DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 80087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enforcement Letter without Correspondence
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: July 8, 2025, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When and how did you submit the PE3 Statutory Declaration to the
TEC. And did you send a completed PE2 Out of Time application
with it?
It seems that the OOT application was not submitted or perhaps
it was incorrectly completed. Please post up the OOT
application. Only redact your name and address.
#Post#: 80092--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enforcement Letter without Correspondence
DIR By: czgm1h
Date: July 8, 2025, 8:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Enceladus link ---
>
> When and how did you submit the PE3 Statutory Declaration to
the TEC. And did you send a completed PE2 Out of Time
application with it?
>
> It seems that the OOT application was not submitted or perhaps
it was incorrectly completed. Please post up the OOT
application. Only redact your name and address.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hello Enceladus, I attach the Out of Time application that I
signed and submitted (PE2 and PE3) via email on 9 April 2025
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 80099--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enforcement Letter without Correspondence
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: July 8, 2025, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well I don't know what to say. You seem to have done everything
correctly. The TEC seemed to have made an error.
In particular your address as held by the DVLA was updated and
processed before the date of contravention.
The SD and OOT are both attached to your email to the TEC and
you have a receipt.
Have you got any confirmation from the council about where they
sent the documentation, in particular the PCN?
I suppose you could write back and ask them to review their
decision, how this is extra-procedural and would likely time-out
your N244 application window. So I wouldn't recommend it.
Leaves us with an N244 application to have the Court Officer's
decision at the TEC reviewed by a District Judge. This costs
£123 for a hearing on the papers or £313 for a hearing in
person. And you will not get the fees refunded, except as a
matter of goodwill from the Council. And that seems to have only
happened once.
I'm confident that you would succeed with a hearing in person. A
hearing on the papers is risky. It needs to be very well written
to succeed.
If you succeed with the review, then your SD would be accepted
and the Order for Recovery would be revoked and the Charge Cert
cancelled. The Council would have to serve the PCN again and you
would have the option to pay at the discount or to challenge and
ultimately appeal to the Adjudicator. I suggest that would
likely loose at adjudication so you would end up paying a
further £130.
How much have you already paid against this PCN, £280? This
would be refunded when your SD is accepted?
#Post#: 80112--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enforcement Letter without Correspondence
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 8, 2025, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, this is a long thread. At present the issue is the PCN which
you've paid at the 'compliance stage' i.e. £75 added to the
debt.
As I understand it, your out of time application was opposed by
the council (and ultimately refused by TEC) and your posts have
so many unspecified references to [My Address] that my head is
spinning.
There are 2 addresses, A and B. You moved from A to B and
notified DVLA in a timely fashion, however, it was not changed
on their record immediately but you received a new V5C with
address B prior to the date of contravention. Yes?
The address to which the council's notices were sent(PCN, CC,
OfR) was.....A or B, I still don't know. One of your posts
speculated regarding what if the council had used address B -
with all sorts of ideas about why the Royal Mail might have
failed to deliver them - which in itself implies that the
authority used address B.
IMO, if they used address B then the authority's challenge and
TEC's decision were sound. But if they used address A then you
should challenge their decision which is irrational.
Which address was used by the authority, A or B?
#Post#: 80113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enforcement Letter without Correspondence
DIR By: Bailiff Advice
Date: July 8, 2025, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: czgm1h link ---
>
>
> 08 july 2025 I received a rejection based on 'no explanation
why it was served late'. It appears the only options if I want
to chase it further is to take it to court. I attach a photos in
case it helps someone in the future ;)
>
--- End Quote ---
Until around 2 weeks ago, when an OOT application had been
rejected, the letter from the Traffic Enforcement Centre had
merely stated that no reason for the rejection was being
provided and that no reason was kept on court file.
There has been a new policy of now providing a brief one line
sentence...and sadly, from enquiries that I have seen, it
appears to be plagued with problems which I will address
tomorrow in more detail. I am aware of complaints being made to
TEC regarding this new procedure.
Bailiff Advice Online
HTML https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/
#Post#: 80115--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enforcement Letter without Correspondence
DIR By: czgm1h
Date: July 8, 2025, 11:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Enceladus link ---
>
> Well I don't know what to say. You seem to have done
everything correctly. The TEC seemed to have made an error.
>
> In particular your address as held by the DVLA was updated and
processed before the date of contravention.
>
> The SD and OOT are both attached to your email to the TEC and
you have a receipt.
>
> Have you got any confirmation from the council about where
they sent the documentation, in particular the PCN?
>
> I suppose you could write back and ask them to review their
decision, how this is extra-procedural and would likely time-out
your N244 application window. So I wouldn't recommend it.
>
> Leaves us with an N244 application to have the Court Officer's
decision at the TEC reviewed by a District Judge. This costs
£123 for a hearing on the papers or £313 for a hearing in
person. And you will not get the fees refunded, except as a
matter of goodwill from the Council. And that seems to have only
happened once.
>
> I'm confident that you would succeed with a hearing in person.
A hearing on the papers is risky. It needs to be very well
written to succeed.
>
> If you succeed with the review, then your SD would be accepted
and the Order for Recovery would be revoked and the Charge Cert
cancelled. The Council would have to serve the PCN again and you
would have the option to pay at the discount or to challenge and
ultimately appeal to the Adjudicator. I suggest that would
likely loose at adjudication so you would end up paying a
further £130.
>
> How much have you already paid against this PCN, £205? This
would be refunded when your SD is accepted?
