Free Traffic Legal Advice

You should have let them tow the car and then claimed it was unlawfully towed on the ground that it is your car and you are not the debtor, to be honest it is unlikely they would have towed it because in such circumstances the creditor (i.e. the council) has to pay the costs of towing and storing the vehicle up-front and if it turns out that they paid for the wrong vehicle to be towed, the council would throw that money down the drain and have nothing to show for it. In practice it is far more likely the bailiff would have left the clamp on for a few days in the hope that the threat of towing would scare you into paying, and when that didn't work he would have taken the clamp off and you wouldn't have heard anything further.

Because you've paid, it may well be that you are considered to have made payment as an agent of the judgment debtor, so strictly speaking your recourse would be to sue the actual recipient of the PCN to try and recover the money from him.

The other obstacle you face is that due to the PCN not being in your name, nobody will give you any details because of GDPR, as the debt is nothing to do with you.

In summary, I think you'll have to sue the previous owner of the car.

Hi thank you
Bailiff has given a receipt with the full name and address of previous owner which ive told them that the agent has break data protection under GDPR but they denied

The bailiff may only enforce against the person named in the warrant.

This wasn't you.

They clamped the car without carrying out checks as to its ownership which, according to you, would have revealed that you were the registered keeper.

There are prescribed steps which the bailiff must take before seizing property, these are:

To serve a Notice of Enforcement on the person named in the warrant;
After at least 7 clear days, they may seize property they believe is owned by the debtor.

According to you, the person from whom you bought the vehicle was not the last(and never had been?) the registered keeper.


You have paid and got your car back, so this relieves the immediate problem.

IMO, you should deal with the council (they are the principal in this matter, the bailiff is simply their agent), but get all your facts together before you do.

Pl post the correspondence between you and the bailiff/council AND contact your friend to find out what they know, incl. any correspondence.

Councils can be sceptical when there are transactions between friends but as long as this was a genuine arms-length transaction you should be fine.

Yes, it's part of the Notice of Enforcement which must at least include details of the creditor(presumably a council or other enforcement authority) and the details of the debt, usually the PCN number.

Would you pl post correspondence and speak to your friend - as per my last post.


Morning See correspondence so far

Friend is currently in Gana

Dear Mr
We appreciate for providing the supporting documentation for further review in relation to the CP85 process. We acknowledge receipt and confirm that the documents have now been carefully considered.

Firstly, we would like to clarify that the payment made to secure the release of the vehicle from our control, which had been lawfully seized under a Warrant of Control, is identified as a voluntary payment. This is because the CPR85 process was not followed at the time to establish ownership of the vehicle, nor were satisfactory supporting documents provided to substantiate your claim. Please also note that our Enforcement Agent did not breach GDPR by providing the details of the named debtor , this is based on your claim of ownership of the vehicle, the agent is required to provide sufficient information to a third-party to verify the reason of the immobilisation.
Following a review of the documentation you have now provided, we remain satisfied with our original decision. Your claim continues to be disputed under CPR85, and the reasons for this decision are outlined below:

On the day ( 29 January 2026), the vehicle was immobilised, you were unable to confirm the name of the individual from whom the vehicle had been purchased.
At that time, your son advised our Enforcement Agent that the vehicle had been purchased from a friend named N A, which did not match the name recorded by the DVLA or held on our systems as the registered keeper at the time.

The documentation you have subsequently provided states that the vehicle was purchased from Mr S A. This information is inconsistent with the details previously given to our agent and does not correspond with the information held by the DVLA or referenced on the Warrant of Control.
A car sale agreement and transaction payment details you have provided; however, we are unable to verify the authenticity or genuineness of these documents

The bank statement provided shows a payment of £00000 made to Mr SA on 22 December; however, this payment cannot be linked to the registered keeper of the vehicle or verify the owner of the vehicle. Furthermore, as confirmed by you on the enforcement agent’s body worn-camera footage, it was stated that part of the purchase payment was also made in cash.

