URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 27045--------------------------------------------------
       Re: *Bailiff* Westminster - Contravention12r - Now with Marstons
       - Wrong Address
   DIR By: JunotheCorso
       Date: June 21, 2024, 4:05 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: NighSoul link ---
       >
       > It is essential to recognise that submitting a TE9 with the
       Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is a critical measure. This
       action halts enforcement under paragraph 8.1 of Practice
       Direction 75. The TEC then assesses your TE9. If accepted,
       enforcement is suspended. Conversely, if rejected, enforcement
       will proceed.
       >
       > If the authority obtains a new Warrant with your current
       address and the bailiff continues enforcement, this would
       constitute a breach, as the bailiff must issue a Notice of
       Enforcement (NOE) before taking control of goods. In such a
       scenario, you can file an N244 application under Civil Procedure
       Rule 84.13 to request the return of your vehicle and claim
       damages together with your legal costs.
       >
       > Should you allow the warrant to remain defective and the
       bailiff locates your vehicle using an ANPR camera and removes
       it, your case would fall under Paragraph 66(6) of Schedule 12 of
       the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Often, with ANPR
       camera use, the bailiff acts on a defective instrument (warrant
       of control with an incorrect address), or the vehicle may not
       belong to the debtor.
       >
       > In your situation, even if the warrant address is correct and
       a bailiff removes your vehicle, you should apply for its return
       and claim for damages and legal costs by completing an N244
       application under Civil Procedure Rule 84.13. This is necessary
       because the bailiff breached regulations by failing to provide
       the debtor with an inventory when he removed the vehicle.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       For the previous warrants which were defected with wrong address
       but paid do I need any specific reason on the form?
       #Post#: 27046--------------------------------------------------
       Re: *Bailiff* Westminster - Contravention12r - Now with Marstons
       - Wrong Address
   DIR By: JunotheCorso
       Date: June 21, 2024, 4:06 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Does anyone have examples of individuals winning compensation
       and damages against a local authority or TFL when EA's have
       clamped/towed car with a defective warrant (wrong address).
       This N244 form has been mentioned by a few people now but there
       doesnt seem to be any examples of wins that i can find?
       #Post#: 27069--------------------------------------------------
       Re: *Bailiff* Westminster - Contravention12r - Now with Marstons
       - Wrong Address
   DIR By: MythSoul
       Date: June 22, 2024, 1:13 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Cases involving applications against enforcment using a
       defective instrument are typically unreported, as they are
       handled as "applications" under Civil Procedure Rule 84.13
       rather than court claims. When applying for damages due to
       enforcement under a defective warrant, it is essential to
       provide evidence of the defect and quantify any special damages
       with supporting evidence. Failure to do so may result in the
       court awarding only nominal damages, such as £25 per day for the
       loss of a vehicle, as demonstrated in Burton v Ministry of
       Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681
  HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/681.pdf.
       #Post#: 27076--------------------------------------------------
       Re: *Bailiff* Westminster - Contravention12r - Now with Marstons
       - Wrong Address
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: June 22, 2024, 4:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       OP, can we get back to what IMO is the central issue please
       which is what could you legitimately put in an OOT submission
       such as to give you the best chance of the OfR being revoked.
       As a working hypothesis let's say that the council issued all
       necessary notices in a timely manner to the DVLA address. This
       then leaves you with why should the NTO be deemed not received
       by you?
       Your claim, as with many we see here, is that the DVLA address
       was not your address for service; that you had notified DVLA of
       the change prior to the contravention; that there was no reason
       for you to access mail delivered to this address; that you were
       unaware that DVLA had not updated the change; and that you had
       done everything which could reasonably have been expected of you
       to rectify the situation with DVLA.
       I've seen nothing in the form of hard proof which addresses the
       highlighted points. IMO, you* need to get back to these issues.
       You should pay the bailiff to cap your liability because all
       monies would be returned should your OOT and subsequent
       reps/appeal succeed.
       It is the registered keeper's duty to maintain a current address
       for service. If an application is made in writing then the DVLA
       website gives the following:
       If your new log book does not arrive
       Contact DVLA if the new log book has not arrived after 4 weeks.
       If you have not received your log book after 6 weeks and you
       have not notified DVLA, you’ll have to pay £25 to get a
       replacement.
       *- your thread refers to a company in some posts, is the RK a
       person or corporation?
       #Post#: 27090--------------------------------------------------
       Re: *Bailiff* Westminster - Contravention12r - Now with Marstons
       - Wrong Address
   DIR By: Enceladus
       Date: June 22, 2024, 5:59 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       To answer two of the OP's questions.
       Yes if you want to submit a Witness Statement that is late then
       you also need need to submit the associated Out of Time
       application at the same time. That seems to be the case here.
       You need to be very careful explaining why you are late else the
       council will likely object and the Court will likely refuse your
       application.
       And yes you should put the correct current address on the OOT
       and WS. The Council well be informed of your application and
       will update the address on their system if it's different. A
       re-seal of the warrant with updated address will be requested
       from the TEC and the bailiff will also be informed.
       The issue date on the V5c registration doc for your car is dated
       the 28th June 2022. That's prior to the date of the alleged
       contravention 17th Nov 2023.
       So dig out your V5c. Is the name and address on it correct? IE
       you at the address where you actually live. Or is the car maybe
       registered to a company or a lease company? Don't assume
       anything, actually check the V5c.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 2
   DIR Previous Page