issued a charge  certificate. When the Appellant pointed out she had had no response to her original request the Council gave her another 14 days to pay but told her it was too late to dispute the case.
This history is virtually one procedural impropriety from start to finish. This is a case where, as the PCN was sent to the wrong address it was never served; and in the absence of a timely reissue to the correct address there is no basis on which any penalty may be demanded. It i s only the thought that the sorry history has at he end of the day worked to the Appellant's advantage ( avoiding her having to pay a penalty that night well otherwise have been due) that dissuades me from considering the making of an order for costs against the Council.