Free Traffic Legal Advice

Even if these were signed, your application would be rejected because you have simply repeated your witness statement grounds.

Witness statement: What;

Out of time: Why.

If your V5C was, and maybe still is, 2/3 years out of date then IMO you don't have legitimate grounds for an OOT.

It is your legal duty to keep your DVLA details up to date.

You made reps against the original PCN and would have given an address, and yet you claim to have not received this nor did including this address trigger anything which caused you to check your V5C.

As regards the suggestion to place a BB in your car and send this to the council with, heaven forbid, a claim that it was in situ when the car was clamped I cannot agree because it's untrue.

Bailiffs are prohibited from forcibly entering homes to recover unpaid traffic debts, as specified in paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

I recommend against using the TE7 form in its current format, as the bailiff's warrant is defective due to an incorrect address. There is no statutory requirement to file a TE7.

You can inform the bailiff and creditor that the clamped vehicle is under finance, prompting the removal of the clamp.

This action will restrict the bailiff's options to enforce the debt, presenting a considerable challenge for the creditor due to the bailiff's procedural missteps.

Authorities frequently outsource enforcement to private companies, relying on indemnity policies to protect against such losses before awarding enforcement contracts.

You need to take a much firmer approach.

I’ve sent a private message containing legally sensitive details.

Forget the TE forms; you won't be needing them now.

Post back with the response and results.

To tackle the fine from the council and bailiff, what are my next steps?

You still owe the money, and with your V5C apparently way out of date at the time of the contravention,  an Out-of-Time submission about non-receipt of PCN is very unlikely to succeed.  The bailiffs clamp cars, but their role is to collect the money, so even if you no longer had a car, the money remains owing unless you can get a Statutory Declaration accepted. Bailiffs can seize property not just cars.

Where/how can I get a statutory declaration form/approved?

Your local County Court can witness the forms without charge but you'd need to arrange an appointment. Solicitors will also witness the forms for a small charge, not sure how much but around £10-20 I think.

Should I pay?

Your decision, but the debt and the bailiffs haven't gone away. Have you told us what sum of money they are demanding ?

+1.

A WS does not require countersigning.

As posted earlier, the bailiff was acting wholly appropriately in clamping your car and then releasing after they had satisfied themselves as regards its finance situation.

They cannot seize goods in your house unless this address is specified on the warrant, but then getting this changed is simple and administrative and they would return.

They cannot have suspended action pursuant to an instruction from TEC that a procedurally valid OOT submission has been made because you haven't made one.


I can confirm I did not receive the NoR to my email so I’d like to resend the TEC forms on that basis.

This would be false, pl read the form.

The representations referred to are formal representations NOT a response to informal reps(which is what you made).

You did not make formal reps because, according to you, you didn't receive the NTO because it was sent to an out-of-date address.

Pl understand that you have to give TEC a valid and truthful reason why you did not receive the NTO. Based upon countless other threads with similar issues, IMO you do not have one.

IMO, all you could do legitimately is to put 'Did not receive NTO' in the witness statement(WS)(because this is correct) and then whatever you're happy to support with a statement of truth in the OOT which bears upon your WS grounds.

If this is accepted by TEC then the authority would reset the process to the NTO stage.

..but fails to address the issue which is that a surcharged penalty(plus registration fee) is owed. This could only delay the inevitable unless it's thought that possibly embarrassing the bailiff could cause the council to cancel their legitimate pursuit of a penalty.

I've seen nothing to suggest that this is a realistic or realisable end game.