The vehicle tax receipt indicates a purchase date that does not align with the insurance documents and, the V5C does not provide sufficient evidence to prove ownership of the vehicle.

A valid receipt of purchase and evidence of how the vehicle was obtained, for example a copy of the advertisement still not provided.

Outcome

Based on the evidence seen to date, and in light of the above discrepancies your claim is disputed under CPR 85. If you are in any doubt as to your position, you should seek independent legal advice as a matter of urgency. Any legal action taken against Newlyn PLC, our creditor or our Enforcement Agent will be taken very seriously and vigorously defended. If we are successful in defending any claim made, we will seek to recover our wasted costs of doing so through a costs order of the Court. We reserve the right to show this email to the Court in the event that you take legal proceedings against Newlyn PLC or our creditor.

I would suggest once again however that you discuss this matter with the named debtor from whom you allege to have purchased the vehicle and seek recompense from them as they had no legal right to dispose of the vehicle to you in the first instance.
Kind Regards,


Good morning

Thank you for your email and for explaining the process, which was not explained to me at the time. I did not make a voluntary payment; I had no choice but to pay in order to have my car released on the day and prevent further costs, including the vehicle potentially being towed away.
Since your agent has already breached data protection under GDPR by providing me with the name and address of the individual to whom the PCN related, may I kindly request that you now provide me with the PCN number and the issuing Council so that I can raise my case directly with them.
In the meantime, please find enclosed the following proof of purchase:

·                     Car insurance policy active from September
A written agreement with the seller, SA, stating ownership would not be transferred until the vehicle was fully paid for, which occurred in December

Bank statement showing two transfers made to Mr S A on 22nd December

Receipt for road tax purchased at the Post Office, together with Tesco Bank statement confirming payment on 22nd December

Email sent on 23rd December querying the car tax

I am still chasing Mr S A for a sales receipt.

I trust that the enclosed documents provide sufficient proof that I purchased the vehicle last year.

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response

Dear Mr Garan Iyyanadan,

I refer to the recent complaint you submitted via email on 29 January 2026, the content of which I have noted. I am very sorry that you have had cause to raise a complaint. I have now conducted a comprehensive review of your concerns which I have addressed below.

Your Complaint

As I understand it, you have raised the following concerns below.
You are unhappy and have raised concerns as you believe our enforcement process was unlawful. This is due to the Warrant of Control not being in your name and the refusal by our Enforcement Agent (“EA”) to provide the PCN details. You allege that payment in full was made under duress in order to prevent the removal of your vehicle.

Additionally, you believe that, as you are not making a third-party ownership claim, you are not required to provide documentation to prove ownership of the vehicle.

Background

To provide some clarity from the outset, Newlyn PLC are instructed by various Local Authority clients in connection with the enforcement of Warrants of Control, authorised for issue by the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. We also recover sums due and owing in respect of Liability Orders obtained by our clients in respect of unpaid Council Tax.
Your CPR 85 Claim & Enforcement Process

Due to no contact or forthcoming payments from the named individual, the vehicle registration mark ’ was added to our Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) System. On 29 January 2026, our Enforcement Agent (EA) located the vehicle via our ANPR system, and the vehicle was subsequently taken into control. An immobilisation device was used to secure the vehicle, and a Warning of Immobilisation was fixed to the vehicle.

To clarify, when goods are taken into control and a Third Party wishes to make a claim of ownership on those controlled goods, there is a strict legal procedure we must follow, specifically under Part 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules. As per the legislation, you would have needed to submit a claim on Controlled Goods, to which you would have received an automatic response advising you of all the necessary documentation required to satisfy the claim of ownership being made.

However, once a payment was made to prevent the removal of the vehicle, the Warrant was discharged, and the vehicle was subsequently released from our control, I can confirm that no claim in respect of the control of the goods was made, prior to the payment being made.

Under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the property of the named debtor becomes bound to them, preventing the gift, sale or disposal of those goods from the time the Warrant of Control is issued. This does not prejudice title in the goods that a person may acquire, provided they have done so in good faith, for valuable consideration and without notice of the Warrant.

