In the first instance, well done for managing to get the Family Annexe and Single Person discount and most importantly, getting the agreement from the council to 'back date' the discounts to 2019. When the enforcement company were instructed (in 2022) they were entitled to add the 7.5% uplift (on amounts over £1,500). They were within their rights to do so and it would not be for them to amend their account. Instead, they are instructed by the local authority and it is up to the LA to make any adjustments.

Your above comment posted on 18th November is not true and should be totally ignored.

I really am confused by your many references to legislation and in particular, whether it even applies to you (which it mostly doesn't). For example, in relation to Para 60 of the National Standards, (Power to entry by force), this has no relevance in your particular case. Your reference to Regulation 9 is misleading as it appears to give the impression that a bailiff cannot take control of goods after a period of 12 moths beginning with the date of the Notice of Enforcement. A warrant may be extended for a FURTHER 12 month period. Your reference to Part 75.7 (10) would also not apply in your case. Most importantly, can you please provide a link to the Enforcement Services Agreement that you say originates from the Local Government Association.

I do not post on here in order to outline ways in which a person can get out of paying a legitimate debt. That is called debt avoidance. As I stated yesterday, the decision on whether to pay or not must be yours.

I can understand your reluctance to pay. However, not only has your appeal been considered by TfL, but the rejection to your appeal has also been considered by London Tribunals. If you don't wish to pay, then that must be your choice. However, you may wish to bear in mind that if a bailiff is to visit, the debt increases to £559.

The internet can be a great place for information...however, it can also be a place where people seeking advice about bailiff enforcement can be seriously mislead. The fact of the matter is this....you appealed a PCN within the right time frame and lost. You then took the matter to London Tribunals who agreed that that the ticket had been issued correctly and they ordered you to make payment. How much did the Tribunal state that you had to pay? I am confused by your post when you state that you have to make payment of £240 otherwise, a Charge Certificate will be issued. With a TfL penalty, the amount required at Charge Certificate stage would be £240. As no Charge Certificate has yet been issued, the amount should not be £240.

It is my understanding that the period of '14 days' would be from the date of service of the Court Order (which has not yet been sent). I noticed that you have also mentioned that you have moved again. Have you make arrangements to ensure that the court order will reach you?

You MUST be provided with a copy of the SIGNED Hire Agreement.

As this is a different Penalty Charge Notice, a further Out of Time Applications needs to be submitted. You need to ask Waltham Forest for the vehicle registration number of the vehicle involved in this particular contravention. You also need to ask them to provide a copy of the vehicle Hire Agreement that should have been provided to them by the hire company. Lastly, you should ask the council to confirm what address their initial notices had been sent to.

You have confirmed that you received the initial Notice of Enforcement and that following receipt, you chose not to take the steps outlined in that notice (to pay the enforcement company using the bank details as outlined). Instead, you chose to ignore the notice and pay the council instead. Once a Notice of Enforcement is issued (which you confirm receipt of), the bailiff fees FORM PART OF THE DEBT. BY paying the council direct, you have merely made a part payment. It is irrelevant what the council are saying to you. From any payment made (even if made to the council), the Compliance Fee of £75 must first be deducted. Only a few years ago, there was a major legal case involving this very subject which I had posted about on the forum. The decision involved Newlyn's and the outcome of the hearing was very clear......paying the court direct will NOT mean that bailiff fees can be avoided. In that particular case, the debtor lost many thousands of pounds in taking the matter to court. If as you say, you paid the council direct on receipt of the letter, then as long as you also paid the £75 Compliance Fee, no further action would have been taken. By trying to avoid paying £75, a visit appears to have been made increasing the amount due by way of an Enforcement Fee of £235. On the Notice of Enforcement, there will be a date of issue and a separate date by when payment must be made. Can you respond to the following: What date was the Notice of Enforcement issued? What was the 'cut off' date and time by when payment must be made? What was the exact date that you paid the council direct?

As TEC have not as yet received a copy of the Court Order, then enforcement of the warrant would still be 'on hold' so I would not worry at this stage. Please do post back once you have received the Order. PS: I am adamant that TEC do NOT require a fresh TE9!!

This is complete madness. There is NO Judgment recorded against you. I am assuming that what TEC are referring to is that they require a copy of the Order from the Court that held your hearing. Have you spoken to the Court? I would suggest that you do so.

