Have you received notification from the Traffic Enforcement Centre that Nottingham Council have accepted your Out of Time Application?

You also mention that your daughter is disabled and that you have a baby and that you are on benefits and therefore believed that you are 'vulnerable'. You also say that you were not offered a payment arrangement. It is sadly the case, that the word 'vulnerable' is used so very often when it comes to the recovery of any debt. With bailiff enforcement, it is vitally important that any person receiving correspondence from an enforcement agent should contact the company straight away and outline their 'vulnerability'. I should make clear that when it comes to vulnerability, it is for YOU to outline in detail HOW your vulnerability affects your ability to make payment. In this case, you should have been contacting the company to outline that you are on benefits and a payment arrangement could have been agreed. You would of course need to provide an Income & Expenditure. Most important, is your mention that you had not received any correspondence from Merseyflow. You clearly have two Merseyflow PCN's totalling £381 and it would appear that the enforcement company have added an additional £110 for the removal of the car (bringing the total to £491) If you had not received correspondence, then you need to check your V5C (Log Book). Have you moved address? Did you update your records with DVLA? It is your choice at the moment, but I would urge you to see is there is any way that you can raise the money to collect the car. My reason behind this is that every day, storage charges are added to the debt. Please do post back once you have ascertained whether the log book has the correct address.

Excellent responses as always from blfuk1 !!! To the OP.....I would URGE you to tell the family that they should almost certainly NOT invite an enforcement agent to go into the property. Instead, somebody from the family needs to be contacting Marston to explain the significant vulnerability of the debtor. I would expect that the account would then be referred to the companies Welfare Dept.

As this matter is the subject of a criminal enquiry, I will not be commenting about the incident itself (and I would suggest that the same applies to other viewers). You mention that you have been in contact with a solicitor who you say is eager to represent you. Have you informed him that you have made your complaint public? Back to the debt itself; you said in your post that you HAD received an enforcement notice from Equita and that following this...you 'immediately filed an Out of Time' application. What date was the Enforcement Notice from Equita? What date (and time) was your Out of Time Application submitted to the Traffic Enforcement Centre? Were your Out of Time forms sent by email or by post? If email, did you receive an acknowledgment from the Traffic Enforcement Centre? Most importantly, upon receiving the Enforcement Notice from Equita, did you contact Equita to inform that of your vulnerability (operation, hospital stay, crutches etc)?

NO...the £495 cannot be applied. The following wording is taken from the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations. In your case, the enforcement agent failed to 'take control' of any goods.....there was no signed inventory listing any items. Therefore, he can merely charge only the Stage one fee....nothing more. For the avoidance of doubt, the £495 cannot be charged.

For ease of reference, my post number 25 from the link made a few moments ago by DX100 explains the position more clearly regarding fees. Although the post was made in 2016, it is still valid. Elliot Davies Court Enforcement doorstep visit this morning - Bailiffs - Help with Dealing with Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents including HCEO - Consumer Action Group From your answer, it appears to be the case that the enforcement agent did NOT enter into a Controlled Goods Agreement or take an Inventory of Goods (which must be recorded on a Statutory Notice).

Did the Enforcement Agent make a list of any goods (an inventory) that he was 'taking into control? Was there a vehicle nearby that he may have recorded the number plate of?

Credit Searches fail to display the name of the creditor and this has been a huge problem for years. The good news is that this omission is amongst proposals which hopefully will be introduced within the next few months. In the meantime, instead of me reading back over many pages, are all the Penalty Charge Notices issued by Transport for London? How many are there? Also, have you actually contacted TfL?

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.