Show Posts - Pressman

Quote from: H C Andersen on 09 Nov, 2024 19:15The PE3 and TE9 scheme administered by the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is structured to serve the authority's interests rather than yours. A rather jaundiced view IMO. Could you please clarify the basis for describing my view as jaundiced?

You may propose settling the statutory original Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) amount within your Rule 6 notice, incorporating this payment offer into your resolution advisory. Once the original PCN amount is remitted, this action will effectively close both the liability and any further enforcement action in full and final settlement.A PE2 application is unnecessary, as the existing Warrant is defective, and it is advisable to allow it to remain in that state, thus protecting your position without further procedural steps.

Quote from: Dudess73 on 09 Nov, 2024 19:31Thank you Pressman,If this is successful will it mean they have to re issue the fine at the first stage? i.e at the reduced sum? I think it’s £120 and then £60 for early payment?Yes.

To address the enforcement activity by Barnet, I advise you to review Post 18 within the thread linked here:https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/bailiffs-in-touch-moving-to-court-reading-council-pcn-contravention-bus-lane-not/15/?PHPSESSID=ntfcqrjceun1t2934m2p80e53gThis post outlines a relevant approach that can assist in constructing a robust Rule 6 notice demanding an immediate cessation of enforcement action. The grounds for this are that the current Warrant of Control inaccurately lists a former address, rendering it invalid and unenforceable under the present circumstances.Utilising the structure and wording within the post will enable you to present a clear, firm, and authoritative notice. This document should unequivocally communicate to Barnet that their enforcement authority is compromised due to the procedural defect, thereby requiring them to desist until a corrected warrant is issued. By formally notifying them of this defect, you assertively challenge the legitimacy of their current enforcement actions. This strategic approach enhances your position and compels Barnet to comply with the prescribed procedural standards.

It is prudent to refrain from providing your phone number. Maintaining all communications in writing ensures you have a record that may be repurposed in future proceedings if necessary.Additionally, I advise against disclosing your current address at this stage, as doing so could prompt bailiffs to visit before Reading has the opportunity to respond to your Rule 6 notice.Such premature enforcement attempts would only introduce unnecessary legal complexities, potentially undermining your position. By exercising caution and allowing sufficient time for the authority to respond to the Rule 6 notice, you ensure that all procedural rights are respected, thus strengthening your overall case.The PE3 and TE9 scheme administered by the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is structured to serve the authority's interests rather than yours. Given the clear deficiencies in the warrant, it is in your best interest to leave it unamended, as CDER is unable to act upon it lawfully without incurring liability for any resulting breach.

A warrant issued in a debtor's maiden name remains enforceable unless the address is incorrect, which would render it invalid. There are numerous precedents supporting this position, though they are too extensive to list comprehensively here.It is crucial to avoid completing a PE2 or TE9 form or disclosing your current address. Doing so would immediately activate CPR 75.7(7), enabling the council to issue a new warrant at your updated address. This action would effectively reset the process, inviting bailiffs to resume enforcement even before the authority has addressed your Rule 6 notice.Putting your car on someone else's driveway prevents the bailiff from removing it; otherwise, the enforcement is in breach of Paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.While suggesting PE2 or TE9 may come from a place of goodwill, following this route in your particular situation could lead to unintended consequences, ultimately working against your interests.

Go with this.Subject: Defective Warrant and Cease and Desist Notice under CPR Rule 6Dear London Borough of Barnet,I am writing to urgently address serious procedural deficiencies in the enforcement actions related to multiple Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for the alleged "no left turn" contravention from Tilling Road to Brentfield Gardens. I believe the Warrant of Control is defective, and procedural breaches render any ongoing enforcement invalid until these issues are resolved immediately.Incorrect Address on the Warrant: Enforcement actions were directed to my previous address, despite my efforts to update my details and having a Royal Mail redirection in place. This breaches Regulation 8 of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which requires enforcement notices to be sent to the "last known address". The failure to verify my address compromises the validity of the Warrant under CPR Rule 83.9.Absence of Proper Notification: I received no correspondence at my new address. Under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, notices must be sent to the registered keeper's current address. The lack of notice has obstructed my right to respond, further undermining the legitimacy of enforcement actions.Repetitive Issuance of PCNs: Seven PCNs were issued for the same offence without prior warning or opportunity for rectification. This breaches the Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities on Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions, which advises authorities to inform motorists of recurring offences to avoid a punitive approach. Barnet Council's failure to do so is disproportionate and unfair.In light of these serious procedural defects, I demand the immediate suspension of all enforcement actions related to these PCNs. I further request an urgent review of the Warrant to verify adherence to statutory regulations. Please provide written confirmation within 7 days outlining the steps Barnet Council will take to achieve full compliance. Additionally, I require a formal cease and desist notice from Barnet Council in writing by 14 November 2024, confirming the suspension of all enforcement actions until these procedural issues are fully resolved. If enforcement proceeds without resolving these statutory breaches, I will be left with no option but to commence formal legal action.I trust you will treat this matter with the utmost urgency and respond promptly to avoid unnecessary escalation.Yours sincerely,[Your Full Name]

