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 - Bailiff Advice

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Bailiff for PCN that was sent to wrong address.
« on: Today at 10:59:47 am »
Quote from: snikers on Yesterday at 11:39:51 am
Date on the V5C is 27/06/2024. Purchase was made few weeks before we received V5C. Date on the Notice of Enforcement is 17/07/2025 and in Spetember 2025 baillif arrived with Notice of Enforcement.

I'm slightly confused. You mention that the date of the Notice of Enforcement was 17th July and that the bailiff visited in September 2025 with a Notice of Enforcement.
 
 
What date was the Notice of Enforcement issued?

It should have included a PCN number and date of the contravention. What date was given for the contravention?

Bailiff Advice Online

2
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: Today at 09:52:03 am »
Quote from: John U.K. on January 18, 2026, 05:15:40 pm
Thank you for posting this.
Would you have an idea how and when these changes will take effect?

The Traffic Enforcement Centre has already implemented the change that requires a brief REASON to be provided when an Out of Time application is rejected. That change has been in place for a few months now and I am aware of significant complaints being made to TEC.

At the Civil Procedure Rule Committee meeting in December, it was noted that the Committee had agreed to all the proposed amendments subject only to responses from the Consultation.

I will update this thread when further information is known.

https://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/

 

3
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: Today at 09:35:47 am »
Quote from: Bailiff Advice on January 16, 2026, 11:41:13 am
Up until around November, if an Out of Time Application was rejected by TEC,  the motorist would receive a letter from the Traffic Enforcement Centre stating the date of rejection and that NO REASON IS GIVEN and supposedly, NO REASON IS ON THE COURT FILE. This will now change.

TEC are proposing that the TEC Court Officer should include REASONS and that this can include the following:

1. That the motorist had provided no explanation why he was submitting his Witness Statement late.

2. That the motorist had provided no explanation as to why he failed to notify DVLA of the change of address.

3. That the motorist failed to provide evidence or proof as to why they had been absent from his home when the Order for Recovery had been issued.

Reading back on my post, I realise that I had only provided 3 reasons that the Court Officer may use to reject an Out of Time Application. The 4th reason is this one:

4. That the motorist had not provided proof or explanation why the statutory declaration (or witness statement) was served late.

4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Business chauffeur vehicle clamped for pcn judgement
« on: January 16, 2026, 03:38:55 pm »
Quote from: Jason9874 on January 16, 2026, 12:20:50 pm
My vehicle was clamped yesterday for a PCN judgement. The vehicle is a my business ltd vehicle. I have made a te9 and te7 application but been told it may take 2-4 weeks to 6 months. I can't earn etc with the vehicle mobilized.

As I had stated on your earlier thread, there is no judgment with a local authority issued PCN. As this ticket is for a parking contravention, it would be more difficult to get the application accepted given that you should have received the penalty charge notice on the windscreen of the car. Your comment on this post would assist. 

Currently, the Traffic Enforcement Centre are taking up to 4 WORKING DAYS to actually PROCESS Out of Time Applications and to instruct the local authority to place all enforcement on 'hold'. Once the LA are informed, the clamp will usually be removed. Given that today is Friday, you should expect for the clamp to be removed on either late Wednesday or Thursday at the latest. With current delays at TEC, it is taking approx 8-10 weeks for you to receive a decision on your application. 

If your Out of Time Application is accepted, then you would be entitled to a full refund of any payment made (including bailiff fess).

Bailiff Advice Online

 

5
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: January 16, 2026, 03:23:12 pm »
If anyone has any questions, please just ask. 

6
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: January 16, 2026, 01:25:06 pm »
In the response to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, Bailiff Advice Online provided the following additional information:

Reasons why mistakes can occur on the V5C (Log Book).

It is clear that the vast majority of vehicle owners update their driving licence when moving. However, most are unaware of the requirement to also update their V5C. When purchasing their road fund licence, the motorist is required to provide his current address to DVLA and when paying his road fund licence by direct debit, he also updates DVLA with his new address for the direct debit mandate.

