Free Traffic Legal Advice

2.   XYZ is a small business in the rental sector and are generally not liable for any penalty charge notices if they are appealed in time and are transferred to the renters.

3.   According to Transport for London a penalty charge notice was issued on 26th September 2024. This penalty charge notice was not received by XYZ.

4.   A letter dated 07 November 2024 was received on 01 December 2024 and we had appealed the penalty charge notice with the reasons as to why liability is not with us.

5.   On 02 January 2025 we receive a rejection letter, however, Transport for London have put an offer forward for £90.00 if cleared within 14 days. We call Transport for London and tell them that we cannot accept this offer, and they advised us to wait for the certificate for recovery.

6.   On 15 April 2025 we have enforcement agents to collect the debt which has skyrocketed to £600.00, we pay it and instantly file a Statutory Declaration and Out of Time application.

7.   On 10 July 2025 this is rejected for “No explanation why the statutory declaration served late”.

8.   Upon looking at Transport for London website, they had registered the Debt on 31 January 2025, we did not receive this application, hence why we could not make an in-time application. We had no idea that an Order for Recovery was issued.

We believe that “No explanation why the statutory declaration served late” is unjustified

9.   It is one thing for the Court Officer to find our explanation insufficient, but for them to state no explanation was provided is erroneous.

10.   Looking at the Application to file a Statutory Declaration Out of Time (PE2) form (Exhibit 1) we had written the following “We never received a Statutory Declaration form or any court documents from TfL or the Court, so we had no opportunity to submit our appeal within the normal timeframe. We only discovered the warrant when enforcement agents arrived, at which point it was too late to file. Therefore, we respectfully request permission to submit our Statutory Declaration out of time”.

11.   It is important to note as a litigant in person it is difficult to know the specific name of the forms. We had stated that we never received a statutory declaration form timeframe (Issued by TfL on 31 January 2025 – did not receive) so had no opportunity to submit our appeal within the normal. We now know that we were referring to the Order for Recovery of Unpaid Penalty Charge. This was not received by us, hence why did not submit a Statutory Declaration that we did not receive the original penalty charge notice, which gives us 21 days to a statutory declaration.

12.   This is further evidenced when we said we only discovered the warrant when enforcement agents arrived, and we instantly did a PE2 and PE3 form. This was time sensitive for us because many a time the payment is paid over to TfL so that PE2 and PE3 form were rushed.


Why the Out of Time Application Was Necessary

13.   We have no commercial gain or motive to delay or evade responding to PCNs; in fact, we benefit from actively appealing, as liability is correctly transferred away from us. Any suggestion that failure to file in time was tactical is therefore unfounded.

14.   We further ask the court for the refund of the £123 application fee, if the refusal was unreasonable.

Looking for the following outcome

15.   For the reasons set out above, I respectfully ask the court to:
(a) Set aside the decision of the TEC Court Officer dated 10 July 2025;
(b) Grant me permission to file the statutory declaration out of time;
(c) Order reimbursement of the £123 District Judge application fee.

The problem with your OOT is it didn't set out the missing documents - the PCN and order for recovery and that you did due diligence with TFL as to what to do. It got close with the 'statutory declaration form'.

I don't know if you can rescue this on the N244 - others will know.

Hi Stamfordman,
I thought my OOT was clear in that we did not receive the OfR form hence why it was not submitted on time. I wanted to keep it lean and actually focus on what had actually happened.

I do not think it had anything to do with getting in contact with TfL, appealing etc. It was simply we never received the OfR form and did not know about the enforcement. But for them to say that there was no reason for the OOT is absurd.

Sorry I'm confusing things now - the charge certificate amount is £270 not £240.

From what you posted it looks like you just ignored their offer to pay the discounted penalty, and as the charge certificate had been served it then rolled on to the order for recovery, which you didn't get.

I can't see anything that says 'wait for the charge certificate'.

Hi Stamfordman,
Apologies for confusing you further.

After that letter arrived, I did not ignore their offer for the discounted penalty. I called their payment number instantly and told them the circumstances that if I had received the original penalty charge notice, my appeal would be successful, since I am not liable for the charge since the vehicle was on hire. They said they cannot do anything about it and advised waiting for the charge certificate and then making an appeal with the TEC. That was done over a phone call; obviously, that charge certificate never came.

I shouldn't be paying their discounted penalty for a PCN I am not liable for. Hence why I went to the TEC, I had ticked the box that I did not receive the original PCN, which is true, I received the reminder which I appealed.

Was the rejection by TEC justified based on what I had said?

Probably not!

You must be clear and post this correspondence:

'The first correspondence I received ..referenced a massive increase to £280. I appealed but they rejected it'

??

£280 can only be £180+£90(surcharge)+£10. Which is an Order for Recovery. But you said that you didn't receive this.

Notices have names e.g. NTO, OfR etc.

The authority MAY disregard late reps or may consider them. You've used the term 'rejected' and I don't know what this means.

Apologies for the confusion, even I am confused here and trying to piece together what had happened. What I think happened looking at my email, we did not receive the original penalty charge notice and only received it when the next batch arrived which was the reminder. We appealed it and it was rejected for being out of time, at this stage the fine had increased. I then called TfL to let them know that we have sufficient reasoning why we are not liable for the charge, they had then said over the phone to wait for the charge. The next time we hear about the PCN is when Bailiffs are at the door. What may have happened is that I did not receive the OfR because I would have appealed to the TEC instantly. It seems like my stupid self got the forms mixed up.

So you got the charge certificate but not the PCN or order for recovery? This is why we advise people to keep checking with TEC as to when the debt is registred so they can make an in-time declaration.

Are the name and address correct on the charge certificate.

What are the VRM and PCN number.

The name and address are correct.


What a received was a letter regarding the £280 that was overdue. This is the first time I ever found out about the PCN, I contacted TfL as stated and they said to wait for the statutory declaration form or the charge form, because we could not appeal since it was out of the 28 days. You are correct in stating that we did not receive the PCN or order for recovery.

You received a copy of the authority's objection, yes? What did it state?

Hi H C Andersen,
Thank you for the quick response. We did not receive a copy of the authority's objection. When I called DCBL they had let us know the money is on hold until the outcome of the statutory declaration, and the only letter we received was the one below:



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]