I will ATTEMPT to keep my answer simple. If a PCN remains unpaid after 28 days, the motorist loses the right to appeal or to pay at the earlier discounted rate. A Charge Certificate will then be issued and the debt increases by 50%. If payment is not made within 14 days, the local authority may REGISTER the debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre. A 'registration fee' of £9 will be added. Registration does not mean that a judgment will be entered. When registering the debt, the local authority will issue a 3rd notice called an Order for Recovery. The motorist has 21 days to EITHER...pay the amount outstanding....OR...file the attached Statutory Declaration (or Witness Statement). A valid Statutory Declaration (Witness Statement) submitted within 21 days will ALWAYS revoke the debt registration. It is important to stress that this will not mean that the PCN itself is cancelled. The local authority can then reissue the original PCN and the motorist may then either appeal...or pay at the earlier rate. A Statutory Declaration /Witness Statement (form PE3 or TE9) may still be submitted AFTER 21 days, but it will have to be accompanied by an additional form called Form PE2 or TE7 (Application to file a Statement Out of Time/Extension of Time). Such an application will NOT automatically revoke the debt registration. Instead, TEC will forward the application forms to the relevant local authority and the council are given 19 business days in which to decide whether they are willing to accept the reason given by the motorist as to why they could not file their Witness Statement/Stat Dec within 21 days. If the local authority refuse to accept the reason given, the motorist can then file an N244 Application. There is a fee to pay of £109...or £275 for a hearing in person. In your case, the District Judge has decided to EXTEND THE TIME in which you can file your application (Forms TE7 and TE9). TEC will now process the original forms already filed. You are NOT required to submit new forms. If they wish, Redbridge Council may re-issue the PCN to you (at the earlier rate). You will then be able to either pay...or appeal the contravention. Sadly, you will not be able to claim back the £275 court fee.

Whatever you do, do NOT submit either another TE7 or TE9 !!! As the Out of Time application for the Redbridge PCN had been rejected, you were given the option of seeking a 'review' of the rejection by way of an N244 Application. In seeking a 'review' you would be required to outline REASONS as to WHY you considered that the application should NOT have been rejected by LB of Redbridge. The letter from the Traffic Enforcement Centre (advising you of the rejection), does NOT provide the REASON for rejection. Instead, you would need to rely upon the Statement of Truth from Redbridge. I suspect that Redbridge failed to provide you with a copy. Before filing the N244, you should have requested a copy. TEC could also provide a copy to you (they were charging a fee of £10 for such requests....I believe that the 'photocopying' charge has recently increased). An N244 is a general application. What were you requesting from the court? What information did you provided on your application? Almost certainly, you need to wait to receive the formal Order from the County Court. The Court will also send a copy to TEC.

Thank you for clarifying the position. As outlined in my above post, Out of Time applications are therefore applicable.

In my post number 11, I did mention that I would be very surprised if Croydon Council cancelled these PCN's and instead, they would advise you to submit Out of Time applications. I also mentioned that without knowing what type of offence the PCN's had been issued for, I could not advise you whether you would need to file an Out of Time Witness Statements (forms TE7 and TE9), or alternatively, Out of Time Statutory Declarations; (forms PE2 and PE3). Now for the difficulty...... In the vast majority of Out of Time applications, the REASON for filing the applications is because the motorist only became aware of a PCN when receiving a letter from bailiffs or even a personal visit. Worse still, when the motorist finds that his vehicle has been immobilised. Enquiries will usually find that the REASON why the motorist had not received any previous notices....was because all correspondence had been sent to the address where his vehicle has been REGISTERED to on the contravention date. This would usually be a PREVIOUS address. The mistake that the motorist had made would be that when moving, he had failed to update his V5C (Log Book) with DVLA. Motorists have to update BOTH their Log Book AND Driving Licence......and this should be done online via the DVLA website. Wherever possible, avoid sending either of these documents in the post!!! In your case, you have said that you have not moved, and that the address is correct. Granted, there may have been postal delays during COVID, however, for EACH PCN, there would have been 3 letters plus an additional letter from bailiffs (12 letters in total). For one letter to go missing for each PCN is believable, but for all of them to go missing.....not so believable. Are you absolutely sure about the address? Have you checked your V5C (Log Book).

What the council told you is absolutely correct. A single person discount is a very substantial amount (25%) and just because a person may have been awarded SPD in one year, it may well be the case that the following year, the single person's partner may have moved into the house. The single person may have also got married. Most importantly, during the 2 year pandemic, many adult persons moved BACK to their mother's home. Therefore the mother would no longer be entitled to SPD etc. PS: Just a snapshot as to why checks are carried out each year regarding entitlement to Single Person Discount.