Payment

After a thorough review of the account, including our EA’s body-worn camera footage, I can confirm the following.

The vehicle was immobilised on 29 January 2026 at approximately 8:10 a.m. after being located via ANPR.

Following immobilisation, Mr Bailiff  advised the third-party regarding the option to make a voluntary payment in order for the vehicle to be released or pursue the CPR 85 process as he is not directly responsible for handling disputes, he was unable to make any determination regarding ownership or claim validity

The EA strongly denies that payment was made under duress. The EA confirms that, after advising the third party of the CPR 85 process, the third party settled the outstanding Warrant of Control and the clamp was released.

We apologise and acknowledge that the EA did not disclose information in relation to the Warrant of Control when requested. This should have been provided, and the matter has been noted, Feedback has also been given to the agent’s line manager to address this internally.

For clarity, in accordance with the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, an EA may take control of goods, including immobilising a vehicle, where the agent reasonably believes the goods belong to the debtor or are under the debtor's control. This applies even where the Warrant of Control is not in the name of the person present at the time. Where ownership is disputed, the provision of supporting documentation may be requested in order to consider whether the goods are exempt from enforcement.

I would suggest however that you discuss this matter with the named debtor from whom you allege to have purchased the vehicle and seek recompense from them as they had no legal right to dispose of the vehicle to you in the first instance.

Evidence

Further to the above, Newlyn PLC will endeavour to investigate all new keeper claims as we have a duty of care to our clients to ensure that all feasible steps have been carried out. Newlyn PLC have now reviewed your claim on controlled goods for and on behalf of our client, the creditor, as per our agreement with them to handle these matters and we are not satisfied that the information and documentation you have provided is sufficient. The reasons are as follows:

1. A copy of the V5 Logbook issued by the DVLA. – Provided. (Please note that this alone does not prove ownership.)

2. A copy of a valid Insurance Certificate for the vehicle which must be purchased on the date of purchase. – Not Provided.

a. If you are in possession of motor traders insurance, the MID list showing the vehicle was added to the policy must also be provided

b. In the absence of a valid insurance certificate a DVLA SORN confirmation is required
3. A valid receipt for the purchase. – Not Provided.

4. Evidence of the flow of money used for the purchase of the vehicle, for example a bank statement. – Not Provided.

5. Evidence of how the vehicle was obtained, for example a copy of the advertisement. – Not provided.

6. Evidence of the purchase of Vehicle Tax.- Not Provided

Based on the evidence seen to date, your claim is disputed under CPR 85. As the Warrant of Control has been fully discharged and we no longer have control of any goods, we are unable to take any further enforcement action in respect of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, and without any admission of liability, we have reviewed the documentation you have subsequently provided in support of your position. Having done so, we are not satisfied that the evidence produced establishes ownership of the vehicle at the relevant time. The documentation provided lacks credibility and does not, on the balance of probabilities, support your claim.

Based on the evidence seen to date, your claim is disputed under CPR 85. If you are in any doubt as to your position, you should seek independent legal advice as a matter of urgency. Any legal action taken against Newlyn PLC, our creditor or our Enforcement Agent will be taken very seriously and vigorously defended. If we are successful in defending any claim made, we will seek to recover our wasted costs of doing so through a costs order of the Court. We reserve the right to show this email to the Court in the event that you take legal proceedings against Newlyn PLC or our creditor.

Next Steps

Unfortunately, we cannot refund you the sum of £560.00 as requested as you have not provided us with satisfactory evidence to support your claim under CPR 85. However, we are open to further reviewing the matter should you be able to supply further evidence.

Please provide this information at your earliest convenience so we can assist you further.
I appreciate that this may not be the response you were hoping for, but I am satisfied that we have acted lawfully and appropriately at all times and reasonably given the circumstances.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to submit a formal complaint regarding serious procedural failures and unlawful enforcement carried out by your enforcement agent during the visit on 29/01/26. The conduct falls below the standards required by law and renders the enforcement invalid.

