DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 118442--------------------------------------------------
Bristol CAZ - order for recovery appeal deadline incorrect on
letter OR on TEC system.
DIR By: Faye G
Date: May 12, 2026, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone - looking for some advice on whether I can claim
back costs for a review of a decision by TEC. Pretty confident
that judge will agree I can file my statutory declaration our of
time.
Here's the relevant timeline
- The Order for Recovery arrives 21 August with a date of 11
September by which I need to pay or appeal
- I fill in the TE9 form sent by the council to TEC by post.
- Post version returned - date stamped 8 Sept - saying it has
been received out of time
- Call TEC who tell me that the form BCC sent has wrong date on
it but not to worry, can apply out of time with TE7 and TE9
- Refile a TE7 and a TE9 by email. TE9 form from this address:
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094491/Parking_TE9.pdf
- Hear nothing
- Get Marstons after me
- Call TEC who say there was an issue which they tried to
contact me about using completely different email - TE9 form is
wrong version
- Fill in ANOTHER TE7 and TE9 explaining wrong form wrong email
issue
- Application refused "Applicant hasn't provided an accepted
proof or explanation why the statutory declaration was served
late"
- Decide to bite bullet and get a review
- Call TEC for clarity on what review application should focus
on
- TEC guy points out that his system says BCC registered order
for recovery on 31 July. And that they have 14 days to get the
Order for Recovery to me (they posted it on 21 August - I have
them confirming that in their evidence) And that I then have 21
days from that 14th day to pay. Which is Sep 5th. So fact that
date on form was wrong is bomb proof reason as to why statutory
declaration was served late (my words, not his)
- Email BCC to see if in light of this they won't just use their
discretion rather than have me pay money to have the application
reviewed. Ask for them to confirm the date that they registered
the debt with TEC
- No response and I need to get the N244 form in before the
deadline of 21 May
So the question is: given that the cost of the review is £313 to
get this heard at my nearest county court, is there a way that I
can claim the costs back from the council if they are at fault?
Or TEC if it turns out BCC did everything right and the date on
their system is wrong? Even if it means going down the small
claims route?
(And for colour: initial fine didn't arrive. when reminder did i
looked online and images shown were not my car! obvs very keen
to appeal so have been checking in with BCC on how and when I
can do this - that have records of all the calls I made. For
them to mess up with the date on the letter is super
annoying...!)
#Post#: 118449--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol CAZ - order for recovery appeal deadline incorrect
on letter OR on TEC system.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 12, 2026, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
YOur best bet on this one is input from 'Tincombe' who has a
courts background as I understand it. Costs would be recoverable
from Bristol if you can prove it is their fault.
#Post#: 118533--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol CAZ - order for recovery appeal deadline incorrect
on letter OR on TEC system.
DIR By: mdann52
Date: May 13, 2026, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If they posted it on the 21st August, how did it arrive to you
on the 21st August?
The court officer is correct - the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
75.3(5) requires service within 15 days from the date of
registration, so as long as they posted it on or before the 13th
August they appear to be in the clear.
The CPRs do not specify any consequence of late service, however
at best you could get the OfR set aside and they would be free
to reapply and reserve it, so it's not really a get out clause
here
#Post#: 118554--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol CAZ - order for recovery appeal deadline incorrect
on letter OR on TEC system.
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 13, 2026, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, what do you have in writing?
I think you're mixing issues here i.e. the duties which fall to
the council and those which fall to you. What counts as far as
you're concerned is the submission date on the OfR..which we
haven't seen.
If this stated 21 Sept. then you're entitled to rely upon this
and providing your initial TE was in the correct form then IMO
TEC should have accepted it as being in-time. You don't know,
neither are you presumed to know, about 14 days etc..., your
obligation is to comply with the OfR which on its face stated 21
Sept. Given the overriding objectives of fairness and disposing
of matters efficiently, then irrespective of the council's
failure and TEC's inability to override whatever automatic
processes they might have, they were obliged to register your TE
because any error is fair and squarely the council's, not yours.
Yes, you could have recovered the situation by submitting a TE
within whatever additional time allowed by TEC(which in itself
proves that flexibility does exist within the system) but this
shouldn't have fallen to you.
All subject to you having evidence in support of your account,
of course.
#Post#: 118555--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol CAZ - order for recovery appeal deadline incorrect
on letter OR on TEC system.
DIR By: Neil B
Date: May 13, 2026, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In similar vein, can we just SEE some documents please
#Post#: 118611--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol CAZ - order for recovery appeal deadline incorrect
on letter OR on TEC system.
DIR By: Bailiff Advice
Date: May 13, 2026, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Faye G link ---
>
> Hi everyone - looking for some advice on whether I can claim
back costs for a review of a decision by TEC.
>
> So the question is: given that the cost of the review is £313
--- End Quote ---
The fee of £313 is for a hearing 'in person' in court. TEC are
looking at removing this right so unsure whether it has taken
effect yet. Almost certainly you should be considering an N244
Application to review WITHOUT a hearing. The court fee is £123.
From many years of knowledge of Out of Time and N244
Applications, I don't know of even ONE case where a claim for
costs has been granted.
