Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: freedom07 on August 05, 2025, 02:26:33 am
-
OP, are you still with us?
-
You should review form PE3 carefully, as it contains a sworn declaration that must be true. Until the warrant address is confirmed, Freedom cannot safely declare whether the Notice to Owner was received, and any premature statement could expose him to an allegation of perjury.
-
Submitting an out-of-time application using forms PE2 and PE3 would not succeed, as form PE3 specifically asks whether the motorist failed to receive key statutory notices or a response after making timely representations or an appeal. Since Freedom does not dispute the contravention, PE3 is not the appropriate form.
To be clear, this is what I posted 3 days ago when suggesting an Out of Time Application.
Submitting an Out of Time Application needs careful wording. In your initial post, you mention being away for months and to confuse matters, you also mention that you got the PCN whilst rushing to the hospital. Can you clarify the position. If you had been away for months, would you be able to provide any evidence with your application to back this up?
-
I understand where you are coming from in trying to resolve a traffic contravention, but Freedom was clear from the outset that neither the contravention nor the associated debt is in dispute.
Submitting an out-of-time application using forms PE2 and PE3 would not succeed, as form PE3 specifically asks whether the motorist failed to receive key statutory notices or a response after making timely representations or an appeal. Since Freedom does not dispute the contravention, PE3 is not the appropriate form. Form PE2, which asks why the application is being made out of time, is also unsuitable, as Freedom already paid the debt directly to Newlyn and evidenced the flow of money.
-
I appreciate that HC Andersen means well, but the traffic penalty is now academic.
Not really. The penalty reveals the legislation which reveals whether an OOT - a course which courses its way through this thread - is applicable.
Which addresses BAO's concern because an OOT is not a silver bullet, it sits within road traffic contravention procedure and if it's not an available route, then it isn't.
If this procedure is abandoned - perhaps because some posters are privvy to information as yet unrevealed by the OP - then this should be explained to the OP who, after all, is owner of the thread.
-
I should make clear that the original traffic contravention is not in dispute. Freedom paid the debt in full, which discharged both the warrant and the enforcement power, as evidenced by the flow of funds to Newlyn. I appreciate that HC Andersen means well, but the traffic penalty is now academic.
My username changed because someone altered the password on my original account, which forced me to create a new one. It may well have been a forum software error.
Filing an out-of-time application is inappropriate in this instance because the warrant has already been discharged. While I acknowledge that paragraph 8.1 of Practice Direction 75 provides for the suspension of a warrant, in this case the warrant was discharged pursuant to paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Submitting a formal complaint to a private company such as Newlyn is misconceived, as the prescribed formal complaints procedure applies only to public authorities. Newlyn is a private entity, and its directors have no statutory powers.
The correct course of action is to submit a free request to Newlyn under CPR 31.17 for disclosure of the following:
(a) the warrant, showing its issue date
(b) evidence of the receipt and flow of funds that discharged the warrant, together with any evidence of the subsequent refund.
(c) proof that the enforcement agent paid any storage fees, identifying the recipient of the payment and the reason it was incurred, compliant with regulation 8(2) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014
(d) the enforcement agent's vehicle condition report
(e) the enforcement agent's body-worn camera footage
This material will allow for a proper assessment and quantification of any damage to the vehicle in support of a claim against Barnet.
Once the evidence is received from Newlyn, it will be reviewed alongside the client's own evidence and the present condition of the vehicle as observed at the pound. Barnet will then be given the opportunity to inspect the vehicle prior to any repairs being undertaken and will subsequently be invited to settle the claim in accordance with the Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol.
-
So the matter has been brought under control.
I would disagree,
Why on earth has he not either filed an Out of Time Application (at no cost) or even made a Formal Complaint to Newlyn (also free).
-
So the 'new' poster with the username of ABC, has opened a new account calling himself '404 No Brain'
-
So the matter has been brought under control.
Perhaps now - assuming the OP still wants informed input- we can see documents and have the chance to see whether the OfR option applies or whether extra-road traffic contravention procedures would have to be engaged.
As we don't even know the contravention - 'last year I drove into a street that needed a permit and got a fine' - doesn't really clarify matters, we don't know the applicable legislation. OP, this is vitally important because whether you even have the option to file an OOT depends upon the contravention.
TEC are not empowered to deal with matters which fall outside the grounds specified under whichever legislation applies.
OP, what was the original contravention?
-
This is to bring you up to date. The matter is now in hand. I am grateful to those who assisted Freedom by requesting the PCN number, vehicle registration, and supporting documents so the original contravention could be accessed via Barnet's website and the images shared here. That said, Freedom's case is not a motoring issue in the usual sense.
The core issue is that Freedom paid the traffic contravention debt in full and can clearly evidence the flow of funds, thereby bringing the enforcement power to an end under paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Despite this, the enforcement company, acting unilaterally, chose to refund the payment and then sought to treat that refund as reviving the enforcement power. That position is legally untenable, as no statutory provision permits enforcement to recommence simply because an enforcement agent, for reasons of its own, has elected to return funds after lawful payment has been made.
Freedom was therefore left with two lawful options. The first was to submit forms PE2 and PE3, which would activate paragraph 8.1 of Practice Direction 75 and thereby suspend enforcement, allowing time to apply for interim injunctive relief to restrain the auction and recover the vehicle, with a further hearing to be listed for costs and damages.
The second option was to pay the amount again, expressly without prejudice, in order to recover the vehicle, while preserving the right to bring a claim against Barnet for unlawful interference with goods and for any damage or loss arising from the enforcement. That claim would rely on paragraphs 35 and 66 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, together with section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. That course has now been adopted.
Barnet will be invited to settle Freedom's claim, or otherwise resolve it judicially if not agreed.
-
No, after I had paid in February, the only time I was contacted by letter or email by Newlyn was AFTER they had taken my vehicle
When making payment in February, had you made payment because after returning home, you noticed correspondence from the enforcement company? Had a visit been made by the bailiff.
If you are now considering filing an Out of Time application, is there a reason why you had not submitted the application in January/February when you first became aware of the PCN?
i didnt realise out of time application was an option.
in febuary i was notified that my car had been clamped by text message
-
No, after I had paid in February, the only time I was contacted by letter or email by Newlyn was AFTER they had taken my vehicle
When making payment in February, had you made payment because after returning home, you noticed correspondence from the enforcement company? Had a visit been made by the bailiff.
If you are now considering filing an Out of Time application, is there a reason why you had not submitted the application in January/February when you first became aware of the PCN?
-
Do you have a document titled Notice of Enforcement?
