URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 85796--------------------------------------------------
       Bailiff - bus lane PCN gone to collections
   DIR By: Chooby
       Date: August 15, 2025, 10:04 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hello, I will post my PCN if necessary but I'm currently on a
       train. My case has unfortunately gone to collections as I
       misplaced my unopened post. I have received a Birmingham City
       Council bus lane PCN, however I would have turned off before the
       bus lane had my road not been blocked by roadworks and I'm sure
       I saw a sign that said bus lane decomissioned. They are
       demanding that I pay £190 immediately or they will send an agent
       to my address. Should I pay it? Thank you!
       #Post#: 85803--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Bus lane PCN gone to collections
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: August 15, 2025, 10:19 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       A bailiff visit adds £235 so you should pay it.
       This doesn't stop you making an out of time statement but we'd
       need to see the details - 'unopened post' doesn't sound hopeful
       as you would have got three letters before they set a bailiff on
       you.
       #Post#: 85807--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Bailiff - bus lane PCN gone to collections
   DIR By: Chooby
       Date: August 15, 2025, 10:26 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       If I pay it am I able to reclaim the money if I can prove that I
       was forced to enter the bus lane or there was a decommissioned
       sign? Thank you
       #Post#: 85809--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Bailiff - bus lane PCN gone to collections
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: August 15, 2025, 10:31 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Chooby link ---
       >
       > If I pay it am I able to reclaim the money if I can prove that
       I was forced to enter the bus lane or there was a decommissioned
       sign? Thank you
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Eventually perhaps but the process is at a stage where you have
       to get the escalation to enforcement action cancelled first. If
       you ignored a PCN posted correctly to you then there is no hope.
       
       #Post#: 85810--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Bailiff - bus lane PCN gone to collections
   DIR By: Chooby
       Date: August 15, 2025, 10:32 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Ok thanks, I didn't intentionally ignore them. Thanks
       #Post#: 85854--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Bailiff - bus lane PCN gone to collections
   DIR By: 404BrainNotFound
       Date: August 15, 2025, 2:27 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       In the present case the penalty charge notice issued by
       Birmingham City Council for an alleged bus lane contravention
       has progressed to the stage of enforcement under a warrant of
       control issued pursuant to Part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules
       and the Traffic Enforcement Centre procedure. The sum of £190
       now demanded by the enforcement agent represents the principal
       penalty, statutory surcharges, and the £75 compliance stage fee
       prescribed by paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Taking Control of
       Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. If payment is not made before the
       expiry of the compliance stage, the enforcement agent is
       entitled to attend the debtor's address and add a further £235
       enforcement stage fee under paragraph 2 of the same Schedule,
       irrespective of whether any goods are removed.
       The only lawful method to prevent the enforcement process from
       continuing and to reopen the underlying merits of the PCN at
       this stage is to submit a statutory declaration or witness
       statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre under CPR 75.5 and
       75.8, accompanied by an application to file it out of time under
       CPR 75.8(2). The grounds on which such an application can be
       made are limited to the statutory categories set out in the
       relevant form (TE9 or PE3 for moving traffic contraventions),
       typically that the original PCN was not received, that a
       representation was made but not responded to, or that an appeal
       was lodged but not determined. In your case the explanation that
       the correspondence was mislaid or left unopened is unlikely,
       without more, to amount to good reason for an extension of time.
       The court will require a credible account supported by evidence
       explaining why you were prevented from responding within the
       statutory period, in accordance with the guidance in cases such
       as Hackney LBC v Okoro [2011] EWHC 3566 (QB).
       If the out-of-time application is granted, the warrant of
       control is automatically revoked pursuant to CPR 75.8(5) and the
       enforcement agent must cease action. This would enable you to
       revert to the earlier stage of the statutory process and advance
       a substantive defence that entry into the bus lane was
       unavoidable due to roadworks or that signage indicated
       decommissioning of the lane. The evidential burden would then be
       upon you to produce contemporaneous proof of the obstruction and
       signage, supported if possible by photographs, video evidence,
       or traffic management orders obtained from the local authority
       under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. The
       relevant test for signage adequacy is derived from the
       principles in London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator
       [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin), namely whether the signage complied
       with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
       and was sufficient to inform the reasonable motorist.
       Should the out-of-time application be refused, you may apply for
       a review under CPR 75.5(5) and CPR 75.8(6) by filing an N244
       application within 14 days, seeking a hearing before a District
       Judge. This will attract a fee but will provide the opportunity
       to give sworn evidence as to why the statutory declaration could
       not be filed in time and why the refusal should be set aside.
       The District Judge will assess whether refusal would result in
       injustice in light of all the circumstances.
       Strategically, you should lodge the out-of-time statutory
       declaration immediately to prevent further enforcement
       escalation, while also making a protective payment of the
       current £190 if you have the means to do so. This payment will
       prevent the £235 enforcement stage fee from being added, and if
       your application succeeds, the council will be required to
       refund the payment. The risk in paying now is that recovery of
       the sum will be contingent upon success in the statutory
       declaration process, but the risk in not paying is that you will
       be liable for an irrecoverable additional £235 plus possible
       removal and storage fees under paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 2014
       Fees Regulations.
       The remedies therefore are, in combination, to submit a TE9
       statutory declaration and TE7 application to file out of time
       with detailed evidence of the misdelivery or misplacement of the
       correspondence, to prepare contemporaneous evidence for the
       substantive defence on signage and roadworks if the matter is
       reinstated, and to make a protective payment to limit exposure
       to further enforcement fees. This approach preserves your legal
       position under the statutory scheme, avoids unnecessary
       escalation of enforcement costs, and maximises the prospect of
       both revoking the warrant and succeeding on the substantive
       merits.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1