DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 109742--------------------------------------------------
Unlawful vehicle clamping
DIR By: igaren
Date: February 13, 2026, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon, I’m hoping someone can please advise.
I bought a car from a friend last year. I paid a cash deposit in
September and arranged insurance for my family. In December, I
paid the remaining balance and the vehicle tax, and everything
was completed.
On 29 January, a bailiff clamped my car outside my home, stating
there was an outstanding PCN linked to the vehicle. I explained
that I only purchased the car recently and showed the V5C, but I
was told that the V5C is not proof of ownership. I was forced to
pay £560 to have the clamp removed because the vehicle would
otherwise be towed. The bailiff briefly mentioned that I could
make a claim but didn’t explain how. He also gave me a receipt
containing the full name and address of the previous owner.
I raised a complaint and referenced the relevant laws, but it
was rejected. I sent them a copy of the agreement from September
stating the V5C would not be released until the full payment was
made. I also provided the tax payment receipt and the bank
transfer shown on my statement, but they said bank statement did
not prove the documents were genuine.
To complicate matters, the name of the person I bought the car
from is different to the name on the V5C, which I did not know
at the time.
I have requested the PCN and council details, but they refused
to provide them. I’ve also asked my friend to prepare a sale
receipt, but I’m worried it will be rejected because it isn’t on
headed paper—it was a private sale, so I don’t see how it could
be on headed paper anyway.
I can share my email correspondence and the bailiff’s response
if needed.
Please advise what my next steps should be.
#Post#: 109874--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unlawful vehicle clamping
DIR By: Brenda_R2
Date: February 15, 2026, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I have requested the PCN and council details, but they refused
to provide them"
Who has refused?
#Post#: 109899--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unlawful vehicle clamping
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: February 15, 2026, 2:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You should have let them tow the car and then claimed it was
unlawfully towed on the ground that it is your car and you are
not the debtor, to be honest it is unlikely they would have
towed it because in such circumstances the creditor (i.e. the
council) has to pay the costs of towing and storing the vehicle
up-front and if it turns out that they paid for the wrong
vehicle to be towed, the council would throw that money down the
drain and have nothing to show for it. In practice it is far
more likely the bailiff would have left the clamp on for a few
days in the hope that the threat of towing would scare you into
paying, and when that didn't work he would have taken the clamp
off and you wouldn't have heard anything further.
Because you've paid, it may well be that you are considered to
have made payment as an agent of the judgment debtor, so
strictly speaking your recourse would be to sue the actual
recipient of the PCN to try and recover the money from him.
The other obstacle you face is that due to the PCN not being in
your name, nobody will give you any details because of GDPR, as
the debt is nothing to do with you.
In summary, I think you'll have to sue the previous owner of the
car.
#Post#: 109904--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unlawful vehicle clamping
DIR By: igaren
Date: February 15, 2026, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brenda_R2 link ---
>
> "I have requested the PCN and council details, but they
refused to provide them"
>
> Who has refused?
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi its the bailiff team (NEWLYN)
#Post#: 109906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unlawful vehicle clamping
DIR By: igaren
Date: February 15, 2026, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=cp8759 link=topic=9909.msg109899#msg109899
date=1771188110]
You should have let them tow the car and then claimed it was
unlawfully towed on the ground that it is your car and you are
not the debtor, to be honest it is unlikely they would have
towed it because in such circumstances the creditor (i.e. the
council) has to pay the costs of towing and storing the vehicle
up-front and if it turns out that they paid for the wrong
vehicle to be towed, the council would throw that money down the
drain and have nothing to show for it. In practice it is far
more likely the bailiff would have left the clamp on for a few
days in the hope that the threat of towing would scare you into
paying, and when that didn't work he would have taken the clamp
off and you wouldn't have heard anything further.
Because you've paid, it may well be that you are considered to
have made payment as an agent of the judgment debtor, so
strictly speaking your recourse would be to sue the actual
recipient of the PCN to try and recover the money from him.
The other obstacle you face is that due to the PCN not being in
your name, nobody will give you any details because of GDPR, as
the debt is nothing to do with you.
In summary, I think you'll have to sue the previous owner of the
car.
