Kingston Council – N244 + EX160 not showing at TEC – PCNs on hold – Equita bailiff

Hi,

I would be very grateful for some advice regarding two Kingston Council PCNs, my N244 applications and ongoing Equita bailiff enforcement.

Background

I originally had 7 Kingston Council PCNs, all affected by the same underlying address problem. Statutory correspondence was sent to an incomplete address because my property number was missing, so I did not receive important notices.

The only two PCNs that now remain outstanding are:

QT10556169
QT10601387

For these PCNs, I submitted PE2/PE3 Out of Time applications because I had not received the statutory correspondence.

The PE2/PE3 applications were subsequently refused. However, the Court Officer's refusal decisions were also sent to the same incomplete address, so I did not receive them and did not know that the applications had been refused.

I only discovered that there was still a problem when I was contacted again by the enforcement agent.

I then contacted TEC to find out what had happened and discovered that the Court Officer's refusal decisions had also been sent to the same incomplete address.

TEC advised me that I would need to submit N244 applications if I wanted the Court Officer's decisions reviewed.

17 June 2026 – N244 + EX160 submitted and Kingston Council contacted

On 17 June 2026, I submitted separate N244 applications for QT10556169 and QT10601387, each together with an EX160 Help with Fees form and supporting evidence.

The applications were sent in separate emails and I received automated CNBC acknowledgement emails confirming receipt of both submissions.

On the same day, I also emailed Kingston Council explaining the address problem and what had happened with the PCNs.

After submitting the N244 applications, I also contacted TEC by telephone and specifically checked that my full and correct address was now recorded on their system. I was told that it was correct.

I therefore believed that both N244 applications had been received and were being processed.

From 24 June 2026 – Kingston Council action

Following my contact with Kingston Council on 17 June, there was movement on the cases from 24 June.

The online case histories for the two PCNs that are still outstanding showed:

“On hold: Representation Received” – 24 June 2026

Following Kingston's review, 5 of the original 7 PCNs were subsequently resolved, leaving only QT10556169 and QT10601387 outstanding.

All seven PCNs had arisen from the same underlying address problem.

3 July 2026 – Kingston said it could not intervene

On 3 July, Kingston wrote regarding QT10556169 stating that a Warrant of Control had been authorised and the matter was with its Debt Management Provider.

The Council said it was unable to intervene in the collection process at that stage.

4 August 2026 – both PCNs changed to “On hold: Appeal”

On 4 August, both remaining PCNs changed almost simultaneously to:

“On hold: Appeal”

I do not understand what triggered this change.

There is also an earlier “On hold: Appeal” entry from March 2026, which appeared when my PE2/PE3 applications were being dealt with.

I therefore do not know whether the new “On hold: Appeal” status on 4 August was connected to my N244 applications, Kingston's own review, or something else.

Kingston's website still currently shows both PCNs as “PCN on hold.”

26 August 2026 – TEC said neither N244 was showing

After receiving further correspondence from the enforcement agent, I telephoned TEC on 26 August to check the status of my N244 applications.

I was surprised to be told that neither N244 application was showing on their system, despite the fact that I had submitted both on 17 June and received CNBC acknowledgement emails.

I explained this to TEC and was specifically advised to resend/forward my original N244 submission emails together with evidence of the acknowledgement emails I had received at the time.

I followed that advice immediately on 26 August and resent both applications, including the N244 forms, EX160 forms and supporting evidence, together with the original acknowledgement evidence.

I received new automated CNBC acknowledgement emails following the resubmissions on 26 August.

However, because I had also received automated acknowledgements following my original submissions on 17 June, I am concerned that the same problem may have occurred again.

I have contacted TEC asking them to confirm whether both N244 applications are now actually recorded on the system and to explain what happened to my original submissions, but I am still waiting for a substantive response.

Equita bailiff enforcement

Meanwhile, Equita has told me that its client hold on these accounts expired on 22 May 2026 and that an Enforcement Agent has been instructed to attend to collect payment in full or remove goods for sale.

This is what I find particularly confusing:

Equita: client hold expired 22 May / enforcement active

Kingston: both PCNs changed to “On hold: Appeal” on 4 August and currently show “PCN on hold”

TEC (26 August): neither N244 was showing on the system

I have asked Kingston to explain why both PCNs were placed “On hold: Appeal” on 4 August, whether this was connected to my N244 applications or Kingston's own review, and whether the hold applies to Equita enforcement.

I have not yet received a substantive response.