If so, then please post it up and please confirm that the name and address on the NoE is yours and correct and current?
So the car is apparently up for auction on ebay. Have you checked? Please post up a link to the ebay listing.
What's the make and model of the car and the VRM?
The warrant is said to be dated 10th Jan 2025.
I suggest that you phone the TEC helpdesk and check the address the address on the warrant and whether or not the warrant has been re-sealed (re-issued) against your current address and when?
Traffic Enforcement Centre 0300 123 1059
Opening Times
Telephone Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm
no, after i had paid in feburary, the only time i was contacted by letter or email by newlyn was AFTER they had taken my vehicle
-
+1. Practical, as opposed to theoretical, advice with financial indications.
OP, IMO there is no quick fix which you can implement soon enough or without risk. Pay what's demanded and argue the toss later once the immediate pressure of losing your car has gone and you can engage with the council effectively.
-
You have every reason to challenge what has occurred, especially given that you paid the debt in full in February and were later told it was reversed without your knowledge. Even if enforcement were lawfully resumed, which remains highly questionable, there are strict procedures that must be followed, including giving you clear notice and not imposing additional fees unless properly justified under the regulations.
Storage fees, for example, cannot simply be added without proof. Under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, enforcement agents may only charge fees that are either fixed or reflect actual costs incurred. If storage is claimed, they must be able to show that they paid for it and that the amount is reasonable. This is not a discretionary fee and cannot be inflated or imposed without proper documentation.
As your next step, you may wish to file an urgent application to the County Court to stop the auction and seek the return of your vehicle. You can explain that the debt was previously paid, no valid notice was given, and the fees now demanded are not supported by law. If you are considering paying the fee under protest to recover your car, make sure you clearly record that the payment is made under objection so that you can later pursue a refund through the appropriate legal process.
If you are also submitting PE2 and PE3 forms to challenge the original PCN, and they are accepted, then yes, if the court cancels the enforcement order, you may be eligible for a refund of enforcement fees already paid. Just be aware that the outcome depends on the tribunal accepting your reasons for filing late.
Stay calm, keep copies of all evidence, and ensure everything you submit to the court or to the Traffic Enforcement Centre is clear, complete, and supported by documentation. If you need help preparing your court application or understanding the legal position in more detail, seek individual advice as soon as possible. Time is now very short before the auction date.
I really appreciate everyone's help on this and will keep everyone informed of what happens in the coming weeks
have a couple of questions
1. how do I file an urgent application to the county court to stop the auction, I live in Barnet London and how long do they take to act?
2. IO was considering just paying the fee for now and contesting it with the pe2/3 and then contesting it with the council if successful with the pe2/3
you reassured me by saying that everything I paid will be refunded if I'm successful in both.
I just have a question
when I pay/ pick up the vehicle, I was told online that I will have to admit liability and waive my right to contest later, and if I don't then they wont give my vehicle back, so what do I do in that situation?
An application to court will be very costly and frankly, should be unnecessary as this situation regarding the removal of your car should be simple to resolve without involving the court. If you have not given the enforcement company the opportunity to resolve this matter, then you could find yourself having a significant costs order imposed against you by the court.
You have confirmed today that you made the initial payment to the enforcement company and that for reasons that cannot be explained; your payment was returned to you. Therefore, the position is clear in that no payment has been received for this Penalty Charge Notice.
My personal advice would be to make payment to Newlyn of the amount requested and then, once you have possession of your vehicle, you can then look at making a Formal Complaint. This option would at least mean that you get your vehicle back as soon as tomorrow.
Taking Court Proceedings will NOT mean that your car is returned to you. It would merely stop the sale and a date will then be set to hear the case....that could be weeks if not more.
-
The core legal position is that enforcement power under a warrant of control ceases to have effect once the debt is paid in full. The authority to take control of goods, including the power to remove or sell them, derives exclusively from Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Paragraph 6 of that Schedule provides that the enforcement power is exercisable only while the sum outstanding remains unpaid. Upon full payment, the warrant is spent, and any further enforcement activity is without lawful authority and amounts to trespass and conversion.
You state that the penalty charge was paid in full in February 2025 and that Newlyn issued a receipt confirming a nil balance. That receipt is not merely evidence of the transaction but a material representation by the enforcement company that the debt was satisfied. Once that occurred, all statutory powers of entry, seizure, and sale were extinguished. It follows that the seizure of your vehicle in August was unlawful unless Newlyn can establish either that the February payment was not actually received or that it was properly reversed before enforcement recommenced. You are entitled to put them to strict proof.
The next step, therefore, is to prove the flow of funds and the discharge of the debt. You must collate and preserve the following evidence: (a) the February 2025 receipt from Newlyn showing a zero balance; (b) any online payment confirmation or email receipt issued at the time of payment; (c) your bank or card statement showing the exact date, amount, and recipient of the funds; and (d) any correspondence with Newlyn confirming that enforcement was closed or dormant thereafter. This evidence will be crucial both to secure the immediate return of your vehicle and to support any subsequent claim for damages or restitution.
As regards the bailiff’s suggestion that the payment was 'cancelled', that assertion is legally and procedurally fraught. If a card payment was reversed or dishonoured, Newlyn was under a duty to notify you and allow you an opportunity to regularise the position before recommencing enforcement. The sudden removal of your vehicle without prior notice or an updated compliance letter breaches Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which requires at least seven clear days' notice unless the court directs otherwise. Moreover, the failure to notify you of the vehicle’s location violates the statutory obligation under paragraph 61(4) of Schedule 12 to keep controlled goods safe and make them accessible to the debtor.
In these circumstances, enforcement beyond February 2025 appears to have occurred without jurisdiction. Your vehicle has been taken when the underlying warrant no longer authorised such action, and the agents have refused to disclose the vehicle's location or basis for their conduct. This conduct is not only procedurally deficient but substantively unlawful.
To protect your position, you have several options. First, if auction is imminent, you should prepare and file an urgent application to the County Court for an interim injunction to restrain sale. The grounds are that the enforcement action is ultra vires, the debt was discharged, and the risk of irreparable loss (through sale of your vehicle) outweighs any inconvenience to the Defendant. A supporting witness statement should exhibit the February receipt and all payment confirmations.
Second, you should write to Newlyn and the instructing authority (usually the local council) placing them on notice of a claim for unlawful interference with goods and conversion. The council must be reminded that it remains liable for the acts of its enforcement agents pursuant to Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC 3492 (QB). Demand immediate disclosure of the payment and enforcement history under the Data Protection Act 2018, including all logs showing how and when the February payment was allegedly cancelled.
In Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC 3492 (QB), the High Court confirmed that a local authority is vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of enforcement agents it instructs. This directly advances your position by allowing you to pursue the council, not just Newlyn, for the wrongful seizure of your vehicle. Where enforcement has continued after payment of the debt and the authority to act under the warrant has expired, any further action by the bailiffs is ultra vires. If Newlyn acted without lawful justification in removing and threatening to sell your car, the council, as the instructing creditor, is equally liable in tort for conversion, trespass to goods, and breach of statutory duty under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This principle ensures that you are not left at the mercy of evasive enforcement agents and can hold the council accountable for securing redress, damages, and return of your vehicle.
Third, while it is open to you to pay the amount demanded under protest (mitigation on further damages) to recover your vehicle, that payment must be explicitly made without prejudice and accompanied by written notice reserving all rights to bring proceedings for restitution and damages. If you choose this course, the principle in Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681 supports a subsequent claim that fees or actions taken without lawful authority may be set aside and repaid.
In Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681, the Court of Appeal held that enforcement agents who act outside the scope of their statutory powers, such as pursuing fees not lawfully due or enforcing against exempt goods, commit actionable wrongs. This authority supports your position that once the debt was paid in full and the warrant thereby exhausted, Newlyn no longer had any legal power to seize your vehicle. Any fees demanded or actions taken thereafter fall outside the statutory enforcement scheme and are therefore unlawful. The case affirms your right to seek recovery of improperly charged fees, damages for wrongful interference with goods, and restitution where payment was made under protest to avoid further loss. It confirms that statutory limits on enforcement activity are strictly construed and that agents who exceed them may be held liable.
Lastly, you may consider, if the original PCN was already the subject of enforcement and is now being enforced a second time, whether to file an out-of-time witness statement with the Traffic Enforcement Centre under CPR 75.7(3), asserting that the enforcement is improperly duplicative or abusive. However, that mechanism is more appropriate where the underlying PCN was not known to you; in your case, the issue is the unlawful continuation of enforcement after payment.
The legal foundation of your position is therefore as follows: enforcement authority ended when payment was accepted in February 2025. Any subsequent action taken by Newlyn is without jurisdiction and unlawful. You should act immediately to stop the auction, compel return of the vehicle, and preserve all rights to compensation.
You have a strong argument in estoppel by representation. Newlyn confirmed the debt was paid in full and issued a zero balance receipt. You reasonably relied on that, took no further steps, and have now suffered loss. It would be inequitable for them to contradict that position. Estoppel therefore prevents them from reasserting liability or enforcing further fees based on the same debt.
hi i emailed you
-
Do you have a document titled Notice of Enforcement?
If so, then please post it up and please confirm that the name and address on the NoE is yours and correct and current?
So the car is apparently up for auction on ebay. Have you checked? Please post up a link to the ebay listing.
What's the make and model of the car and the VRM?
The warrant is said to be dated 10th Jan 2025.
I suggest that you phone the TEC helpdesk and check the address the address on the warrant and whether or not the warrant has been re-sealed (re-issued) against your current address and when?
Traffic Enforcement Centre 0300 123 1059
Opening Times
Telephone Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm
-
Hi,here are the documents, i have just taken out some sensitive details
one of them is from feburary after i paid the debt, newlyn sent me the balance which is £0
the other 2 is the only thing i received months after paying. that is the 2 sided letter saying the new amount i owe (its a lot more now due to storage fees) and that they took my car.
please note that the case number is exactly the same for both documents
currently im trying to file an urgent notice to the county court to stop the sale of the vehicle and return it to me, but i dont know how to do that
i googled my local county court and called them but i keep being bounced from one operator to another (they say that ive come to the wrong depeartment for my type of case)
i dont know to file such a thing or how long it takes to do before they act and stop the baliffs
can anyone please advise me
-
The OP has not posted any paperwork, not even the bailiff notice.
-
On what grounds are you proposing to submit a Statutory Declaration?
And what reasons are you going to put on the associated Out of Time application? You have to explain why you are late submitting your SD and why you should be granted an extension of time to submit? The merits or otherwise of the original contravention are irrelevant to this.
A copy of your SD & OOT will go to the Enforcement Authority who can and likely will object to your OOT.
I suggest that seek help from Bailiff Advice Online (https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/) on how to complete the forms.
You can get the forms witnessed at a local solicitor. They'll likely charge a fee for the service, but you should be able to get it done quickly, even same day.
Email the completed forms to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. The email address is on the forms. You should get an acknowledgement email within minutes. That proves you sent them something. It might be 4 or 5 days later before they register your OOT application and inform the Enforcement Authority who will have 14(?) days to object.
At that point it will be scheduled to a court officer for examination and the officer will decide whether your OOT should be accepted or rejected. This might take a further 2-4 weeks for a decision.
I'm not sure that they can force you to waive your rights to contest the matter. I believe that if you pay-up then they have to return the car. BAO will advise on that. Strictly speaking paying the PCN closes the case. But there is time no limit for filing an OOT application (with an SD) which if accepted would revoke the bailiff's warrant and cancels the Charge Certificate. This effectively resets the case.
And be aware that the Council (Enforcement Authority) are supposed to suspend / freeze bailiff enforcement once they are aware that an OOT and SD have been filed but not yet processed.
PS.
PM member @mrmustard. He's the guru on Barnet PCNs.
-
You have every reason to challenge what has occurred, especially given that you paid the debt in full in February and were later told it was reversed without your knowledge. Even if enforcement were lawfully resumed, which remains highly questionable, there are strict procedures that must be followed, including giving you clear notice and not imposing additional fees unless properly justified under the regulations.
Storage fees, for example, cannot simply be added without proof. Under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, enforcement agents may only charge fees that are either fixed or reflect actual costs incurred. If storage is claimed, they must be able to show that they paid for it and that the amount is reasonable. This is not a discretionary fee and cannot be inflated or imposed without proper documentation.
As your next step, you may wish to file an urgent application to the County Court to stop the auction and seek the return of your vehicle. You can explain that the debt was previously paid, no valid notice was given, and the fees now demanded are not supported by law. If you are considering paying the fee under protest to recover your car, make sure you clearly record that the payment is made under objection so that you can later pursue a refund through the appropriate legal process.
If you are also submitting PE2 and PE3 forms to challenge the original PCN, and they are accepted, then yes, if the court cancels the enforcement order, you may be eligible for a refund of enforcement fees already paid. Just be aware that the outcome depends on the tribunal accepting your reasons for filing late.