Bailiff Advice Online
HTML https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/
#Post#: 118617--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol CAZ - order for recovery appeal deadline incorrect
on letter OR on TEC system.
DIR By: Bailiff Advice
Date: May 13, 2026, 1:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Faye G link ---
>
> Hi everyone - looking for some advice on whether I can claim
back costs for a review of a decision by TEC.
>
> Here's the relevant timeline
>
> The Order for Recovery arrives 21 August with a date of 11
September by which I need to pay or appeal
>
> I fill in the TE9 form sent by the council to TEC by post.
>
>
> Refile a TE7 and a TE9 by email.
>
> TE9 form from this address:
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094491/Parking_TE9.pdf
--- End Quote ---
First mistake was in sending your Witness Statement (Form TE9)to
TEC by POST. This is a 'time sensitive' document and should
ALWAYS be sent to the Traffic Enforcement Centre by email. It
would then have arrives at TEC 'within time'.
As difficult as it is to believe, the Traffic Enforcement Centre
have TWO different forms TE9. One is referred to by TEC as being
the 'short form' (in that it has 4 boxes), with the other TE9
(referred to a the long form) having 6 boxes.
For a Bristol CAZ, you should have used the TE9 with 6 boxes.
I receive many hundreds of enquiries about the wrong forms being
used. ChatGPT, Claude etc, do not help as they continue to give
out the wrong information on these forms.
Bailiff Advice Online
HTML https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/
#Post#: 118798--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol CAZ - order for recovery appeal deadline incorrect
on letter OR on TEC system.
DIR By: Faye G
Date: May 15, 2026, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you SO MUCH to everyone who has responded. Here's the
order for recovery showing the date of Sep 11, the letter from
TEC saying it was received out of time with the date stamp on
the second page of 8 Sep, and BCCs evidence in their response to
TEC which shows how I called them three times to make sure I got
the right of appeal and on the second page, them saying tyhat
they posted the letter on the 21st August. And apologies a)for
not uploading docs as part of my original post and b)for the
carpet!
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/8i36fs9_xl.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0BK6Abu_xl.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/lsoqv9n_xl.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/enG0FeW_xl.jpg
#Post#: 118803--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol CAZ - order for recovery appeal deadline incorrect
on letter OR on TEC system.
DIR By: Faye G
Date: May 15, 2026, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bailiff Advice link ---
>
> [quote author=Faye G link=topic=10800.msg118442#msg118442
date=1778602268]
> Hi everyone - looking for some advice on whether I can claim
back costs for a review of a decision by TEC.
>
> Here's the relevant timeline
>
> The Order for Recovery arrives 21 August with a date of 11
September by which I need to pay or appeal
>
> I fill in the TE9 form sent by the council to TEC by post.
>
>
> Refile a TE7 and a TE9 by email.
>
> TE9 form from this address:
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094491/Parking_TE9.pdf
--- End Quote ---
First mistake was in sending your Witness Statement (Form TE9)to
TEC by POST. This is a 'time sensitive' document and should
ALWAYS be sent to the Traffic Enforcement Centre by email. It
would then have arrives at TEC 'within time'.
As difficult as it is to believe, the Traffic Enforcement Centre
have TWO different forms TE9. One is referred to by TEC as being
the 'short form' (in that it has 4 boxes), with the other TE9
(referred to a the long form) having 6 boxes.
For a Bristol CAZ, you should have used the TE9 with 6 boxes.
I receive many hundreds of enquiries about the wrong forms being
used. ChatGPT, Claude etc, do not help as they continue to give
out the wrong information on these forms.
Bailiff Advice Online
HTML https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/
[/quote]
it did arrive in time! The date on the order for recovery was
September 11. It arrived at TEc on September 8!
#Post#: 118829--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol CAZ - order for recovery appeal deadline incorrect
on letter OR on TEC system.
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 16, 2026, 5:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you can ignore Bailiff Advice's i.e. they are not
aware of the award of costs. And, if I understand their
position, do not bother with a personal hearing because the
evidence clearly proves your case:
You received an OfR which offered you the opportunity to submit
a TE and INSTRUCTED you to do so no later than 11 Sept in order
to be considered as 'in time';
You received a response from TEC which IN SUBSTANCE was that
your application had been refused by virtue of being Out of
Time. It took no issue regarding its format.
How could this happen?
Seems simple to me.
The OfR is in 2 parts: a covering letter titled OfR... with all
the legal details about what happens and offering the recipient
the opportunity to submit the enclosed TE by the specified date.
If I remember correctly, this date is stated ONLY on the OfR,
NOT the TE.
The TE is blank other than for the authority's details.
Therefore, when received by TEC they PRESUMED that the OfR
carried the correct date and acted accordingly.
But they were wrong.
IMO, you would succeed on an application on the papers alone.
But not the long story, the short one which relates to mandated
docs and their letter to you dated 11 Sept. I don't even think
you need your submission because NO ISSUE was raised by TEC on
this, it's simply them acting upon a presumption which was
incorrect because of the authority's failure.
See what others think.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page