PCN Problem

[voomer]

Re: PCN Problem

I agree that it needs to be escalated, he advised that he had no doubt that the FSN was not received by me, as it was posted to my old address on 04/01 . He was also at pains to point out that I had a legal obligation to advise the court of my change of address as the fine had not been paid, I advised that as the cheque had been posted to central ticket office prior to my move I did not advise the court.

I was told that it was my responsibility to ensure the cheque was cashed and the debt paid. I can accept all of this until the court deems the FSN is served by simply putting it a letterbox.

I was under the impression that the scales of justice were to be balanced and show no favour to either party, if I have to check my payment has been received and processed then the courts must accept the same duty of care that I receive the FSN.

[wales01man]

Re: PCN Problem

I may be wrong but isnt a FPN for not wearing a seatbelt given by a police officer at the roadside if so why did this end up in court?

[voomer]

Re: PCN Problem

It has never been to court, I was given the FPN I then sent a cheque to pay the this, which was never received by the central ticket office.

[bizzybob]

Re: PCN Problem

I may be wrong but isnt a FPN for not wearing a seatbelt given by a police officer at the roadside if so why did this end up in court?

If it remained unpaid it would enter the enforcement system, and end up with marstons

[CleverClogs]

Re: PCN Problem

What the hell is an AEM doing bowing and scraping to Marstons? AEMs are supposed to keep Marstons in line.

But helping Marstons to bend the law is probably easier than requiring the buggers to comply with the law. The AEM will have to deal with Marstons next week, next month and, if their contract is renewed, next year and for most of the next decade, so it will be less trouble for the AEM to side with Marstons than to do the job he's supposed to do.

[wales01man]

Re: PCN Problem

Its £60 for no seat belt what was 90 for?

[voomer]

Re: PCN Problem

The fine is £60 if paid in the first 28 days then increased to £90

[wales01man]

Re: PCN Problem

Thanks i was wondering ?

[bluebottle]

Re: PCN Problem

But helping Marstons to bend the law is probably easier than requiring the buggers to comply with the law. The AEM will have to deal with Marstons next week, next month and, if their contract is renewed, next year and for most of the next decade, so it will be less trouble for the AEM to side with Marstons than to do the job he's supposed to do.

If it is shown the AEM has assisted Marstons to bend or break the law, it could be a case of "Jobseekers Allowance, here I come," or possible prosecution. Try to get this resolved by the Regional Contracts Manager, but if you find yourself banging your head against the proverbial brick wall, let us know and we will help you escalate this higher.

[voomer]

Re: PCN Problem

Here is a thought, could I make a an application to the Magistrates court to reopen the issuing of the warrant on the basis I had not been served the FSN notice under section 142 of the magistrates court act. Magistrates are instructed have the power to reopen a case to rectify an error, it is designed to be used if you have missed a stage of the process or been found guilty and convicted in absence.

[labman]

Re: PCN Problem

If the AEM will back you on the fact that the FSM was sent to the wrong address (did they have your new address?) then IMO, the bailiffs should be called off and you should be put back to the position you were in of having the fine to pay. You could then ask for the means hearing.

It may be simpler to accept the way negotiated today if you can afford that, get the agreement in writing!!!!! and then tackle the AEM for not doing his job properly.

[bluebottle]

Re: PCN Problem

If the AEM will back you on the fact that the FSM was sent to the wrong address (did they have your new address?) then IMO, the bailiffs should be called off and you should be put back to the position you were in of having the fine to pay. You could then ask for the means hearing.

It may be simpler to accept the way negotiated today if you can afford that, get the agreement in writing!!!!! and then tackle the AEM for not doing his job properly.

My gut-feeling, LM, is that the AEM's actions need challenging at a higher level, namely, the RCM. I agree with your suggestion if it is proven the court staff and AEM have followed procedures to the letter and spirit of the law, but, if not, someone higher needs to "Kick Ass".

[labman]

Re: PCN Problem

I agree BB. What I was trying to say in my post was the AEM has, at least, sorted something out. It's not how he should have done it, but it solves the predicament for the OP. Sometimes it's best to take this, work with it to your benefit, and then, if you feel you want to, escalate things.

One has to remember that with nothing in writing, and knowing what we do about the system, anything agreed yesterday could easily be undone as though it had never happened. That would not help the OP one iota.

[voomer]

Re: PCN Problem

Marstons have confirmed the payment schedule has agreed, which at least gives me time to pay. The one thing which I have noted in dealing with the Clerk of court who advised I would be unable to set aside the case and the AEM is that if a warrant has been issued 'Correctly' then if the court recalls the warrant the court has to pay the fees.

Their motives are not my best interest but protecting public money and their own backsides.

I will be taking it further but am happy with the result so far.

[voomer]

Re: PCN Problem

The Magistrates court won't let me challenge the validity of the distress warrant under either 165 or 142 of the magistrates act, nor am I allowed to make a stat dec as I have not received the FSN. Has anyone got details of who and where the Regional contracts officer can be found?