I am also still waiting for TEC to confirm what happened to my original N244 applications and whether the applications resent on 26 August are now properly recorded.

My main questions are:

Has anyone seen N244 + EX160 applications acknowledged by CNBC by email but then not appear on TEC's system?
Could an issue with the EX160 Help with Fees process explain why the N244 applications were not registered?
If the N244 applications are still not registered, should I submit fresh N244 applications and pay the court fees instead, or could this create duplicate applications?
What could explain Kingston changing both PCNs to “On hold: Appeal” on 4 August, particularly after saying on 3 July that it could not intervene because a warrant had been issued?
Is the earlier “On hold: Appeal” status during the PE2/PE3 process relevant to understanding the new 4 August status?
If Kingston currently shows both PCNs as “PCN on hold”, should Equita still be continuing enforcement?

I have copies of the original N244 and EX160 submissions, CNBC acknowledgement emails, the 26 August resubmissions and acknowledgements, Kingston correspondence and full PCN case histories, screenshots showing the current hold status, and Equita's correspondence.

I can upload copies with my name and address redacted if helpful.

Thank you very much for any advice.

Let's shorten this to TEC pl, the rest is secondary at present.

When you submitted an OOT submission, YOU generated your address, so how could TEC have sent their response to a different address? 

What is the deadline, based upon the date of the revocation order, in which to submit a valid N244?

On a secondary issue, what address did DVLA hold for you as registered keeper(as per your V5C)?

No time to look at all videos. Is this the Elm Road junction? PM sent.

http://www.ftla.uk/news-press-articles/that-kingston-box-junction/msg129445/#msg129445

Let's shorten this to TEC pl, the rest is secondary at present.

When you submitted an OOT submission, YOU generated your address, so how could TEC have sent their response to a different address? 

What is the deadline, based upon the date of the revocation order, in which to submit a valid N244?

On a secondary issue, what address did DVLA hold for you as registered keeper(as per your V5C)?

Thank you for your reply. I will keep this to the TEC issue for now and explain the sequence from the beginning.

February 2026 – how I first became aware of the problem

I first became aware that there was a problem when enforcement agents contacted me about PCNs that I had not previously known about.

I first contacted Kingston Council to find out what had happened and why the PCNs had reached enforcement without me receiving the notices.

After making enquiries, I discovered that the address held by DVLA for my vehicle was incomplete. The flat number and postcode were correct, but the street number was missing.

18 February 2026

I submitted a V62 to DVLA to correct the vehicle registration address.

23 February 2026

I contacted TEC by email and explained the address problem and that I had not received the original PCNs or subsequent correspondence.

In that email I clearly provided TEC with my full and correct address.

25 February 2026

I submitted my PE2/PE3 Out of Time applications. I also provided my full and correct address on those applications.

27 February 2026

DVLA issued a new V5C showing my corrected address. The date shown on the new V5C is 27 February 2026.

3 March 2026

TEC processed my Out of Time applications.

31 March 2026

TEC emailed me confirming that my Out of Time applications had been processed on 3 March. The email stated that enforcement would be suspended while the applications were considered and that, if the Local Authority rejected them, the cases would be referred to a Court Officer for a decision and I would be notified of the outcome.

However, I never received the Court Officer’s refusal decisions/orders.

I only discovered later that my Out of Time applications had been refused after the enforcement agent contacted me again. I then contacted TEC and learned that the Court Officer’s decisions had been sent to my old incomplete address.

This is the part I do not understand. Before my PE2/PE3 applications were processed, I had already provided TEC with my full and correct address, and my PE2/PE3 applications themselves also contained my full and correct address.

Regarding your question about the N244 deadline:
I could not know or calculate the N244 deadline at the time because I never received the Court Officer’s refusal decisions/orders and therefore did not know the date of those decisions. I only became aware that the Out of Time applications had been refused after the enforcement agent contacted me again and I subsequently spoke to TEC.

Regarding your question about the V5C address:
The address previously held by DVLA was incomplete. The flat number and postcode were correct, but the street number was missing. I submitted a V62 on 18 February 2026 to correct this, and the new V5C showing my full correct address is dated 27 February 2026.

I have looked at the two videos.

The refusal notices exist, they are dated, it's a matter of record.

Service is presumed.

Whether you received them is, for the moment, secondary.

What were the deadlines applicable to TEC's refusals to accept your OOT submissions? Are you within these timeframes or would you need to submit a request for the DJ to consider your N244s late?