Hi thank you
Bailiff has given a receipt with the full name and address of
previous owner which ive told them that the agent has break data
protection under GDPR but they denied
#Post#: 109930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unlawful vehicle clamping
DIR By: tincombe
Date: February 16, 2026, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The bailiff may only enforce against the person named in the
warrant.
This wasn't you.
They clamped the car without carrying out checks as to its
ownership which, according to you, would have revealed that you
were the registered keeper.
There are prescribed steps which the bailiff must take before
seizing property, these are:
To serve a Notice of Enforcement on the person named in the
warrant;
After at least 7 clear days, they may seize property they
believe is owned by the debtor.
According to you, the person from whom you bought the vehicle
was not the last(and never had been?) the registered keeper.
You have paid and got your car back, so this relieves the
immediate problem.
IMO, you should deal with the council (they are the principal in
this matter, the bailiff is simply their agent), but get all
your facts together before you do.
Pl post the correspondence between you and the bailiff/council
AND contact your friend to find out what they know, incl. any
correspondence.
Councils can be sceptical when there are transactions between
friends but as long as this was a genuine arms-length
transaction you should be fine.
#Post#: 110080--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unlawful vehicle clamping
DIR By: igaren
Date: February 17, 2026, 8:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> The bailiff may only enforce against the person named in the
warrant.
>
> This wasn't you.
>
> They clamped the car without carrying out checks as to its
ownership which, according to you, would have revealed that you
were the registered keeper.
>
> There are prescribed steps which the bailiff must take before
seizing property, these are:
>
> To serve a Notice of Enforcement on the person named in the
warrant;
> After at least 7 clear days, they may seize property they
believe is owned by the debtor.
>
> According to you, the person from whom you bought the vehicle
was not the last(and never had been?) the registered keeper.
>
>
> You have paid and got your car back, so this relieves the
immediate problem.
>
> IMO, you should deal with the council (they are the principal
in this matter, the bailiff is simply their agent), but get all
your facts together before you do.
>
> Pl post the correspondence between you and the bailiff/council
AND contact your friend to find out what they know, incl. any
correspondence.
>
> Councils can be sceptical when there are transactions between
friends but as long as this was a genuine arms-length
transaction you should be fine.
>
--- End Quote ---
Afternoon
Thank you
I have ask Bailiffs to provide name of council and PCN but they
refused/ignoring the request
I have proof of Road tax purchase same date I requested the V5
and Full insurance for the whole family plus the bank transfer
money to the name person. I am chasing him for a sale receipt (
currently he is away in Gana)
Should they by law provide the council and PCN number?
Thanks
#Post#: 110090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unlawful vehicle clamping
DIR By: tincombe
Date: February 17, 2026, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's part of the Notice of Enforcement which must at least
include details of the creditor(presumably a council or other
enforcement authority) and the details of the debt, usually the
PCN number.
Would you pl post correspondence and speak to your friend - as
per my last post.
#Post#: 110170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unlawful vehicle clamping
DIR By: igaren
Date: February 18, 2026, 3:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=tincombe link=topic=9909.msg110090#msg110090
date=1771340928]
Yes, it's part of the Notice of Enforcement which must at least
include details of the creditor(presumably a council or other
enforcement authority) and the details of the debt, usually the
PCN number.
Would you pl post correspondence and speak to your friend - as
per my last post.
Morning See correspondence so far
Friend is currently in Gana
Dear Mr
We appreciate for providing the supporting documentation for
further review in relation to the CP85 process. We acknowledge
receipt and confirm that the documents have now been carefully
considered.
Firstly, we would like to clarify that the payment made to
secure the release of the vehicle from our control, which had
been lawfully seized under a Warrant of Control, is identified
as a voluntary payment. This is because the CPR85 process was
not followed at the time to establish ownership of the vehicle,
nor were satisfactory supporting documents provided to
substantiate your claim. Please also note that our Enforcement
Agent did not breach GDPR by providing the details of the named
debtor , this is based on your claim of ownership of the
vehicle, the agent is required to provide sufficient information
to a third-party to verify the reason of the immobilisation.