When a traffic contravention occurs, the local authority is only allowed to make one search of the vehicle keeper records at DVLA. If a motorist moves address within a few days of the contravention and promptly updates his V5C, all statutory notices will continue to be sent to his previous address. There have been many cases where Out of Time Applications have been refused in such circumstances.

Mistakes by vehicle dealerships and hire companies at the time of purchase/hire is another fairly common reason for notices being wrongly addressed.

And finally, there is this comment from an enforcement company from a few years ago:

'Addresses should be simple, but in reality, they are a costly mistake. Experience has shown that with errors in DVLA input and variations in address fields by processing contractors, up to 20% of all warrants issued need their addresses cleansed’.

Failure to update Log Book (V5C) with DVLA when moving address.

There is reference to a fine of up to £1,000 being imposed on the registered keeper of the vehicle if he or she fails to update the V5C with DVLA when moving. However, despite at least 4 FOI requests that I have made over many years, I have been unable to find any evidence of such a fine actually being imposed. There is however reference on the GOV.UK website in May 2025 to DVLA issuing Out of Court letters (OCS) for various vehicle regulation offences(such as failure to notify DVLA of change of registered keeper). Currently, to avoid court action, payment is set at £55 reduced to £35 if paid within 17 days. If the amount remains unpaid, the case could be pursued through the magistrate’s court where a maximum fine of £1,000 can be imposed.

7
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: January 16, 2026, 12:20:36 pm »
TEC are seeking to amend CPR75.10 to allow them to transfer cases to the Insolvency Court. This would only apply to cases where there are MULTIPLE warrants and 'persistent evaders'

Response:

In cases where there may be multiple PCN’s that an enforcement agent has been unable to seek payment for, the present position (under CPR75.10) is that the local authority can make a request to TEC for the cases to be transferred to the County Court for further enforcement (an attachment of earnings order, charging order, order to obtain information, third party debt order).

The amendment being sought is to allow the authority to request for the transfer to the Insolvency Court (for bankruptcy proceedings) and that  local authorities may add all unpaid PCN’s together (multiple cases against the same defendants on a single application). I am unaware of the legal position regarding this proposal.

8
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: January 16, 2026, 12:13:42 pm »
TEC are seeking to be allowed to transfer multiple Orders for Recovery against a single motorist on a single form TE10.

Response:

It would seem that this question is relevant to Question 6. I do not know the legal position, but it is my view that as each Order for Recovery is a separate court order, that multiple Orders for Recovery should not be able to be added together for the purpose of ensuring that the overall debt meets the £5,000 threshold needed for bankruptcy proceedings to be instigated.

9
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: January 16, 2026, 12:11:27 pm »
Quote from: Bailiff Advice on January 16, 2026, 12:07:29 pm
TEC are seeking to extend a warrant of control from 12 months to 24 months


Response:

The current position under Regulation 9 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2014 (time limit for taking control of goods), is that an enforcement agent may not take control of goods after the expiry of a period of 12 months.  This amendment would allow the warrant to be extended once only for a further 12 months by the enforcement agent making an application directly to TEC (instead of the court as set out in CPR 84.5).
 
Although the Warrant of Control is addressed to the enforcement agent, it is nonetheless, the local authorities warrant. It is my view that any request for extension must be by the local authority and not by the enforcement agent.
 
Secondly, TEC confirm in this Consultation that 400,000 warrants are authorised EACH MONTH.
If an enforcement agent is unable to take control of goods or obtain payment within a 12 month period, then I cannot see that he would obtain payment if allowed to enforce the warrant for a further year!!

10
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: January 16, 2026, 12:07:29 pm »
TEC are seeking to extend a warrant of control from 12 months to 24 months


Response:

The current position under Regulation 9 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2014 (time limit for taking control of goods), is that an enforcement agent may not take control of goods after the expiry of a period of 12 months.  This amendment would allow the warrant to be extended once only for a further 12 months by the enforcement agent making an application directly to TEC (instead of the court as set out in CPR 84.5).

