Just bumping - any wise words before we look at completing a N244 much appreciated - totally understand how busy all contributors are but any help much appreciated if any of you guys can spare the time.

Jamberson and BA, many thanks for your continued input and help. BA - could we formally complain only about the failure to provide the SoT, or could we also formally complain about the initial TE7 and TE9 being lost by TEC following acknowledgement of receipt and the bailiff costs being added to significantly as a result. We would go down the £50 non-hearing route with the N244; you mentioned that there were some points to take into consideration before filing and most grateful if you could let me know what these are. Based on Jamberson's advice that we can file the N244 without the SoT, will be looking to file the form by Tuesday latest. Any further thoughts as always gratefully received.

Still no Statement of Truth from the LA regarding why OOT was rejected. Council say they cannot provide the Statement and say TEC have to provide it. TEC are saying that they cannot provide the statement and we have to ask the Council. We appear to have reached stalemate with neither side apparently able (or willing) to provide us with this basic information. N244 has to be filed apparently by next Sat (14 days from when rejection of OOT was dated) and I believe we need the reason why the OOT was rejected in order to file the N244. We would be most likely to file at the lower cost (without hearing) as husband cannot afford to take time off work to attend a court hearing and has already spent half a day off work trying to get through to TEC/Council and get the info we need, and has thus lost half a day's earnings which we can ill afford. We still believe that we have a good case as the original PCN issued by the council was removed from husband's vehicle so he never saw it, and the correspondence from the council re the PCN was never received as it was sent to a former address. However the Council and the TEC seem to be making it as difficult as possible for us to put a case forward. We do not know what to do now to move things forward. Any help most gratefully received.

Evidence was sent with application.

Hi BA I can confirm that the wording was as per posts on the other thread, except for including date V5 was sent to DVLA and stating nature of attached bills as proof of current address. Hope this helps!

We heard nothing in yesterday's post from LA. BailiffAdvice, would be fantastic to receive your detailed thoughts as soon as you have a moment to provide them, so we can decide whether or not to go N244 route. It would be more likely we would go for the £50 non-hearing option, as having to attend court would mean husband taking a day off work. He is self employed so it would mean the loss of a day's earnings as well as the £155 fee. But we will wait for your input before we make a decision. Any and all help is so very gratefully received. V best LH

Hi Bailiff Advice Thanks for replying. More than happy to wait till later on for your detailed response and very grateful for any help you can give. We have heard nothing from the LA at all, only the letter yesterday from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. The LA is Lambeth. I am not sure if we will be able to go the N244 route. Costs are already unaffordable and can't afford further costs if we lose. Our case seemed very clear - we were not resident at the address all correspondence was sent to re the PCN and husband never found the original PCN on his vehicle - yet our OOT was rejected and not sure why another hearing would find in our favour if a court officer has already rejected the OOT, which set out the case clearly thanks to Jamberson's much appreciated help with the wording.

Thanks for responding Jamberson. The utility bills were dated August 2013 so before the PCN was issued.

