DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84128--------------------------------------------------
Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the
debt, please help
DIR By: freedom07
Date: August 4, 2025, 8:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone, the balliffs (Newlyn) took my car AFTER I had paid
for the debt months ago
Please help,
I will explain the situation then I have a few questions, I
would appreciate if you can answer with your experience and
expertise
-last year I drove into a street that needed a permit in London
and got a fine. I was away for months and came back with a
baliffs order. I paid the fine in Full in February 2025 and have
receipts from newlyn saying the outstanding balance is 0
-months later in august, Newlyn took my car without informing me
why, or gave me 7 days notice( I thought that was the bailiff
procedure )
They just left a letter in my door saying I owe even more money
than last time (for the same penalty that I already paid for)
And says it will auction my car in less than a week
It doesnt even state where my car is being held
-I contacted Newlyn by phone and live chat and both just stated
they can’t do anything and I need to speak to the agent that
took my car
I called that agent and explained I already paid the debt and he
mentioned that the transaction was cancelled after a few days (
I didn’t do this or cancel it) but if they cancelled it, it’s
not my fault
And I thought I should have to pay these extra fees ive incurred
because they took my car again
The agent said they will contact newlyn to find out why and get
back to me in a few minutes, he never did and this was last
evening.
And he didn’t mention where the car is
I’m very concerned they’re just going to stall until it goes to
auction/the fees goes up when I have a genuine reason.
My questions are
1.if I pay it again, can I dispute the original penalty via the
tribunal or something and if successful will the council refund
me? Or the bailiff
2.what should I do? Is there a third party that can stop the
baliffs deadline for auction whilst this mistake is figured out?
Will contacting the council do anything?
Im sure the baliffs will try to say anything to get the payment
especially when time is on their side
but surely its their fault for cancelling or at the very least I
shouldn’t have to pay the extra fees
I need some legal advice please and if anyone has a strategy
please let me know
#Post#: 84132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the
debt, please help
DIR By: abc
Date: August 5, 2025, 1:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The core legal position is that enforcement power under a
warrant of control ceases to have effect once the debt is paid
in full. The authority to take control of goods, including the
power to remove or sell them, derives exclusively from Schedule
12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Paragraph
6 of that Schedule provides that the enforcement power is
exercisable only while the sum outstanding remains unpaid. Upon
full payment, the warrant is spent, and any further enforcement
activity is without lawful authority and amounts to trespass and
conversion.
You state that the penalty charge was paid in full in February
2025 and that Newlyn issued a receipt confirming a nil balance.
That receipt is not merely evidence of the transaction but a
material representation by the enforcement company that the debt
was satisfied. Once that occurred, all statutory powers of
entry, seizure, and sale were extinguished. It follows that the
seizure of your vehicle in August was unlawful unless Newlyn can
establish either that the February payment was not actually
received or that it was properly reversed before enforcement
recommenced. You are entitled to put them to strict proof.
The next step, therefore, is to prove the flow of funds and the
discharge of the debt. You must collate and preserve the
following evidence: (a) the February 2025 receipt from Newlyn
showing a zero balance; (b) any online payment confirmation or
email receipt issued at the time of payment; (c) your bank or
card statement showing the exact date, amount, and recipient of
the funds; and (d) any correspondence with Newlyn confirming
that enforcement was closed or dormant thereafter. This evidence
will be crucial both to secure the immediate return of your
vehicle and to support any subsequent claim for damages or
restitution.
As regards the bailiff’s suggestion that the payment was
'cancelled', that assertion is legally and procedurally fraught.
If a card payment was reversed or dishonoured, Newlyn was under
a duty to notify you and allow you an opportunity to regularise
the position before recommencing enforcement. The sudden removal
of your vehicle without prior notice or an updated compliance
letter breaches Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods
Regulations 2013, which requires at least seven clear days'
notice unless the court directs otherwise. Moreover, the failure
to notify you of the vehicle’s location violates the statutory
obligation under paragraph 61(4) of Schedule 12 to keep
controlled goods safe and make them accessible to the debtor.
In these circumstances, enforcement beyond February 2025 appears
to have occurred without jurisdiction. Your vehicle has been
taken when the underlying warrant no longer authorised such
action, and the agents have refused to disclose the vehicle's
location or basis for their conduct. This conduct is not only
procedurally deficient but substantively unlawful.