This is the part I do not understand. Before my PE2/PE3 applications were processed, I had already provided TEC with my full and correct address, and my PE2/PE3 applications themselves also contained my full and correct address.

IMO, what you did pre-OOT is neither here nor there, you could have moved a dozen times since then. What you declare on your OOT as the address for correspondence is the one which TEC AND the authority, if it wishes to object, MUST use.

According to you they did not.

As regards DVLA holding your incorrect address, IMO this is down to you. You should have checked your V5C and if not satisfied with what was held on record notified DVLA as soon as possible. From your account, this error seems to lie at your door. But getting the PCNs reduced to the full penalty would be a success of sorts.

The refusal notices exist, they are dated, it's a matter of record.

Service is presumed.

Whether you received them is, for the moment, secondary.

What were the deadlines applicable to TEC's refusals to accept your OOT submissions? Are you within these timeframes or would you need to submit a request for the DJ to consider your N244s late?

This is the part I do not understand. Before my PE2/PE3 applications were processed, I had already provided TEC with my full and correct address, and my PE2/PE3 applications themselves also contained my full and correct address.

IMO, what you did pre-OOT is neither here nor there, you could have moved a dozen times since then. What you declare on your OOT as the address for correspondence is the one which TEC AND the authority, if it wishes to object, MUST use.

According to you they did not.

As regards DVLA holding your incorrect address, IMO this is down to you. You should have checked your V5C and if not satisfied with what was held on record notified DVLA as soon as possible. From your account, this error seems to lie at your door. But getting the PCNs reduced to the full penalty would be a success of sorts.

Thank you. I understand your point now.

My N244 applications were outside the 14-day time limit, and I was aware of this when I submitted them.

In section 3 of my N244, I specifically asked for leave to file the application outside the 14 days of service because I had not received the refusal order.

I also specified in section 8 that the application required a District Judge.

I submitted both N244 applications on 17 June 2026.

Therefore, I had already asked for the District Judge to consider my N244 applications despite them being submitted late.

Also, just to clarify, I am not seeking cancellation of these PCNs. There were originally seven PCNs affected by the same address issue. Five of those cases have already been returned to an earlier stage. I paid the amounts required on all five and those cases are now concluded.

I am seeking the same type of outcome for the remaining two PCNs: for them to be returned to the appropriate earlier stage so that I can deal with and pay the PCNs through the normal process.

As I said, getting the PCNs reduced to the full amount is the objective.

As it stands, you are exposed. We haven't seen any correspondence, particularly regarding your contact with TEC, but you say you have it. I'm certain that it's possible to tease out the essentials from your account and that if you have a copy of your original OOT submission and TEC's rejection then a simple comparison of addresses would show that TEC used the wrong address for service, they used the one on the Order for Recovery as opposed to your submission.

You seem to have met a brick wall regarding feedback, I therefore suggest you contact external advice: bailiffadviceonline has a good reputation.

If you have a car which could be seized you might consider making it invisible. If you leave it on the highway or at your property, it's exposed.

As I said, getting the PCNs reduced to the full amount is the objective.

As it stands, you are exposed. We haven't seen any correspondence, particularly regarding your contact with TEC, but you say you have it. I'm certain that it's possible to tease out the essentials from your account and that if you have a copy of your original OOT submission and TEC's rejection then a simple comparison of addresses would show that TEC used the wrong address for service, they used the one on the Order for Recovery as opposed to your submission.

You seem to have met a brick wall regarding feedback, I therefore suggest you contact external advice: bailiffadviceonline has a good reputation.

If you have a car which could be seized you might consider making it invisible. If you leave it on the highway or at your property, it's exposed.

Thank you for your advice.

I do have copies of my original PE2 and PE3 submissions. On both forms, my full and correct name and address were entered in section 1.

However, I have never received a copy of the Court Officer’s refusal decision/order.

When I later spoke to TEC by telephone, I explained that I had not received the refusal decision. The person I spoke to checked the records and told me that the decision had been sent to the incorrect address. They then sent me the N244 and EX160 forms and advised me to submit an N244 application for a review.

If the actual refusal decision/order is important for establishing exactly what happened, would TEC provide me with a copy if I telephone them and explain that I never received it and ask for it to be sent to me?

There is also one other issue I am struggling to understand.

I submitted both N244 applications on 17 June 2026 and received automated acknowledgements, but when I contacted TEC on 26 August I was told that neither N244 was showing on their system. I was advised to resend the original applications and acknowledgement evidence, which I did that same day.