This complaint seeks:

Full refund of all money taken
Internal investigation
Confirmation that enforcement has been withdrawn
Assurance that corrective measures will be taken
Compensation for stress cause (paid with credit card causing more financial pressure)

The actions taken by your agent breached multiple areas of law, as set out below.

1. Enforcement was taken against the WRONG PERSON
Your bailiff enforced a warrant not issued in my name.

The receipt issued by your agent shows the previous keeper’s name and address, confirming the warrant was issued against someone else.
I was NOT the debtor.

Under Schedule 12, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, enforcement may ONLY be carried out against:
“the person against whom the warrant is issued.”
Enforcing against a third party is unlawful.

2. I was not the registered keeper at the time of the PCN
My V5C logbook shows I became the registered keeper on:
1 September 2025 (attached)
This is after the date of the alleged PCN.
Under Regulation 3 – Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (General Provisions) Regulations 2022, all statutory notices must be served on the person who was the keeper at the time of the contravention.
Notices were correctly sent to the previous owner.

I never received:
PCN
Notice to Owner
Charge Certificate
Order for Recovery
Your enforcement action therefore targeted a person who never received any statutory notices and who was not liable.

3. Bailiff refused to provide the PCN number (serious procedural breach)
Your agent refused to provide the PCN number, even when specifically requested.
This breaches:
Regulation 7 – Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014
A Notice of Enforcement must include:
Sufficient details to identify the debt
The PCN number
Creditor details
Your agent’s refusal obstructed my right to:
Make representations
Obtain case details
File statutory forms
Verify the debt

This is a material procedural impropriety.

4. Payment was taken UNLAWFULLY and under duress
Your agent clamped my vehicle without warning and demanded payment in full.
I only became aware of the alleged debt when he clamped the vehicle outside my home. I paid under duress in order to regain the use of my vehicle.

A payment taken from a person not named on the warrant, and taken under pressure, is not lawful.

5. Failure to follow the National Standards for Enforcement Agents

Your agent breached multiple paragraphs of the Ministry of Justice National Standards (2014), including:
3.2 – Enforcement agents must act within the law at all times.
Your agent enforced a warrant not in my name.
3.4 – Enforcement agents must provide clear and full information.
The PCN number was withheld.
3.7 – Enforcement agents must not misrepresent their powers.
Clamping a vehicle belonging to a person not named on the warrant is misrepresentation.

6.1 – Agents must treat debtors fairly and not take disproportionate action.

Clamping a third party vehicle is both unfair and disproportionate.

6. Enforcement should have been immediately suspended

Upon discovering:
I am NOT the debtor

The receipt bore the name of the previous owner

Your agent should have:
Stopped enforcement
Removed the clamp
Referred the case back to the council
Instead, your agent wrongly insisted on payment.

7. Required outcome

Given the unlawful nature of the enforcement, I require:
A. FULL REFUND of all money taken
Amount paid: £ 560
B. Written confirmation that enforcement is permanently withdrawn
C. Confirmation the case has been returned to the council
D. Confirmation that internal disciplinary review will take place
E. A copy of the case file and body‑worn camera footage under my rights to information
8. Escalation if unresolved
If this complaint is not resolved within 14 days, I will escalate to:
· The Local Government Ombudsman
The Council’s Monitoring Officer
The Traffic Enforcement Centre
The Civil Enforcement Association (CIVEA)
The Ministry of Justice Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB)
I expect written confirmation of receipt of this complaint and a full response within 14 days.

