Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: tedpower34 on May 06, 2026, 09:42:46 pm
-
CP8759 seemed to believe that he could get such costs covered/reclaimed.
I recall from about a year+ ago.
It's possible in principle but it would have to be a very clear-cut case where the enforcement authority is demonstrably at fault.
-
I promptly wrote back to TFL stating this was not an application for 3rd party representation and explaining that we have moved premises since the PCN were issued and can all correspondence go to the new address. I have proof of postage / tracking and a copy of this letter.
OP, where is this letter pl.
-
CP8759 seemed to believe that he could get such costs covered/reclaimed.
I recall from about a year+ ago.
-
Escalating a complaint to TFL outside of the process could also be an option.
And that is exactly what I would be suggesting.
-
Escalating a complaint to TFL outside of the process could also be an option.
-
I am going to proceed with the N244, I guess my main question now is can I recover the £939.00 this is going to cost to get an in-person hearing and can we claim for damages caused by this?
As I pointed out in my above post, you would need to ask the Traffic Enforcement Centre whether or not they are allowing 'in person' hearings. I personally would not suggest going that route.
Despite many requests on a N244 for the court to grant an order for return of the court fee, I have only ever seen one case where costs were granted. That led to the local authority appealing the order (they won the appeal).
Please do take advice before completing N244 Applications. I did send a PM to you yesterday.
Bailiff Advice Online
-
IMO, we need to see the docs concerned.
I think TfL have summed up the issue well in their letter headed 'Authorisation Request'. OP, where are your actual docs i.e. the initial reps and the Third Party Authorisation which they say they received on 7 July from the addressee on the PCN.
I think we need to see the actual docs and not your summaries because IMO these go to the heart of the matter.
-
You'd need to talk to a lawyer, but this comes under 'maladministration', and is outside the enforcement process. Tincombe may have something to say on this, so listen out.
-
?
TfL's initial response posted by you in ** above is absolutely clear: they received reps from someone other than the person to whom the PCNs were addressed. We wouldn't know as this hasn't been explained.
OP, to whom were the PCNs actually addressed (i.e. is your company the registered keeper) and were reps against each PCN made by a person who identified themselves as being authorised to act for the addressee(s) on the PCN?
We see a range of scenarios here including lease companies sending their PCNs to lessees telling them to deal with matters.
The company is the registered keeper of the van, the PCN is made out to "The company secretary xxcompanynamexx and old address" I made an appeal representation in my name, xxcompanynamexx and new address.
We then had the third party representation letter sent to both addresses and I sent a recorded letter detailing this was not a third party but our new address and can all correspondence be sent to the new address as we aren't operating from the old premises anymore.
There was no third party involved just an update of address between the PCN being issued and the appeal being made. Despite TFL's statement saying they received third party representation (which we didn't ask for or approve) they did not contact us at the new address and continued to send letters for the next 6 months to the old premises until the bailiffs got involved and presumably checked the DVLA again and saw the updated address.
In there statement they recognise the receipt of my letter because they say "we received third party authorisation" but my letter did not grant or say this. I clearly stated this was not a third party, this is a new address. I have a copy of the letter.
I am going to proceed with the N244, I guess my main question now is can I recover the £939.00 this is going to cost to get an in-person hearing and can we claim for damages caused by this?
-
?
TfL's initial response posted by you in ** above is absolutely clear: they received reps from someone other than the person to whom the PCNs were addressed. We wouldn't know as this hasn't been explained.
OP, to whom were the PCNs actually addressed (i.e. is your company the registered keeper) and were reps against each PCN made by a person who identified themselves as being authorised to act for the addressee(s) on the PCN?
We see a range of scenarios here including lease companies sending their PCNs to lessees telling them to deal with matters.
-
So it was a ****-up by TfL. Even more reason to go the N244 route.
-
You, and apparently TfL, are mistaking 'third party authorisation' for transfer of liability.
A TPA means that they(whoever they are) authorise you to act on their behalf. But the liability remains theirs, NOT yours, and ultimately the penalty must be paid by them(or you on their behalf) and in default bailiff action would be taken against THEM, not you. IMO, everything has to be done in their name.
We did not ask to be represented by a third party, TFL mistook the different addresses used for the appeal as a third party making representation for us. A letter was sent in response outlining this was not a third party and our address has changed from the point the PCN was issued and the appeal being made.
The PCN was made out to the company and it was the company that responded to the appeal just using a new address.
They have stated that 3rd party representation was approved (which we didn't ask for) and continued to send letters to the old address.
-
For BAO, would the fact that the OP was not the respondent but only their representative affect matters?
-
Back in May 2025 we received 3 PCNs for failing to pay the congestion charge.
I gave the new address during the appeal process.
I promptly wrote back to TFL stating this was not an application for 3rd party representation and explaining that we have moved premises since the PCN were issued and can all correspondence go to the new address. I have proof of postage / tracking and a copy of this letter.
