Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Pressman on August 20, 2024, 07:48:43 pm
-
We had a pair of overzealous door-kickers show up at Berkeley Square in the wee hours yesterday.
They gave security an earful demanding my whereabouts and then huffed off to a nearby van for a bit of a sulk.
After an hour of van-side reflection, they finally decided to drive off and leave us all in peace.
Interestingly, their van managed to rack up a PCN for parking in a disabled bay, and when a resident gave them the boot, they snagged another ticket for occupying an EV charging bay without so much as plugging in. I’m keen to see who will enforce these fines—it looks like their adventures are taking a turn for the bureaucracy!
They could have parked for free if they knew.
-
Hi Enceladus,
Thank you for your response. My enquiry concerning the time limits for issuing a Warrant of Control relative to the contravention date has been thoroughly addressed. Therefore, any further discussion on this matter is purely academic.
I can confirm that I bought the house after 23 January 2024 and have never resided there. The property was purchased as a wedding gift for my son.
It is now clear that the relationship between the City of London and CDER Group Limited is commercial and explains the City of London's rejection of the £204.
Upon closer examination of the divvy-up comment above, it becomes clear that this strategy relies on a misinterpretation of Regulation 13, which specifically pertains to the proceeds from the sale of goods when these proceeds fall short of covering both the judgment sum and the enforcement fees.
There’s no Notice of Enforcement, and the letter, with its over-the-top threats, feels like a bad phishing scam straight out of a B-movie. It’s like they’re just angling for someone to call the number on it, probably aiming to win the 'Most Gullible' award—congratulations, I’m the proud recipient!
I'm not losing sleep over the fly-by-nights hunting for the car—it’s off the table, like a dish at a dinner party that’s already been cleared away.
I highly doubt CDER Group Limited had a VIP pass to the DVLA’s national vehicle database. After all, that database doesn’t spill the beans on who owns what car.
And I’m pretty sure Parliament isn’t about to let private companies play detective with people’s names to see what rides they’ve got registered.
-
To reiterate. The fact that you never used the Kensington address as the RK address is irrelevant.
It's your current address and apparently was your address, or an address that was associated with you, even if you had not yet moved in. Or you had temporarily moved out.
Or are you saying that you did not have any association with the Kensington address at all on or prior to the 23rd Jan 2024? It's difficult to understand how the bailiff and the CoL could have predicted you would buy this particular property before you actually did. Might it be that you bought a property, then started to renovate so you couldn't move in? Or recovered a property that you had rented out whilst in Singapore or some scenario like that.
If CDER can find any vehicle registered to you in a public place then they'll likely clamp it and threaten to tow it away. Not just the vehicle involved in the original contravention.
@HCA
The CoL would have acceped £204 if the warrant had net yet been issued/sealed, in response to the OfR. Once the warrant was issued the matter was passed to CDER to collect. CDER would have sent a Notice of Enforcement for £204 plus their £75 fee. The CoL would then refer all attempts to pay the penalty to the Bailiff firm. But even if the CoL accepted the £204 payment it would only be a partial payment and would be divvied up between CDER and the CoL. There are rules about who gets what out of the smaller cake and the matter is not closed out. The payment shortfall can still be enforced
Apparently the OP didn't get get the notice of enforcement as it would have been sent to some address other than where the OP now resides.
We haven't seen the "love letter" from CDER, please post that up.
And how much are the bailiffs actually looking for? Is it £279 or £514? I assume the "love letter" tells us.
-
As the regs make clear, the NoE is the most important part of the enforcement process for a Warrant of Control.
@Enceladus: City of London won't accept payment once the matter has been passed to their bailiff.
Why?
If the bailiff has not issued a NoE then the debt is simply owed to the council surely?
-
Hi again, Enceladus. I have considered your point regarding the distribution of funds paid under a Warrant of Control, indicating that they should be split or 'divvied' between the City of London and the Enforcement Agent. If I’ve understood correctly, this reflects your stance.
The link provided by HC Anderson references the 2014 regulations, which clearly define the "proceeds of enforcement" as the funds obtained from the sale of a debtor's goods. According to these regulations, if the proceeds are insufficient to cover both the amount owed under the Warrant of Control and the Enforcement Agent's fees, these funds must be proportionately distributed between the creditor and the agent.
