Free Traffic Legal Advice

The refusal notices exist, they are dated, it's a matter of record.

Service is presumed.

Whether you received them is, for the moment, secondary.

What were the deadlines applicable to TEC's refusals to accept your OOT submissions? Are you within these timeframes or would you need to submit a request for the DJ to consider your N244s late?

This is the part I do not understand. Before my PE2/PE3 applications were processed, I had already provided TEC with my full and correct address, and my PE2/PE3 applications themselves also contained my full and correct address.

IMO, what you did pre-OOT is neither here nor there, you could have moved a dozen times since then. What you declare on your OOT as the address for correspondence is the one which TEC AND the authority, if it wishes to object, MUST use.

According to you they did not.

As regards DVLA holding your incorrect address, IMO this is down to you. You should have checked your V5C and if not satisfied with what was held on record notified DVLA as soon as possible. From your account, this error seems to lie at your door. But getting the PCNs reduced to the full penalty would be a success of sorts.

Thank you. I understand your point now.

My N244 applications were outside the 14-day time limit, and I was aware of this when I submitted them.

In section 3 of my N244, I specifically asked for leave to file the application outside the 14 days of service because I had not received the refusal order.

I also specified in section 8 that the application required a District Judge.

I submitted both N244 applications on 17 June 2026.

Therefore, I had already asked for the District Judge to consider my N244 applications despite them being submitted late.

Also, just to clarify, I am not seeking cancellation of these PCNs. There were originally seven PCNs affected by the same address issue. Five of those cases have already been returned to an earlier stage. I paid the amounts required on all five and those cases are now concluded.

I am seeking the same type of outcome for the remaining two PCNs: for them to be returned to the appropriate earlier stage so that I can deal with and pay the PCNs through the normal process.

Hi,

I would be very grateful for some advice regarding two Kingston Council PCNs, my N244 applications and ongoing Equita bailiff enforcement.

Background

I originally had 7 Kingston Council PCNs, all affected by the same underlying address problem. Statutory correspondence was sent to an incomplete address because my property number was missing, so I did not receive important notices.

The only two PCNs that now remain outstanding are:

QT10556169
QT10601387

For these PCNs, I submitted PE2/PE3 Out of Time applications because I had not received the statutory correspondence.

The PE2/PE3 applications were subsequently refused. However, the Court Officer's refusal decisions were also sent to the same incomplete address, so I did not receive them and did not know that the applications had been refused.

I only discovered that there was still a problem when I was contacted again by the enforcement agent.

I then contacted TEC to find out what had happened and discovered that the Court Officer's refusal decisions had also been sent to the same incomplete address.

TEC advised me that I would need to submit N244 applications if I wanted the Court Officer's decisions reviewed.

17 June 2026 – N244 + EX160 submitted and Kingston Council contacted

On 17 June 2026, I submitted separate N244 applications for QT10556169 and QT10601387, each together with an EX160 Help with Fees form and supporting evidence.

The applications were sent in separate emails and I received automated CNBC acknowledgement emails confirming receipt of both submissions.

On the same day, I also emailed Kingston Council explaining the address problem and what had happened with the PCNs.

After submitting the N244 applications, I also contacted TEC by telephone and specifically checked that my full and correct address was now recorded on their system. I was told that it was correct.

I therefore believed that both N244 applications had been received and were being processed.

From 24 June 2026 – Kingston Council action

Following my contact with Kingston Council on 17 June, there was movement on the cases from 24 June.

The online case histories for the two PCNs that are still outstanding showed:

“On hold: Representation Received” – 24 June 2026

Following Kingston's review, 5 of the original 7 PCNs were subsequently resolved, leaving only QT10556169 and QT10601387 outstanding.

All seven PCNs had arisen from the same underlying address problem.

3 July 2026 – Kingston said it could not intervene

On 3 July, Kingston wrote regarding QT10556169 stating that a Warrant of Control had been authorised and the matter was with its Debt Management Provider.

The Council said it was unable to intervene in the collection process at that stage.

4 August 2026 – both PCNs changed to “On hold: Appeal”

On 4 August, both remaining PCNs changed almost simultaneously to:

“On hold: Appeal”

I do not understand what triggered this change.

There is also an earlier “On hold: Appeal” entry from March 2026, which appeared when my PE2/PE3 applications were being dealt with.

I therefore do not know whether the new “On hold: Appeal” status on 4 August was connected to my N244 applications, Kingston's own review, or something else.

Kingston's website still currently shows both PCNs as “PCN on hold.”

26 August 2026 – TEC said neither N244 was showing

After receiving further correspondence from the enforcement agent, I telephoned TEC on 26 August to check the status of my N244 applications.

I was surprised to be told that neither N244 application was showing on their system, despite the fact that I had submitted both on 17 June and received CNBC acknowledgement emails.

I explained this to TEC and was specifically advised to resend/forward my original N244 submission emails together with evidence of the acknowledgement emails I had received at the time.

I followed that advice immediately on 26 August and resent both applications, including the N244 forms, EX160 forms and supporting evidence, together with the original acknowledgement evidence.

I received new automated CNBC acknowledgement emails following the resubmissions on 26 August.

However, because I had also received automated acknowledgements following my original submissions on 17 June, I am concerned that the same problem may have occurred again.

I have contacted TEC asking them to confirm whether both N244 applications are now actually recorded on the system and to explain what happened to my original submissions, but I am still waiting for a substantive response.

Equita bailiff enforcement

Meanwhile, Equita has told me that its client hold on these accounts expired on 22 May 2026 and that an Enforcement Agent has been instructed to attend to collect payment in full or remove goods for sale.

This is what I find particularly confusing:

Equita: client hold expired 22 May / enforcement active

Kingston: both PCNs changed to “On hold: Appeal” on 4 August and currently show “PCN on hold”

TEC (26 August): neither N244 was showing on the system

I have asked Kingston to explain why both PCNs were placed “On hold: Appeal” on 4 August, whether this was connected to my N244 applications or Kingston's own review, and whether the hold applies to Equita enforcement.

I have not yet received a substantive response.

I am also still waiting for TEC to confirm what happened to my original N244 applications and whether the applications resent on 26 August are now properly recorded.

My main questions are:

Has anyone seen N244 + EX160 applications acknowledged by CNBC by email but then not appear on TEC's system?
Could an issue with the EX160 Help with Fees process explain why the N244 applications were not registered?
If the N244 applications are still not registered, should I submit fresh N244 applications and pay the court fees instead, or could this create duplicate applications?
What could explain Kingston changing both PCNs to “On hold: Appeal” on 4 August, particularly after saying on 3 July that it could not intervene because a warrant had been issued?
Is the earlier “On hold: Appeal” status during the PE2/PE3 process relevant to understanding the new 4 August status?
If Kingston currently shows both PCNs as “PCN on hold”, should Equita still be continuing enforcement?

I have copies of the original N244 and EX160 submissions, CNBC acknowledgement emails, the 26 August resubmissions and acknowledgements, Kingston correspondence and full PCN case histories, screenshots showing the current hold status, and Equita's correspondence.

I can upload copies with my name and address redacted if helpful.

Thank you very much for any advice.