DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: News / Press Articles
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106143--------------------------------------------------
Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that w
ill affect Out of Time Applications and more
By: Bailiff Advice Date: January 16, 2026, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In September 2025, the Traffic Enforcement Centre issued a
limited Consultation seeking views on changes being proposed by
TEC. These changes are significantly important for anyone
submitting an Out of Time Witness Statement or Statutory
Declaration (in particular, if a the PCN had been sent to a
previous address).
The Consultation ended in November. Bailiff Advice Online
HTML https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/
provided a very detailed
response.
In the first instance; the Consultation revealed that each
month, TEC receives 430,000 requests from local authorities to
register an unpaid PCN as a debt and to request an Order for
Recovery to be issued.
It also revealed that the number of warrants issued had had sky
rocketed from 1.2 million in 2015 to over 4 million for the
period 2023 to 2024.
The number of Out of Time applications was not revealed in the
Consultation but is believed to be around 250,000 for the period
2023 to 2024.
I will outlined below the most important changes being proposed
by the Traffic Enforcement Centre.
#Post#: 106147--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes th
at will affect Out of Time Applications and more
By: Bailiff Advice Date: January 16, 2026, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Up until around November, if an Out of Time Application was
rejected by TEC, the motorist would receive a letter from the
Traffic Enforcement Centre stating the date of rejection and
that NO REASON IS GIVEN and supposedly, NO REASON IS ON THE
COURT FILE. This will now change.
TEC are proposing that the TEC Court Officer should include
REASONS and that this can include the following:
1. That the motorist had provided no explanation why he was
submitting his Witness Statement late.
2. That the motorist had provided no explanation as to why he
failed to notify DVLA of the change of address.
3. That the motorist failed to provide evidence or proof as to
why they had been absent from his home when the Order for
Recovery had been issued.
Response
Item 5.3 of the Practice Directions supporting CPR 75.7, states
clearly that TEC will serve a copy of the Out of Time forms on
the local authority (that issued the Penalty) seeking their
representation.
The original TEC Applicant User Guide (which local authorities
had to adhere to) stated that if the authority were not willing
to give their permission (for the motorist to submit a Witness
Statement late), that they needed to respond to TEC with a
‘Statement of Case containing a Statement of Truth or an
affidavit’ (outlining the reason why).
Unfortunately, under the updated User Guide (version 5.0), TEC
removed this requirement. Instead, when responding back to TEC,
the authority merely has to tick a box to confirm that they have
provided a letter to the motorist or to provide TEC with 2
copies.
With the exception of Transport for London and a few other
authorities, it is rare for a statement of truth or letter of
any kind to be provided to the motorist. Worse still,
requesting a copy from the local authority is usually met with
refusal (with some authorities even stating that the document is
private between the authority and TEC!!).
From the many statements that I have seen, it is sadly the case
that the vast majority, do not address the ‘reason’ provided on
the form by the motorist. Instead; they merely provide a
timetable of the dates that notices had been sent out (usually
to a previous address) and stating that the authority had sent
all notices to the address provided to them by DVLA. Most
statements appear to have the very same template wording.
To avoid this injustice to motorists, the Traffic Enforcement
Centre should amend their User Guide to once again provide that
if the authority were not willing to give their permission for
the motorist to file his witness statement late that they needed
to respond to TEC with a ‘Statement of Case containing a
Statement of Truth or an affidavit’ (outlining the reason why).
TEC should insist that 2 copies be provided.....one to be by TEC
to the motorist and the 2nd one to be retained by TEC.
And most importantly, the Traffic Enforcement Centre should be
informing local authorities of their obligation to ensure when
making a decision on the Out of Time Application, that they
abide by the Secretary of State’s Operational Guidance (under
the heading of: Considering challenges, representations and
appeals as follows:
‘The process of considering challenges, representations and
defence of appeals is a legal process’ and that:
‘Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty
to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise
discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the
public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general
principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to
be judicially reviewed.
Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their
discretion, so should ensure that PNCs, NtOs, leaflets and any
other advice they give do not mislead the public about what they
may consider in the way of representations.
They should approach the exercise of discretion objectively and
without regard to any financial interest in the penalty or
decisions that may have been taken at an earlier stage in
proceedings’
TEC should inform local authorities that they should no longer
provide a ‘template’ rejection letter providing the dates that
notices had been sent (usually to a previous address) and
stating that the council had therefore abided by the obligation
to provide notices to the address provided by DVLA. Instead,
they should be instructed that they must address the reason why
the motorist had been unable to submit his Witness Statement
within 21 days (of the Order for Recovery being issued).