Following a review of the documentation you have now provided,
we remain satisfied with our original decision. Your claim
continues to be disputed under CPR85, and the reasons for this
decision are outlined below:
On the day ( 29 January 2026), the vehicle was immobilised, you
were unable to confirm the name of the individual from whom the
vehicle had been purchased.
At that time, your son advised our Enforcement Agent that the
vehicle had been purchased from a friend named N A, which did
not match the name recorded by the DVLA or held on our systems
as the registered keeper at the time.
The documentation you have subsequently provided states that the
vehicle was purchased from Mr S A. This information is
inconsistent with the details previously given to our agent and
does not correspond with the information held by the DVLA or
referenced on the Warrant of Control.
A car sale agreement and transaction payment details you have
provided; however, we are unable to verify the authenticity or
genuineness of these documents
The bank statement provided shows a payment of £00000 made to Mr
SA on 22 December; however, this payment cannot be linked to the
registered keeper of the vehicle or verify the owner of the
vehicle. Furthermore, as confirmed by you on the enforcement
agent’s body worn-camera footage, it was stated that part of the
purchase payment was also made in cash.
The vehicle tax receipt indicates a purchase date that does not
align with the insurance documents and, the V5C does not provide
sufficient evidence to prove ownership of the vehicle.
A valid receipt of purchase and evidence of how the vehicle was
obtained, for example a copy of the advertisement still not
provided.
Outcome
Based on the evidence seen to date, and in light of the above
discrepancies your claim is disputed under CPR 85. If you are in
any doubt as to your position, you should seek independent legal
advice as a matter of urgency. Any legal action taken against
Newlyn PLC, our creditor or our Enforcement Agent will be taken
very seriously and vigorously defended. If we are successful in
defending any claim made, we will seek to recover our wasted
costs of doing so through a costs order of the Court. We reserve
the right to show this email to the Court in the event that you
take legal proceedings against Newlyn PLC or our creditor.
I would suggest once again however that you discuss this matter
with the named debtor from whom you allege to have purchased the
vehicle and seek recompense from them as they had no legal right
to dispose of the vehicle to you in the first instance.
Kind Regards,
Good morning
Thank you for your email and for explaining the process, which
was not explained to me at the time. I did not make a voluntary
payment; I had no choice but to pay in order to have my car
released on the day and prevent further costs, including the
vehicle potentially being towed away.
Since your agent has already breached data protection under GDPR
by providing me with the name and address of the individual to
whom the PCN related, may I kindly request that you now provide
me with the PCN number and the issuing Council so that I can
raise my case directly with them.
In the meantime, please find enclosed the following proof of
purchase:
· Car insurance policy active from September
A written agreement with the seller, SA, stating ownership would
not be transferred until the vehicle was fully paid for, which
occurred in December
Bank statement showing two transfers made to Mr S A on 22nd
December
Receipt for road tax purchased at the Post Office, together with
Tesco Bank statement confirming payment on 22nd December
Email sent on 23rd December querying the car tax
I am still chasing Mr S A for a sales receipt.
I trust that the enclosed documents provide sufficient proof
that I purchased the vehicle last year.
Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your
response
Dear Mr Garan Iyyanadan,
I refer to the recent complaint you submitted via email on 29
January 2026, the content of which I have noted. I am very sorry
that you have had cause to raise a complaint. I have now
conducted a comprehensive review of your concerns which I have
addressed below.
Your Complaint
As I understand it, you have raised the following concerns
below.
You are unhappy and have raised concerns as you believe our
enforcement process was unlawful. This is due to the Warrant of
Control not being in your name and the refusal by our
Enforcement Agent (“EA”) to provide the PCN details. You allege
that payment in full was made under duress in order to prevent
the removal of your vehicle.
Additionally, you believe that, as you are not making a
third-party ownership claim, you are not required to provide
documentation to prove ownership of the vehicle.
Background
To provide some clarity from the outset, Newlyn PLC are
instructed by various Local Authority clients in connection with
the enforcement of Warrants of Control, authorised for issue by
the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. We
also recover sums due and owing in respect of Liability Orders
obtained by our clients in respect of unpaid Council Tax.