Husband has this afternoon received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunal Service to say Application to file Statutory Declaration out of time was referred to Court Officer and has been refused! We have heard nothing from council and TEC have denied all knowledge. Husband is advised that he has to complete notice N244 for this decision to be reviewed. We put down explanation for why original notice of parking offence was not received (we did not live at that address any more), wording agreed with Jamberson, so do no understand why OOT has been refused, especially as proof of non residence at former address was provided thru Utility bills with OOT application. Why would application be refused as husband no longer lived at address to which PCN was originally served, and proof of new address provided in form of utility bill attached to OOT statement? Apart from anything else, originally OOT statement was lodged with TEC on 14 August. Initial application rejected via email by TEC that day as boxes not correctly completed. Application form re submitted on 14 Aug following discussion with TEC representative and form correctly competed over phone with their assistance. Confirmation of receipt of form TE7 and TE9 received from TEC on 14 August - nothing mentioned this time re incorrect completion so assumed all well. See all previous postings re this case - we filed form on 14 August in good faith that no further action would be taken once receipt acknowledged by TEC without any errors mentioned. At that point costs were £127 parking fee plus £75 letter fee. Husband had tried on various occasions (evidence available) to contact enforcement officer in charge of case with no reply, this enforcement officer was appointed on 24 July and removed 1 Aug, no further officer appointed until 15 Aug. Husband called on 14 August to say forms submitted to TEC and to complain again about original bailiff not responding to calls/texts. Equita said new bailiff was to be appointed and would be in touch re this case. First we heard from new bailiff was on return from holiday on on 22 August to find notice of enforcement through door adding £235 onto original costs. We do not believe that the rejection is fair. We do not believe that Equita have dealt with this case fairly i.e. appointing original agent, then replacing with new agent but not supplying details so that husband could get in touch to pay costs prior to enforcementvisit. What on earth do we do now? Will copy and post this to bailiff forum, at very least we feel that £235 fee should be rescinded as husband filed forms TE7 and TE9 on 14 August without rejection (following original rejection email)and it appears that TEC lost these forms, bailiff did not visit until 21 August and so if original TE7 and TE9 as submitted on 14 Aug had been passed to Equita, this additional £235 would not have been levied as bailiff visit would not have happened. Urgent help needed as to what to do next. Best LH

Husband has this afternoon received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunal Service to say Application to file Statutory Declaration out of time was referred to Court Officer and has been refused! Husband is advised that he has to completed notice N244 for this decision to be reviewed. We put down explanation for why original notice of parking offence was not received, wording agreed with Jamberson, so do no understand why OOT has been refused, especially as proof of non residence at former address was provided thru Utility bills with OOT application. Why would application be refused as husband no longer lived at address to which PCN was originally served, and proof of new address provided in form of utility bill attached to OOT statement? Apart from anything else, originally OOT statement was lodged with TEC on 14 August. Initial application rejected via email by TEC as boxes not correctly completed. Application form re submitted on 14 Aug following discussion with TEC representative and form correctly competed over phone with their assistance. Confirmation of receipt of form TE7 and TE9 received from TEC on 14 August - nothing mentioned this time re incorrect completion so assumed all well. See all previous postings re this case - we filed form on 14 August in god fait that no further action would be taken once receipt acknowledged y TEC without any errors mentioned. At that point costs were £127 parking fee plus £75 letter fee. /husband had tried on various occasions (evidence available) n to contact enforcement officer in charge of case with no reply, enforcement officer was appointed on 24 July and removed 1 Aug, no further officer appointed until 15 Aug. Husband called on 14 August to say forms submitted to TEC and to complain again about original bailiff not responding to calls/texts. Equita said new bailiff was to be appointed and would be in touch re this case. First we heard from new bailiff was on return from holiday on 22 August to find notice of enforcement through door adding £235 onto original costs. We do not believe that the rejection is fair. We do not believe that Equita have dealt with this case fairly i.e. appointing original agent, then replacing with new agent but not supplying details so that husband could get in touch to pay fine prior to visit. What on earth do we do now? Will copy and post this to bailiff forum, at very least we feel that £235 fee should be rescinded as husband filed forms TE7 and TE9 on 14 August without rejection (following original rejection email)and it appears that TEC lost these forms, bailiff did not visit until 21 August and so if original TE7 and TE9 as submitted on 14 Aug had been passed to Equita, this additional £235 would not have been levied as bailiff visit would not have happened. Urgent help needed as to what to do next. Best LH

Many thanks as always Jamberson I did post a question related to our case on the Bailiffs thread but it was merged with this thread - from what I could make out everything to do with this particular situation was thought best kept in one place. Will see what comes out of the OOT and, if the council reject the application, will maybe try posting on the Bailiff thread, although as it will relate to this case it may get posted back to this thread.

