Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Savers are pouring money into cash Isas as they look to protect the interest on their nest eggs from tax. They put more than £11bn into cash Isas in April.View the full article
    • The stock ended the trading day at nearly $136, up 3.5%, making it more valuable than Microsoft.View the full article
    • More from the Second Sight guys in the Law Gazette. Post Office Inquiry: Second Sight accountant accuses lawyer of conspiring to pervert course of justice | Law Gazette WWW.LAWGAZETTE.CO.UK Second Sight accountant found compelling evidence in two cases that evidence was withheld, public inquiry is told.  
    • Why have there not been arrests yet? Waiting for the end of an inquiry which seems designed to drag on forever is a feeble excuse "the Post Office “was constantly sabotaging our efforts” to seek the truth and used claims of legal professional privilege – a type of confidentiality which covers legal documents – “to justify withholding documents from us”. "Aujard had said the state-owned body “would not hesitate to take legal action against me” under a “draconian” non-disclosure agreement (NDA)" "Henderson became concerned after reviewing the case file of Jo Hamilton, .. Henderson said the Post Office’s decision to charge Hamilton did not seem to be supported by its own internal security report, and there was evidence that “potentially exculpatory material” had not been disclosed to her at trial or subsequently. “I regarded this as either professional misconduct or, potentially, criminal conduct,” he said."   Horizon IT scandal investigator tells inquiry Post Office was ‘sabotaging our efforts’ | Post Office Horizon scandal | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Ian Henderson, looking into possible miscarriages of justice, said he came to believe he was dealing with ‘a cover-up’  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone  ,  I

would like some help with parking fines I'm dealing with right now , with Birmingham City Council.


I was 20 when I bought my first car, a 2007 black Peugeot,  I've had it for about 2 years .

I bought myself new car in 2018 that I'm still driving, and gave the Peugeot to a close friend to use for work and leisure etc ( I was tired seeing walking to work)  but didn't change v5c as it was only a short temporary loan until he got his own car. 


While using it he got himself three parking tickets

first one was 24/06/2019 ,

second on 07/10/2019 and

last one was 23/10/2019.


He wasn't aware of the tickets otherwise he would've paid them all and informed me.


On 03/2019 I was kicked out of the family address (where the car is registered),  with no where to go I slept in my car for 5 days until a friend was happy to take me in , temporarily whilst I look for a place.


Parking letters were sent into my address countless times (Birmingham City Council said) and I wasn,t aware of it , I wasn't allowed to go near the property.


On 01/11/2020 I received a call from the bailiff, equita saying I have out standing fine of 799 for parking.

Almost wet myself, I spoke to gentleman on the phone he didn't want to hear me out , he kept on asking for payment. 


I called the council and explained the whole situation above the lady advised  me to fill TE7 and TE9.

Because I wasn't aware of the whole process I filed  the PCN wrong and I have now been rejected by council and TEC.



The other PCN was submitted correctly with the help of a lawyer i still waiting on the response.


1. What can I do solves these parking matters

2.can I submit another Te7 and 9 on the same PCN?

3 what should do to prevent bailiff coming?


Sorry for the long story


Link to post
Share on other sites

you were not the driver you should be informing them of such and naming the driver in question.


you can resubmit new TE7/9 with that info.



please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Birmingham council are wrong.


However, you probably left yourself open to this problem by not changing the keeper details.  You should do this now.


Also are there any other lurking problems which could come up and bite you?  You should make proper arrangements to redirect post or to inform creditors etc. This is the kind of scenario where you end up getting backdoor CCJs which then become difficult to deal with

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is not in possession of the car anymore,  like said it was a short loan until he buy his car. Do I still need to change the keeper details? There no other issues  , just the parking tickets. Note" all three tickets  are some from his mom housing flat that required to display permit"


I am currently living in a hostel ( share accommodation) I've change my new car address to this one and all my mails are coming to this address

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be mistaken (and apologies in advance if I am!) but I thought that for local authority parking charges it was the "owner" that was liable for the charge, and the driver was irrelevant?  And isn't there a presumption that the registered keeper is the owner except where there is a proper hire agreement in place?