This is a very important subject and I really must set the record straight. If it is the case, that I had previously advised on the forum that a person who has received a Notice of Enforcement should pay the council direct (instead of the enforcement company), then the advice given is WRONG. In fact, there is a very detailed thread that I started regarding this subject (paying the council direct) and where the debtor has lost a case in court and had significant court costs. Once a Notice of Enforcement has been issued, then payment is due to the enforcement company...together with the £75 Compliance fee. If payment is made to the council, then almost all local authorities will forward that payment to the relevant enforcement company. This is because; from any payment made, the Compliance fee of £75 must first be deducted and the balance apportioned on a 'pro rata' basis (split between the council tax debt and any remaining bailiff fees).

By all means call the council but I would be absolutely staggered if they were to agree to withdraw a warrant (or to allow you to make a repayment proposal with them). The reason why, is because of the wording under Item 11 of The National Standards for Enforcement Agents 2014 which states as follows:

I forgot to respond to your comment about the vehicle being needed for your employment. The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 states that a vehicle is exempt if it is 'necessary for use personally by the debtor IN the debtors' employment, trade, profession, study or education'. The important word is 'in' the debtor's employment. If a vehicle is needed to get to and from work...it would not be considered 'exempt'. Secondly, a vehicle will not be considered 'exempt' if its value exceeds £1,350.

You mention that you had been involved in two contraventions on the same day......one for parking and the other for driving into a bus lane. You paid the parking penalty leaving the bus lane one unpaid. You also confirmed that you HAD received notices regarding both offences. I notice that you have also recently moved address. If you had not been at the address to receive notices from Lambeth, you would ordinarily have grounds in which to file an Out of Time Statutory Declaration (forms PE2 and PE3). However, given that you had received all notices, I would very much doubt if your application would be accepted. Your reference to the warrant no longer being 'valid' is an interesting point. The legal position is that if a bailiff is made aware of a new address, he should return the warrant back to his client (in this case; Lambeth) and they will make a simple request to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to obtain permission to have the warrant 're-sealed' to your new address. HOWEVER.....and this is the important point.....the vehicle is located on a 'highway' by way of ANPR, the current warrant would be valid and your vehicle can be legally 'seized'.

I would be very surprised indeed if Croydon Council would agree to cancel this penalty. Instead, if you had not received any of the statutory notices, they would advise you to complete EITHER an Out of Time Witness Statement, or alternatively, an Out of Time Statutory Declaration. Without knowing what the contravention relates to, you cannot file any application. In submitting either application, you would be required to provided a REASON as to why you would not have received the Penalty Charge Notice. Has there been a change of address etc?

I am really pleased to hear that the council have instructed the enforcement company to accept a payment arrangement of £50 per month. Once that has been set up, it may be wise to look into the reason why a Notice of Enforcement had not been received. I am so sorry to hear about the loss of your employment. Were you not entitled to make a claim for benefits (which would have included council tax)? If the council tax arrears is your only debt, then like other advisors on here, I would urge you not to rush hastily into 'downsizing'. PS: I hope that you receive some good news on the employment front very soon.

When did you get the letter from DVLA and what exactly does it say? This changes everything. So the vehicle in question, belongs to a hire company. You need to get back to TfL as soon as possible. They have confirmed to you that they have received a copy of 'a valid hire agreement' from the hire company with your name on it. Excellent.......You need a copy of this 'hire agreement' right now. They must provide it to you.

It is very common for parking penalties to be issued against a hire company and what happens when this occurs is this: A Penalty Charge Notice would be issued against the registered keeper of the vehicle. Purely for the sake of example, a vehicle had been hired from Zipcar. The Penalty would be received by Zipcar and once received, Zipcar would return the Penalty back to Transport for London (for example) and request that Liability be transferred to the vehicle hirer. They would provide the name and address of the hirer and this information would come from the Hire Agreement. It is not easy for a hirer of the vehicle to provide somebody else's name as the hirer. This is because; almost all vehicle hire companies, will also request sight of the hirer's DRIVING LICENCE. The reason for this being that Zipcar would need to satisfy themselves that the hirer: 1. Held a valid driving licence 2. That the hirer was not banned from driving 3. Was a UK resident. The hire company would also request a valid credit or debit card. As I have advised before, you really should call Transport for London. When doing so, you would need to provide the PCN number and vehicle reg number for one of the tickets. Simply ask the operator to confirm the precise name and address where the INITIAL Penalty Charge Notice had been sent. If the operator refuses to assist you, I would suggest that you advise him or her that you will be looking to make a Formal Complaint