To protect your position, you have several options. First, if
auction is imminent, you should prepare and file an urgent
application to the County Court for an interim injunction to
restrain sale. The grounds are that the enforcement action is
ultra vires, the debt was discharged, and the risk of
irreparable loss (through sale of your vehicle) outweighs any
inconvenience to the Defendant. A supporting witness statement
should exhibit the February receipt and all payment
confirmations.
Second, you should write to Newlyn and the instructing authority
(usually the local council) placing them on notice of a claim
for unlawful interference with goods and conversion. The council
must be reminded that it remains liable for the acts of its
enforcement agents pursuant to Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013]
EWHC 3492 (QB). Demand immediate disclosure of the payment and
enforcement history under the Data Protection Act 2018,
including all logs showing how and when the February payment was
allegedly cancelled.
In Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC 3492 (QB), the High Court
confirmed that a local authority is vicariously liable for the
unlawful acts of enforcement agents it instructs. This directly
advances your position by allowing you to pursue the council,
not just Newlyn, for the wrongful seizure of your vehicle. Where
enforcement has continued after payment of the debt and the
authority to act under the warrant has expired, any further
action by the bailiffs is ultra vires. If Newlyn acted without
lawful justification in removing and threatening to sell your
car, the council, as the instructing creditor, is equally liable
in tort for conversion, trespass to goods, and breach of
statutory duty under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007. This principle ensures that you are not
left at the mercy of evasive enforcement agents and can hold the
council accountable for securing redress, damages, and return of
your vehicle.
Third, while it is open to you to pay the amount demanded under
protest (mitigation on further damages) to recover your vehicle,
that payment must be explicitly made without prejudice and
accompanied by written notice reserving all rights to bring
proceedings for restitution and damages. If you choose this
course, the principle in Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024]
EWCA Civ 681 supports a subsequent claim that fees or actions
taken without lawful authority may be set aside and repaid.
In Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681, the Court
of Appeal held that enforcement agents who act outside the scope
of their statutory powers, such as pursuing fees not lawfully
due or enforcing against exempt goods, commit actionable wrongs.
This authority supports your position that once the debt was
paid in full and the warrant thereby exhausted, Newlyn no longer
had any legal power to seize your vehicle. Any fees demanded or
actions taken thereafter fall outside the statutory enforcement
scheme and are therefore unlawful. The case affirms your right
to seek recovery of improperly charged fees, damages for
wrongful interference with goods, and restitution where payment
was made under protest to avoid further loss. It confirms that
statutory limits on enforcement activity are strictly construed
and that agents who exceed them may be held liable.
Lastly, you may consider, if the original PCN was already the
subject of enforcement and is now being enforced a second time,
whether to file an out-of-time witness statement with the
Traffic Enforcement Centre under CPR 75.7(3), asserting that the
enforcement is improperly duplicative or abusive. However, that
mechanism is more appropriate where the underlying PCN was not
known to you; in your case, the issue is the unlawful
continuation of enforcement after payment.
The legal foundation of your position is therefore as follows:
enforcement authority ended when payment was accepted in
February 2025. Any subsequent action taken by Newlyn is without
jurisdiction and unlawful. You should act immediately to stop
the auction, compel return of the vehicle, and preserve all
rights to compensation.
You have a strong argument in estoppel by representation. Newlyn
confirmed the debt was paid in full and issued a zero balance
receipt. You reasonably relied on that, took no further steps,
and have now suffered loss. It would be inequitable for them to
contradict that position. Estoppel therefore prevents them from
reasserting liability or enforcing further fees based on the
same debt.
#Post#: 84141--------------------------------------------------
Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the
debt, please help
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 5, 2025, 2:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Very thorough, but predicated on the OP's version of events
which has not been tested by us...in this respect I refer to a
current thread where the OP swore that their car hadn't moved,
verified by their PAYG insurance (whatever that might be) only
to remember when faced with a video that they had allowed a
friend use of the car on the day in question.
I could not see the suggested action here as being in the realms
of the practicable for the OP:
First, if auction is imminent, you should prepare and file an
urgent application to the County Court for an interim injunction
to restrain sale.
