DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 77114--------------------------------------------------
Re: CDER GROUP TFL
DIR By: bwolf9999
Date: June 19, 2025, 2:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Morning
Here is the email, the agent arrived the next morning at 7am.
He did show me the warrant.
He also showed me a long list of account activity that never
happened as far as I know, it had a list of emails that I didnt
ever receive, letters I didn't receive and another visit, it
also showed they only updated my address in May so any letters
were going to my previous address, I have letters from the
traffic enforcement agency etc from February/ March to my
current address so I am wondering if I have a case as they didnt
update their records meaning I didnt get any of their previous
correspondence
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77119--------------------------------------------------
Re: CDER GROUP TFL
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 19, 2025, 3:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pl stop mixing the procedures.
TEC have nothing to do with the PCN as such, for our purposes
they simply authorise the use of Schedule 12 action to issue a
warrant.
You were shown the warrant. Did it have your correct details
i.e. your name and address which is where it was being executed?
Where is your email dealing with the 'payment plan'?
Pl consolidate and repost:
The Notice of Enforcement;
Your email response(as above);
Their response.
#Post#: 78281--------------------------------------------------
Re: CDER GROUP TFL
DIR By: bwolf9999
Date: June 26, 2025, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi HC Anderson
Sorry for the delay.
I have attached the notice of enforcement and the email
conversation here, as I say , the enforcement agent was here the
next morning after this email.
As an aside, after requesting the account history like the
enforcement agent advised where he showed me on his phone a long
list of apparent emails and letters that I did not receive, they
have twice now sent me what look like edited activity lists with
only visits listed, the agent clearly showed me a list of emails
and letters, I have emailed them again saying the agents list of
activity was much longer and asked them again to provide it.
Cheers
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 78288--------------------------------------------------
Re: CDER GROUP TFL
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 26, 2025, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't know where you're going with this.
You can continue to correspond with them and place your car at
risk - if on the highway or at the premises specified on the
warrant. If you're happy to do this then write to the council,
after all the enforcement agent is THEIR agent. You have the
hard evidence in the form of the NoE which does not offer 7
clear days and you could argue that it and any subsequent fees
are therefore invalid.
I suggest you get BAO on this for you.
#Post#: 78291--------------------------------------------------
Re: CDER GROUP TFL
DIR By: bwolf9999
Date: June 26, 2025, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi mate
Sorry, its been a few days and you have understandably forgotten
my case .
This is the one where I have paid as the agent turnt up at my
door the morning after CDER emailed saying they couldnt arrange
a payment plan over email. I paid as I had no choice really
While taking the payment the agent said I could try and claim
the money back as he showed me a long list of 'activity' on my
account that i know did not happen, letters , emails etc.
So, I want to claim it back somehow as I think they are pulling
a fast one , they didnt send me any emails or letters, just the
one NOE. And now after 2 requests for that activity they keep
sending edited versions with no mention of letters or emails
Sorry the email conversation you requested didnt upload first
time , attached now
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 78308--------------------------------------------------
Re: CDER GROUP TFL
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 26, 2025, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the reminder.
As you've paid, then pl stop corresponding direct with CDER,
it's a waste of time. They are the authority's agents, so
complain to them.
If you don't want to use BAO, then use TfL's complaints
procedure.
Unlawful Demand for Money - CDER on behalf of Transport for
London
This complaint relates to the authority's enforcement agents
CDER in respect of Penalty Charge Notice ********. I would
stress that I am not complaining about the penalty itself but
the subsequent enforcement procedures engaged by the agent to
recover the debt. Specifically, their failure to comply with the
mandatory requirements of Schedule 12(your finance dept.
officers will know the chapter and verse of these) in that a
Notice of Enforcement was issued which did not give me 7 'clear
days' notice. The evidence in this regard is objective and
enclosed i.e. a NoE dated 2 June with a latest date for payment
of 9 June. As only 7 days in total were given, then it is
axiomatic that these could not be 'clear days' because Sundays
are excluded. For information, the NoE was not received until 6
June, but this is secondary.
I have paid your agent in order to prevent further action and
the remedy I require is that the council refund the Compliance
and Enforcement fees (£75 and £235 respectively) and that a
lawful NoE is issued.
Please do not pass this to your enforcement authority staff who
either do not know the requirements and/or fail to maintain
adequate oversight of TfL's agents' actions. This should be
referred to suitably experienced finance or legal staff.
My payment details are as follows:
**********
Encl: copy of NoE dated 2 June 2025
I cannot find on online or email Complaints portal, perhaps
others know.
#Post#: 78315--------------------------------------------------
Re: CDER GROUP TFL
DIR By: bwolf9999
Date: June 26, 2025, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, thank you, awesome.
And it was £560 in the end :(
#Post#: 78320--------------------------------------------------
Re: CDER GROUP TFL
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 26, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Forget the penalty charge element, IMO.
The enforcement fees come to £310; the court registration fee is
£10; and the penalty is £240. Total £560.
You've already made two attempts to get TEC to cancel the OfR
and CC without success(or it would seem any hope of success).
But if you want to chance your arm and try and get the whole
£560 refunded based upon CDER's misapplication of mandatory
enforcement procedures.....!
#Post#: 84803--------------------------------------------------
Re: CDER GROUP TFL
DIR By: bwolf9999
Date: August 8, 2025, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Forget the penalty charge element, IMO.
>
> The enforcement fees come to £310; the court registration fee
is £10; and the penalty is £240. Total £560.