Although the Warrant of Control is addressed to the enforcement agent, it is nonetheless, the local authorities warrant. It is my view that any request for extension must be by the local authority and not by the enforcement agent.

Secondly, TEC confirm in this Consultation that 400,000 warrants are authorised EACH MONTH.
If an enforcement agent is unable to take control of goods or obtain payment within a 12 month period, then I cannot see that he would obtain payment if allowed to enforce the warrant for a further year!!

11
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: January 16, 2026, 11:59:35 am »
Currently, if the address on the warrant had changed (usually because the motorist had moved address) the local authority are supposed to make a request to TEC to have the warrant re-issued to the new address identified by the enforcement agent. TEC are seeking to revoke section 75.7(7) of the Civil Procedure Rules to remove the obligation for a new warrant to be issued. 

Response:

Revoking Section 75.7(7) of the Civil Procedure Rules is a very serious matter. Section 75.7(7) was introduced in 2009 following a Parliamentary Question from Lord Lucas. 

What does CPR75.7(7) say and responses from the Civil Procedure Rule Committee
and Department of Transport

The regulation states that:

‘Where the address of the respondent has changed since the issue of the warrant, the authority may request the re-issue of the warrant by filing a request-

a) specifying the new address of the respondent

b) providing evidence that the new address for the respondent does relate to the respondent
named on the order and against whom enforcement is sought etc

The intention of this introduction was that a warrant may only be re-issued if the respondents address had changed SINCE the warrant had been issued (and NOT prior to a warrant being issued).  This was made very clear in the following responses to questions that I raised at the time with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Department of Transport: 

Response from the Civil Procedure Rule Committee

I note that your concern is that local authority’s can apply to reissue a warrant to a new
address, but that the respondent may not have been served with the original Notice/Order.
However, the amendment provides that the warrant may only be reissued where the address
of the respondent has changed since the issue of the warrant and the application must be supported by evidence that the respondent is that named in the original order.

Response from the Department for Transport

Rule 75.7(7) specifically provides that the local authority may request reissue of the warrant to a new address where the address of the respondent has changed since
the issue of the warrant.  In those circumstances, the NtO and the Charge Certificate would have been served to the correct address at the time and changing the address on the warrant under this rule would not affect service of previous documentation.  The Civil Procedure Rule Committee was content with the proposed changes 

In both their responses, the word ‘since’ was in bold and underlined. 

As outlined, if a local authority were to request the re-issue of a warrant, CPR 75.7(7) states that the local authority is required to provide EVIDENCE (that the address of the respondent had changed SINCE the issue of the warrant). Sadly, this has not been happening.

12
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: January 16, 2026, 11:46:30 am »
At present, if an Out of Time Application is rejected, the motorist can 'seek a review' by way of an N244 Application. He can either request that his review is deal with 'without a hearing' (a fee of £123 is payable). Alternatively, he can request a hearing in open court (the court fee is currently over £300).

TEC are seeking to REMOVE the right to attend court in person. Instead, they are proposing that a review will be decided on paper only and without a hearing (unless a District Judge orders otherwise)

My response:

Given the serious concerns with ‘Court Officer’ decisions, a motorist (in particular one whose motor vehicle has been removed to the enforcement companies pound) should, if he wishes, be able to request a hearing in person, in open court. This would allow the local authority (who should attend the hearing) to explain the reason why they had rejected his application (to serve his witness statement late).

13
News / Press Articles / Re: Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: January 16, 2026, 11:41:13 am »
Up until around November, if an Out of Time Application was rejected by TEC,  the motorist would receive a letter from the Traffic Enforcement Centre stating the date of rejection and that NO REASON IS GIVEN and supposedly, NO REASON IS ON THE COURT FILE. This will now change.

TEC are proposing that the TEC Court Officer should include REASONS and that this can include the following:

1. That the motorist had provided no explanation why he was submitting his Witness Statement late.

2. That the motorist had provided no explanation as to why he failed to notify DVLA of the change of address.

3. That the motorist failed to provide evidence or proof as to why they had been absent from his home when the Order for Recovery had been issued.

