DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 122837--------------------------------------------------
9 identical TFL PCNs for a permitted manoeuvre | Received late
and bailiffs already involved!
DIR By: tom.h
Date: June 24, 2026, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
The 9 TFL PCNs all relate to the same permitted manoeuvre during
September/October 2025 - driving from Havil Street, across
Peckham Road, and into Vestry Road. All 9 PCNs were sent to my
old address and therefore the first I heard of them was in April
2026, at my new address, when CDER Group delivered 9 letters
demanding £325 for each PCN (£2,925 total!!).
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Ubs2me7_xl.jpg
The case is identical to
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/baffling-tfl-pcns/<br
/>- albeit they were able to appeal direct to TFL. As I was late
to get the PCN I've missed this window. For background this is a
route that is commonly used by traffic and is something I or my
wife do twice a day, every day. The fact that in a period of 2
years we have only been issued 9 PCNs suggests that clearly
something wasn't working for a short period. The reasoning as to
why I didn't get the original PCNs are that in April 2025 we
sold our house. 3 days out from completion our onward purchase
fell through. We scrambled for a rental place until December
2025 when we moved again and I updated my DVLA records. In that
interim period we bought a house, changed car, and had our 2nd
child, so DVLA record updates were not a priority!
Example of one of the CDER Group Letters:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/gmXuI9L
I immediately submitted a PE2 and PE3 form for each of the PCNs
in order to "wind back the clock" and go through what I felt
would be a 'slam-dunk' appeal to TFL. Given the scale of the
fine and the short notice before 'enforcement agent action' I
admit I probably rushed this process and spent too long putting
detail into the PE3 part (about evidence as to why the PCN
should not have been issued in the first place).
Example of one of the PE2 Forms:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/LO6evvk
As of 16/06/2026 these have been the responses so far:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/M2lLHXR_xl.jpg
The fact that TEC have accepted one of them gives me at least a
glimmer of hope - but is this just a case of TFL missing one?
The fact that the other 8 identical application were all
rejected doesn't make any sense. Surely if one has been accepted
then there is precedent that they should all be accepted if
they're identical?
Now that most of them have been rejected I expect CDER group
will be back on my case looking for money - I already paid £325
back in April to stop imminent 'enforcement action' as the PE2
forms weren't going to arrive soon enough (apparently I can
claim this back in the PCN is overturned, but I'm not
confident..). Is there any mechanism to put this action on hold
pending complaints to TFL, other than an appeal to the TEC via
something like an N244?
In summary: Have I exhausted my 'free' options with the TEC? The
next appeal appears to be £123 per PCN! Could I submit just one
of these, get the TEC rejection overturned and then use that as
precedent for the others? Is there any hope in complaining to
TFL directly about what is (or was) a faulty traffic camera on
the junction? It can't be right that I'm being asked to pay
nearly £3k for a TFL camera problem?!
Any advice really appreciated, thank you!
#Post#: 122857--------------------------------------------------
Re: 9 identical TFL PCNs for a permitted manoeuvre | Received
late and bailiffs already involved!
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 24, 2026, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The fact that the other 8 identical application were all
rejected doesn't make any sense. Surely if one has been accepted
then there is precedent that they should all be accepted if
they're identical?
Probably. But they're not identical, are they! As you have
noticed, the only PE2 which has been accepted coincided with the
Claimant not registering any objection. TEC therefore granted
your application ON THIS BASIS ALONE. In their eyes, and this
makes sense procedurally, they assume that the Claimant
authority knows every nook and cranny of the preceding detail
and that if on receipt of your argument they don't object, then
why should TEC who know far less?
Your schedule shows the Revocation Order dated 16 June. So, 1
week has passed. As I understand it, seeking a review of TEC's
decision is only available to an appellant(you), and not the
Claimant. So assuming your grounds were 'did not receive the
PCN', a new PCN may be reissued. You could then make reps and if
these were successful you would hope that TfL would cancel the
outstanding PCNs.
My view is that you should contact TfL and put this to them i.e.
would they stay further enforcement of PCNs ****, which were
issued on the same facts and have now progressed to Warrants of
Control, pending determination of the substantive issue when
they receive your formal representations against the yet-to-be
issued new PCN in respect of PCN *** which has been cancelled
pursuant to TEC's Revocation Order dated ***, copy enclosed.
You could also contact Bailiffadviceonline.
If you own a car and CDER are now able to enforce against you,
then take it off the highway and your drive.
Wait for other views.
#Post#: 122862--------------------------------------------------
Re: 9 identical TFL PCNs for a permitted manoeuvre | Received
late and bailiffs already involved!
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 24, 2026, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with tincombe.
You can also ask:
HTML https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk
#Post#: 122869--------------------------------------------------
Re: 9 identical TFL PCNs for a permitted manoeuvre | Received
late and bailiffs already involved!
DIR By: lexy
Date: June 24, 2026, 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, you're in a bad spot here.
Here's the thing - if you had received the original penalties,
your chances of successfully appealing them would have been
decent. There's a sign telling you not to turn left into Vestry
Road, but it's before the junction you pulled out of.
The problem is, these PCNs are dated five months after you moved
house. That's way too long to get away with "I had just moved
house". As the other reply has pointed out, you won one
out-of-time request purely on a technicality because TFL forgot
to reply. That's it, that's the only reason, nothing to do with
your argument.
You only get one shot at an out-of-time request. If that fails,
that's the end of the road without paying money. The only option
is an N244, but as you point out, that's expensive - especially
for eight PCNs. By the way, the £123 per PCN fee you quoted is
just for a postal decision. The judge looks at the paperwork in
private and makes a decision. If you actually want to stand in
front of a judge and talk to them, it's £313 per PCN.
