London Banter - View Single Post

Michael Hoffman · February 4th 08, 11:10 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london

wrote:

While it accepted practise to suspend deadlines while an informal
written appeal is considered, it isn't unversally applied (at least, I
cant find anything compelling a LA to do so). Theoretically, then, you
can find that your penalty has increased purely as a result of
questioning whether it should apply. If your appeal is rejected AND
they say that the full penalty applies, I've 'heard' (ahem) that its
not a bad idea to send a cheque for the smaller amount explaining why
you feel it appropriate and stating that in cashing it the authority
acknowledge full and final settlement. 'Apparently' (ahem) their greed
for any amount is sufficient for them to take what they can get )
Often aided by the fact that any cheque sent to them is normally
automatically paid in regardless of what correspondence is attached. Cash
cheque first, sortout the details later.

As a punter, you've no knowledge of the internal processes of your
local council. If they pay cheques in automatically, thats entirely
their lookout. You gave a cheque with conditions attached to cashing
it, if they didn't read the conditions thats up to them.

Courts have repeatedly rejected this argument. See, for example:

Ackroyd v Smithies (1885) 54 LT 130
Day v McLea (1889) 22 QBD 610, CA
Nathan v Ogdens Ltd (1905) 94 LT 126, CA
Neuchatel Asphalte Co Ltd v Barnett [1957] 1 All ER 362, CA
--
Michael Hoffman