2. XYZ is a small business in the rental sector and are generally not liable for any penalty charge notices if they are appealed in time and are transferred to the renters.
3. According to Transport for London a penalty charge notice was issued on 26th September 2024. This penalty charge notice was not received by XYZ.
4. A letter dated 07 November 2024 was received on 01 December 2024 and we had appealed the penalty charge notice with the reasons as to why liability is not with us.
5. On 02 January 2025 we receive a rejection letter, however, Transport for London have put an offer forward for £90.00 if cleared within 14 days. We call Transport for London and tell them that we cannot accept this offer, and they advised us to wait for the certificate for recovery.
6. On 15 April 2025 we have enforcement agents to collect the debt which has skyrocketed to £600.00, we pay it and instantly file a Statutory Declaration and Out of Time application.
7. On 10 July 2025 this is rejected for “No explanation why the statutory declaration served late”.
8. Upon looking at Transport for London website, they had registered the Debt on 31 January 2025, we did not receive this application, hence why we could not make an in-time application. We had no idea that an Order for Recovery was issued.
We believe that “No explanation why the statutory declaration served late” is unjustified
9. It is one thing for the Court Officer to find our explanation insufficient, but for them to state no explanation was provided is erroneous.
10. Looking at the Application to file a Statutory Declaration Out of Time (PE2) form (Exhibit 1) we had written the following “We never received a Statutory Declaration form or any court documents from TfL or the Court, so we had no opportunity to submit our appeal within the normal timeframe. We only discovered the warrant when enforcement agents arrived, at which point it was too late to file. Therefore, we respectfully request permission to submit our Statutory Declaration out of time”.
11. It is important to note as a litigant in person it is difficult to know the specific name of the forms. We had stated that we never received a statutory declaration form timeframe (Issued by TfL on 31 January 2025 – did not receive) so had no opportunity to submit our appeal within the normal. We now know that we were referring to the Order for Recovery of Unpaid Penalty Charge. This was not received by us, hence why did not submit a Statutory Declaration that we did not receive the original penalty charge notice, which gives us 21 days to a statutory declaration.
12. This is further evidenced when we said we only discovered the warrant when enforcement agents arrived, and we instantly did a PE2 and PE3 form. This was time sensitive for us because many a time the payment is paid over to TfL so that PE2 and PE3 form were rushed.
Why the Out of Time Application Was Necessary
13. We have no commercial gain or motive to delay or evade responding to PCNs; in fact, we benefit from actively appealing, as liability is correctly transferred away from us. Any suggestion that failure to file in time was tactical is therefore unfounded.
14. We further ask the court for the refund of the £123 application fee, if the refusal was unreasonable.
Looking for the following outcome
15. For the reasons set out above, I respectfully ask the court to:
(a) Set aside the decision of the TEC Court Officer dated 10 July 2025;
(b) Grant me permission to file the statutory declaration out of time;
(c) Order reimbursement of the £123 District Judge application fee.