OP, was your payment reversed? We need date of funds out and in
and a copy of the bailiff's confirmation regarding initial
payment. Plus, what car are we talking about and its open market
value. When have they indicated that it might be auctioned i.e.
how much time do you have?
#Post#: 84144--------------------------------------------------
Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the
debt, please help
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: August 5, 2025, 3:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you contact our member, Sheila
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=632,
at Bailiff
Advice Online
HTML https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/
who has a good reputation for enforcement cases.
#Post#: 84192--------------------------------------------------
Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the
debt, please help
DIR By: freedom07
Date: August 5, 2025, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
thank you for everyone's reply
I tried calling and texting the baliff agent today that handles
my case and has my car...no answer
so my fears are becoming true
depsite having a valid reason for them not taking my car
they push me to only to talk to this agent and this agent doesnt
reply and in a few days my car will go to auction all whilst the
fees are going up per day
#Post#: 84200--------------------------------------------------
Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the
debt, please help
DIR By: freedom07
Date: August 5, 2025, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Very thorough, but predicated on the OP's version of events
which has not been tested by us...in this respect I refer to a
current thread where the OP swore that their car hadn't moved,
verified by their PAYG insurance (whatever that might be) only
to remember when faced with a video that they had allowed a
friend use of the car on the day in question.
>
> I could not see the suggested action here as being in the
realms of the practicable for the OP:
>
> First, if auction is imminent, you should prepare and file an
urgent application to the County Court for an interim injunction
to restrain sale.
>
> OP, was your payment reversed? We need date of funds out and
in and a copy of the bailiff's confirmation regarding initial
payment. Plus, what car are we talking about and its open market
value. When have they indicated that it might be auctioned i.e.
how much time do you have?
>
--- End Quote ---
how do i file an urgent application to county court? the sale is
on 11th of august.. will it be on time?
yes the transaction was reversed, i was told because the had a
hold on the account, but that isnt my fault i didnt even know
about that.they also said they sent out 1 more letter informing
me of this but wouldnt tell me when they sent it
the only letter i got was after they took my car
and now theyre saying the debt is £1000 which is double what i
paid
#Post#: 84201--------------------------------------------------
Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the
debt, please help
DIR By: freedom07
Date: August 5, 2025, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: abc link ---
>
> The core legal position is that enforcement power under a
warrant of control ceases to have effect once the debt is paid
in full. The authority to take control of goods, including the
power to remove or sell them, derives exclusively from Schedule
12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Paragraph
6 of that Schedule provides that the enforcement power is
exercisable only while the sum outstanding remains unpaid. Upon
full payment, the warrant is spent, and any further enforcement
activity is without lawful authority and amounts to trespass and
conversion.
>
> You state that the penalty charge was paid in full in February
2025 and that Newlyn issued a receipt confirming a nil balance.
That receipt is not merely evidence of the transaction but a
material representation by the enforcement company that the debt
was satisfied. Once that occurred, all statutory powers of
entry, seizure, and sale were extinguished. It follows that the
seizure of your vehicle in August was unlawful unless Newlyn can
establish either that the February payment was not actually
received or that it was properly reversed before enforcement
recommenced. You are entitled to put them to strict proof.
>
> The next step, therefore, is to prove the flow of funds and
the discharge of the debt. You must collate and preserve the
following evidence: (a) the February 2025 receipt from Newlyn
showing a zero balance; (b) any online payment confirmation or
email receipt issued at the time of payment; (c) your bank or
card statement showing the exact date, amount, and recipient of
the funds; and (d) any correspondence with Newlyn confirming
that enforcement was closed or dormant thereafter. This evidence
will be crucial both to secure the immediate return of your
vehicle and to support any subsequent claim for damages or
restitution.
>
> As regards the bailiff’s suggestion that the payment was
'cancelled', that assertion is legally and procedurally fraught.
If a card payment was reversed or dishonoured, Newlyn was under
a duty to notify you and allow you an opportunity to regularise
the position before recommencing enforcement. The sudden removal
of your vehicle without prior notice or an updated compliance
letter breaches Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods
Regulations 2013, which requires at least seven clear days'
notice unless the court directs otherwise. Moreover, the failure
to notify you of the vehicle’s location violates the statutory
obligation under paragraph 61(4) of Schedule 12 to keep
controlled goods safe and make them accessible to the debtor.