Stay calm, keep copies of all evidence, and ensure everything you submit to the court or to the Traffic Enforcement Centre is clear, complete, and supported by documentation. If you need help preparing your court application or understanding the legal position in more detail, seek individual advice as soon as possible. Time is now very short before the auction date.
I really appreciate everyone's help on this and will keep everyone informed of what happens in the coming weeks
i have a couple of questions
1. how do i file an urgent application to the county court to stop the auction, i live in barnet london
and how long do they take to act?
2. i was considering just paying the fee for now and contesting it with the pe2/3 and then contesting it with the council if successful with the pe2/3
you reassured me by saying that everything i paid will be refunded if im successful in both
i just have a question
when i pay/ pick up the vehicle, i was told online that i will have to admit liability and waive my right to contest later, and if i dont then they wont give my vehicle back, so what do i do in that situaiton?
-
OP, in your first post you said:
last year I drove into a street that needed a permit in London and got a fine. I was away for months and came back with a baliffs order.
Now you're claiming: I would like to contest to original PCN which i am doing a PE2/PE3 form because i got the pcn whilst rushing to the hosptial.
Your accounts are at variance.
In any event, once your submission is registered bailiff enforcement must cease. It can resume when TEC's decision is issued.
Once you've submitted your out of time application it cannot be amended. It seems you've done this without input from BailiffAdviceOnline.
Good luck.
Hello, thank you for your reply,
im not sure i understand, are you saying as soon as PE2/PE3 is submitted they stop all enforcement? do they not have to look at the forms first? even when they already have my vehicle?
my concern is if 1. if i submit it they wont look at it and pause enforcement for a while and by that time my vehicle is sold off
2. i need a county court witness for PE2/3 to be submitted, which i cant get instantly, i have to get a schedule for this in my local country court so that would be after my vehicle is already auctioned
I only have around 4 days before they auction my vehicle
-
Do you have a bank statement or credit card statement with the money going out then coming back in?
upon checking, yes i do
-
Let's remember that currently the OP has not suffered any direct financial loss (because their payment was refunded, or so we're told) and references to reimbursement and restitution are premature.
OP, if you cannot post the key paperwork here, as described, then I don't see how the forum can assist.
-
I would like to contest to original PCN which I am doing a PE2/PE3 form
because i got the pcn whilst rushing to the hospital.
If I'm successful in contesting this but it was after i paid the baliffs to get my car back, do i get a full refund?
Submitting an Out of Time Application needs careful wording. In your initial post, you mention being away for months and to confuse matters, you also mention that you got the PCN whilst rushing to the hospital. Can you clarify the position. If you had been away for months, would you be able to provide any evidence with your application to back this up?
Currently, Out of Time Witness Statements are taking approx 4 working days to be processed which means that, if submitted tomorrow by email, bailiff enforcement would not be placed ' on hold' until next Monday (possibly Tuesday).
Have you received official notification from Newlyn advising of the date that your vehicle is due to be sold? If so, what date has been provided?
In cases where an Out of Time Witness Statement is accepted, it is the case that you should receive a full refund of any monies paid.
The advice offered contains several inaccuracies and ought to be corrected to avoid misleading an OP. It is correct that an Out of Time witness statement must be carefully drafted and supported by cogent evidence explaining the delay. Inconsistent references to being away for months and receiving the penalty charge notice whilst travelling to hospital must be clarified and supported by contemporaneous material. The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2022, together with Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules and associated TEC Practice Guidance, make clear that an Out of Time application must demonstrate that the failure to act within time was not due to a lack of diligence.
The suggestion that enforcement will be placed on hold four working days after submission is incorrect. Enforcement continues until the Traffic Enforcement Centre has formally processed and acknowledged the application. This is usually done within one to two working days following email submission. Once TEC confirms receipt, it issues a hold instruction to the enforcement agent, at which point enforcement must cease pursuant to Regulation 4 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013.
If the applicant has received formal notice of an impending sale, that is of immediate concern. Under paragraph 15 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, no sale may take place without seven clear days' notice. The presence of such notice, or its absence, will materially affect any interim relief application and may support an urgent stay or injunction if enforcement is otherwise imminent and unlawful.
Finally, the assertion that acceptance of an Out of Time witness statement automatically results in a full refund of monies paid is incorrect. Although the warrant is retrospectively invalidated, the local authority is not under an automatic statutory obligation to repay sums received. However, there is a compelling basis to seek restitution, since enforcement becomes void ab initio. The correct approach is to demand reimbursement on the basis that the money was paid under an unenforceable instrument, invoking the general principles of unjust enrichment and, where necessary, relying on authorities such as Auton v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (2010, unreported) and the reasoning in R (Kay) v Lambeth LBC [2006] UKHL 10 where acts taken under invalid authority must be treated as nullities.
The applicant should be advised to proceed with the Out of Time application without delay, ensure the explanation is consistent and substantiated, and if necessary seek urgent injunctive relief to prevent the disposal of goods in breach of paragraph 15. Any subsequent request for a refund should be framed on public law grounds or brought as a separate claim in restitution.
-
You have every reason to challenge what has occurred, especially given that you paid the debt in full in February and were later told it was reversed without your knowledge. Even if enforcement were lawfully resumed, which remains highly questionable, there are strict procedures that must be followed, including giving you clear notice and not imposing additional fees unless properly justified under the regulations.
Storage fees, for example, cannot simply be added without proof. Under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, enforcement agents may only charge fees that are either fixed or reflect actual costs incurred. If storage is claimed, they must be able to show that they paid for it and that the amount is reasonable. This is not a discretionary fee and cannot be inflated or imposed without proper documentation.
As your next step, you may wish to file an urgent application to the County Court to stop the auction and seek the return of your vehicle. You can explain that the debt was previously paid, no valid notice was given, and the fees now demanded are not supported by law. If you are considering paying the fee under protest to recover your car, make sure you clearly record that the payment is made under objection so that you can later pursue a refund through the appropriate legal process.
If you are also submitting PE2 and PE3 forms to challenge the original PCN, and they are accepted, then yes, if the court cancels the enforcement order, you may be eligible for a refund of enforcement fees already paid. Just be aware that the outcome depends on the tribunal accepting your reasons for filing late.
Stay calm, keep copies of all evidence, and ensure everything you submit to the court or to the Traffic Enforcement Centre is clear, complete, and supported by documentation. If you need help preparing your court application or understanding the legal position in more detail, seek individual advice as soon as possible. Time is now very short before the auction date.