Your CPR 85 Claim & Enforcement Process
Due to no contact or forthcoming payments from the named
individual, the vehicle registration mark ’ was added to our
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) System. On 29 January
2026, our Enforcement Agent (EA) located the vehicle via our
ANPR system, and the vehicle was subsequently taken into
control. An immobilisation device was used to secure the
vehicle, and a Warning of Immobilisation was fixed to the
vehicle.
To clarify, when goods are taken into control and a Third Party
wishes to make a claim of ownership on those controlled goods,
there is a strict legal procedure we must follow, specifically
under Part 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules. As per the
legislation, you would have needed to submit a claim on
Controlled Goods, to which you would have received an automatic
response advising you of all the necessary documentation
required to satisfy the claim of ownership being made.
However, once a payment was made to prevent the removal of the
vehicle, the Warrant was discharged, and the vehicle was
subsequently released from our control, I can confirm that no
claim in respect of the control of the goods was made, prior to
the payment being made.
Under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts
and Enforcement Act 2007, the property of the named debtor
becomes bound to them, preventing the gift, sale or disposal of
those goods from the time the Warrant of Control is issued. This
does not prejudice title in the goods that a person may acquire,
provided they have done so in good faith, for valuable
consideration and without notice of the Warrant.
Payment
After a thorough review of the account, including our EA’s
body-worn camera footage, I can confirm the following.
The vehicle was immobilised on 29 January 2026 at approximately
8:10 a.m. after being located via ANPR.
Following immobilisation, Mr Bailiff advised the third-party
regarding the option to make a voluntary payment in order for
the vehicle to be released or pursue the CPR 85 process as he is
not directly responsible for handling disputes, he was unable to
make any determination regarding ownership or claim validity
The EA strongly denies that payment was made under duress. The
EA confirms that, after advising the third party of the CPR 85
process, the third party settled the outstanding Warrant of
Control and the clamp was released.
We apologise and acknowledge that the EA did not disclose
information in relation to the Warrant of Control when
requested. This should have been provided, and the matter has
been noted, Feedback has also been given to the agent’s line
manager to address this internally.
For clarity, in accordance with the Taking Control of Goods
Regulations 2013, an EA may take control of goods, including
immobilising a vehicle, where the agent reasonably believes the
goods belong to the debtor or are under the debtor's control.
This applies even where the Warrant of Control is not in the
name of the person present at the time. Where ownership is
disputed, the provision of supporting documentation may be
requested in order to consider whether the goods are exempt from
enforcement.
I would suggest however that you discuss this matter with the
named debtor from whom you allege to have purchased the vehicle
and seek recompense from them as they had no legal right to
dispose of the vehicle to you in the first instance.
Evidence
Further to the above, Newlyn PLC will endeavour to investigate
all new keeper claims as we have a duty of care to our clients
to ensure that all feasible steps have been carried out. Newlyn
PLC have now reviewed your claim on controlled goods for and on
behalf of our client, the creditor, as per our agreement with
them to handle these matters and we are not satisfied that the
information and documentation you have provided is sufficient.
The reasons are as follows:
1. A copy of the V5 Logbook issued by the DVLA. – Provided.
(Please note that this alone does not prove ownership.)
2. A copy of a valid Insurance Certificate for the vehicle which
must be purchased on the date of purchase. – Not Provided.
a. If you are in possession of motor traders insurance, the MID
list showing the vehicle was added to the policy must also be
provided
b. In the absence of a valid insurance certificate a DVLA SORN
confirmation is required
3. A valid receipt for the purchase. – Not Provided.
4. Evidence of the flow of money used for the purchase of the
vehicle, for example a bank statement. – Not Provided.
5. Evidence of how the vehicle was obtained, for example a copy
of the advertisement. – Not provided.
6. Evidence of the purchase of Vehicle Tax.- Not Provided
Based on the evidence seen to date, your claim is disputed under
CPR 85. As the Warrant of Control has been fully discharged and
we no longer have control of any goods, we are unable to take
any further enforcement action in respect of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, and without any admission of liability, we have
reviewed the documentation you have subsequently provided in
support of your position. Having done so, we are not satisfied
that the evidence produced establishes ownership of the vehicle
at the relevant time. The documentation provided lacks
credibility and does not, on the balance of probabilities,
support your claim.