If he simply says he wasn't the driver, won't Birmingham CC simply object again to the OOT, and the TEC reject it?

Doesn't he need to say that he didn't know about the PCNs etc because he didn't have access to his mail at the address on his V5C?  (Even then, I'd expect BCC to object unless the OP's wording is really persuasive).

I'd be looking at the solution his solicitor had for the other PCN...

(And I'd be looking to the "friend" to do the right thing...

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.  So you lent your car to a friend in 2019 and he racked up three parking tickets that he tells you he didn't know anything about(!).  You were the registered keeper (RK) at the time at your family address, but you got chucked out and could not change your RK address with DVLA because you were homeless.  You knew nothing about the parking tickets and enforcement action until you got a bailiffs' letter passed on to you.  You made an Out of Time (OOT) application in respect of one PCN but Birmingham CC objected to it and the traffic court rejected your application.  A solicitor helped you make OOTs in respect of the other two PCNs but you don't yet know the outcome of those two applications.


Is that the situation you are in?


dx100uk thinks you can resubmit the application saying your friend was the driver.  I don't think saying that will help as the driver is irrelevant.  It's the owner who is liable to pay the charge and that is the RK (unless the RK is a car hire firm).  I assume you are not a car hire firm so you are stuck with the liability, not the driver.


Whether you actually can resubmit an OOT once one has been rejected I do not know, but why not try.  What did the solicitor put on the applications they helped you with?  Did you not ask their advice about the rejected application while you were with them?  I think you would have to say something to the effect that you never received any paperwork in relation to the PCNs because you had been chucked out of your home and because you were homeless you did not update your address at DVLA.  That is the truth isn't it?  You don't want to lie on the application.


To me that's a good reason for you not doing anything about the PCNs, but I suspect that Birmingham CC will object again and that the traffic court will reject again.  And, as I said above, I don't even know if you can submit a second OOT application in respect of a PCN if the first has been rejected.


So it looks to me like you might be a bit stuck.


Unless dx100uk, or spaceman61, or another poster with expertise in local authority PCNs comes along I'm not sure what you do.


If you get no more helpful suggestions here you could try on National Consumer Service.  If you do go there, do not register with a hotmail address.  You will also need to provide them with a timeline of everything for all the documents you actually have, and you will need all the facts and dates etc at your fingertips.  And make sure they are accurate.


http://forums.National Consumer Service.com/index.php?showforum=30


And get your friend to contribute to paying off the PCNs.  Do you believe he really knew nothing about them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On what grounds did your solicitor appeal on the TE9?

There doesn't appear to be any grounds on which you can appeal, you lent your car to a friend who received three Penalty Charge Notices, as the car was still owned by you, you're liable for them, it doesn't matter who was driving.

The only grounds you would have to appeal is if the tickets were incorrectly issued.

As others have mentioned, an unpaid Penalty Charge Notice does not result in a CCJ.

An Order for Recovery is issued and then enforcement action can be taken, of which the first step is usually bailiffs.

If your TE9 is rejected, which seems likely, you can take steps to prevent the bailiffs taking goods.

Eventually they will give up and will inform the council they couldn't take any goods, at this stage the bailiff fees will be removed so will reduce the outstanding amount.

You can set up a payment plan at that time, or you can carry on ignoring them and await the council's next move to enforce the Order for Recovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a good case and may well win. I will be happy to tell you what to do.

Before I do, let me just say this:

I am always concerned when I hear about solicitors being involved in parking tickets.

I presume he/she is charging you for their services, whether you win or not?

You can get all the advice you need for nothing, elsewhere.

Most solicitors know little about the PCN process in my experience, but will still take your cash whatever happens.

If I were you I would not pay anyone a penny for their advice.