Thanks for responding Jamberson. Recall reading somewhere that bailiffs are notified by email and debtors by post of decisions and that bailiffs use this to spring visits on debtors who are not yet in the picture. Maybe this is untrue. Note you say call the council, is it them rather than TEC? Any merit in pursuing TEC for the extra £235 from bailiff visit, after we had received acknowledgement of TE7 and 9 from TEC but their system lost the forms? Many thx as always

I agree with you. But what are debtors to do when they attempt to make contact with EAs (see my thread on local council parking fines re TE7 and TE9) and the EA does not respond to them? Or the company employing the bailiff removes him from the case without telling the debtor, so that the debtor in good faith continues to try to reach the original bailiff and either no-one has been appointed to take over or a new appointment has been made but not notified to the debtor? My husband only found out by chance that the original agent had been removed from his case when he called to complain that he had been trying repeatedly to contact the original EA without any response. Wheh he asked who the new agent would be and how he could get in touch to speak to them, the bailiff company said that he would have to wait for the EA to get in touch. The EA got in touch by making a visit whilst we were on holiday (which the bailiff company were aware of).

Update We are still waiting to hear the outcome of the OOT statement. My husband has also written a letter of complaint to council in respect of the difficulty he had contacting bailiffs and attempting to pay the initial fine (attempted before he knew about the OOT process and started down that route), which has increased our potential costs by over 100% of what they originally were. As suggested by posters, we have been gathering information concerning the warrant and the date of bailiff visits etc. We have today received a letter from Equita to confirm that: The warrant was issued on 25 May, presumably to old address The bailiff my husband tried on multiple occasions to contact was assigned to our case on 24 July but removed 1st August The current bailiff was not then appointed until 15 August no-one told my husband about the situation although he had continued to try to reach the original bailiff after he was removed on 1 Aug The new bailiff visited on 21 August. My husband sent his original submission to TEC on 14 August and received confirmation of receipt that same day, after an initial submission that day rejected as form not correctly completed. So if TEC had not lost the form (which apparently is the case) the bailiff would not have visited as the OOT statement would have been received by the council and notified to the bailiff well before the visit. Husband is absolutely furious. What is not clear is when the warrant was re-issued to our new address (if that has any bearing on the situation). If our OOT statement is rejected, the additional charge of £235 for the visit will have to be paid, and has arisen as a result of TEC apparently losing our original forms. Would we be able to take action against them to recoup the £235 charge? All this is pie in the sky of course until we hear on the decision re the OOT statement. TEC say expecting to hear 24th/25th Sep. Any advice/help most gratefully received as always. I am now dreading the doorbell in case it is the bailiff coming back if council have decided against our OOT but we have not received notification.

Paragraphing still not working on this computer, for which apologies. The fun and games continue. The TE7 and TE9 forms filed last night, for which we have an email acknowledgement from TEC confirming receipt, have once again been lost in their system. Husband called first thing this morning and TEC confirmed nothing showing as received on their system despite what their email acknowledgement said. So now we have two acknowledgements of receipt from TEC in respect of which their system has lost the docs somewhere. So we have filed again and this time husband waited on the phone for them to check receipt. This time docs and attachments have been received. The forms have to be checked to see that they have been completed correctly which apparently 'could take time', and the forms may not be processed today despite what TEC say about docs which reach them before 4pm being processed same day. This is absolutely ridiculous. Once we have confirmation that enforcement has been put on hold husband is going to complain. He will check with Equita what date their bailiff attended and ask for evidence, and if the bailiff visited after 15 August following our original email confirmation of receipt from TEC for our submission of 14th (which should have been with the bailiff by 15th), he wants the bailiff visit charge of £235 rescinded as the visit should not have happened if TEC's systems had been working properly and husband's docs had not been lost. Whether this will yield any result, we shall see. Obviously if the OOT is accepted by the council (we live in hope) and the PCN clock is reset he will not need to pursue that avenue.