-
Moreover, the failure to notify you of the vehicle’s location violates the statutory obligation under paragraph 61(4) of Schedule 12 to keep controlled goods safe and make them accessible to the debtor
Not correct I'm afraid.
Paragraph 61 only applies in cases where goods have been taken control but have not been removed by the enforcement agent. What is clear from the OP's post is that his vehicle has been removed.
-
I would like to contest to original PCN which I am doing a PE2/PE3 form
because i got the pcn whilst rushing to the hospital.
If I'm successful in contesting this but it was after i paid the baliffs to get my car back, do i get a full refund?
Submitting an Out of Time Application needs careful wording. In your initial post, you mention being away for months and to confuse matters, you also mention that you got the PCN whilst rushing to the hospital. Can you clarify the position. If you had been away for months, would you be able to provide any evidence with your application to back this up?
Currently, Out of Time Witness Statements are taking approx 4 working days to be processed which means that, if submitted tomorrow by email, bailiff enforcement would not be placed ' on hold' until next Monday (possibly Tuesday).
Have you received official notification from Newlyn advising of the date that your vehicle is due to be sold? If so, what date has been provided?
In cases where an Out of Time Witness Statement is accepted, it is the case that you should receive a full refund of any monies paid.
-
Hi everyone, the balliffs (Newlyn) took my car AFTER I had paid for the debt months ago
Last year I drove into a street that needed a permit in London and got a fine. I was away for months and came back with a baliffs order. I paid the fine in Full in February 2025 and have receipts from newlyn saying the outstanding balance is 0
And says it will auction my car in less than a week
Before considering what steps you can make to get your car back, you need to make sure that you have all the facts to hand.
When the contravention occurred, was a ticket placed on your car or was your vehicle detected by CCTV and a Penalty Charge Notice issued by post?
When you returned back home, you mention that you had received a 'bailiffs order'. What do you mean by this?
When making payment, can you confirm that you made payment to Newlyn and not to the local authority.
A Notice of Enforcement would have been issued by Newlyn. What date was it issued and what was the date that payment had to be made by?
What date did you make payment?
How was the payment made?
How much did you pay?
Was the recipe provided to you online?
-
OP, in your first post you said:
last year I drove into a street that needed a permit in London and got a fine. I was away for months and came back with a baliffs order.
Now you're claiming: I would like to contest to original PCN which i am doing a PE2/PE3 form because i got the pcn whilst rushing to the hosptial.
Your accounts are at variance.
In any event, once your submission is registered bailiff enforcement must cease. It can resume when TEC's decision is issued.
Once you've submitted your out of time application it cannot be amended. It seems you've done this without input from BailiffAdviceOnline.
Good luck.
-
Do you have a bank statement or credit card statement with the money going out then coming back in?
-
I would like to contest to original PCN which i am doing a PE2/PE3 form
because i got the pcn whilst rushing to the hosptial
if im successful in contesting this but it was after i paid the baliffs to get my car back, do i get a full refund?
i dont know if i have a case
even if i dont have a case
how can i argue it to be the £500 i originally paid because i did pay it and now i feel like i shouldnt need to pay these extra fees that came after it
-
The maximum amount with all fees including the sale fee for the most costly London PCN (TFL - £180) is £700.
It's possible there could be storage fees on top but you say they've only just taken the car.
yes theres about a week of storage fees
-
Thank you for clarifying that you paid the debt in full, and that it was refunded due to an internal error or technical failure in Newlyn’s payment system.
Sorry, but objectively we don't know this is correct.
OP, what does 'yes the transaction was reversed, i was told because the had a hold on the account,' mean? Who is 'they'?
they clamped my vehicle in feburary
then i paid it in February in full
a few days later the payment was reversed because (as the agent told me) the case was on hold (i think he mentioned the council had it on hold) but i didnt know this until this month
so maybe they shouldnt have even clamped my vehicle in the first place
so now thats potentially a clamping that shouldnt have happened
and i paid it anyway then months later, taking my vehicle that shouldnt have happened and asking me to pay more fees because they took it again and fees going up per day
-
Thank you for clarifying that you paid the debt in full, and that it was refunded due to an internal error or technical failure in Newlyn’s payment system. That materially strengthens your position. In law, the enforcement power under the warrant ceased at the moment full payment was received. The fact that Newlyn’s own system then reversed the transaction, without informing you, does not revive the warrant or authorise a second round of enforcement unless strict statutory procedures were followed.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides that the power to take control of goods is exercisable only while the sum outstanding remains unpaid. Once full payment was received, the enforcement power was spent. A subsequent internal refund does not automatically reinstate the warrant. If Newlyn considered that the debt remained unpaid due to a failed transaction, they were obliged to recommence the process with a new notice of enforcement under Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, giving you not less than seven clear days’ notice. The failure to do so renders the seizure of your vehicle unlawful and without jurisdiction.
Moreover, you relied on Newlyn’s representation that the debt was settled. They issued a receipt confirming a zero balance. That representation gave rise to an estoppel by conduct. You were entitled to believe the matter was closed. To seize your vehicle many months later, without prior notice, based on an internal reversal you were never informed of, is both procedurally defective and substantively unlawful.
Newlyn’s act of imposing fresh enforcement fees, without issuing a new notice of enforcement, is a breach of the statutory fee regime set out in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Those regulations do not allow for multiple compliance or enforcement stage fees to be charged under a single warrant unless specific conditions are met. Where enforcement has ceased, it cannot be revived without a new compliance stage. The sudden reappearance of bailiffs at your door, demanding double the original sum, without warning, breaches your rights under civil enforcement law and supports a claim for restitution, trespass, and conversion.
You should now take the following action as a matter of urgency:
(a) prepare an urgent application to the County Court for an interim injunction to restrain Newlyn from auctioning your vehicle. The basis is that the enforcement was ultra vires and without jurisdiction due to payment having been accepted and no lawful revival of enforcement powers. The application should include a draft order, a witness statement with exhibits (the original receipt, bank payment, refund evidence if available, and correspondence), and a skeleton argument referencing paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 and Regulation 7.
(b) write a formal letter before action to Newlyn and the instructing council asserting that the seizure was unlawful and demanding immediate return of your vehicle, cancellation of all fees, and confirmation that no further enforcement will be attempted. The letter should notify both parties of your intention to claim for trespass to goods, conversion, and restitution, with reliance on Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC 3492 (QB), which confirms the council’s vicarious liability for the bailiff’s acts.
