DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6384--------------------------------------------------
Re: County court judgement but no letters - Bailiff
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: September 29, 2023, 3:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Neil B link ---
>
> [quote author=Victory23 link=topic=581.msg6360#msg6360
date=1695995770]
> Thank you Enceladus I have been back to the court again today
for the third time now and had form PE2 witnessed.
--- End Quote ---
But what on Earth have you written on it? It poses a particular
question which you've been unable to answer here. [/quote]
This thread is a prime example of why we have rule of one thread
per PCN. There are two PCNs in this thread and it's becoming
increasingly confused.
I understand the PE2 to refer to PCN YJ58264268 which is for a
ULEZ contravention. However TFL have already accepted the SD and
re-issued the PCN and the OP has settled it at the £90 discount
rate. So that's closed out. Or have I got that wrong?
I understand the TE7 & TE9 relate to PCN GX06778756 which is the
one that the bailiffs' enforced and the OP paid up circa £560.
The underlying PCN was for parking on the zigzags of a
pedestrian crossing. The Op wants to recover the bailiff fees
and the TFL charges since no PCN, CC, OfR and Bailiff EN were
served.
So what we now need to know is what the OP has put on the TE7
OOT application?
#Post#: 6386--------------------------------------------------
Re: County court judgement but no letters - Bailiff
DIR By: NightSoul
Date: September 29, 2023, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Victory23 link ---
>
> No they were for the PCN GX06778756 as the email I got from
TEC had them attached to complete. I assumed this is to get the
fees back from the bailiff and or the court and TFL
>
--- End Quote ---
The only way to reclaim bailiffs fees is a detailed assessment
(complicated) or a small claim (simple).
Go with the latter, but the claim must start with a letter of
claim setting the reason why the money should be returned and
give bank details for TFL to pay.
I've not read your thread, but your grounds can be that the
warrant address for enforcement differs from your current
address, the enforcement power ended (suspended, your PE2 was
allowed), or some other enforcement error. It would be a
discussion in its work right to debate the possibilities of
enforcement error.
#Post#: 6387--------------------------------------------------
Re: County court judgement but no letters - Bailiff
DIR By: Neil B
Date: September 29, 2023, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Enceladus link ---
>
>
> I understand the TE7 & TE9 relate to PCN GX06778756 which is
the one that the bailiffs' enforced and the OP paid up circa
£560. The underlying PCN was for parking on the zigzags of a
pedestrian crossing. The Op wants to recover the bailiff fees
and the TFL charges since no PCN, CC, OfR and Bailiff EN were
served.
>
> So what we now need to know is what the OP has put on the TE7
OOT application?
>
--- End Quote ---
And why have TEC said they are the wrong forms?
#Post#: 6388--------------------------------------------------
Re: County court judgement but no letters - Bailiff
DIR By: Neil B
Date: September 29, 2023, 4:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NightSoul link ---
>
> [quote author=Victory23 link=topic=581.msg6362#msg6362
date=1695996174]
> No they were for the PCN GX06778756 as the email I got from
TEC had them attached to complete. I assumed this is to get the
fees back from the bailiff and or the court and TFL
>
--- End Quote ---
The only way to reclaim bailiffs fees is a detailed assessment
(complicated) or a small claim (simple).
[/quote]
This is nonsense: When an OOT application is allowed the bailiff
fees and 50% increase in penalty are refunded.
I don't recall ever having a major problem getting that refund.
#Post#: 6390--------------------------------------------------
Re: County court judgement but no letters - Bailiff
DIR By: Neil B
Date: September 29, 2023, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NightSoul link ---
>
> I've not read your thread,
>
--- End Quote ---
Really? Yet you managed to comment in the thread on the 22nd,
24th and 27th?
#Post#: 6391--------------------------------------------------
Re: County court judgement but no letters - Bailiff
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 29, 2023, 4:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=13]Neil B[/member], I admire your perseverance.
#Post#: 6401--------------------------------------------------
Re: County court judgement but no letters - Bailiff
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: September 29, 2023, 11:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Neil B link ---
>
> [quote author=Enceladus link=topic=581.msg6384#msg6384
date=1696019823]
>
> I understand the TE7 & TE9 relate to PCN GX06778756 which is
the one that the bailiffs' enforced and the OP paid up circa
£560. The underlying PCN was for parking on the zigzags of a
pedestrian crossing. The Op wants to recover the bailiff fees
and the TFL charges since no PCN, CC, OfR and Bailiff EN were
served.
>
> So what we now need to know is what the OP has put on the TE7
OOT application?
>
--- End Quote ---
And why have TEC said they are the wrong forms?
[/quote]
AIUI the OP had no notices at all for PCN GX06778756 parking on
zigzags at a crossing. At some point the bailiff was paid circa
£560 and the TFL website now shows £0 outstanding. The OP phoned
the TEC and the TEC emailed a blank TE7 & TE9. These forms have
now been submitted to the TEC but we have no inkling as to what
exactly has been put on the TE7. I won't be surprised if it's
rejected.
Not sure but it appears that the OP originally submitted an SD
for GX06778756, it bounced due to no OOT. And in any event they
were not the correct forms although the TEC didn't say such.
I now understand the PE3 (Statutory Declaration) to refer to PCN
YJ58264268 which is for a ULEZ contravention. It seems the OP
received an OfR and completed the SD that was with it. TFL seem
to believe that this SD is within time and have re-issued the
PCN, sent it to the OP and now the OP has paid it at the £90
discount. The TFL web shows the amount outstanding as £0. So
case closed (hopefully). Not sure that the TEC have actually
sent the OP a copy of the revoking order though.
But I might have all this entirely wrong as the whole thread is
too confusing with two intertwined PCNs for differing
contraventions and at differing stages of enforcement.
#Post#: 6409--------------------------------------------------
Re: County court judgement but no letters - Bailiff
DIR By: Neil B
Date: September 30, 2023, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Enceladus link ---
>
> But I might have all this entirely wrong as the whole thread
is too confusing with two intertwined PCNs for differing
contraventions and at differing stages of enforcement.
>
--- End Quote ---
We can normally cope with multiple pcns in the same thread but I
agree that it is difficult when two different sets of
legislation apply.
I'm still not sure what forms have, recently, been submitted or
how TEC have instructed the OP. They appear to be insisting on
PE forms?At least that's what I understand from the OP?
As for content, I share your curiosity. You asked him about the
'nature' of his address and he didn't reply; clearly not
realising the significance.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page