>
> In these circumstances, enforcement beyond February 2025
appears to have occurred without jurisdiction. Your vehicle has
been taken when the underlying warrant no longer authorised such
action, and the agents have refused to disclose the vehicle's
location or basis for their conduct. This conduct is not only
procedurally deficient but substantively unlawful.
>
> To protect your position, you have several options. First, if
auction is imminent, you should prepare and file an urgent
application to the County Court for an interim injunction to
restrain sale. The grounds are that the enforcement action is
ultra vires, the debt was discharged, and the risk of
irreparable loss (through sale of your vehicle) outweighs any
inconvenience to the Defendant. A supporting witness statement
should exhibit the February receipt and all payment
confirmations.
>
> Second, you should write to Newlyn and the instructing
authority (usually the local council) placing them on notice of
a claim for unlawful interference with goods and conversion. The
council must be reminded that it remains liable for the acts of
its enforcement agents pursuant to Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013]
EWHC 3492 (QB). Demand immediate disclosure of the payment and
enforcement history under the Data Protection Act 2018,
including all logs showing how and when the February payment was
allegedly cancelled.
>
> In Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC 3492 (QB), the High
Court confirmed that a local authority is vicariously liable for
the unlawful acts of enforcement agents it instructs. This
directly advances your position by allowing you to pursue the
council, not just Newlyn, for the wrongful seizure of your
vehicle. Where enforcement has continued after payment of the
debt and the authority to act under the warrant has expired, any
further action by the bailiffs is ultra vires. If Newlyn acted
without lawful justification in removing and threatening to sell
your car, the council, as the instructing creditor, is equally
liable in tort for conversion, trespass to goods, and breach of
statutory duty under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007. This principle ensures that you are not
left at the mercy of evasive enforcement agents and can hold the
council accountable for securing redress, damages, and return of
your vehicle.
>
> Third, while it is open to you to pay the amount demanded
under protest (mitigation on further damages) to recover your
vehicle, that payment must be explicitly made without prejudice
and accompanied by written notice reserving all rights to bring
proceedings for restitution and damages. If you choose this
course, the principle in Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024]
EWCA Civ 681 supports a subsequent claim that fees or actions
taken without lawful authority may be set aside and repaid.
>
> In Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681, the Court
of Appeal held that enforcement agents who act outside the scope
of their statutory powers, such as pursuing fees not lawfully
due or enforcing against exempt goods, commit actionable wrongs.
This authority supports your position that once the debt was
paid in full and the warrant thereby exhausted, Newlyn no longer
had any legal power to seize your vehicle. Any fees demanded or
actions taken thereafter fall outside the statutory enforcement
scheme and are therefore unlawful. The case affirms your right
to seek recovery of improperly charged fees, damages for
wrongful interference with goods, and restitution where payment
was made under protest to avoid further loss. It confirms that
statutory limits on enforcement activity are strictly construed
and that agents who exceed them may be held liable.
>
> Lastly, you may consider, if the original PCN was already the
subject of enforcement and is now being enforced a second time,
whether to file an out-of-time witness statement with the
Traffic Enforcement Centre under CPR 75.7(3), asserting that the
enforcement is improperly duplicative or abusive. However, that
mechanism is more appropriate where the underlying PCN was not
known to you; in your case, the issue is the unlawful
continuation of enforcement after payment.
>
> The legal foundation of your position is therefore as follows:
enforcement authority ended when payment was accepted in
February 2025. Any subsequent action taken by Newlyn is without
jurisdiction and unlawful. You should act immediately to stop
the auction, compel return of the vehicle, and preserve all
rights to compensation.
>
> You have a strong argument in estoppel by representation.
Newlyn confirmed the debt was paid in full and issued a zero
balance receipt. You reasonably relied on that, took no further
steps, and have now suffered loss. It would be inequitable for
them to contradict that position. Estoppel therefore prevents
them from reasserting liability or enforcing further fees based
on the same debt.