>
> You've already made two attempts to get TEC to cancel the OfR
and CC without success(or it would seem any hope of success).
But if you want to chance your arm and try and get the whole
£560 refunded based upon CDER's misapplication of mandatory
enforcement procedures.....!
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi mate
So...
This is the reply I got to my letter, what are your thoughts ? I
used the exact template you gave me.
Cheers
#Post#: 84810--------------------------------------------------
Re: CDER GROUP TFL
DIR By: 404BrainNotFound
Date: August 8, 2025, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your case discloses a compelling basis for restitutionary relief
grounded in statutory irregularity and procedural abuse under
the civil enforcement framework. While you have discharged the
underlying balance of £560 following enforcement by CDER Group,
that payment was extracted in circumstances which, on your
account, render the process invalid under both Schedule 12 of
the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Taking
Control of Goods Regulations 2013.
Let me set out the legal position with clarity. The Notice of
Enforcement issued to you by CDER Group bears the date 2 June
2025, with a demand for payment by 6:00am on 9 June 2025. This
fails, on its face, to satisfy the mandatory requirement of
Regulation 7(1) of the 2013 Regulations, which provides that a
notice of enforcement must afford the debtor not less than seven
clear days before enforcement action may be taken. Clear days
exclude the day of service and the day of compliance, and
further disregard Sundays and bank holidays. Even under a
generous construction, the notice period in your case was
non-compliant, thereby vitiating the enforcement process from
the outset.
Moreover, you have reported that CDER’s enforcement agent,
during a visit to your property, displayed on a mobile device an
extended account history purporting to show a series of letters,
emails, and possibly a prior visit, none of which you ever
received. This log, crucial to justifying the escalation of
fees, has not been disclosed to you despite multiple requests.
Instead, CDER have provided what appear to be truncated or
redacted records omitting the very entries shown to you at the
door. The failure to furnish a complete and accurate record of
enforcement activity engages both Regulation 24 of the 2013
Regulations and the common law principles of good faith and
transparency in enforcement.
A further difficulty arises in relation to service of notices
and address verification. You have evidence that both the
Traffic Enforcement Centre and Transport for London were
corresponding with you at your correct address as early as
February 2025, yet CDER did not update their records until May
2025. This raises significant questions as to whether key
statutory notices—including the Notice of Enforcement—were
lawfully served or otherwise came to your attention within the
prescribed timeframes. These defects are not academic. The
enforcement fees levied—£75 at compliance stage and £235 at
enforcement visit—are strictly contingent upon procedural
compliance. Where there is material non-compliance, those fees
cannot lawfully be charged.
Having now paid the sum in full, your remedy lies not in
resisting enforcement but in challenging the lawfulness of the
process and seeking restitution of fees unlawfully demanded. The
legal basis for recovery would be a claim in restitution for
money had and received, supported by the principle that money
paid under compulsion or mistake of law is recoverable where no
legal obligation to pay existed. This is well established in
authority, including Woolwich Equitable Building Society v IRC
[1993] AC 70 and, more recently in the enforcement context,
Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681.
Transport for London, as the principal, remains vicariously
liable for the acts of its agents. It cannot disown
responsibility merely by referring 'complaints' to CDER Group.
The standard response you received from TfL, dated 14 July 2025,
fails entirely to engage with the statutory breach you have
identified and reflects either a lack of understanding or an
abdication of legal oversight.
In these circumstances, I would advise you to pursue the
following course:
First, submit a formal pre-action disclosure request under CPR
31.17 to CDER Group. This is procedurally superior to a subject
access request. A request under CPR 31.17 entitles you to
obtain, prior to litigation, specific documents held by a third
party (in this case, CDER Group) where it is likely those
documents are relevant to anticipated proceedings and where
disclosure is necessary to fairly dispose of the claim or save
costs. Unlike a subject access request under the UK GDPR, which
provides only for personal data (often in redacted or summarised
form), CPR 31.17 enables you to demand unredacted original
records, including audit logs, email dispatch reports,
correspondence files, and internal system entries used to
justify enforcement action. These documents will be central to
the merits of any future claim for restitution.
Secondly, send a renewed formal complaint to Transport for
London, expressly relying on the defective notice period and the
absence of proper service. That complaint should be addressed to
the legal or enforcement oversight department and demand
repayment of the compliance and enforcement fees (£310). Your
letter must make clear that the PCN itself is not in dispute;
rather, it is the subsequent enforcement which is impugned. You
may, if appropriate, enclose a draft Particulars of Claim to
demonstrate the seriousness of your intention to litigate.
Thirdly, if neither CDER nor TfL respond adequately within 14
days, you may issue a Part 7 claim in the County Court for
restitution of the £310. Your cause of action would be for money
had and received on the grounds that the enforcement was
unlawful, the fees were improperly levied, and the payment was
made under compulsion. The claim would be suitable for the small
claims track and should be supported by a concise witness
statement and copy documents including the Notice of
Enforcement, correspondence, and your CPR 31.17 request.
You may, in the alternative, consider an application under CPR
84.16 for detailed assessment of the enforcement fees, although
this is more commonly deployed at an earlier stage and may
involve technical argument as to timing.
In conclusion, your legal position is strong. The enforcement
action taken against you was arguably void for failure to comply
with mandatory notice provisions. You have a clear statutory and
equitable basis to seek repayment of fees improperly extracted.
I would be pleased to assist in the preparation of your CPR
31.17 request, and, if necessary, TFL particulars of claim.
Should you proceed promptly and with precision, I am confident
the matter can be resolved without the need for protracted
litigation.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page