Free Traffic Legal Advice

It is quite startling to receive correspondence from a bailiff company concerning an infringement dated 3 November 2021, especially when the Warrant of Control was not issued until 23 January 2024 – a staggering gap of over two years.

Could someone shed light on whether there is a statutory time limit for a council to apply for a warrant following an infringement?

While it is clear that there is a six-month limit for prosecuting non-indictable offences, it is crucial to understand that traffic contraventions do not adhere to this general rule due to their distinct legal classification and procedural requirements.

The details are as follows:
Contravention Date: 3 November 2021
Applicant: City of London
Amount: £204
Warrant Issued by TEC: 22 January 2024
Warrant Issued to Enforcement Agent: 23 January 2024

The timeline here raises some questions. It seems unlikely that the TEC would know precisely when the applicant would instruct an enforcement agent at the time it authorised the Warrant. This discrepancy suggests a need for coherence between the dates provided.

The Warrant of Control lists my current address, which is puzzling because I did not reside there on 23 January 2024, the date the TEC issued it. At that time, the property was under renovation.

The contravention involves a bus lane on Princes Street. I suspect this occurred when my daughter attended a doctor's appointment, leaving little room for a viable defence on my part.

Unfortunately, I have no record of the original PCN and have yet to receive any documentation from the City of London, possibly due to my work commitments in Singapore.

The enforcement agent involved is CDER Group Limited. Their correspondence does not resemble a formal Notice of Enforcement; rather, it is an attempt to elicit a response, perhaps even a phishing attempt. I requested that they email me the Warrant, and the attached document is what I received.

To progress this matter, can anyone confirm whether the City of London remains within the time limit to issue a Warrant of Control for a contravention dated 3 November 2021?

(I Couldn't upload documents - got a folder-full error.)

OP, may I suggest that this thread is broadened, after all if what is being sought is to not have to pay the PCN/surcharged penalty/bailiffs' fees then we should look at all angles.

Hi Enceladus, Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response to my enquiry.

I contacted the TEC call centre, and while the agent confirmed that the warrant's issue date was 23 January 2024, they were unable to clarify whether it was a re-issued warrant or the original.

Moreover, the agent could not provide my address on record at the time of the contravention, which strongly suggests that this Warrant of Control is the first one issued for this particular infringement.

In a related discussion, HC Anderson provided a link indicating that a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) is valid for 12 months from the date of issue. However, the letter from CDER Group is not a Notice of Enforcement; CDER’s letter had all the charm of a cookie-cutter threat—basically, "We’re on a mission to track down your car and slap a clamp on it." It was like they were writing from a script, missing only the dramatic music in the background!

Upon further examination of Part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is clear that the 12-month enforcement limit for warrants was removed from Rule 75.7(10) in 2014, with the enforcement time limit now instead applying to the NOE.

Typically, an NOE provides clarity on when enforcement authority begins, yet in this instance, there is no clear indication of when this enforcement authority will expire.

Therefore, my query concerns whether the City of London must comply with a deadline for applying for a Warrant of Control after the date of the contravention.

Observing other cases, the usual timeframe between the infringement and the issuance of the warrant is around 4 to 5 months. In contrast, in my situation, more than two years have elapsed.

CDER Group Limited’s call centre agent was a real detective—except they couldn’t even get my address right! Yet, there they were, grilling me like I was hiding state secrets, all while chanting "Data Protection Act" like it was some sort of holy scripture.

Following a review of the circumstances, I can confidently confirm that the City of London has acted within the timeframe permitted by the Limitation Act in issuing the Warrant. As a result, I have no viable defence.

I just rang up the City of London to settle the debt, but their response was so bizarre it could’ve been an episode of The Twilight Zone. They flat-out refused the money and told me the Warrant of Control address was given by the DVLA as if I’d tried to pay my council tax at the local chippy!

I’ve never registered a car at the Warrant address—heck, I’ve never registered any car there. The only thing I might’ve parked at that place is my sense of direction!

I noticed that you referred to a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) needing to be served. However, the wording in the information you shared previously suggests that the NOE is given to the debtor. Please clarify whether the NOE is served or simply given.