(c) if you are financially or practically compelled to pay the £1,000 to recover your vehicle, you must make that payment expressly under protest, accompanied by a written reservation of your legal rights. This preserves your ability to recover the money through the courts as a payment made under compulsion and without lawful basis. The Court of Appeal in Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681 affirms that enforcement agents who act without lawful authority are liable for any sums collected outside their statutory powers.
You are well placed to challenge this seizure as unlawful. The debt was paid. The refund occurred through no fault of yours. No lawful notice was issued. Your vehicle was taken without authority and you have been exposed to excessive, improper fees. The law offers clear remedies in this situation and the courts will not support the abuse of process by agents seeking to revive expired warrants through technical error.
thank you very much, i will attempt this
i only have a few days left before it's auctioned will the county court act in time? do you have a link or contact number? the car was taken in barnet london
-
The maximum amount with all fees including the sale fee for the most costly London PCN (TFL - £180) is £700.
It's possible there could be storage fees on top but you say they've only just taken the car.
-
Thank you for clarifying that you paid the debt in full, and that it was refunded due to an internal error or technical failure in Newlyn’s payment system.
Sorry, but objectively we don't know this is correct.
OP, what does 'yes the transaction was reversed, i was told because the had a hold on the account,' mean? Who is 'they'?
-
Thank you for clarifying that you paid the debt in full, and that it was refunded due to an internal error or technical failure in Newlyn’s payment system. That materially strengthens your position. In law, the enforcement power under the warrant ceased at the moment full payment was received. The fact that Newlyn’s own system then reversed the transaction, without informing you, does not revive the warrant or authorise a second round of enforcement unless strict statutory procedures were followed.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides that the power to take control of goods is exercisable only while the sum outstanding remains unpaid. Once full payment was received, the enforcement power was spent. A subsequent internal refund does not automatically reinstate the warrant. If Newlyn considered that the debt remained unpaid due to a failed transaction, they were obliged to recommence the process with a new notice of enforcement under Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, giving you not less than seven clear days’ notice. The failure to do so renders the seizure of your vehicle unlawful and without jurisdiction.
Moreover, you relied on Newlyn’s representation that the debt was settled. They issued a receipt confirming a zero balance. That representation gave rise to an estoppel by conduct. You were entitled to believe the matter was closed. To seize your vehicle many months later, without prior notice, based on an internal reversal you were never informed of, is both procedurally defective and substantively unlawful.
Newlyn’s act of imposing fresh enforcement fees, without issuing a new notice of enforcement, is a breach of the statutory fee regime set out in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Those regulations do not allow for multiple compliance or enforcement stage fees to be charged under a single warrant unless specific conditions are met. Where enforcement has ceased, it cannot be revived without a new compliance stage. The sudden reappearance of bailiffs at your door, demanding double the original sum, without warning, breaches your rights under civil enforcement law and supports a claim for restitution, trespass, and conversion.
You should now take the following action as a matter of urgency:
(a) prepare an urgent application to the County Court for an interim injunction to restrain Newlyn from auctioning your vehicle. The basis is that the enforcement was ultra vires and without jurisdiction due to payment having been accepted and no lawful revival of enforcement powers. The application should include a draft order, a witness statement with exhibits (the original receipt, bank payment, refund evidence if available, and correspondence), and a skeleton argument referencing paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 and Regulation 7.
(b) write a formal letter before action to Newlyn and the instructing council asserting that the seizure was unlawful and demanding immediate return of your vehicle, cancellation of all fees, and confirmation that no further enforcement will be attempted. The letter should notify both parties of your intention to claim for trespass to goods, conversion, and restitution, with reliance on Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC 3492 (QB), which confirms the council’s vicarious liability for the bailiff’s acts.
(c) if you are financially or practically compelled to pay the £1,000 to recover your vehicle, you must make that payment expressly under protest, accompanied by a written reservation of your legal rights. This preserves your ability to recover the money through the courts as a payment made under compulsion and without lawful basis. The Court of Appeal in Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681 affirms that enforcement agents who act without lawful authority are liable for any sums collected outside their statutory powers.
You are well placed to challenge this seizure as unlawful. The debt was paid. The refund occurred through no fault of yours. No lawful notice was issued. Your vehicle was taken without authority and you have been exposed to excessive, improper fees. The law offers clear remedies in this situation and the courts will not support the abuse of process by agents seeking to revive expired warrants through technical error.
-
Have you got any paperwork. If so post it.
Looks like there is more than one PCN.
no this is one PCN
i paid it whole
but they messed up their system refunded it and now months later they took my car and added more fees on top
-
Have you got any paperwork. If so post it.
Looks like there is more than one PCN.
-
The core legal position is that enforcement power under a warrant of control ceases to have effect once the debt is paid in full. The authority to take control of goods, including the power to remove or sell them, derives exclusively from Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Paragraph 6 of that Schedule provides that the enforcement power is exercisable only while the sum outstanding remains unpaid. Upon full payment, the warrant is spent, and any further enforcement activity is without lawful authority and amounts to trespass and conversion.
You state that the penalty charge was paid in full in February 2025 and that Newlyn issued a receipt confirming a nil balance. That receipt is not merely evidence of the transaction but a material representation by the enforcement company that the debt was satisfied. Once that occurred, all statutory powers of entry, seizure, and sale were extinguished. It follows that the seizure of your vehicle in August was unlawful unless Newlyn can establish either that the February payment was not actually received or that it was properly reversed before enforcement recommenced. You are entitled to put them to strict proof.
The next step, therefore, is to prove the flow of funds and the discharge of the debt. You must collate and preserve the following evidence: (a) the February 2025 receipt from Newlyn showing a zero balance; (b) any online payment confirmation or email receipt issued at the time of payment; (c) your bank or card statement showing the exact date, amount, and recipient of the funds; and (d) any correspondence with Newlyn confirming that enforcement was closed or dormant thereafter. This evidence will be crucial both to secure the immediate return of your vehicle and to support any subsequent claim for damages or restitution.
As regards the bailiff’s suggestion that the payment was 'cancelled', that assertion is legally and procedurally fraught. If a card payment was reversed or dishonoured, Newlyn was under a duty to notify you and allow you an opportunity to regularise the position before recommencing enforcement. The sudden removal of your vehicle without prior notice or an updated compliance letter breaches Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which requires at least seven clear days' notice unless the court directs otherwise. Moreover, the failure to notify you of the vehicle’s location violates the statutory obligation under paragraph 61(4) of Schedule 12 to keep controlled goods safe and make them accessible to the debtor.