However, I found no reference indicating that payments made directly to the City of London constitute "proceeds of enforcement." The term "enforcement" is clearly defined in the regulations as involving the removal and sale of the debtor's goods.
Please provide further clarification on the regulation that mandates the apportionment of payments in the manner prescribed for the proceeds from the sale of goods.
-
Hi Enceladus, I extend my sincere gratitude for your meticulous review. Your affirmation that the Warrant was issued correctly in terms of time and limits is duly noted. However, it is important to clarify that my house in Kensington has never been used as the RK address.
It looks like CDER Group Limited decided to go full Sherlock Holmes, testing out addresses like they were clues in a mystery—just waiting to see if anyone yells, "Aha, you found me!" But some bright spark clearly forgot to check when I actually bought the house, so they just slapped 23 January 2024 as the issue date—because why not?
Your explanation makes perfect sense—no wonder the City of London call centre agent nearly short-circuited when I handed over £204. She must've thought it was Monopoly money and chucked it back at me like I was trying to pay with chocolate coins!
I discovered the PCN when CDER Group Limited sent me a red-lettered love note. When I phoned them, their agent grilled me about my address, as if I were starring in a crime drama.
But when I pointed out that a Limited Company can't just crown itself as an Enforcement Agent, she went into a full-on neurotic meltdown, knickers in a knot and all. I figured it was best to let her unravel and leave them to their own chaos!
If I can't pay the debt, I’ve just put it in a parking space—no ticket required!
-
Following a review of the circumstances, I can confidently confirm that the City of London has acted within the timeframe permitted by the Limitation Act in issuing the Warrant. As a result, I have no viable defence.
I just rang up the City of London to settle the debt, but their response was so bizarre it could’ve been an episode of The Twilight Zone. They flat-out refused the money and told me the Warrant of Control address was given by the DVLA as if I’d tried to pay my council tax at the local chippy!
I’ve never registered a car at the Warrant address—heck, I’ve never registered any car there. The only thing I might’ve parked at that place is my sense of direction!
I noticed that you referred to a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) needing to be served. However, the wording in the information you shared previously suggests that the NOE is given to the debtor. Please clarify whether the NOE is served or simply given.
Additionally, Enceladus, you mentioned that the Warrant is re-sealed, yet the document from CDER Group Limited appears to lack any seal. Please clarify whether the Warrant is required to be issued or sealed.
Moving forward, I’ll wait for the City of London to take the next step.
I’m not exactly tossing and turning over the enforcement; my house on the Warrant isn’t exactly the kind of place where a gang of shiny-headed, muscle-bound bailiffs can just rock up to and start clamping cars.
City of London won't accept payment once the matter has been passed to their bailiff. And please be aware that you cannot avoid the bailiff charges, whatever they now are, by paying the penalty charge directly to the Enforcement Authority. Even if CoL accpted your payment it would count as a partial payment and there are rules as how partial payments are divvied up between the EA and the bailiff firm. Doesn't matter which of them accepted the payment, partial payment won't stop enforcement.
Local Authority Warrants of Control being sealed and re-sealed is the terminology used in CPR rule 75.7. Nothing is pyhsically sealed as it's all done electronically, the request for a warrant or an amendment is approved or declined by the TEC.
As to the address on the warrant and the fact that this address was never supplied by you to the DVLA. The DVLA hold the address of the Registered Keeper. The RK has a duty to keep this address up-to-date. The CoL would have sent the PCN, CC & the OfR to the RK address supplied by the DVLA. I suspect that what's happened is that this escalated to the bailiff but we don't know when exactly. The bailiff established that you were not living at the RK address and tracked you to a new address. The car doesn't have to be registered at the new address as it's you they're trying to locate, not the car. The CoL would/should have applied to the TEC to have the warrant re-sealed with your current address. Seems that CoL did so. If this isn't a re-seal I don't see how they could have discovered your new address in advance of requesting the warrant unless you informed them of it.
Was the RK address held by the DVLA on the date of the contravention correct or not? Or does this involve a lease/hire/company car?