The vehicle address was updated with the DVLA. I heard nothing more about the PCN's until 12th January when a bailiff reached out to me at the correct address with a warrant of control.
We have now received a refusal on the 3 applications stating that we have not provided acceptable proof for why the statutory declaration was filed late and it looks like our next step is pay or file a N244 form.
It looks like the fee is £313 is this per form or can the 3 be grouped together and can I recoup this if I am successful?
I have highlighted above the most important points.
An N244 fee is either £123 for having the case reviewed by a District Judge WITHOUT you needing to attend the hearing. Alternatively, if you wished to attend a personal hearing, the fee is £313.Unfortunately, the fee is charged for EACH PCN number.
The Ministry of Justice are looking at removing the right for the motorist to elect for a personal hearing.
PS: Because you had contacted TFL and notified them that you were moving (and you provided them with your new address), you should have excellent grounds in which to seek a review. There has been a recent Court of Appeal case on this very point.
-
You, and apparently TfL, are mistaking 'third party authorisation' for transfer of liability.
A TPA means that they(whoever they are) authorise you to act on their behalf. But the liability remains theirs, NOT yours, and ultimately the penalty must be paid by them(or you on their behalf) and in default bailiff action would be taken against THEM, not you. IMO, everything has to be done in their name.
-
We then received a letter for 3rd party representation to both the new address and old.
No such beast in the enforcement lexicon. But there is when lease/hire companies are involved.
You need to start at square 1 pl i.e. are you the registered keeper of the vehicle or simply the hirer/lessee. If the latter, which?
Hello,
When I made the appeal I gave an updated business address, it's a van owned by my company. Their statement claims "06/06/2025 TFL received a representation from a 3rd party, 17/06/2025 TFL issued letter in which third party authorisation was requested. On 07/07/2025 TFL received third party authorisation. On 15/07/2025 the representation was rejected and a notice of rejection sent to the respondent at the address provided by the DVLA"
My letter did not give third party authorisation, I explained that we are in the process of moving premises and I had given the new address during the appeal and it was not a third party. All correspondence to go to the new address which my letter was addressed from and the address given in the appeal.
https://ibb.co/qFsY0Wbn
https://ibb.co/3mCj6zYw
I think it also might be worth adding there were actually 4 PCNs that got to this stage of enforcement. I filed 4 identical PE2 and PE3 forms and 1 has been filed but the other 3 rejected.
-
...
-
We then received a letter for 3rd party representation to both the new address and old.
No such beast in the enforcement lexicon. But there is when lease/hire companies are involved.
You need to start at square 1 pl i.e. are you the registered keeper of the vehicle or simply the hirer/lessee. If the latter, which?
-
You told TfL of your new address whilst the enforcement process was in progress, and have records to prove it, so I would be strongly tempted to take the N244 route, although it is costly. I would think a judge would rule in your favour as you did the right thing about the change of address. As all three PCNs are for the same thing, I would have thought only a single fee is payable, but I'm only guessing here. You might contact: -
www.bailiffadviceonline.co.uk
for an answer.
Others here may comment too so wait a bit.
-
Back in May 2025 we received 3 PCNs for failing to pay the congestion charge.
We decided to appeal the PCN's but during receiving the PCN's and appealing, we moved address. I gave the new address during the appeal process.
We then received a letter for 3rd party representation to both the new address and old.
I promptly wrote back to TFL stating this was not an application for 3rd party representation and explaining that we have moved premises since the PCN were issued and can all correspondence go to the new address. I have proof of postage / tracking and a copy of this letter.
The vehicle address was updated with the DVLA. I heard nothing more about the PCN's until 12th January when a bailiff reached out to me at the correct address with a warrant of control.
I filled an PE2 and PE3 Out of time declaration as quickly as possible. The first round was instantly rejected but I re-submitted and received a letter to say that the forms were being processed.
During this time I received a statement of truth from a TFL appeals officer. 06/06/26 they claim TFL received 3rd party authorisation, our appeal was rejected and a notice of rejection was sent to me at the address provided by the DVLA (which is the old address). At this point we had left the premises and had no idea letters were still being sent to the old address.
It looks like from then on letters continued to go to our old address up until the enforcement agents were instructed to commence debt recovery. Of course they wrote to us a the new address, I was made aware of the situation and filed the PE2 and PE3.
We have now received a refusal on the 3 applications stating that we have not provided acceptable proof for why the statutory declaration was filed late and it looks like our next step is pay or file a N244 form.
It looks like the fee is £313 is this per form or can the 3 be grouped together and can I recoup this if I am successful?
Is this worth fighting? I do not believe TFL's statement of truth is correct. They state they had 3rd party authorisation but my letter did not say that and despite it being authorised the "3rd party" wasn't even notified of the rejection.
Any help would be greatly appreciated and I will be seeking legal help in the morning.