Additionally, Enceladus, you mentioned that the Warrant is re-sealed, yet the document from CDER Group Limited appears to lack any seal. Please clarify whether the Warrant is required to be issued or sealed.

Moving forward, I’ll wait for the City of London to take the next step.

I’m not exactly tossing and turning over the enforcement; my house on the Warrant isn’t exactly the kind of place where a gang of shiny-headed, muscle-bound bailiffs can just rock up to and start clamping cars.

The link indicates that the Notice of Enforcement (NOE) must be provided and outlines the methods for doing so. Yet, members here use the term "served, which raises concerns, as "service" in this context has a specific definition under Part 6, referring to delivery at a designated location.


I am also still determining the status of a Warrant of Control. The terms "re-sealed" and "re-issued" appear to be used interchangeably, which conflicts with the Warrant of Control presented by CDER Group Limited, which lacks a court seal.

I did a law degree in the 1990s, but I never practised; my professor called me out because I’d obsess over every tiny mistake, and I ended up graduating with honours in Nitpicking!

Could you please clarify whether the £204 I offered to the City of London includes the £75?

Could you please clarify whether the £204 I offered to the City of London includes the £75?

Alas no it doesn't

£130 = Penalty Charge
£65 = Charge Certificate uplift
£9 = TEC charge registration fee, (now increased to £10).
£204 = total due
plus
£75 = bailiff compliance stage fee

Following a review of the circumstances, I can confidently confirm that the City of London has acted within the timeframe permitted by the Limitation Act in issuing the Warrant. As a result, I have no viable defence.

I just rang up the City of London to settle the debt, but their response was so bizarre it could’ve been an episode of The Twilight Zone. They flat-out refused the money and told me the Warrant of Control address was given by the DVLA as if I’d tried to pay my council tax at the local chippy!

I’ve never registered a car at the Warrant address—heck, I’ve never registered any car there. The only thing I might’ve parked at that place is my sense of direction!

I noticed that you referred to a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) needing to be served. However, the wording in the information you shared previously suggests that the NOE is given to the debtor. Please clarify whether the NOE is served or simply given.

Additionally, Enceladus, you mentioned that the Warrant is re-sealed, yet the document from CDER Group Limited appears to lack any seal. Please clarify whether the Warrant is required to be issued or sealed.

Moving forward, I’ll wait for the City of London to take the next step.

I’m not exactly tossing and turning over the enforcement; my house on the Warrant isn’t exactly the kind of place where a gang of shiny-headed, muscle-bound bailiffs can just rock up to and start clamping cars.

City of London won't accept payment once the matter has been passed to their bailiff. And please be aware that you cannot avoid the bailiff charges, whatever they now are, by paying the penalty charge directly to the Enforcement Authority. Even if CoL accpted your payment it would count as a partial payment and there are rules as how partial payments are divvied up between the EA and the bailiff firm. Doesn't matter which of them accepted the payment, partial payment won't stop enforcement.

Local Authority Warrants of Control being sealed and re-sealed is the terminology used in CPR rule 75.7. Nothing is pyhsically sealed as it's all done electronically, the request for a warrant or an amendment is approved or declined by the TEC.

As to the address on the warrant and the fact that this address was never supplied by you to the DVLA. The DVLA hold the address of the Registered Keeper. The RK has a duty to keep this address up-to-date. The CoL would have sent the PCN, CC & the OfR to the RK address supplied by the DVLA. I suspect that what's happened is that this escalated to the bailiff but we don't know when exactly. The bailiff established that you were not living at the RK address and tracked you to a new address. The car doesn't have to be registered at the new address as it's you they're trying to locate, not the car. The CoL would/should have applied to the TEC to have the warrant re-sealed with your current address. Seems that CoL did so. If this isn't a re-seal I don't see how they could have discovered your new address in advance of requesting the warrant unless you informed them of it.

Was the RK address held by the DVLA on the date of the contravention correct or not? Or does this involve a lease/hire/company car?

You seem to have a copy of the warrant. But how did you find out about the PCN in the first place? Was there a bailiff visit or did the bailiff send you a Notice of Enforcement?