#Post#: 106148--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes th
at will affect Out of Time Applications and more
By: Bailiff Advice Date: January 16, 2026, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
At present, if an Out of Time Application is rejected, the
motorist can 'seek a review' by way of an N244 Application. He
can either request that his review is deal with 'without a
hearing' (a fee of £123 is payable). Alternatively, he can
request a hearing in open court (the court fee is currently over
£300).
TEC are seeking to REMOVE the right to attend court in person.
Instead, they are proposing that a review will be decided on
paper only and without a hearing (unless a District Judge orders
otherwise)
My response:
Given the serious concerns with ‘Court Officer’ decisions, a
motorist (in particular one whose motor vehicle has been removed
to the enforcement companies pound) should, if he wishes, be
able to request a hearing in person, in open court. This would
allow the local authority (who should attend the hearing) to
explain the reason why they had rejected his application (to
serve his witness statement late).
#Post#: 106152--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes th
at will affect Out of Time Applications and more
By: Bailiff Advice Date: January 16, 2026, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Currently, if the address on the warrant had changed (usually
because the motorist had moved address) the local authority are
supposed to make a request to TEC to have the warrant re-issued
to the new address identified by the enforcement agent. TEC are
seeking to revoke section 75.7(7) of the Civil Procedure Rules
to remove the obligation for a new warrant to be issued.
Response:
Revoking Section 75.7(7) of the Civil Procedure Rules is a very
serious matter. Section 75.7(7) was introduced in 2009 following
a Parliamentary Question from Lord Lucas.
What does CPR75.7(7) say and responses from the Civil Procedure
Rule Committee
and Department of Transport
The regulation states that:
‘Where the address of the respondent has changed since the issue
of the warrant, the authority may request the re-issue of the
warrant by filing a request-
a) specifying the new address of the respondent
b) providing evidence that the new address for the respondent
does relate to the respondent
named on the order and against whom enforcement is sought etc
The intention of this introduction was that a warrant may only
be re-issued if the respondents address had changed SINCE the
warrant had been issued (and NOT prior to a warrant being
issued). This was made very clear in the following responses to
questions that I raised at the time with the Civil Procedure
Rule Committee and the Department of Transport:
Response from the Civil Procedure Rule Committee
I note that your concern is that local authority’s can apply to
reissue a warrant to a new
address, but that the respondent may not have been served with
the original Notice/Order.
However, the amendment provides that the warrant may only be
reissued where the address
of the respondent has changed since the issue of the warrant and
the application must be supported by evidence that the
respondent is that named in the original order.
Response from the Department for Transport
Rule 75.7(7) specifically provides that the local authority may
request reissue of the warrant to a new address where the
address of the respondent has changed since
the issue of the warrant. In those circumstances, the NtO and
the Charge Certificate would have been served to the correct
address at the time and changing the address on the warrant
under this rule would not affect service of previous
documentation. The Civil Procedure Rule Committee was content
with the proposed changes
In both their responses, the word ‘since’ was in bold and
underlined.
As outlined, if a local authority were to request the re-issue
of a warrant, CPR 75.7(7) states that the local authority is
required to provide EVIDENCE (that the address of the respondent
had changed SINCE the issue of the warrant). Sadly, this has not
been happening.
#Post#: 106153--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes th
at will affect Out of Time Applications and more
By: Bailiff Advice Date: January 16, 2026, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
TEC are seeking to extend a warrant of control from 12 months to
24 months
Response:
The current position under Regulation 9 of the Taking Control of
Goods Regulations 2014 (time limit for taking control of goods),
is that an enforcement agent may not take control of goods after
the expiry of a period of 12 months. This amendment would allow
the warrant to be extended once only for a further 12 months by
the enforcement agent making an application directly to TEC
(instead of the court as set out in CPR 84.5).
Although the Warrant of Control is addressed to the enforcement
agent, it is nonetheless, the local authorities warrant. It is
my view that any request for extension must be by the local
authority and not by the enforcement agent.
Secondly, TEC confirm in this Consultation that 400,000 warrants
are authorised EACH MONTH.
If an enforcement agent is unable to take control of goods or
obtain payment within a 12 month period, then I cannot see that
he would obtain payment if allowed to enforce the warrant for a
further year!!
