DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59226--------------------------------------------------
PCN Congestion charging TFL Upper Woburn Place (Car not owned)
Bailiff
DIR By: bnorth
Date: February 21, 2025, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
- --
This is in regard to a PCN issued to my father for a vehicle we
sold approximately 3-4 months before the infraction was
recorded.
- --
Last year, around April, we sold the vehicle in question to a
buyer on ebay. I have the bank transfer details, the name and
address of the buyer and a full chat history between my father
and the buyer discussing and agreeing to the terms and sale of
the vehicle. Once sold the log book was posted off and no more
was thought of it.
- --
However, around the first or second week of September last year,
we received a letter in the post which was a PCN showing the
vehicle had been recorded in London on 26/08/2024. On the same
day we received a letter from the DVLA saying that this vehicle
had been seen as on the road, despite not being taxed. These
were, of course, sent to my father's name. Upon contacting the
DVLA we determined that, somehow, the log book had not reached
its destination and the ownership had not been changed. My dad
had long since removed the car from the MID (Trade Insurance)
and the car had been previously SORNed off before the sale so,
of course we didn't receive any notification of tax
cancellation. I also called the Congestion Charge line, who were
incredibly unhelpful once the answer to "Is this your car?" was
answered with "No", but I eventually determined that I needed to
prove the vehicle had been sold.
- --
So, I put a package together outlining the sale, showing the
ebay listing, the bid, the chat logs, the name and address of
the buyer and a screenshot of the payment made on a banking app,
put it in an envelope and posted a copy of each, along with a
concise and dated (September 17th) cover letter, to both the
DVLA and the congestion charge address.
- --
I did not have any tracking information for them. All I have is
a payment made to the post office on the day in question which
WOULD add up to the correct amount for postage for two a4
manilla envelopes (but that's not helpful, so I digress)
- --
Within 2 weeks the DVLA contacted us to confirm the charge
against my dad was cancelled and he had been removed as the
registered keeper of the vehicle, so we assumed all was well.
Except over a month goes by and I eventually call the PCN line
and ask what the deal is, because my dad was sent ANOTHER letter
regarding the charge. I explained the situation, and that I had
sent the package containing all the information, and the person
on the other end said they had received absolutely no letters of
any kind on that vehicle. Not knowing what to do, I tried
retrieving the postage information from the Post office, to no
avail.
- --
Late November/Early December (2 and a half months after first
PCN letter and my postage response) we receive a letter from
Congestion Charging stating that our case has been denied
because we sent information in too late and it was past the
deadline for making any such case. This, of course, is not true,
I sent it less than a week after receiving the first PCN letter
and they just didn't open it until the deadline had passed.
- --
We have received more than one letter since, not knowing what to
do, and yesterday we received a letter saying an enforcement
agent would review the situation with a view to visiting the
property and seizing goods. All this because they didn't open a
letter in time. I don't know what to do and the situation is
enfuriating me.
- --
Here is a little more information on the situation.
My dad is dealing with severe issues due to diabetes, meaning he
is largely unable to walk and is potentially facing a limb loss,
or a stay in hospital to clear veins. This has been ongoing for
the past few months.
Further, around September, the time we received the first
letter, he was due to go into hospital for a triple bypass, the
need being due to a heart attack due to blocked veins and
arteries, the event taking place earlier in the year. He has
been very, very unwell for some time due to this and has had to
stop working. Due to these issues, I had become his carer (fully
receiving the gov allowance), which is why I was dealing with
it, which is one of the reasons the PCN people wouldn't deal
with me. He was unable to deal with this matter himself. His
surgery has been delayed and he is still waiting for it, but he
is not well and in receipt of allowances from the gov due to the
illnesses.
The stress of this is putting more strain on him and he is
seriously considering just paying for it to get it out of the
way, despite the severe cost it would mean to him personally (I
know it's only £355, but it's a lot in his situation).