You seem to have a copy of the warrant. But how did you find out about the PCN in the first place? Was there a bailiff visit or did the bailiff send you a Notice of Enforcement?
-
..but the latter isn't owing until a NoE has been delivered/served/given.
-
Could you please clarify whether the £204 I offered to the City of London includes the £75?
Alas no it doesn't
£130 = Penalty Charge
£65 = Charge Certificate uplift
£9 = TEC charge registration fee, (now increased to £10).
£204 = total due
plus
£75 = bailiff compliance stage fee
-
No it doesn't.
£204 indicates that this was processed when the debt registration fee(with TEC) was £9(it's now £10). Therefore £204 = £130*150%+£9.
The regs don't define 'served' or derivatives so I don't know why you are trying to focus attention on this. 'Given' by 'sending by post' or 'delivering the notice to..' don't support any attempt to differentiate between 'served' and 'given'IMO.
I suspect your Professor would agree.
-
The link indicates that the Notice of Enforcement (NOE) must be provided and outlines the methods for doing so. Yet, members here use the term "served, which raises concerns, as "service" in this context has a specific definition under Part 6, referring to delivery at a designated location.
I am also still determining the status of a Warrant of Control. The terms "re-sealed" and "re-issued" appear to be used interchangeably, which conflicts with the Warrant of Control presented by CDER Group Limited, which lacks a court seal.
I did a law degree in the 1990s, but I never practised; my professor called me out because I’d obsess over every tiny mistake, and I ended up graduating with honours in Nitpicking!
Could you please clarify whether the £204 I offered to the City of London includes the £75?
-
I don't think there is any distinction in law or practice.
I refer to this:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/part/2/crossheading/notice-of-enforcement-prior-to-taking-control-of-goods
Reg.8 sets out how notices are to be given, and this includes by post and by hand. I infer that the Interpretation Act would apply as regards presumption of service.
But you don't have a NoE, so IMO the enforcement agents' compliance with the regulations is not at issue, yet.
If you are going to pay then this would not include the additional £75.
-
Following a review of the circumstances, I can confidently confirm that the City of London has acted within the timeframe permitted by the Limitation Act in issuing the Warrant. As a result, I have no viable defence.
I just rang up the City of London to settle the debt, but their response was so bizarre it could’ve been an episode of The Twilight Zone. They flat-out refused the money and told me the Warrant of Control address was given by the DVLA as if I’d tried to pay my council tax at the local chippy!
I’ve never registered a car at the Warrant address—heck, I’ve never registered any car there. The only thing I might’ve parked at that place is my sense of direction!
I noticed that you referred to a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) needing to be served. However, the wording in the information you shared previously suggests that the NOE is given to the debtor. Please clarify whether the NOE is served or simply given.
Additionally, Enceladus, you mentioned that the Warrant is re-sealed, yet the document from CDER Group Limited appears to lack any seal. Please clarify whether the Warrant is required to be issued or sealed.
Moving forward, I’ll wait for the City of London to take the next step.
I’m not exactly tossing and turning over the enforcement; my house on the Warrant isn’t exactly the kind of place where a gang of shiny-headed, muscle-bound bailiffs can just rock up to and start clamping cars.
-
Moreover, the [TEC] agent could not provide my address on record at the time of the contravention, which strongly suggests that this Warrant of Control is the first one issued for this particular infringement.
IMO, you cannot draw this inference, nor should TEC attempt to deduce the 'address on record at the time of the contravention'. TEC would use the address provided by the council. There is no reason for them to look behind details in such a request if properly made. For all they know or care the person named in the warrant could have moved a dozen times since DVLA details were first sought by the council and updated the council correspondingly.
If the person concerned has legitimate concerns then they have the Out of Time route available to them.
All we have so far as concrete evidence is the date of issue of the warrant; you were named; you have not received a NoE but instead received a letter from CDER, which suggests they know your address for service. IMO, such communication is improper. If they have been instructed by the council to enforce a warrant then they should issue a NoE at the earliest opportunity.
Unless you are served* with a NoE then your goods, including any car, are not at risk.
*- including all the alternatives to a residential address, which includes addressing to a premises where the named person carries on a business etc.
-
Hi Enceladus, Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response to my enquiry.