Based on the evidence seen to date, your claim is disputed under
CPR 85. If you are in any doubt as to your position, you should
seek independent legal advice as a matter of urgency. Any legal
action taken against Newlyn PLC, our creditor or our Enforcement
Agent will be taken very seriously and vigorously defended. If
we are successful in defending any claim made, we will seek to
recover our wasted costs of doing so through a costs order of
the Court. We reserve the right to show this email to the Court
in the event that you take legal proceedings against Newlyn PLC
or our creditor.
Next Steps
Unfortunately, we cannot refund you the sum of £560.00 as
requested as you have not provided us with satisfactory evidence
to support your claim under CPR 85. However, we are open to
further reviewing the matter should you be able to supply
further evidence.
Please provide this information at your earliest convenience so
we can assist you further.
I appreciate that this may not be the response you were hoping
for, but I am satisfied that we have acted lawfully and
appropriately at all times and reasonably given the
circumstances.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to submit a formal complaint regarding serious
procedural failures and unlawful enforcement carried out by your
enforcement agent during the visit on 29/01/26. The conduct
falls below the standards required by law and renders the
enforcement invalid.
This complaint seeks:
Full refund of all money taken
Internal investigation
Confirmation that enforcement has been withdrawn
Assurance that corrective measures will be taken
Compensation for stress cause (paid with credit card causing
more financial pressure)
The actions taken by your agent breached multiple areas of law,
as set out below.
1. Enforcement was taken against the WRONG PERSON
Your bailiff enforced a warrant not issued in my name.
The receipt issued by your agent shows the previous keeper’s
name and address, confirming the warrant was issued against
someone else.
I was NOT the debtor.
Under Schedule 12, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007,
enforcement may ONLY be carried out against:
“the person against whom the warrant is issued.”
Enforcing against a third party is unlawful.
2. I was not the registered keeper at the time of the PCN
My V5C logbook shows I became the registered keeper on:
1 September 2025 (attached)
This is after the date of the alleged PCN.
Under Regulation 3 – Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (General Provisions) Regulations 2022, all
statutory notices must be served on the person who was the
keeper at the time of the contravention.
Notices were correctly sent to the previous owner.
I never received:
PCN
Notice to Owner
Charge Certificate
Order for Recovery
Your enforcement action therefore targeted a person who never
received any statutory notices and who was not liable.
3. Bailiff refused to provide the PCN number (serious procedural
breach)
Your agent refused to provide the PCN number, even when
specifically requested.
This breaches:
Regulation 7 – Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014
A Notice of Enforcement must include:
Sufficient details to identify the debt
The PCN number
Creditor details
Your agent’s refusal obstructed my right to:
Make representations
Obtain case details
File statutory forms
Verify the debt
This is a material procedural impropriety.
4. Payment was taken UNLAWFULLY and under duress
Your agent clamped my vehicle without warning and demanded
payment in full.
I only became aware of the alleged debt when he clamped the
vehicle outside my home. I paid under duress in order to regain
the use of my vehicle.
A payment taken from a person not named on the warrant, and
taken under pressure, is not lawful.
5. Failure to follow the National Standards for Enforcement
Agents
Your agent breached multiple paragraphs of the Ministry of
Justice National Standards (2014), including:
3.2 – Enforcement agents must act within the law at all times.
Your agent enforced a warrant not in my name.
3.4 – Enforcement agents must provide clear and full
information.
The PCN number was withheld.
3.7 – Enforcement agents must not misrepresent their powers.
Clamping a vehicle belonging to a person not named on the
warrant is misrepresentation.
6.1 – Agents must treat debtors fairly and not take
disproportionate action.
Clamping a third party vehicle is both unfair and
disproportionate.
6. Enforcement should have been immediately suspended
Upon discovering:
I am NOT the debtor
The receipt bore the name of the previous owner
Your agent should have:
Stopped enforcement
Removed the clamp
Referred the case back to the council
Instead, your agent wrongly insisted on payment.
