About 4 years ago I upgraded both my Gas and Electric pre-pay meter’s to smart meters Shortly after the instillation of these smart meters I was having an issue with the Gas meter. An engineer attended the property to find the Newly installed gas meter was faulty and it required him to install another “smart” gas meter. I continued to top-up both my meters weekly via my online account Over this period, I noticed a steady increase in the amount of money I was paying on the electric smart meter due to cost of living price increases. But the amount I was paying on the gas pre-pay meter stayed the same £5 per week. Due to the fact I only use gas supply for 6 months of the year (gas heating) I assumed as I was paying £5 every week of the year (52 weeks) I was over paying to cover winter usage. About 12 months ago I contacted British Gas, I was told that the new Gas meter was installed and set-up as a standard credit meter (Not pre-pay) I was told that they could change it back to pre-pay remotely to which I agreed. Another 6 months went by and I was still only topping up £5 per week, I went to check the meter but couldn’t find any info on the display regarding top up payments. I contacted British Gas again, only to be told the Gas meter was still showing as a credit meter, the person on the phone was not much help other than stating that it could be reset remotely. So, I continued to top up £5 per week as I have been doing for the past 4 years. About month ago, I received an email from British Gas regarding the July 2023 price cap. It stated that my Gas bill will be reduced by £241.42 from £1136.78 to £859.36. I have two questions, 1. If British Gas send a bill for underpayment of the last 4 years does the Back-Billing rule apply here? 2. If they don’t send any bill and I keep paying £5 per week via my online account, will Back billing apply,

dx100uk is correct do not contact anyone. It became apparent after you uploaded the photos this is no longer with Transport for London (TFL) so representation is no longer an option. The debt is now with a Debt Collection Agency (DCA). Just ignore, there is nothing they can do.

The letter you uploaded, is not in English I cannot understand what is written. I'm not sure if that is a notice to owner, could it be a "trace" letter. The Issuing Authority may have started the PCN process within the correct timeframe but as you live abroad they had to trace you. You need to read through it and see if this is the case. If it is, then the PCN stands. I'm not sure what enforcement powers are available to TFL if you are not in the Uk.

If you are correct and all the Notice to Owner's (4) are dated more then six months after the contravention date. Then you need to make a representation under, there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. Tell them that the PCN is unenforceable because the notice to owner was issued after six months

A Notice to Owner has to be issued within 6 months, not 28 days. Being a foreigner is irrelevant the rule is 6 months. Check the issue date printed on the Notice to Owner, If it's dated more then six months from the date of the traffic contravention then its unenforceable.

Under the FOI, I have requested a copy of The Enforcement Services Agreement that outlines terms to which TFL expect their appointed enforcement company/agent to follow when collecting debts on their behalf. But let’s be honest, 90-days 180-days does not really matter as I've already pointed out (with the legislation) the enforcement power and bailiff fees expire 12-months from the date the Notice of Enforcement is issued if no application is made to a court (not the TEC) for a further 12-month extension. And as the legislation’s states, any 12-month extension can only be applied for and granted on one occasion only and the court has to be satisfied (see the legislation) before granting such an application.

The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 Recovery of fees for enforcement-related services from the debtor 4.—(1) — The enforcement agent may recover from the debtor the fees indicated in the Schedule in accordance with this regulation and regulations 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17, by reference to the stage, or stages, of enforcement for which enforcement-related services have been supplied. Fees and disbursements not recoverable where enforcement process ceases 17.—(1) The enforcement agent may not recover fees or disbursements from the debtor in relation to any stage of enforcement undertaken at a time when the relevant enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable. Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 Regulation 9(1), Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor after the expiry of a period of 12 months beginning with the date of notice of enforcement

I was merely pointing out, a debt registered with the TEC will be enforced by “enforcement agents” not County Court bailiffs or High Court enforcement officers. I only referred to para 60 as an example, to the fact that only County Court bailiffs or High Court enforcement officers have a power to use reasonable force. I know it has no relevance to my case, that’s the point I was making - taking forced entry out of the equation. In regards to regulation 9, I don’t believe what I wrote to be misleading at all, it clearly states - Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) the enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor after the expiry of a period of 12 months beginning with the date of notice of enforcement. If there is no extension then this paragraph stands. para (2) is not relevant Para (3) & (4) an extension will only be granted if - (a), on application by the enforcement agent or the creditor (b), on one occasion; and – (c) if the court is satisfied that the applicant has reasonable grounds for not taking control of goods of the debtor during the period referred to under paragraph (1). So not misleading, the notice of enforcement will expire if no application is made or granted. Part 75.7 (10) I will take a closer look (thankyou).

@dx100uk I am well aware County Courts are civil; your point being? Again, I was pointing out the FACT There is no procedure for an authority to apply for a judgment for an unpaid traffic contravention debt. Regardless of it being county or magistrate. 1. It would not be financially tenable for a local authority to carry on pursuing it. 2. The process already exists, TEC. 3. There are no public record or president of this ever happening.

@brassnecked I already told you in post #10 that the contravention vehicle is a leased vehicle through motability. I own no other vehicle.

@Bailiff Advice Yes, I am aware of the considerable cost that the bailiffs add throughout the enforcement stage. My main question was… If the enforcement agent is unable to settle the debt within the timeframe of the Notice of Enforcement. A power to use reasonable force as per- Schedule 12 – Section 18A(1) - This paragraph applies if these conditions are met— (d) the sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt. The unlikelihood of a further 12-month extension being granted. I have not seen any proof let alone any procedure for an authority to apply to the County Court for a judgment for an unpaid traffic contravention debt. With all of the above in mind , why should I pay TFL let alone any Bailiff. Again, if anyone can provide proof to the contrary, I’m open and willing to look at it.

@brassnecked Could you please tell me through what process? I am genuinely interested if you can provide proof that this has happened in regards to an unsettled traffic contravention debt, once the enforcement process has been spent.

@ Bailiff Advice Yes, you are correct, my mistake the PCN currently stands at £160, if it’s paid within the 28-day limit or the amount will increase to £240 with the Charge Certificate. I miss quoted the IA, it is £160. I think where I am really reluctant to Pay TFL knowing that the next stage is an increase to £240 that just stuck in my mind. I started this topic because I really do not want to pay TFL for reasons already stated. Yes, you are correct there is a lot of misinformation out there which lead me to study the legislation I have mentioned. I posted here to see if anyone with knowledge in this area or experienced this situation in regards to the enforcement action. I wanted to make sure that my understanding of the legislation was correct.

Yes I have a disabled bay outside my house, also regulation 4, states an enforcement agent should not take control of goods if there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person. So, a vehicle parked in a disabled bay clearly qualifies. Even if my vehicle is clamped and the bailiff refuses to remove the clamp, I will contact the issuing authority to inform them that the enforcement agent they appointed has breached a provision of the taking control of goods act 2013 , namely regulation 4, and that Schedule 12 of The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 section 66 leaves both the bailiff and the issuing authority liable. The longer the clamp remains on the vehicle the more damages can be claimed.