3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - abc

Pages: [1]
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the debt, please help
« on: August 06, 2025, 08:11:01 am »
Quote from: Bailiff Advice on August 05, 2025, 10:39:44 pm
Quote from: freedom07 on August 05, 2025, 06:36:55 pm
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.

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the debt, please help
« on: August 06, 2025, 08:05:30 am »
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.

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the debt, please help
« on: August 05, 2025, 12:55:22 pm »
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.

4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Baliff (newlyn) took my car months after i already paid the debt, please help
« on: August 05, 2025, 07:02:33 am »
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.

5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Enforcement Letter without Correspondence
« on: July 09, 2025, 11:53:40 am »
I had difficult posting a response here, but I DM'd you on reddit anyway in case.

Having revisited your Reddit post and reviewed the complete set of documents relating to PCN ZN14202158, it is evident that a procedural failure has occurred within the Traffic Enforcement Centre’s administrative process. Your statutory declaration (Form PE3), sworn on 9 April 2025 and accompanied by a Form PE2 application for extension of time, did in fact contain a clear explanation as to why it had been submitted out of time. Specifically, you stated that you had not received any prior statutory documents in relation to the penalty charge, that the address on the vehicle’s V5C logbook had been properly updated, and that you only became aware of the penalty upon receipt of enforcement correspondence from CDER Group. These facts, had they been properly considered, satisfy the requirement under rule 75.5(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits the filing of a statutory declaration where a respondent asserts that they did not receive the notice to owner or enforcement notice. Moreover, Practice Direction 75.5A requires the court officer to consider whether sufficient reason has been provided for delay, and it is plain on the face of your application that such reasons were offered.

The Court Officer Order dated 5 July 2025, rejecting your application on grounds that "no explanation why the statutory declaration served late" had been given, is manifestly inaccurate and procedurally unsound. It appears that the decision was made without properly reading the contents of your PE2. That error alone calls into question the validity of the decision. In R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 1 WLR 840, the Court of Appeal affirmed that any decision-maker must conscientiously address the substance of a representation, and failure to do so constitutes a denial of procedural fairness. The reasoning in that case, while public law in nature, is applicable by analogy to quasi-judicial administrative decisions of the kind rendered by court officers under CPR 75.

Your rights from this point are governed by Rule 75.5(5), which permits an application to the court for review by a District Judge. Such an application must be made within 14 days, plus 3 days for deemed service under CPR 6.26. The correct form is an N244 Application Notice, which must identify that you seek a review of the court officer’s order and explain the grounds, namely that the stated reason for rejection is incorrect, as your PE2 did in fact set out a valid and truthful explanation for delay. The applicable fee for a paper review is £123 or, where a hearing is requested, £275. This may be paid by cheque to HMCTS or online if authorised in advance. You may also apply for fee remission if you meet the criteria set out in Form EX160A.

Alternatively, if you are unable or unwilling to file an N244 due to cost or logistical obstacles, you may consider lodging a formal complaint to the Civil Justice Policy Division of the Ministry of Justice. Such a complaint, while not a statutory remedy, may draw attention to the frequency of these errors and support broader reform. The documentary evidence you have preserved demonstrates conclusively that the court officer’s reason for refusal was factually and procedurally unfounded. In Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1406, Lord Woolf underscored the principle that public authorities must not act in ways that mislead or frustrate the legitimate expectations of those affected. That principle, while rooted in administrative law, may be cited to support your position when arguing for institutional accountability.

Finally, there remains the question of redress for the payment already made. Since the penalty has been enforced and paid under the mistaken rejection, and assuming you do not pursue the N244 route, your only remaining recourse would be a discretionary refund request addressed to the London Borough of Haringey. This would be unlikely to succeed unless accompanied by an acknowledgment from the TEC or MoJ that your application was mishandled. Nevertheless, such a representation may carry persuasive weight if appropriately framed and factually substantiated.

In conclusion, your case is a clear instance of administrative error by the TEC. You acted promptly, submitted the correct forms with a truthful and complete explanation, and were refused on grounds that do not reflect the content of your application. You have a strong foundation to apply for review by a District Judge under CPR 75.5(5), or, if you choose not to do so, to make a formal complaint in order to ensure the error is acknowledged and not repeated in similar cases. I remain available to assist with the preparation of either route, as required. - Jason, Dealing with Bailiffs. Contact me on Reddit.

Pages: [1]