#Post#: 106154--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes th
at will affect Out of Time Applications and more
By: Bailiff Advice Date: January 16, 2026, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bailiff Advice link=topic=9520.msg106153#msg106153
date=1768565249]
TEC are seeking to extend a warrant of control from 12 months to
24 months
Response:
The current position under Regulation 9 of the Taking Control of
Goods Regulations 2014 (time limit for taking control of goods),
is that an enforcement agent may not take control of goods after
the expiry of a period of 12 months. This amendment would allow
the warrant to be extended once only for a further 12 months by
the enforcement agent making an application directly to TEC
(instead of the court as set out in CPR 84.5).
Although the Warrant of Control is addressed to the enforcement
agent, it is nonetheless, the local authorities warrant. It is
my view that any request for extension must be by the local
authority and not by the enforcement agent.
Secondly, TEC confirm in this Consultation that 400,000 warrants
are authorised EACH MONTH.
If an enforcement agent is unable to take control of goods or
obtain payment within a 12 month period, then I cannot see that
he would obtain payment if allowed to enforce the warrant for a
further year!!
#Post#: 106155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes th
at will affect Out of Time Applications and more
By: Bailiff Advice Date: January 16, 2026, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
TEC are seeking to be allowed to transfer multiple Orders for
Recovery against a single motorist on a single form TE10.
Response:
It would seem that this question is relevant to Question 6. I do
not know the legal position, but it is my view that as each
Order for Recovery is a separate court order, that multiple
Orders for Recovery should not be able to be added together for
the purpose of ensuring that the overall debt meets the £5,000
threshold needed for bankruptcy proceedings to be instigated.
#Post#: 106157--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes th
at will affect Out of Time Applications and more
By: Bailiff Advice Date: January 16, 2026, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
TEC are seeking to amend CPR75.10 to allow them to transfer
cases to the Insolvency Court. This would only apply to cases
where there are MULTIPLE warrants and 'persistent evaders'
Response:
In cases where there may be multiple PCN’s that an enforcement
agent has been unable to seek payment for, the present position
(under CPR75.10) is that the local authority can make a request
to TEC for the cases to be transferred to the County Court for
further enforcement (an attachment of earnings order, charging
order, order to obtain information, third party debt order).
The amendment being sought is to allow the authority to request
for the transfer to the Insolvency Court (for bankruptcy
proceedings) and that local authorities may add all unpaid
PCN’s together (multiple cases against the same defendants on a
single application). I am unaware of the legal position
regarding this proposal.
#Post#: 106167--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes th
at will affect Out of Time Applications and more
By: Bailiff Advice Date: January 16, 2026, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In the response to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, Bailiff
Advice Online provided the following additional information:
Reasons why mistakes can occur on the V5C (Log Book).
It is clear that the vast majority of vehicle owners update
their driving licence when moving. However, most are unaware of
the requirement to also update their V5C. When purchasing their
road fund licence, the motorist is required to provide his
current address to DVLA and when paying his road fund licence by
direct debit, he also updates DVLA with his new address for the
direct debit mandate.
When a traffic contravention occurs, the local authority is only
allowed to make one search of the vehicle keeper records at
DVLA. If a motorist moves address within a few days of the
contravention and promptly updates his V5C, all statutory
notices will continue to be sent to his previous address. There
have been many cases where Out of Time Applications have been
refused in such circumstances.
Mistakes by vehicle dealerships and hire companies at the time
of purchase/hire is another fairly common reason for notices
being wrongly addressed.
And finally, there is this comment from an enforcement company
from a few years ago:
'Addresses should be simple, but in reality, they are a costly
mistake. Experience has shown that with errors in DVLA input and
variations in address fields by processing contractors, up to
20% of all warrants issued need their addresses cleansed’.
Failure to update Log Book (V5C) with DVLA when moving address.
There is reference to a fine of up to £1,000 being imposed on
the registered keeper of the vehicle if he or she fails to
update the V5C with DVLA when moving. However, despite at least
4 FOI requests that I have made over many years, I have been
unable to find any evidence of such a fine actually being
imposed. There is however reference on the GOV.UK website in May
2025 to DVLA issuing Out of Court letters (OCS) for various
vehicle regulation offences(such as failure to notify DVLA of
change of registered keeper). Currently, to avoid court action,
payment is set at £55 reduced to £35 if paid within 17 days. If
the amount remains unpaid, the case could be pursued through the
magistrate’s court where a maximum fine of £1,000 can be
imposed.
#Post#: 106194--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes th
at will affect Out of Time Applications and more
By: Bailiff Advice Date: January 16, 2026, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If anyone has any questions, please just ask.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page