In these circumstances, enforcement beyond February 2025 appears to have occurred without jurisdiction. Your vehicle has been taken when the underlying warrant no longer authorised such action, and the agents have refused to disclose the vehicle's location or basis for their conduct. This conduct is not only procedurally deficient but substantively unlawful.
To protect your position, you have several options. First, if auction is imminent, you should prepare and file an urgent application to the County Court for an interim injunction to restrain sale. The grounds are that the enforcement action is ultra vires, the debt was discharged, and the risk of irreparable loss (through sale of your vehicle) outweighs any inconvenience to the Defendant. A supporting witness statement should exhibit the February receipt and all payment confirmations.
Second, you should write to Newlyn and the instructing authority (usually the local council) placing them on notice of a claim for unlawful interference with goods and conversion. The council must be reminded that it remains liable for the acts of its enforcement agents pursuant to Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC 3492 (QB). Demand immediate disclosure of the payment and enforcement history under the Data Protection Act 2018, including all logs showing how and when the February payment was allegedly cancelled.
In Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC 3492 (QB), the High Court confirmed that a local authority is vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of enforcement agents it instructs. This directly advances your position by allowing you to pursue the council, not just Newlyn, for the wrongful seizure of your vehicle. Where enforcement has continued after payment of the debt and the authority to act under the warrant has expired, any further action by the bailiffs is ultra vires. If Newlyn acted without lawful justification in removing and threatening to sell your car, the council, as the instructing creditor, is equally liable in tort for conversion, trespass to goods, and breach of statutory duty under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This principle ensures that you are not left at the mercy of evasive enforcement agents and can hold the council accountable for securing redress, damages, and return of your vehicle.
Third, while it is open to you to pay the amount demanded under protest (mitigation on further damages) to recover your vehicle, that payment must be explicitly made without prejudice and accompanied by written notice reserving all rights to bring proceedings for restitution and damages. If you choose this course, the principle in Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681 supports a subsequent claim that fees or actions taken without lawful authority may be set aside and repaid.
In Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681, the Court of Appeal held that enforcement agents who act outside the scope of their statutory powers, such as pursuing fees not lawfully due or enforcing against exempt goods, commit actionable wrongs. This authority supports your position that once the debt was paid in full and the warrant thereby exhausted, Newlyn no longer had any legal power to seize your vehicle. Any fees demanded or actions taken thereafter fall outside the statutory enforcement scheme and are therefore unlawful. The case affirms your right to seek recovery of improperly charged fees, damages for wrongful interference with goods, and restitution where payment was made under protest to avoid further loss. It confirms that statutory limits on enforcement activity are strictly construed and that agents who exceed them may be held liable.
Lastly, you may consider, if the original PCN was already the subject of enforcement and is now being enforced a second time, whether to file an out-of-time witness statement with the Traffic Enforcement Centre under CPR 75.7(3), asserting that the enforcement is improperly duplicative or abusive. However, that mechanism is more appropriate where the underlying PCN was not known to you; in your case, the issue is the unlawful continuation of enforcement after payment.
The legal foundation of your position is therefore as follows: enforcement authority ended when payment was accepted in February 2025. Any subsequent action taken by Newlyn is without jurisdiction and unlawful. You should act immediately to stop the auction, compel return of the vehicle, and preserve all rights to compensation.
You have a strong argument in estoppel by representation. Newlyn confirmed the debt was paid in full and issued a zero balance receipt. You reasonably relied on that, took no further steps, and have now suffered loss. It would be inequitable for them to contradict that position. Estoppel therefore prevents them from reasserting liability or enforcing further fees based on the same debt.
thank you for your detailed reply
yes the transaction was reversed, i was told because the had a hold on the account, but that isnt my fault i didnt even know about that.they also said they sent out 1 more letter informing me of this but wouldnt tell me when they sent it
the only letter i got was after they took my car
and now theyre saying the debt is £1000 which is double what i paid
Modify message
-
Very thorough, but predicated on the OP's version of events which has not been tested by us...in this respect I refer to a current thread where the OP swore that their car hadn't moved, verified by their PAYG insurance (whatever that might be) only to remember when faced with a video that they had allowed a friend use of the car on the day in question.
I could not see the suggested action here as being in the realms of the practicable for the OP:
First, if auction is imminent, you should prepare and file an urgent application to the County Court for an interim injunction to restrain sale.
OP, was your payment reversed? We need date of funds out and in and a copy of the bailiff's confirmation regarding initial payment. Plus, what car are we talking about and its open market value. When have they indicated that it might be auctioned i.e. how much time do you have?
how do i file an urgent application to county court? the sale is on 11th of august.. will it be on time?
yes the transaction was reversed, i was told because the had a hold on the account, but that isnt my fault i didnt even know about that.they also said they sent out 1 more letter informing me of this but wouldnt tell me when they sent it
the only letter i got was after they took my car
and now theyre saying the debt is £1000 which is double what i paid
-
thank you for everyone's reply
I tried calling and texting the baliff agent today that handles my case and has my car...no answer
so my fears are becoming true
depsite having a valid reason for them not taking my car
they push me to only to talk to this agent and this agent doesnt reply and in a few days my car will go to auction all whilst the fees are going up per day
-
I suggest you contact our member, Sheila (https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=632), at Bailiff Advice Online (https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/)
who has a good reputation for enforcement cases.
-
Very thorough, but predicated on the OP's version of events which has not been tested by us...in this respect I refer to a current thread where the OP swore that their car hadn't moved, verified by their PAYG insurance (whatever that might be) only to remember when faced with a video that they had allowed a friend use of the car on the day in question.
I could not see the suggested action here as being in the realms of the practicable for the OP:
First, if auction is imminent, you should prepare and file an urgent application to the County Court for an interim injunction to restrain sale.
OP, was your payment reversed? We need date of funds out and in and a copy of the bailiff's confirmation regarding initial payment. Plus, what car are we talking about and its open market value. When have they indicated that it might be auctioned i.e. how much time do you have?
-
The core legal position is that enforcement power under a warrant of control ceases to have effect once the debt is paid in full. The authority to take control of goods, including the power to remove or sell them, derives exclusively from Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Paragraph 6 of that Schedule provides that the enforcement power is exercisable only while the sum outstanding remains unpaid. Upon full payment, the warrant is spent, and any further enforcement activity is without lawful authority and amounts to trespass and conversion.
You state that the penalty charge was paid in full in February 2025 and that Newlyn issued a receipt confirming a nil balance. That receipt is not merely evidence of the transaction but a material representation by the enforcement company that the debt was satisfied. Once that occurred, all statutory powers of entry, seizure, and sale were extinguished. It follows that the seizure of your vehicle in August was unlawful unless Newlyn can establish either that the February payment was not actually received or that it was properly reversed before enforcement recommenced. You are entitled to put them to strict proof.