7. Required outcome
Given the unlawful nature of the enforcement, I require:
A. FULL REFUND of all money taken
Amount paid: £ 560
B. Written confirmation that enforcement is permanently
withdrawn
C. Confirmation the case has been returned to the council
D. Confirmation that internal disciplinary review will take
place
E. A copy of the case file and body‑worn camera footage
under my rights to information
8. Escalation if unresolved
If this complaint is not resolved within 14 days, I will
escalate to:
· The Local Government Ombudsman
The Council’s Monitoring Officer
The Traffic Enforcement Centre
The Civil Enforcement Association (CIVEA)
The Ministry of Justice Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB)
I expect written confirmation of receipt of this complaint and a
full response within 14 days.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 110427--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unlawful vehicle clamping
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: February 19, 2026, 6:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've highlighted the key paragraphs in bold:
--- Quote from: igaren link ---
>
> Further to the above, Newlyn PLC will endeavour to investigate
all new keeper claims as we have a duty of care to our clients
to ensure that all feasible steps have been carried out. Newlyn
PLC have now reviewed your claim on controlled goods for and on
behalf of our client, the creditor, as per our agreement with
them to handle these matters and we are not satisfied that the
information and documentation you have provided is sufficient.
The reasons are as follows:
>
> 1. A copy of the V5 Logbook issued by the DVLA. – Provided.
(Please note that this alone does not prove ownership.)
>
> 2. A copy of a valid Insurance Certificate for the vehicle
which must be purchased on the date of purchase. – Not Provided.
>
> a. If you are in possession of motor traders insurance, the
MID list showing the vehicle was added to the policy must also
be provided
>
> b. In the absence of a valid insurance certificate a DVLA SORN
confirmation is required
> 3. A valid receipt for the purchase. – Not Provided.
>
> 4. Evidence of the flow of money used for the purchase of the
vehicle, for example a bank statement. – Not Provided.
>
> 5. Evidence of how the vehicle was obtained, for example a
copy of the advertisement. – Not provided.
>
> 6. Evidence of the purchase of Vehicle Tax.- Not Provided
>
> Based on the evidence seen to date, your claim is disputed
under CPR 85. As the Warrant of Control has been fully
discharged and we no longer have control of any goods, we are
unable to take any further enforcement action in respect of the
vehicle.
>
> Nevertheless, and without any admission of liability, we have
reviewed the documentation you have subsequently provided in
support of your position. Having done so, we are not satisfied
that the evidence produced establishes ownership of the vehicle
at the relevant time. The documentation provided lacks
credibility and does not, on the balance of probabilities,
support your claim.
>
> Based on the evidence seen to date, your claim is disputed
under CPR 85. If you are in any doubt as to your position, you
should seek independent legal advice as a matter of urgency. Any
legal action taken against Newlyn PLC, our creditor or our
Enforcement Agent will be taken very seriously and vigorously
defended. If we are successful in defending any claim made, we
will seek to recover our wasted costs of doing so through a
costs order of the Court. We reserve the right to show this
email to the Court in the event that you take legal proceedings
against Newlyn PLC or our creditor.
>
> Next Steps
>
> Unfortunately, we cannot refund you the sum of £560.00 as
requested as you have not provided us with satisfactory evidence
to support your claim under CPR 85. However, we are open to
further reviewing the matter should you be able to supply
further evidence.
>
> Please provide this information at your earliest convenience
so we can assist you further.
> I appreciate that this may not be the response you were hoping
for, but I am satisfied that we have acted lawfully and
appropriately at all times and reasonably given the
circumstances.
>
--- End Quote ---
Their response seems very reasonable and sensible and may well
go above and beyond what they are required to do. Why don't you
simply provide them what they have asked for? They don't need to
provide PCN, charge certificate or anything else because the PCN
has obviously nothing to do with you, so frankly it's none of
your business.
If this was a genuine purchase, you'd expect to see evidence of
the insurance, vehicle tax payment and so on, why don't you just
provide them all of that? It sounds like they'll refund the
money if you do.
Also I suggest you stop using the quote function as you
obviously aren't able to use it as intended, and it's making
your posts almost impossible to follow.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page