Response

Item 5.3 of the Practice Directions supporting CPR 75.7,  states clearly that TEC will serve a copy of the Out of Time forms on the local authority (that issued the Penalty)  seeking  their representation. 

The original TEC Applicant User Guide (which local authorities had to adhere to) stated that if the authority were not willing to give their permission (for the motorist to submit a Witness Statement late),  that they needed to respond to TEC with a ‘Statement  of Case containing a Statement of Truth or an affidavit’ (outlining the reason why).

Unfortunately, under the updated User Guide (version 5.0), TEC removed this requirement. Instead, when responding back to TEC, the authority merely has to tick a box to confirm that they have provided a letter to the motorist or to provide TEC with 2 copies.

With the exception of Transport for London and a few other authorities, it is rare for a statement of truth or letter of any kind to be provided to the motorist.  Worse still, requesting a copy from the local authority is usually met with refusal (with some authorities even stating that the document is private between the authority and TEC!!).

From the many statements that I have seen, it is sadly the case that the vast majority, do not address the ‘reason’ provided on the form by the motorist. Instead; they merely provide a timetable of the dates that notices had been sent out (usually to a previous address) and stating that the authority had sent all notices to the address provided to them by DVLA. Most statements appear to have the very same template wording.

To avoid this injustice to motorists, the Traffic Enforcement Centre should amend their User Guide to once again provide that if the authority were not willing to give their permission for the motorist to file his witness statement late that they needed to respond to TEC with a ‘Statement of Case containing a Statement of Truth or an affidavit’ (outlining the reason why). TEC should insist that 2 copies be provided.....one to be by TEC to the motorist and the 2nd one to be retained by TEC.

And most importantly, the Traffic Enforcement Centre should be informing local authorities of their obligation to ensure when making a decision on the Out of Time Application,  that they abide by the Secretary of State’s Operational Guidance (under the heading of: Considering challenges, representations and appeals as follows:

‘The process of considering challenges, representations and defence of appeals is a legal process’ and that:

‘Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to be judicially reviewed.

Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their discretion, so should ensure that PNCs, NtOs, leaflets and any other advice they give do not mislead the public about what they may consider in the way of representations.

They should approach the exercise of discretion objectively and without regard to any financial interest in the penalty or decisions that may have been taken at an earlier stage in proceedings’

TEC should inform local authorities that they should no longer provide a ‘template’ rejection letter providing the dates that notices had been sent (usually to a previous address) and stating that the council had therefore abided by the obligation to provide notices to the address provided by DVLA. Instead, they should be instructed that they must address the reason why the motorist had been unable to submit his Witness Statement within 21 days (of the Order for Recovery being issued).

14
News / Press Articles / Traffic Enforcement Centre Consultation. Proposed changes that will affect Out of Time Applications and more
« on: January 16, 2026, 11:26:08 am »
In September 2025, the Traffic Enforcement Centre issued a limited Consultation seeking views on  changes being proposed by TEC. These changes are significantly important for anyone submitting an Out of Time Witness Statement or Statutory Declaration (in particular, if a the PCN had been sent to a previous address).

The Consultation ended in November. Bailiff Advice Online provided a very detailed response.

In the first instance; the Consultation revealed that each month, TEC receives 430,000 requests from local authorities to register an unpaid PCN as a debt and to request an Order for Recovery to be issued.

It also revealed that the number of warrants issued had had sky rocketed from 1.2 million in 2015 to over 4 million for the period 2023 to 2024.

The number of Out of Time applications was not revealed in the Consultation but is believed to be around 250,000 for the period 2023 to 2024.

I will outlined below the most important changes being proposed by the Traffic Enforcement Centre. 

15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Ccj and car clamped
« on: January 16, 2026, 09:19:30 am »
Where did you get the idea from that judgment has been entered against you?

From what you have described, you have 4 PCN's from Brent Council which you did not receive.

Local authority issued PCN's are NOT subject to a judgment (CCJ). That said, the legislation provides that once a warrant of control has been issued, the warrant may be enforced AS IF A JUDGMENT had been obtained.

Bailiff Advice Online


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5