Yours faithfully,

I've highlighted the key paragraphs in bold:

Quote from: igaren on February 18, 2026, 09:26:48 am

Further to the above, Newlyn PLC will endeavour to investigate all new keeper claims as we have a duty of care to our clients to ensure that all feasible steps have been carried out. Newlyn PLC have now reviewed your claim on controlled goods for and on behalf of our client, the creditor, as per our agreement with them to handle these matters and we are not satisfied that the information and documentation you have provided is sufficient. The reasons are as follows:

1. A copy of the V5 Logbook issued by the DVLA. – Provided. (Please note that this alone does not prove ownership.)

2. A copy of a valid Insurance Certificate for the vehicle which must be purchased on the date of purchase. – Not Provided.

a. If you are in possession of motor traders insurance, the MID list showing the vehicle was added to the policy must also be provided

b. In the absence of a valid insurance certificate a DVLA SORN confirmation is required
3. A valid receipt for the purchase. – Not Provided.

4. Evidence of the flow of money used for the purchase of the vehicle, for example a bank statement. – Not Provided.

5. Evidence of how the vehicle was obtained, for example a copy of the advertisement. – Not provided.

6. Evidence of the purchase of Vehicle Tax.- Not Provided

Based on the evidence seen to date, your claim is disputed under CPR 85. As the Warrant of Control has been fully discharged and we no longer have control of any goods, we are unable to take any further enforcement action in respect of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, and without any admission of liability, we have reviewed the documentation you have subsequently provided in support of your position. Having done so, we are not satisfied that the evidence produced establishes ownership of the vehicle at the relevant time. The documentation provided lacks credibility and does not, on the balance of probabilities, support your claim.

Based on the evidence seen to date, your claim is disputed under CPR 85. If you are in any doubt as to your position, you should seek independent legal advice as a matter of urgency. Any legal action taken against Newlyn PLC, our creditor or our Enforcement Agent will be taken very seriously and vigorously defended. If we are successful in defending any claim made, we will seek to recover our wasted costs of doing so through a costs order of the Court. We reserve the right to show this email to the Court in the event that you take legal proceedings against Newlyn PLC or our creditor.

Next Steps

Unfortunately, we cannot refund you the sum of £560.00 as requested as you have not provided us with satisfactory evidence to support your claim under CPR 85. However, we are open to further reviewing the matter should you be able to supply further evidence.

Please provide this information at your earliest convenience so we can assist you further.
I appreciate that this may not be the response you were hoping for, but I am satisfied that we have acted lawfully and appropriately at all times and reasonably given the circumstances.

Their response seems very reasonable and sensible and may well go above and beyond what they are required to do. Why don't you simply provide them what they have asked for? They don't need to provide PCN, charge certificate or anything else because the PCN has obviously nothing to do with you, so frankly it's none of your business.

If this was a genuine purchase, you'd expect to see evidence of the insurance, vehicle tax payment and so on, why don't you just provide them all of that? It sounds like they'll refund the money if you do.

Also I suggest you stop using the quote function as you obviously aren't able to use it as intended, and it's making your posts almost impossible to follow.


Morning

Thank you for your email and comment

I have provided proof of Insurance taken since Sep- V5 log bookd, Bank statement clearly showing name of the seller, agreement document made by seller explaining that Car wont be mine until all paymentent settle, receipt of road tax paid in DEC- still they refused to refund.
REason:
The documentation you have subsequently provided states that the vehicle was purchased from Mr SA. This information is inconsistent with the details previously given to our agent and does not correspond with the information held by the DVLA or referenced on the Warrant of Control. ( I THOUGHT V5 DOES NOT PROVE THAT YOU ARE THE OWNER)

A car sale agreement and transaction payment details you have provided; however, we are unable to verify the authenticity or genuineness of these documents ( IT WAS A GENUINE BANK STATEMENT)

The bank statement provided shows a payment  made to SA on 22 December; however, this payment cannot be linked to the registered keeper of the vehicle or verify the owner of the vehicle.

The vehicle tax receipt indicates a purchase date that does not align with the insurance document
[AGREEMENT PAPER PRODUCE BY SELLER IN SEP CLEARLY SPECIFY THAT CAR WONT BE HANDED OVER UNTIL FULL PAYMENT MADE WHICH WAS COMPLETED IN SEP- WHEN ROAD TAX WAS PURCHASE AND V5 CHANGED)
Thanks