>
--- End Quote ---
No confirmation about where they sent the PCN. The only
confirmation we have had is that they issued my PCNs to correct
address based on their 'opposition letter' from the Haringey
council which can be seen in previous posts.. but it never
arrived.
I would like to respond and say that I would be keen on
attending court hearing to see what could happen next, however I
will be unable to due to my travel plans abroad for the next
several months.
However, what I really would like to see is not for my decision
to be overturned at this point, but to prevent errors like this
one from happening again. I am not sure what would need to
change, and where the starting point would be. However, I would
like to see change for fairer approach to how PCNs are delivered
to recipient.
I am signing out as I am quite busy with stuff at the moment so
won't be responding (thread can be closed if needed), cheers :)
#Post#: 80228--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enforcement Letter without Correspondence
DIR By: abc
Date: July 9, 2025, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I had difficult posting a response here, but I DM'd you on
reddit anyway in case.
Having revisited your Reddit post and reviewed the complete set
of documents relating to PCN ZN14202158, it is evident that a
procedural failure has occurred within the Traffic Enforcement
Centre’s administrative process. Your statutory declaration
(Form PE3), sworn on 9 April 2025 and accompanied by a Form PE2
application for extension of time, did in fact contain a clear
explanation as to why it had been submitted out of time.
Specifically, you stated that you had not received any prior
statutory documents in relation to the penalty charge, that the
address on the vehicle’s V5C logbook had been properly updated,
and that you only became aware of the penalty upon receipt of
enforcement correspondence from CDER Group. These facts, had
they been properly considered, satisfy the requirement under
rule 75.5(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits the
filing of a statutory declaration where a respondent asserts
that they did not receive the notice to owner or enforcement
notice. Moreover, Practice Direction 75.5A requires the court
officer to consider whether sufficient reason has been provided
for delay, and it is plain on the face of your application that
such reasons were offered.
The Court Officer Order dated 5 July 2025, rejecting your
application on grounds that "no explanation why the statutory
declaration served late" had been given, is manifestly
inaccurate and procedurally unsound. It appears that the
decision was made without properly reading the contents of your
PE2. That error alone calls into question the validity of the
decision. In R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for the Home
Department [2001] 1 WLR 840, the Court of Appeal affirmed that
any decision-maker must conscientiously address the substance of
a representation, and failure to do so constitutes a denial of
procedural fairness. The reasoning in that case, while public
law in nature, is applicable by analogy to quasi-judicial
administrative decisions of the kind rendered by court officers
under CPR 75.
Your rights from this point are governed by Rule 75.5(5), which
permits an application to the court for review by a District
Judge. Such an application must be made within 14 days, plus 3
days for deemed service under CPR 6.26. The correct form is an
N244 Application Notice, which must identify that you seek a
review of the court officer’s order and explain the grounds,
namely that the stated reason for rejection is incorrect, as
your PE2 did in fact set out a valid and truthful explanation
for delay. The applicable fee for a paper review is £123 or,
where a hearing is requested, £275. This may be paid by cheque
to HMCTS or online if authorised in advance. You may also apply
for fee remission if you meet the criteria set out in Form
EX160A.
Alternatively, if you are unable or unwilling to file an N244
due to cost or logistical obstacles, you may consider lodging a
formal complaint to the Civil Justice Policy Division of the
Ministry of Justice. Such a complaint, while not a statutory
remedy, may draw attention to the frequency of these errors and
support broader reform. The documentary evidence you have
preserved demonstrates conclusively that the court officer’s
reason for refusal was factually and procedurally unfounded. In
Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1406, Lord Woolf
underscored the principle that public authorities must not act
in ways that mislead or frustrate the legitimate expectations of
those affected. That principle, while rooted in administrative
law, may be cited to support your position when arguing for
institutional accountability.
Finally, there remains the question of redress for the payment
already made. Since the penalty has been enforced and paid under
the mistaken rejection, and assuming you do not pursue the N244
route, your only remaining recourse would be a discretionary
refund request addressed to the London Borough of Haringey. This
would be unlikely to succeed unless accompanied by an
acknowledgment from the TEC or MoJ that your application was
mishandled. Nevertheless, such a representation may carry
persuasive weight if appropriately framed and factually
substantiated.
In conclusion, your case is a clear instance of administrative
error by the TEC. You acted promptly, submitted the correct
forms with a truthful and complete explanation, and were refused
on grounds that do not reflect the content of your application.
You have a strong foundation to apply for review by a District
Judge under CPR 75.5(5), or, if you choose not to do so, to make
a formal complaint in order to ensure the error is acknowledged
and not repeated in similar cases. I remain available to assist
with the preparation of either route, as required. - Jason,
Dealing with Bailiffs. Contact me on Reddit.
#Post#: 80257--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enforcement Letter without Correspondence
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 9, 2025, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
?
The OP hasn't confirmed to what address the authority's notices
were sent i.e. A or B.
IMO, if A then DVLA provided the wrong address to the authority
for the contravention date given that the OP states that they
received a V5C with address B prior to the date of
contravention. As we don't know the detail of the authority's
objection, then in this scenario the blame lies with DVLA.
If the notices were addressed to B, then the authority were
correct in objecting and TEC were acting properly in rejecting.
Perhaps all 3 statutory notices went astray, but TEC couldn't be
faulted for rejecting the OP's application.
#Post#: 85822--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enforcement Letter without Correspondence
DIR By: MrNeo
Date: August 15, 2025, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi.
The section "give full reasons" in the PE3 is blank. it
shouldn't be.
I double checked, triple checked this, and although is all
highly confusing, that section should have been completed in
case of option 1.
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 7
DIR Previous Page