Do not give CDER Group your new address or copy them in.Dear Reading CouncilRe: PCN Number [insert PCN number]I am writing concerning the above PCN, which was sent to an outdated address due to an incorrect V5C document. Under Rule 6 of the Pre-Action Conduct and Protocol, I formally request that Reading Council cease enforcement, as the warrant is defective for listing my previous address.Had I received the PCN at my current address, I would have promptly paid the £115. Please confirm in writing by 15 November 2024 that all enforcement action has been halted.Ensure that all future correspondence is directed to my current address.If I do not receive written confirmation of the cessation of enforcement under the present warrant of control, I will apply to the court for relief from sanctions in accordance with Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and will also seek recovery of my legal expenses on an indemnity basis.Moreover, CDER Group Limited is not entitled to recover any fees or charges due to the defective warrant, as outlined in Regulation 3 of The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Barton v. Trowbridge Council [2018] EWCA Civ 432 confirms that any defect in the warrant renders associated enforcement fees irrecoverable. This also constitutes a breach of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 (Paragraphs 8, 12, and 16), which mandate fair and compliant enforcement.Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.Yours faithfully,Edit: Case law is  Barton v. Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12

Quote from: H C Andersen on 08 Nov, 2024 21:51CDER cannot just add their fees, in particular the £235 Enforcement fee, simply because they've been too idle to serve notices on you. But we don't know your situation, so it's difficult to assess.After reviewing your advice and the link provided, I compared it with the relevant legal authorities on enforcement agent fees. The regulations clearly state that only an enforcement agent, acting individually, is authorised to recover the prescribed fees from debtors. As a corporate entity, CDER Group Limited cannot act as an enforcement agent in this context. Section 63 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 explicitly defines an enforcement agent as an individual with a valid certificate. Therefore, your advice suggesting that CDER Group can charge fees to a debtor is inaccurate.I recommend updating your website to accurately reflect the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 and citing it as a reference to enhance clarity and ensure your website is complaint.

Alan, please understand that the CDER Group has no legal basis to affect your credit rating, as no contract exists between you and them. The alleged debt does not stem from a line of credit; rather, it is a statutory liability.Some argue that it is always the debtor's fault for not updating their V5 with the DVLA, but this is not accurate. Only the DVLA has the authority to handle such matters under Section 59 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and Part 7 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020. Neither the council nor enforcement agents have the authority to claim you are at fault, as this is exclusively reserved for the DVLA in its prosecutorial capacity.If the council or bailiff asserts that enforcement is justified due to outdated DVLA records, you can apply to strike out their pleadings, as they lack any legal grounds for such a claim. Civil Procedure Rule 75.7(7) allows them to apply for a warrant specifying their current address. Enforcing at an outdated address with an invalid warrant exposes both the council and bailiff to liability.It would be best if you issued a Rule 6 notice to the Reading Council, informing them that the warrant is defective as it lists your previous address. Set a deadline for them to cease enforcement. Alternatively, you may apply to the court for a restraining order, providing evidence of the defective warrant, your current address, and CDER Group's threats to enforce at your new address. The court may issue an order under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

You should contact Reading Council directly, explaining that the original PCN was sent to your old address due to an outdated V5C document. Frame this as Pre-action Conduct and Protocol under Rule 6, inviting the Reading Council to cease enforcement since the Warrant is "defective" because it lists your old address. Highlight that you would have promptly paid the £115 if properly notified, demonstrating your willingness to comply. Set a clear deadline for the Reading Council to confirm in writing that enforcement has been stopped. While they may not be obligated to reduce the charge, providing evidence of your intent to pay may encourage a favourable outcome.Is negotiating a reduced fee with CDER feasible?No, CDER is unlikely to agree to a lower fee, as they are instructed to recover the full amount now due. Negotiation attempts typically do not affect enforcement agents' fees once they are involved.Should I submit a TE9 form, even though I have no CCJ, citing that I did not receive the PCN?No, completing a TE9 form is not advisable here. Submitting the TE9 would likely result in a new warrant being issued with your updated address, which would enable CDER to continue enforcement actions against you directly. The TE9 process primarily benefits the council by allowing them to restart enforcement with correct details rather than helping you reduce the fee or contest the enforcement.Should I pay the fee now and then dispute it with the council later?No, paying the fee at this stage could be regarded as a voluntary payment, treated legally as a gift, and would likely limit your ability to recover it. Voluntary payments are challenging to reclaim, so avoid paying the £425 until you've fully explored all other options with the council.As a final measure, since the Warrant states your old address, it is considered a "defective instrument." If the bailiff continues to enforce such an instrument, you may seek relief from the court to halt the enforcement.