The N244 isn't a fresh chance at another appeal - it's just a
review. Did the judge make the right legal decision the first
time. The answer is almost always "yes".
If you did pay that, it's only going to end one way.
"So these PCNs were issued in September 2025. When did you move
house?"
"April 2025."
"Five months before? Rejected."
You're £313 out-of-pocket in court costs (per PCN) and you still
owe the full balance on the PCNs.
Speak to BailiffAdviceOnline to see if they have any smart
ideas. But you're probably cheaper just forgetting the N244s and
paying the bailiffs. You're in an unpleasant situation here and
it's entirely because of the V5C address being wrong. Sadly, the
law says that if TfL send documentation to the address on the
V5C, and the only reason you don't get the documents is because
you moved house and didn't update the V5C, then the council
correctly served the documents and it's your fault you didn't
get them. Harsh, but that's what the law says.
#Post#: 122891--------------------------------------------------
Re: 9 identical TFL PCNs for a permitted manoeuvre | Received
late and bailiffs already involved!
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 24, 2026, 5:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have to concur with Lexy here. The OP is in a mess of his own
making by not updating his V5C Registration Address, hence not
receiving any of the enforcement documents, V5 updating is a
legal obligation as well.
By all means do as Tincombe suggests, but if TfL decide to play
hard ball, then the amount is outstanding, and is currently at
the Compliance stage, where the bailiff fee is £75 (this is a
statutory amount, BTW). If payment is not made, the bailiffs can
visit premises and also seize "goods standing on the public
highway", which essentially means any car owned by the OP. This
incurs an additional fee of £235, (although this has recently
increased by a small percentage).
We see similar situations on this forum regularly, and they
rarely end well. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but it is important
that the OP realises the situation is not good.
#Post#: 122900--------------------------------------------------
Re: 9 identical TFL PCNs for a permitted manoeuvre | Received
late and bailiffs already involved!
DIR By: tom.h
Date: June 24, 2026, 6:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all - what depressing reading..
I think the fact that TFL can’t make their mind up on whether or
not that is an allowable route isn’t entirely irrelevant here.
I’ll continue with the complaints (Stage 1 through to Ombudsman)
and will probably have to set up some sort of payment plan with
CDER in the interim.
If the camera was incorrectly calibrated, and TFL subsequently
became aware of that, then the very root of these PCNs is wrong.
Regarding comments of “a mess of their own making” etc - they’re
really not helpful here.. It’s an honest mistake and I’ve
responded as best I can given the situation. If I felt the PCN
were valid I’d have paid these already!
#Post#: 122928--------------------------------------------------
Re: 9 identical TFL PCNs for a permitted manoeuvre | Received
late and bailiffs already involved!
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 25, 2026, 3:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stage 1 through to Ombudsman
HTML https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/fact-sheets/transport-and-highways/parking-enforcement
(Although this refers to the TMA, I believe the same applies in
your case)
As far as I am aware, this route is not open to you. The process
is regulated and as far as we know that process has been
followed to the letter. Your legal option as regards liability
for the PCNs is prescribed and contained within regulations.
I think the fact that TFL can’t make their mind up on whether or
not that is an allowable route isn’t entirely irrelevant here.
I don't follow. You now have the opportunity to test your ideas
with the adjudicator(at least for travel in one of the
directions), I suggest you pursue this as posted earlier. You
must not let TfL let this matter slide which they could because
serving a fresh PCN on you is only an option, it's not
mandatory.
#Post#: 122931--------------------------------------------------
Re: 9 identical TFL PCNs for a permitted manoeuvre | Received
late and bailiffs already involved!
DIR By: tom.h
Date: June 25, 2026, 3:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will be challenging the new PCN once issued - and pending that
outcome will need to keep bailiffs happy too.
If I’m successful in that challenge then hopefully I can use
that in further discussions with TFL regarding the others.
As I’ve said, this route is well used by traffic and we’ve been
using it twice daily for more than two years.
#Post#: 122946--------------------------------------------------
Re: 9 identical TFL PCNs for a permitted manoeuvre | Received
late and bailiffs already involved!
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 25, 2026, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes. But I return to my previous point: don't be passive in this
process. TfL can be tardy and time isn't on your side.
As I’ve said, this route is well used by traffic and we’ve been
using it twice daily for more than two years.
Which, if the restrictions have been in place for some time
could open up the defence of 'legitimate expectation'. (Look up
'legal defence of legitimate expectation'). But beware, you not
knowing after the first PCN was issued is your fault and usually
only works until you are notified of a change in practice i.e.
the first PCN. The one in question here is the second in your
sequence.
#Post#: 125710--------------------------------------------------
Re: 9 identical TFL PCNs for a permitted manoeuvre | Received
late and bailiffs already involved!
DIR By: tom.h
Date: July 25, 2026, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To resolve this post - TFL have now confirmed that all PCNs have
been cancelled and all money paid to CDER Group has been repaid!
In the end it was the complaint via TFL and pressure from a
local councillor that sorted it out.
Response below:
====================
Following a thorough investigation of this case, I can confirm
that the camera at this location incorrectly issued PCNs for a
prohibited left turn. Although Mr Henry’s vehicle was captured
by the camera, the route he took did not involve making a
prohibited left turn. As a result, eight PCNs were issued in
error and subsequently progressed through the enforcement
process because no payment or correspondence was received in
response to the notices.
Once this issue was brought to our attention, we identified that
the camera was incorrectly capturing and enforcing against
motorists were not turning left. We have since taken steps to
address this matter, including providing comprehensive briefings
and training to relevant staff to help prevent invalid PCNs from
being issued in the future.
I am pleased to confirm that all of Mr Henry’s PCNs have now
been cancelled. In addition, our enforcement agent, CDER, has
arranged for a full refund of all monies paid by Mr Henry.
====================
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page