- --
So, in summary,
- Car Sold around April/May, log book posted but the change
didn't happen, not sure why
- Infraction by the new owner 26/08/24
- PCN Arrives around 10th September (My dad due to have bypass
surgery 3 days later)
- Surgery is cancelled and my dad begins receiving treatment and
scans for vein issues related to diabetes
- I post a large file containing all the documents on 17/09/24.
No postage info. Packages sent to the DVLA and PCN
- DVLA confirm change 2 weeks later, no contact from TFL
- Another letter from PCN around middle of October requesting
payment again. I ring the PCN people who say they've received
nothing
- End of november and we receive a letter stating we have sent
information too late (despite everything being sent and dated
for 17th September and we are rejected
- 16/12/24 We get a letter demanding £280 from PCN
- Yesterday, 20/2/24 we get a letter threatening enforcement
agents unless we pay £355, threating to take property
- Right now my dad is set to go into hospital next wednesday to
see if they can fix his veins and save the blood flow to both
his feet (one worse than the other) and is on the waiting list
for stents as the bypass is too risky for him in his state.
The poor reddit post I angrily put together received an
automated reply saying you guys are the experts. At this point
I'm tempted to just pay it myself then go after the new owner in
small claims because I want to reduce my dad's stress. He has a
weak heart and is really struggling financially and physically.
If you guys are the ones to listen to, I'll listen to your
advice if you tell me to just suck it up and pay it, but I
really want to try and give my dad a reason to relax with this
matter. I don't know if I have grounds for a statutory
declaration, but I think it's awful because I wasn't late with
anything, I made it a priority and did it well in time.
- --
Thank you so much, even if you don't respond thanks for taking
the time to read. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 59229--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Congestion charging TFL Upper Woburn Place (Car not
owned) Bailiff
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 21, 2025, 3:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, oh dear ! What a pity you never came on this forum a
lot earlier, it could all have been sorted out.
You have posted an Order for Recovery date 16th December 2024.
Included with this letter would have been a form to submit a
Witness Statement. You don't mention anything about this other
than saying you received it. If you had submitted this WS form
to the Traffic Enforcement Centre soon after receipt, the OfR
would have been cancelled, and the matter would have been
reverted to the stage when you submitted representations to TfL
against the PCN. However, it's not entirely clear what you
responded to or not.
Before we can even begin to give advice, can you please update
your thread after reading this: -
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
It might be prudent to also contact: -
www.bailiffadviceonline.co.uk
They and also ourselves cannot give advice without sight of
documents.
#Post#: 59232--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Congestion charging TFL Upper Woburn Place (Car not
owned) Bailiff
DIR By: bnorth
Date: February 21, 2025, 3:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Oh dear, oh dear ! What a pity you never came on this forum a
lot earlier, it could all have been sorted out.
>
> You have posted an Order for Recovery date 16th December 2024.
Included with this letter would have been a form to submit a
Witness Statement. You don't mention anything about this other
than saying you received it. If you had submitted this WS form
to the Traffic Enforcement Centre soon after receipt, the OfR
would have been cancelled, and the matter would have been
reverted to the stage when you submitted representations to TfL
against the PCN. However, it's not entirely clear what you
responded to or not.
>
> Before we can even begin to give advice, can you please update
your thread after reading this: -
>
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
>
> It might be prudent to also contact: -
> www.bailiffadviceonline.co.uk
>
> They and also ourselves cannot give advice without sight of
documents.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hello,
Could you please elaborate on what I am missing from this post?
I thought I had followed the procedure.
The contact I've had with them is:
- The original PCN was returned was part of the pack when I sent
the mail on 17/09/24.
- A phone call where I asked if they had received the pack.
- The letter they sent when they explained it was outside of the
time limit to present a case, where they explained they had
received the documents, finally, but it was "too late"
- The letter posted as a picture. All that was included in this
was a statutory declaration form. I did not send this back.
There was no form to submit a witness statement, I have no
received such a form
- A phone call yesterday after the bailiff letter was received
where the PCN representative told me to do a statutory
declaration.
