wrote in message
news
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:13:20 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:


I have written a letter contesting a PCN .

The 14 day limit to pay 60 quid is nearly up... I phoned LB Hackney and
they
say they have received my letter, but they have not yet made a decision.
If
they delay giving me the result until after the 14 day limit is up, do I
then have to pay 120 quid, or will the decision letter give me another 14
days to pay only 60 quid?

TIA.


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.

BTW, what happens when cheques disappear, and you have to quote a card
number, in which case you have little say over how much they take?

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:14:21 -0000, "Graculus"
wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:13:20 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:


I have written a letter contesting a PCN .

The 14 day limit to pay 60 quid is nearly up... I phoned LB Hackney and
they
say they have received my letter, but they have not yet made a decision.
If
they delay giving me the result until after the 14 day limit is up, do I
then have to pay 120 quid, or will the decision letter give me another 14
days to pay only 60 quid?

TIA.


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. Otherwise you
could say that none of the conditions of use for your credit card
apply to you because you didn't bother to read them!

BTW, what happens when cheques disappear, and you have to quote a card
number, in which case you have little say over how much they take?

I *think* its Cahoot (not sure since I dont have a Cahoot card) but
theres definitely at least one card provider who give you a unique
card number per transaction, with the funding available to that card
number limited to the amount of the transaction that you wish to pay.

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

On 5 Feb, 00:10, Michael Hoffman wrote:
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

But the precedents cited are about including misleading 'small-print'
disclaimers that are different from the intention of the transaction,
not blanket bans on attaching conditions to cheques.

If you were to send the council a letter saying "I've enclosed a
cheque for GBP60 because I only owe you GBP60, even though you claim I
owe you GBP120. If you cash the cheque for GBP60, I will take that as
an indication that you accept my claim", and write the same on the
cheque, I can't see how Neuchatel v Barnett would apply (in that case,
the cheque had conditions printed on the back that were *different*
from the covering letter).

(IANAL and there may be /other/ cases that establish you can't do the
above...)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"John B" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 00:10, Michael Hoffman wrote:
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

But the precedents cited are about including misleading 'small-print'
disclaimers that are different from the intention of the transaction,
not blanket bans on attaching conditions to cheques.

If you were to send the council a letter saying "I've enclosed a
cheque for GBP60 because I only owe you GBP60, even though you claim I
owe you GBP120. If you cash the cheque for GBP60, I will take that as
an indication that you accept my claim", and write the same on the
cheque, I can't see how Neuchatel v Barnett would apply (in that case,
the cheque had conditions printed on the back that were *different*
from the covering letter).

(IANAL and there may be /other/ cases that establish you can't do the
above...)

IR v Fry is relevant here. Simply banking the cheque does not necessarily
imply acceptance of the offer.
http://www.andersonsolicitors.com/Downloads/IRvFry.pdf

Peter Smyth

On 5 Feb, 17:59, "Peter Smyth" wrote:
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.

(IANAL and there may be /other/ cases that establish you can't do the
above...)

IR v Fry is relevant here. Simply banking the cheque does not necessarily
imply acceptance of the offer.
http://www.andersonsolicitors.com/Downloads/IRvFry.pdf


Yup, that one works. Although note "practical points 2a-c" in the
linked document.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

[didn't get John B's message on my system for some reason, so I am
replying to Peter Smyth's quotation of it]

Peter Smyth wrote:

"John B" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 00:10, Michael Hoffman wrote:
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

But the precedents cited are about including misleading 'small-print'
disclaimers that are different from the intention of the transaction,
not blanket bans on attaching conditions to cheques.

Neuchatel Asphalte may be, but Day v McLea is not. It was quite clear to
Day that McLea intended his cheque to be "in full of all demands" yet he
accepted it only as partial payment.
--
Michael Hoffman

In message , Michael Hoffman
writes
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
Interestingly, none less than 50 years ago.
--
Clive.

Clive. wrote:
In message , Michael Hoffman
writes
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
Interestingly, none less than 50 years ago.

Peter Smyth also posted Inland Revenue v Fry from 2001.
--
Michael Hoffman