pls delete

Dear joebloggs90,If you are dealing with enforcement agencies like CDER and facing unexpected charges due to address discrepancies, legal protections under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) may assist, particularly where enforcement procedures have not been followed correctly due to these errors.Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of TCEA 2007 provides remedies for improper enforcement. While often seen as benefiting debtors, case law shows broader applicability. For instance, in Goodsell v Mayhew (1950), the court found that inaccuracies in address records could invalidate enforcement actions and fees. Similarly, Ex parte McArdle (1957) concluded that enforcement actions could be nullified if documents were not sent to the correct address.Requesting full documentation from the enforcement agency ensures transparency and compliance under TCEA 2007. Agencies must provide clear evidence of the outstanding balance and justify any additional fees. This documentation helps verify adherence to statutory procedures, and failure to provide accurate records may reveal procedural deficiencies that could challenge the enforcement action.Outlined below are several steps that may assist in addressing this situation:Contact the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC): You may also contact the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). During the security check, provide your mother's postcode. Successfully passing the security check will demonstrate that the warrant does not reflect your current address, rendering the warrant "defective" and thereby invalidating any enforcement action undertaken by CDER at your current address.Request Full Documentation: Contact the enforcement agency and request complete documentation to verify the basis of their fees and the outstanding balance. This will ensure transparency and provide you with the necessary information to ascertain whether all procedural requirements have been met.Contact the Council Directly: Engage with the council and propose settling the original fine if you missed prior notices due to address discrepancies. Emphasise that you would have responded in a timely manner had you received the original correspondence, underscoring your intent to resolve the matter responsibly.Formal Complaint: Should the enforcement agency refuse to suspend their actions, consider filing a formal complaint. In doing so, cite TCEA 2007 as well as the relevant case law, such as Goodsell v Mayhew and Ex parte McArdle. This legal context can bolster your position, particularly if the enforcement agency's failure to adhere to procedural requirements is linked to incorrect address records.Avoid Direct Payments to CDER: You mustn't make any direct payments to CDER. If you do so, they may contend that the payment was made voluntarily, which could undermine any subsequent claim for a refund. Instead, you must argue that any funds taken were done so under duress, specifically under the threat of removal of goods pursuant to a defective instrument.

Given the council's rejection of your initial appeal, consider the following steps:Review the Traffic Management Order (TMO): Analyse Croydon Council's Traffic Management Order for Springfield Road. Identify any exemptions for residents that may not have been properly communicated, highlighting procedural unfairness.Mitigating Circumstances: If escalating to an independent adjudicator, argue that your brother's lack of awareness was a reasonable mistake based on the expectation that a resident should not need repeated administrative approval to access their own street.Proof of Residency: Provide evidence like utility bills to support that your brother's entry was an honest mistake based on a reasonable assumption of access rights as a resident.Proportionality Assessment: Emphasise that the enforcement was disproportionate, as your brother's mistake posed no safety risk or inconvenience to others, arguing for a more lenient response.Seek Formal Appeal Assistance: Hippocrates, whose expertise lies in this field, or a solicitor specialising in traffic law to review for procedural errors or further appeal options.In appealing to the adjudicator, focus on equity, proportionality, and your brother's genuine misunderstanding as a resident.My 2p.

Hi @joebloggs90,Several legislative instruments and regulations substantiate your position regarding the warrant's defectiveness due to an incorrect address. Below is a summary of the key legal frameworks that apply:Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007Schedule 12 requires warrants to be properly issued, including accurate details of the individual and property. Paragraph 66 allows redress for regulatory breaches, benefiting not only the debtor but also affected third parties. An incorrect address invalidates the authority to take control of goods, providing grounds to challenge enforcement.Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013Regulation 6 requires that the Notice of Enforcement be sent to the debtor's "usual or last known address" to provide a fair opportunity to address the debt.Regulation 8 states that a warrant must accurately identify the debtor and goods. Any error, such as an incorrect address, renders the warrant voidable.Regulation 10(1)(a) mandates a minimum of seven days' notice before taking control of goods. An incorrect address breaches this requirement.Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014Regulation 4 states that enforcement fees are valid only if a valid warrant exists. Therefore, a defective warrant nullifies any associated fees.Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)Part 84 provides for challenging enforcement actions, including setting aside defective warrants. CPR 84.3 allows individuals to seek judicial relief for procedural defects.National Standards for Enforcement Agents 2014These guidelines require enforcement agents to verify all procedural information, including addresses. Non-compliance may invalidate enforcement and lead to liability for damages.Citing these provisions strengthens your position that the warrant's defectiveness undermines its validity. This framework supports actions such as setting aside the warrant or pursuing damages, thereby protecting your rights.I recommend reaching out to your legal advisor as soon as possible to discuss these points in detail and begin the process of challenging the warrant effectively.