I've never had to deal with this stuff before. That is all the
contact I've had. I've had about 3 phone calls and posted the
pack on 17th September. I've not contacted anyone else or sent
anything else as a response. Let me know if there's anything
else you need me to post to update this topic, because I feel a
bit lost. If I have not included anything saying I have
responded to them or sent something back, it is because I have
not done so.
Thank you SO much for your response. You have already been very
helpful.
Edit: I have added the letter we got sent from the bailiff
people that was received yesterday and reminder letter from
October which we ignored because, as far as I knew, I had dealt
with the situation.
#Post#: 59242--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Congestion charging TFL Upper Woburn Place (Car not
owned) Bailiff
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 21, 2025, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Time is not on 'your' side, so let's cut to the chase. Pl excuse
my brevity, I empathise with your and your father's position,
but this is about legal processes.
Here they are:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/ruc/understanding-enforcement-process
There's no 'we' sold. Only the owner may sell, so who is it? If
the owner and registered keeper was your father then unless
authorised in writing you have no standing in this matter. It's
your father who has to respond to a PCN and Order for Recovery.
Pl strip out all non-essential matters from your account and
focus on the key issues(you need to distil the facts to those
which count at this stage):
Who was the recipient of the PCN(the addressee);
Date of issue;
When, how and by whom were reps made to the enforcement
authority;
Was a NOR received, if so date of issue;
Date of Charge Certificate;
Date of Order for Recovery;
Date of Notice of Enforcement?
#Post#: 59243--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Congestion charging TFL Upper Woburn Place (Car not
owned) Bailiff
DIR By: bnorth
Date: February 21, 2025, 5:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Time is not on 'your' side, so let's cut to the chase. Pl
excuse my brevity, I empathise with your and your father's
position, but this is about legal processes.
>
> Here they are:
>
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/ruc/understanding-enforcement-process
>
> There's no 'we' sold. Only the owner may sell, so who is it?
If the owner and registered keeper was your father then unless
authorised in writing you have no standing in this matter. It's
your father who has to respond to a PCN and Order for Recovery.
>
> Pl strip out all non-essential matters from your account and
focus on the key issues(you need to distil the facts to those
which count at this stage):
>
> Who was the recipient of the PCN(the addressee);
> Date of issue;
> When, how and by whom were reps made to the enforcement
authority;
> Was a NOR received, if so date of issue;
> Date of Charge Certificate;
> Date of Order for Recovery;
> Date of Notice of Enforcement?
>
--- End Quote ---
Recipient: My father
Date of issue of the PCN: 03/09/24
Reps were made by my dad by mail and posted: 17/09/24
(apparently not received by them until after the 28 days had
elapsed)
NOR, I'm not sure on this one. I have included the time-line
from the TFL website.
Date of Charge Certificate: 16/10/24 (I think, this is in the
attached picture)
Date of Order for recovery: 16/12/24
Date of notice of enforcement: Not sure if what we have counts
as this, The Reminder notice I attached at the top has a date of
17/02/25.
I appreciate you being straight to the point. I am available for
any further requests for info.
Thank you
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 59268--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Congestion charging TFL Upper Woburn Place (Car not
owned) Bailiff
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 22, 2025, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
IMO, pay the bailiff. This does not affect your father's
position as regards what I've set out below but would cap his
liability. If a bailiff visits his house to seize goods, which
could happen at any time after the NoE payment period has
lapsed, then an additional £235 would be added to the debt. I'm
assuming that your letter received on 20 Feb. is a NoE. Pl post
this.
IMO, the key procedure issues at this point are why the Order
for Recovery (OfR) dated 16 Dec. was not actioned in the period
allowed, 21 days, and what can be done now that this time has
lapsed and a warrant has been issued.
Taking the second point, the only procedural step is to submit a
Statutory Declaration (SD)to the Traffic Enforcement
Centre.(look at the time line and you'll see that they became
involved when the OfR was issued). The issues here are whether
any of the permitted grounds apply and, given that TfL may
object to your SD being accepted, what compelling arguments can
be made by your father.