The next step, therefore, is to prove the flow of funds and the discharge of the debt. You must collate and preserve the following evidence: (a) the February 2025 receipt from Newlyn showing a zero balance; (b) any online payment confirmation or email receipt issued at the time of payment; (c) your bank or card statement showing the exact date, amount, and recipient of the funds; and (d) any correspondence with Newlyn confirming that enforcement was closed or dormant thereafter. This evidence will be crucial both to secure the immediate return of your vehicle and to support any subsequent claim for damages or restitution.
As regards the bailiff’s suggestion that the payment was 'cancelled', that assertion is legally and procedurally fraught. If a card payment was reversed or dishonoured, Newlyn was under a duty to notify you and allow you an opportunity to regularise the position before recommencing enforcement. The sudden removal of your vehicle without prior notice or an updated compliance letter breaches Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which requires at least seven clear days' notice unless the court directs otherwise. Moreover, the failure to notify you of the vehicle’s location violates the statutory obligation under paragraph 61(4) of Schedule 12 to keep controlled goods safe and make them accessible to the debtor.
In these circumstances, enforcement beyond February 2025 appears to have occurred without jurisdiction. Your vehicle has been taken when the underlying warrant no longer authorised such action, and the agents have refused to disclose the vehicle's location or basis for their conduct. This conduct is not only procedurally deficient but substantively unlawful.
To protect your position, you have several options. First, if auction is imminent, you should prepare and file an urgent application to the County Court for an interim injunction to restrain sale. The grounds are that the enforcement action is ultra vires, the debt was discharged, and the risk of irreparable loss (through sale of your vehicle) outweighs any inconvenience to the Defendant. A supporting witness statement should exhibit the February receipt and all payment confirmations.
Second, you should write to Newlyn and the instructing authority (usually the local council) placing them on notice of a claim for unlawful interference with goods and conversion. The council must be reminded that it remains liable for the acts of its enforcement agents pursuant to Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC 3492 (QB). Demand immediate disclosure of the payment and enforcement history under the Data Protection Act 2018, including all logs showing how and when the February payment was allegedly cancelled.
In Southwark LBC v Woelke [2013] EWHC 3492 (QB), the High Court confirmed that a local authority is vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of enforcement agents it instructs. This directly advances your position by allowing you to pursue the council, not just Newlyn, for the wrongful seizure of your vehicle. Where enforcement has continued after payment of the debt and the authority to act under the warrant has expired, any further action by the bailiffs is ultra vires. If Newlyn acted without lawful justification in removing and threatening to sell your car, the council, as the instructing creditor, is equally liable in tort for conversion, trespass to goods, and breach of statutory duty under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This principle ensures that you are not left at the mercy of evasive enforcement agents and can hold the council accountable for securing redress, damages, and return of your vehicle.
Third, while it is open to you to pay the amount demanded under protest (mitigation on further damages) to recover your vehicle, that payment must be explicitly made without prejudice and accompanied by written notice reserving all rights to bring proceedings for restitution and damages. If you choose this course, the principle in Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681 supports a subsequent claim that fees or actions taken without lawful authority may be set aside and repaid.
In Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681, the Court of Appeal held that enforcement agents who act outside the scope of their statutory powers, such as pursuing fees not lawfully due or enforcing against exempt goods, commit actionable wrongs. This authority supports your position that once the debt was paid in full and the warrant thereby exhausted, Newlyn no longer had any legal power to seize your vehicle. Any fees demanded or actions taken thereafter fall outside the statutory enforcement scheme and are therefore unlawful. The case affirms your right to seek recovery of improperly charged fees, damages for wrongful interference with goods, and restitution where payment was made under protest to avoid further loss. It confirms that statutory limits on enforcement activity are strictly construed and that agents who exceed them may be held liable.
Lastly, you may consider, if the original PCN was already the subject of enforcement and is now being enforced a second time, whether to file an out-of-time witness statement with the Traffic Enforcement Centre under CPR 75.7(3), asserting that the enforcement is improperly duplicative or abusive. However, that mechanism is more appropriate where the underlying PCN was not known to you; in your case, the issue is the unlawful continuation of enforcement after payment.
The legal foundation of your position is therefore as follows: enforcement authority ended when payment was accepted in February 2025. Any subsequent action taken by Newlyn is without jurisdiction and unlawful. You should act immediately to stop the auction, compel return of the vehicle, and preserve all rights to compensation.
You have a strong argument in estoppel by representation. Newlyn confirmed the debt was paid in full and issued a zero balance receipt. You reasonably relied on that, took no further steps, and have now suffered loss. It would be inequitable for them to contradict that position. Estoppel therefore prevents them from reasserting liability or enforcing further fees based on the same debt.
-
Hi everyone, the balliffs (Newlyn) took my car AFTER I had paid for the debt months ago
Please help,
I will explain the situation then I have a few questions, I would appreciate if you can answer with your experience and expertise
-last year I drove into a street that needed a permit in London and got a fine. I was away for months and came back with a baliffs order. I paid the fine in Full in February 2025 and have receipts from newlyn saying the outstanding balance is 0
-months later in august, Newlyn took my car without informing me why, or gave me 7 days notice( I thought that was the bailiff procedure )
They just left a letter in my door saying I owe even more money than last time (for the same penalty that I already paid for)
And says it will auction my car in less than a week
It doesnt even state where my car is being held
-I contacted Newlyn by phone and live chat and both just stated they can’t do anything and I need to speak to the agent that took my car
I called that agent and explained I already paid the debt and he mentioned that the transaction was cancelled after a few days ( I didn’t do this or cancel it) but if they cancelled it, it’s not my fault
And I thought I should have to pay these extra fees ive incurred because they took my car again
The agent said they will contact newlyn to find out why and get back to me in a few minutes, he never did and this was last evening.
And he didn’t mention where the car is
I’m very concerned they’re just going to stall until it goes to auction/the fees goes up when I have a genuine reason.
My questions are
1.if I pay it again, can I dispute the original penalty via the tribunal or something and if successful will the council refund me? Or the bailiff
2.what should I do? Is there a third party that can stop the baliffs deadline for auction whilst this mistake is figured out? Will contacting the council do anything?
Im sure the baliffs will try to say anything to get the payment especially when time is on their side
but surely its their fault for cancelling or at the very least I shouldn’t have to pay the extra fees
I need some legal advice please and if anyone has a strategy please let me know