What I still cannot establish is what actually happened to the original N244 applications — whether there was a problem with the applications, the EX160 Help with Fees forms, or something else that prevented them from being registered.

TEC have only been able to tell me that the N244 applications are not showing on their system.

Do you know who I should contact, or what I should ask for, to find out exactly why the N244 applications were not registered despite the acknowledgement emails?

I will also contact Bailiff Advice Online as you suggested.

Thank you again for taking the time to help me.

I had already provided TEC with my full and correct address, and my PE2/PE3 applications themselves also contained my full and correct address.

My N244 applications were outside the 14-day time limit, and I was aware of this when I submitted them. In section 3 of my N244, I specifically asked for leave to file the application outside the 14 days of service because I had not received the refusal order.

I also specified in section 8 that the application required a District Judge.

I submitted both N244 applications on 17 June 2026.

There is so much confusion with N244 Applications for seeking a Review of a Court Officers Order.

Firstly, there is a misconception that TEC refuse OOT applications. That is not true.

The PE2 and PE3 are sent to TEC by the motorist for 'processing'. TEC in turn will notify the council of the application by email and a few days later a copy of both forms are sent by post. The council are informed that they have just 19 business days to decide whether or not they are willing to give permission for the stat dec to be submitted late.

If they are willing to grant permission, they don't need to reply (as the application will be accepted if there is no response within the 19 business day deadline.

If the council are unwilling to grant permission (which Kingston appeared to have done), then they should outline the reason why and the  application forms and Kingston's response is then passed to a TEC 'Court Officer' for an 'impartial decision'(as to whether the council made the right decision.

Sadly, in the 14 year that I have provided advise to motorists on OOT applications, I have only ever come across 3 cases where the 'Court Officer' overturned the decision of the council !!

The TEC Court Officer is given 4 'grounds' to refuse an OOT application. As you had not received the rejection notice, you are at a disadvantage as you do not know WHY the application had been rejected.

Coming now to the N244. You appear to have completed the correct boxes.

Did you provide the PCN number in the Claim number box?

Did you provide your correct email address at the end of the N244 Application form? Have you checked your junk mail folder for any emails from TEC (or CNBC)?

Did you send the forms (and EX160) to the correct email address (which is: Applications.CNBC@justice.gov.uk


Bailiff Advice Online

As Kingston Council had agreed to resolve the previous 5 PCN's, I am at a loss to understand WHY they would have refused to grant permission for your Out of Time application to be submitted late. I would certainly suggested that a Formal Complaint be made to Kingston. You should also request a copy of their response to TEC.

Bailiff Advice Online

As Kingston Council had agreed to resolve the previous 5 PCN's, I am at a loss to understand WHY they would have refused to grant permission for your Out of Time application to be submitted late. I would certainly suggested that a Formal Complaint be made to Kingston. You should also request a copy of their response to TEC.

Bailiff Advice Online

"RBK CMT" <cmt@kingston.gov.uk>

As I said, getting the PCNs reduced to the full amount is the objective.

As it stands, you are exposed. We haven't seen any correspondence, particularly regarding your contact with TEC, but you say you have it. I'm certain that it's possible to tease out the essentials from your account and that if you have a copy of your original OOT submission and TEC's rejection then a simple comparison of addresses would show that TEC used the wrong address for service, they used the one on the Order for Recovery as opposed to your submission.

You seem to have met a brick wall regarding feedback, I therefore suggest you contact external advice: bailiffadviceonline has a good reputation.

If you have a car which could be seized you might consider making it invisible. If you leave it on the highway or at your property, it's exposed.

Thank you for your advice. I have now checked my original documents carefully.

Both of my PE2/PE3 Out of Time applications clearly show my full and correct address, including the missing street number. I do not have copies of the TEC refusal orders because I never received them. When I later telephoned TEC, they checked and told me that the refusal decisions had been sent to the address without the street number.

I also have copies of both N244 applications submitted on 17 June 2026, together with the CNBC automated acknowledgements received that day. On 26 August, TEC told me that neither N244 was showing on their system, so following their advice I forwarded the original submissions again with evidence of the acknowledgements.

Following the advice here, I am now making a formal complaint to Kingston and asking them for copies of the Court Officer refusal decisions, Kingston's responses/objections to the OOT applications, and confirmation of the addresses used for service. I have also asked whether any correspondence was returned undelivered.

My objective is not to have the PCNs cancelled. I would be satisfied if they could be returned to the appropriate stage so that I can pay the normal penalty rather than the enforcement amount.

Thank you again for taking the time to advise me.