I had difficult posting a response here, but I DM'd you on reddit anyway in case.
Having revisited your Reddit post and reviewed the complete set of documents relating to PCN ZN14202158, it is evident that a procedural failure has occurred within the Traffic Enforcement Centre’s administrative process. Your statutory declaration (Form PE3), sworn on 9 April 2025 and accompanied by a Form PE2 application for extension of time, did in fact contain a clear explanation as to why it had been submitted out of time. Specifically, you stated that you had not received any prior statutory documents in relation to the penalty charge, that the address on the vehicle’s V5C logbook had been properly updated, and that you only became aware of the penalty upon receipt of enforcement correspondence from CDER Group. These facts, had they been properly considered, satisfy the requirement under rule 75.5(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits the filing of a statutory declaration where a respondent asserts that they did not receive the notice to owner or enforcement notice. Moreover, Practice Direction 75.5A requires the court officer to consider whether sufficient reason has been provided for delay, and it is plain on the face of your application that such reasons were offered.
The Court Officer Order dated 5 July 2025, rejecting your application on grounds that "no explanation why the statutory declaration served late" had been given, is manifestly inaccurate and procedurally unsound. It appears that the decision was made without properly reading the contents of your PE2. That error alone calls into question the validity of the decision. In R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 1 WLR 840, the Court of Appeal affirmed that any decision-maker must conscientiously address the substance of a representation, and failure to do so constitutes a denial of procedural fairness. The reasoning in that case, while public law in nature, is applicable by analogy to quasi-judicial administrative decisions of the kind rendered by court officers under CPR 75.
Your rights from this point are governed by Rule 75.5(5), which permits an application to the court for review by a District Judge. Such an application must be made within 14 days, plus 3 days for deemed service under CPR 6.26. The correct form is an N244 Application Notice, which must identify that you seek a review of the court officer’s order and explain the grounds, namely that the stated reason for rejection is incorrect, as your PE2 did in fact set out a valid and truthful explanation for delay. The applicable fee for a paper review is £123 or, where a hearing is requested, £275. This may be paid by cheque to HMCTS or online if authorised in advance. You may also apply for fee remission if you meet the criteria set out in Form EX160A.
Alternatively, if you are unable or unwilling to file an N244 due to cost or logistical obstacles, you may consider lodging a formal complaint to the Civil Justice Policy Division of the Ministry of Justice. Such a complaint, while not a statutory remedy, may draw attention to the frequency of these errors and support broader reform. The documentary evidence you have preserved demonstrates conclusively that the court officer’s reason for refusal was factually and procedurally unfounded. In Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1406, Lord Woolf underscored the principle that public authorities must not act in ways that mislead or frustrate the legitimate expectations of those affected. That principle, while rooted in administrative law, may be cited to support your position when arguing for institutional accountability.
Finally, there remains the question of redress for the payment already made. Since the penalty has been enforced and paid under the mistaken rejection, and assuming you do not pursue the N244 route, your only remaining recourse would be a discretionary refund request addressed to the London Borough of Haringey. This would be unlikely to succeed unless accompanied by an acknowledgment from the TEC or MoJ that your application was mishandled. Nevertheless, such a representation may carry persuasive weight if appropriately framed and factually substantiated.
In conclusion, your case is a clear instance of administrative error by the TEC. You acted promptly, submitted the correct forms with a truthful and complete explanation, and were refused on grounds that do not reflect the content of your application. You have a strong foundation to apply for review by a District Judge under CPR 75.5(5), or, if you choose not to do so, to make a formal complaint in order to ensure the error is acknowledged and not repeated in similar cases. I remain available to assist with the preparation of either route, as required. - Jason, Dealing with Bailiffs. Contact me on Reddit.