>
--- End Quote ---
thank you for your detailed reply
yes the transaction was reversed, i was told because the had a
hold on the account, but that isnt my fault i didnt even know
about that.they also said they sent out 1 more letter informing
me of this but wouldnt tell me when they sent it
the only letter i got was after they took my car
and now theyre saying the debt is £1000 which is double what i
paid
Modify message
#Post#: 84203--------------------------------------------------
Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the
debt, please help
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 5, 2025, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you got any paperwork. If so post it.
Looks like there is more than one PCN.
#Post#: 84205--------------------------------------------------
Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the
debt, please help
DIR By: freedom07
Date: August 5, 2025, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Have you got any paperwork. If so post it.
>
> Looks like there is more than one PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
no this is one PCN
i paid it whole
but they messed up their system refunded it and now months later
they took my car and added more fees on top
#Post#: 84206--------------------------------------------------
Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the
debt, please help
DIR By: abc
Date: August 5, 2025, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for clarifying that you paid the debt in full, and
that it was refunded due to an internal error or technical
failure in Newlyn’s payment system. That materially strengthens
your position. In law, the enforcement power under the warrant
ceased at the moment full payment was received. The fact that
Newlyn’s own system then reversed the transaction, without
informing you, does not revive the warrant or authorise a second
round of enforcement unless strict statutory procedures were
followed.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 provides that the power to take control of
goods is exercisable only while the sum outstanding remains
unpaid. Once full payment was received, the enforcement power
was spent. A subsequent internal refund does not automatically
reinstate the warrant. If Newlyn considered that the debt
remained unpaid due to a failed transaction, they were obliged
to recommence the process with a new notice of enforcement under
Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013,
giving you not less than seven clear days’ notice. The failure
to do so renders the seizure of your vehicle unlawful and
without jurisdiction.
Moreover, you relied on Newlyn’s representation that the debt
was settled. They issued a receipt confirming a zero balance.
That representation gave rise to an estoppel by conduct. You
were entitled to believe the matter was closed. To seize your
vehicle many months later, without prior notice, based on an
internal reversal you were never informed of, is both
procedurally defective and substantively unlawful.
Newlyn’s act of imposing fresh enforcement fees, without issuing
a new notice of enforcement, is a breach of the statutory fee
regime set out in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations
2014. Those regulations do not allow for multiple compliance or
enforcement stage fees to be charged under a single warrant
unless specific conditions are met. Where enforcement has
ceased, it cannot be revived without a new compliance stage. The
sudden reappearance of bailiffs at your door, demanding double
the original sum, without warning, breaches your rights under
civil enforcement law and supports a claim for restitution,
trespass, and conversion.
You should now take the following action as a matter of urgency:
(a) prepare an urgent application to the County Court for an
interim injunction to restrain Newlyn from auctioning your
vehicle. The basis is that the enforcement was ultra vires and
without jurisdiction due to payment having been accepted and no
lawful revival of enforcement powers. The application should
include a draft order, a witness statement with exhibits (the
original receipt, bank payment, refund evidence if available,
and correspondence), and a skeleton argument referencing
paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 and Regulation 7.
(b) write a formal letter before action to Newlyn and the
instructing council asserting that the seizure was unlawful and
demanding immediate return of your vehicle, cancellation of all
fees, and confirmation that no further enforcement will be
attempted. The letter should notify both parties of your
intention to claim for trespass to goods, conversion, and
restitution, with reliance on Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC
3492 (QB), which confirms the council’s vicarious liability for
the bailiff’s acts.
(c) if you are financially or practically compelled to pay the
£1,000 to recover your vehicle, you must make that payment
expressly under protest, accompanied by a written reservation of
your legal rights. This preserves your ability to recover the
money through the courts as a payment made under compulsion and
without lawful basis. The Court of Appeal in Burton v Ministry
of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681 affirms that enforcement agents
who act without lawful authority are liable for any sums
collected outside their statutory powers.
You are well placed to challenge this seizure as unlawful. The
debt was paid. The refund occurred through no fault of yours. No
lawful notice was issued. Your vehicle was taken without
authority and you have been exposed to excessive, improper fees.
The law offers clear remedies in this situation and the courts
will not support the abuse of process by agents seeking to
revive expired warrants through technical error.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page