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.

I’m sorry but I have to completely disagree with you, and frankly you have not provided one bit of evidence to support such a statement. It clearly states within - The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007- Schedule 12 that it is the enforcement agent that makes the application. Even if the appointed enforcement agent was unable to secure the debt within the framework and time allocated as set out within the above mention legislation. The Issuing Authority lacks standing to bring such a claim to the magistrate court for traffic contravention debts. The "debtors" actions have not in any way breached any part of the legislation. You also state with such certainty that bailiff fee’s “stand no matter what,” in complete contradiction to what is written in the legislation, the warrant of control becomes nullified after 12-months from the date of the Notice of Enforcement, this in turn renders the debt and any associated fee’s legally unenforceable. Unless it is extended by 12 months, on one occasion and the court is satisfied that the applicant has reasonable grounds. But to be fair let’s put your theory to the test. Somehow by some miracle the issuing authority manages to obtain a force entry warrant. But remembering you previously pointed out that parking tickets were decriminalised years ago, so this is not a magistrate fine. So, no power to force entry. The Issuing authority still needs to appoint an enforcement agent to collect the debt, this is where the flaw lies in your argument. The enforcement agent will still be governed by the rules and regulations such as - Paragraph 18a of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 prevents bailiffs from using force to enter homes for recovering traffic debts. So, no court will issue a warrant to force entry on Residential Premises no mater how applies for it , because its in contradiction to Paragraph 18a of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

Thank you for your input, I completely agree that an enforcement agent working for Marstons, Rossendales, J.B.W etc are real “bailiffs” and that they have to be Certificated by the county court, and that gives them their authority within England and wales. I also agree a warrant of control issued from the TEC is a legitimate instrument with no need for court involvement. I was merely pointing out that Court bailiffs/officers have more power to enter from what I understand reading through the legislation. In regards to TFL or the Enforcement agent making an application to a Magistrates Court for a forced entry warrant under Paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Which I know you stated is “rare” but reading through the legislation I can only see this happening when… A power for re-entering by force exists where a regulation 15 controlled goods agreement is in place and the goods remain on residential premises but the debtor has failed to comply with the repayment terms of the controlled goods agreement. This power should only be used to the extent that it is reasonably required and only after the debtor has been given notice of the enforcement agent’s intention to re-enter. Or under rule 10(c) of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015, Where a bailiff carrying a valid warrant to recover unpaid magistrate’s court fines can enter by force ONLY if the debtor is wilfully refusing to cooperate. Nowhere in any of the current legislation or case law can I see a prescribed court procedure for a bailiff to have an audience at a magistrates court to make the application to force entry to residential premises because peaceful entry has not been achieved. Furthermore, Paragraph 20 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 a bailiffs cannot falsely imply that a debtor refusing entry to a property is classed as an offence. I don’t want to come across as being argumentative I’m looking to see if anyone has experienced this or if you can point me to any legislation that contradicts what I have written then please show me. Regarding a forced entry warrant I found the following, bailiffs cannot make an application to the court to force entry when collecting traffic debts (PCNs) Paragraph 18a of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 prevents bailiffs from using force to enter homes for recovering traffic debts. The actual legislation is as follows… 17 Where paragraph 18 [ F3, 18A, 19 or 19A] applies, an enforcement agent may if necessary use reasonable force to enter premises or to do anything for which the entry is authorised. 18A(1) This paragraph applies if these conditions are met— (d) the sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt.

The PCN was for: Code 46 - Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway) Without going into too much personal detail, I parked my vehicle in the early hours of the morning within a 1-hour parking bay on a red route. I presented myself at my local Hospitals A&E Department. I parked the vehicle with reasonable belief that I would have returned to the vehicle before the parking restrictions came into force (07:00 -19:00). Whilst I was waiting in A&E I became very unwell which resulted in me being admitted into hospital for a number of days. Later the same day, when I was well enough I arranged to have the car moved by a person who was licenced and insured to do so, which they did. I received a PCN in the post a few weeks later I submitted my representation within the required timeframe, but it was rejected on the grounds that the PCN was not issued in error and the signage on display clearly laid out the restricted parking times. I appealed to the independent adjudicator (London tribunals). The adjudicator stated that whilst she sympathises with the unfortunate events that led to the PCN, she could only overturn the PCN if a legal impropriety had happened. She stated she has no power to force TFL in this matter, I was told to pay the PCN within the next 28 days.

I received a PCN from TFL sometime back, went through the appeals process (unsuccessfully). Without going into all the details surrounding the PCN, other then I strongly believe I should not have to pay it due to circumstances beyond my control, but we are where we are. Currently I have 28 days to pay £240 or a Charge Certificate will be issued. I’ve been doing some research regarding the enforcement process and the regulations to which enforcement agents are required to follow. There seems to be a lot of misleading info out there in particular “Youtube” with wet ink signature, freeman of the land and other none sensical nonsense. I’ve been reading through the following legislation, The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007- Schedule 12 and Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014. If I’m understanding and reading this correctly then the enforcement agent doesn’t have many options available to them (in regards to my situation). TfL will register the PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court Business Centre (CCBC). The TEC then authorises and then issues TFL with a warrant of control. So as this is not a County Court debt (CCJ) then only a “Certificated Enforcement Agent” will be trying to collect the debt, Not County Court bailiffs or High Court enforcement officers. Certificated Enforcement Agents are limited when it comes to entry. As per - Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 Para 60. A power to enter premises by force exists for the execution of High Court and County Court debts at business premises or at any premises where an enforcement agent is enforcing criminal penalties. Certificated Enforcement Agents can only enter the relevant premises as set out within the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Schedule 12 (paragraph 14). Entry without warrant. So, when the enforcement agent is executing a Warrant of Control for a PCN debt. He can only achieve entry by “Peaceful entry”, walking through an open or unlocked door, or if invited in by a competent person over the age of 16. Regulation 9(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 says: 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. The Enforcement Services Agreement that originates from the Local Government Association. Outsourced bailiff companies must return an unsatisfied debt within 90 days of being instructed. The company can request an extension to 180 days if there is a prospect of a successful recovery. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 75.7(10) A reissued warrant will only be valid for the remainder of the 12-month period beginning with the date it was originally issued. Also, the contravention vehicle is a leased vehicle through motability. I own no other vehicle. So, Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states; an enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor. Plus, under regulation 4, goods of the debtor are exempt if a vehicle on which a valid disabled person’s badge is displayed because it is used for, or in relation to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person. So, again if I am understanding this correctly, if I decide not to pay £240 to TFL, which I really do not want to. But when TFL instruct a private enforcement company and send agents around to collect the debt as long as I refuse entry and keep the doors locked at all times then honestly what can they do? other than come around between 06:00 – 21:00, knock on the door and ask for payment or access. I know these bastards don’t play by the rules so I will have to be careful plus video record everything. I also am aware the Police can be problematic but again if I keep the door locked and don’t cause a breach of the peace. Then after a while they have to hand the debt back to TFL.