I contacted the TEC call centre, and while the agent confirmed that the warrant's issue date was 23 January 2024, they were unable to clarify whether it was a re-issued warrant or the original.
Moreover, the agent could not provide my address on record at the time of the contravention, which strongly suggests that this Warrant of Control is the first one issued for this particular infringement.
In a related discussion, HC Anderson provided a link indicating that a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) is valid for 12 months from the date of issue. However, the letter from CDER Group is not a Notice of Enforcement; CDER’s letter had all the charm of a cookie-cutter threat—basically, "We’re on a mission to track down your car and slap a clamp on it." It was like they were writing from a script, missing only the dramatic music in the background!
Upon further examination of Part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is clear that the 12-month enforcement limit for warrants was removed from Rule 75.7(10) in 2014, with the enforcement time limit now instead applying to the NOE.
Typically, an NOE provides clarity on when enforcement authority begins, yet in this instance, there is no clear indication of when this enforcement authority will expire.
Therefore, my query concerns whether the City of London must comply with a deadline for applying for a Warrant of Control after the date of the contravention.
Observing other cases, the usual timeframe between the infringement and the issuance of the warrant is around 4 to 5 months. In contrast, in my situation, more than two years have elapsed.
CDER Group Limited’s call centre agent was a real detective—except they couldn’t even get my address right! Yet, there they were, grilling me like I was hiding state secrets, all while chanting "Data Protection Act" like it was some sort of holy scripture.
-
I suggest that the probaility is that warrant has been re-issued (re-sealed) at least once. Possibly more than once.
If the enforcement agent (baillif) traced you to an address other than the RK address originally supplied by the DVLA then the Council should have applied for the warrant to be re-sealed.
I believe the Enforcement Authority can try and collect the penalty charge for six years. However a warrant is only vailid for 12 months unless it is re-sealed. Somebody else can maybe confirm if that is correct?
I suggest that you ring the TEC and find out when the warrant was first issued and the address used. And when it was re-issued, if it was re-issued, and the address(es) used.
Have you had a Notice of Enforcement from the bailiff? If so, please post up a copy. Just redact your name & address.
-
OP, may I suggest that this thread is broadened, after all if what is being sought is to not have to pay the PCN/surcharged penalty/bailiffs' fees then we should look at all angles.
-
(I Couldn't upload documents - got a folder-full error.)
see
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
for guidance
-
The details are as follows:
Contravention Date: 3 November 2021
Applicant: City of London
Amount: £204
Warrant Issued by TEC: 22 January 2024
Warrant Issued to Enforcement Agent: 23 January 2024
The timeline here raises some questions. It seems unlikely that the TEC would know precisely when the applicant would instruct an enforcement agent at the time it authorised the Warrant. This discrepancy suggests a need for coherence between the dates provided.
The Warrant of Control lists my current address, which is puzzling because I did not reside there on 23 January 2024, the date the TEC issued it. At that time, the property was under renovation.
The contravention involves a bus lane on Princes Street. I suspect this occurred when my daughter attended a doctor's appointment, leaving little room for a viable defence on my part.
Unfortunately, I have no record of the original PCN and have yet to receive any documentation from the City of London, possibly due to my work commitments in Singapore.
The enforcement agent involved is CDER Group Limited. Their correspondence does not resemble a formal Notice of Enforcement; rather, it is an attempt to elicit a response, perhaps even a phishing attempt. I requested that they email me the Warrant, and the attached document is what I received.
To progress this matter, can anyone confirm whether the City of London remains within the time limit to issue a Warrant of Control for a contravention dated 3 November 2021?
(I Couldn't upload documents - got a folder-full error.)
-
No there isn't.
Too many different Acts and acts to give a one-off answer.
Details would help.
-
It is quite startling to receive correspondence from a bailiff company concerning an infringement dated 3 November 2021, especially when the Warrant of Control was not issued until 23 January 2024 – a staggering gap of over two years.
Could someone shed light on whether there is a statutory time limit for a council to apply for a warrant following an infringement?
While it is clear that there is a six-month limit for prosecuting non-indictable offences, it is crucial to understand that traffic contraventions do not adhere to this general rule due to their distinct legal classification and procedural requirements.