The starting point is to recognise that liability for a penalty charge notice issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 arises once the enforcement authority serves a penalty charge notice by post to the name and address of the registered keeper as provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency pursuant to section 7 of that Act and paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. Service is deemed to occur two working days after posting unless the contrary is proved. The process thereafter is prescribed in statute and the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (General Provisions) Regulations 2022, namely the issue of a charge certificate increasing the penalty by fifty per cent, the making of an order for recovery under regulation 23, and the subsequent authorisation of a warrant of control through the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court under regulation 28.
On the facts as presented, the contravention occurred on 3 May 2024, and the V5C registration document was updated by the DVLA on 9 May 2024. The key question is when the notification to the DVLA was actually made and whether it preceded the date of contravention. If it did, documentary proof such as the DVLA confirmation email or contemporaneous evidence of posting will be central to any application to set aside the warrant and revert the matter to the original penalty stage. The correct procedural route is to file a statutory declaration out of time under Part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules and regulation 23 of the 2022 Regulations, using forms PE2 and PE3. The PE3 sets out the statutory ground that the penalty charge notice was not received. The PE2 explains why the application is made after the expiry of the prescribed time. The Traffic Enforcement Centre exercises discretion on whether to allow the application, and if refused there is a right of review before a District Judge upon payment of a fee.
It is essential to note that the enforcement authority is entitled to rely on the address provided by the DVLA at the date of contravention and is under no duty to recheck the address unless the warrant is to be reissued under CPR 75.7(7) following a return of "gone away" or similar. In this case, the fact that Marston's agents sent notices to the former address as late as November 2024 suggests either that the warrant had not been re-sealed or that the enforcement address had not been updated. This does not, however, invalidate the underlying penalty if the initial service was deemed effective under the statute. The correct approach is to challenge the enforcement on the basis of non-receipt caused by the address change and DVLA processing delay, not to attack the bailiff for behaviour that, whilst perhaps discourteous, is largely irrelevant to the court's determination of the underlying liability.
Pending determination of the out of time application, there is a real risk that enforcement will proceed under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Under paragraph 18 of that Schedule, the enforcement agent may take control of goods on a public highway by immobilisation or removal. This power exists even if the warrant address is incorrect, provided the vehicle is identified as belonging to the judgment debtor. Accordingly, there are two immediate tactical options. First, to file the PE2 and PE3 without delay, accompanied by any proof of the date DVLA was notified, proof of moving dates, and a concise chronology explaining the lack of receipt. Secondly, to request the enforcement authority or its agents to place enforcement on hold for at least 14 days pending the TEC's decision. Such a request should be made in writing to Hackney Council's parking services, not merely to the bailiffs, as only the council can instruct its agents to suspend action.
The suggestion from some quarters that payment now will cap the liability is correct in the sense that paying the compliance stage sum of £280 would prevent the addition of the £235 enforcement stage fee under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. If the out of time application then succeeds, that sum would be refunded. However, there is a countervailing tactical risk that payment will be treated administratively as acceptance of liability, and unless the application is properly framed it may prejudice the equitable exercise of discretion by the court. This risk is mitigated if payment is expressly made "without prejudice" to the right to recover upon successful application.
In practical terms, the most effective strategy is to prepare and submit the PE2 and PE3 immediately, supported by a sworn witness statement setting out the dates of the address change, the method and date of notification to DVLA, the absence of any mail forwarding, and the chronology of first knowledge of the penalty. Attach documentary evidence including the V5C showing the 9 May 2024 issue date, proof of house moves, and any correspondence with DVLA. Send a parallel request to Hackney Council to suspend enforcement. Retain copies of all communications. If the application is refused, apply promptly to the County Court for a review under CPR 75.5(2), where the District Judge may take a more generous view if satisfied that non-receipt was caused by DVLA processing delays outside your control. This combined approach maximises the prospect of having the case reverted to the £130 penalty stage and of recovering any enforcement fees paid, whilst protecting against the immediate threat of seizure of the vehicle.