Grounds for SD
According to you, reps were submitted in time but for some
reason not receipted by TfL until after the applicable period
had elapsed(let's not go to TfL delaying opening the letter!).
In any event, they disregarded those reps but not by virtue of
being submitted by an unentitled person but because they were
submitted late.
Pl post those reps and their reply.
If reps were submitted in time by an entitled person in the
prescribed form then your father has grounds on which to submit
a SD.
The arguments regarding lateness of the SD submission i.e. why
the OfR dated 16 Dec. was not actioned are a different matter. I
suspect that any argument would revolve around your father's
personal circumstances e.g. was a able to manage his affairs at
this time etc. and in this respect I suggest you contact
bailiffadviceonline.
#Post#: 59344--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Congestion charging TFL Upper Woburn Place (Car not
owned) Bailiff
DIR By: bnorth
Date: February 22, 2025, 1:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Thanks.
>
> IMO, pay the bailiff. This does not affect your father's
position as regards what I've set out below but would cap his
liability. If a bailiff visits his house to seize goods, which
could happen at any time after the NoE payment period has
lapsed, then an additional £235 would be added to the debt. I'm
assuming that your letter received on 20 Feb. is a NoE. Pl post
this.
>
> IMO, the key procedure issues at this point are why the Order
for Recovery (OfR) dated 16 Dec. was not actioned in the period
allowed, 21 days, and what can be done now that this time has
lapsed and a warrant has been issued.
>
> Taking the second point, the only procedural step is to submit
a Statutory Declaration (SD)to the Traffic Enforcement
Centre.(look at the time line and you'll see that they became
involved when the OfR was issued). The issues here are whether
any of the permitted grounds apply and, given that TfL may
object to your SD being accepted, what compelling arguments can
be made by your father.
>
> Grounds for SD
> According to you, reps were submitted in time but for some
reason not receipted by TfL until after the applicable period
had elapsed(let's not go to TfL delaying opening the letter!).
In any event, they disregarded those reps but not by virtue of
being submitted by an unentitled person but because they were
submitted late.
>
> Pl post those reps and their reply.
>
> If reps were submitted in time by an entitled person in the
prescribed form then your father has grounds on which to submit
a SD.
>
> The arguments regarding lateness of the SD submission i.e. why
the OfR dated 16 Dec. was not actioned are a different matter. I
suspect that any argument would revolve around your father's
personal circumstances e.g. was a able to manage his affairs at
this time etc. and in this respect I suggest you contact
bailiffadviceonline.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you so much for your response.
I have posted the bailiff letter on the first, main post of this
thread, the one from the CDER Group. This is the latest and only
communications not from PCN-related people (TFL, is it?). It is
my intention to contact the bailiff advice first thing on
monday. But I think I'm realising that paying it is the move.
It's a shame because I feel screwed over despite doing the right
thing and not even being the culpable party, but things happen,
I guess. If there's any more information you'd like me to
provide let me know. I have not got the letter from TFL saying
the representation was late; I don't know where it is but I know
I had it. The reason was it was out of time, but that it was an
unentitled person.
#Post#: 59351--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Congestion charging TFL Upper Woburn Place (Car not
owned) Bailiff
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 22, 2025, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Paying is not the end, so pl don't consider it as such.
#Post#: 59352--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Congestion charging TFL Upper Woburn Place (Car not
owned) Bailiff
DIR By: bnorth
Date: February 22, 2025, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Paying is not the end, so pl don't consider it as such.
>
--- End Quote ---
what do you mean by this?
#Post#: 59358--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Congestion charging TFL Upper Woburn Place (Car not
owned) Bailiff
DIR By: MrChips
Date: February 22, 2025, 5:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Paying now is just a means to limit the potential loss.
Meanwhile you can go about beating the original penalty charge
(hopefully).
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page