If your solicitor knows their stuff, this is what they will have told you in five minutes:

- Yes you can submit another TE7/TE9. You can submit up to nine in connection with any PCN.

- The owner of the vehicle is liable for all the charges, that's you, because you only lent the car to a friend and did not sell it.

- You must advise the DVLA of who keeps the car, and they must be named on the V5C. Nonetheless the owner will always be liable for the PCNs.

What to do... file a new TE7 and TE9 for each PCN as soon as you can. You do it yourself to be sure, and don't rely on any the solicitor may have done for you. Do new ones, so you know they are correct.

The TE9 is the first one to do: fill in your details in the boxes, using your current address.

Tick the box which says "I did not receive the Penalty Charge Notice". Sign, date etc.

Now the TE7

- make sure you get this right!

This is the form which tells them why you are late in submitting the TE9, and they need a good explanation or they will reject the whole thing.

Fill in your name and current address again, as before.

In the box "Reasons" - explain clearly and simply - you lent the car to a mate (name him, don't give his address) tell them when you did it.

Tell them you moved out of your previous home on xxx date.

Tell them your friend failed to advise you of any PCNs, and you did not at any point receive a PCN or Notice to Owner because you had left the property they will have written to. Sign, date etc.

(My advice, stick to these facts, don't talk around what you would have done if... or accuse them of anything - just tell the straight facts as I suggested.)

Get this done for each PCN as soon as you can.

Do one TE7 and one TE9 for each PCN which is outstanding. Send them back to Northampton County Court, not to the council.

Post back if any of this is unclear.


  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Winning' if a TE9 is accepted on the grounds of not receiving the Notice to Owner or PCN above would mean reducing the amount owed to the cost of the original tickets.

Also, if the op left the car's registered address on 03/2019, why was the car still registered at that address on 24/06/2019 and still registered at that address on 23/10/2019?

I don't think it's such a clear cut case of 'winning' as you imply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more than "reducing the amount". It removes the threat of any bailiff action and revokes their execution warrant and fees, and it gets the OP back in the appeals process, which is what he wants. He can then appeal them or pay, and will have a month to do one of those, or better, he can ask his friend to pay them, and the situation can be resolved.


As to why the vehicle was registered to this or that address, it's not relevant. That's the sort of diversion which he doesn't need to get concerned with. Just showing why he did not receive the official notices is what he needs to do now. Any discrepancy over the place of registration is DVLA's concern, not Birmingham City Council's.



Edited by Jamberson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It will remove the threat of enforcement action, and I agree that the place of registration is a concern of the DVLA as it can issued fines to people who don't notify of the correct address.

But it is relevant to the appeal and will be taken in to consideration by the council.

The appeal can be rejected on the grounds that the car was not registered at the correct address if the appellant argues that's why the Notice to Owner or PCN was not received, as it is the keepers responsibility to notify DVLA of the correct address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why the owner did not receive the PCN's , even if through negligence upon their behalf is irrelevant.

infact stating that you failed to register the vehicle at a new address supports the case of not receiving them.

the council cannot use it against the keeper


if the DVLA want to do something about that is a totally unrelated civil matter and not a criminal fine, of which they have 6mts from the date of the offence to decided upon.




please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence dx100uk but earlier on in this thread you suggested sending the TE7 and TE9 forms stating that the op wasn't the driver, this shows a lack of knowledge on your behalf on what ground appeals are accepted.

Not receiving the Notice to Owner or PCN on the grounds that the keeper had not notified the DVLA of a change of address is grounds for an appeal but it's not a good reason and is likely to be rejected more often than accepted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

dx is right though. The grounds for having the application accepted out of time only hinge on the reasons why it is late. Not having the car registered to the correct address is a convincing reason why the forms could not have been submitted in time, and so it supports the application.


If the car was registered to the correct address that would weaken the application, as no-one would belive three separate notices failed to arrive at the house. But if the OP isn't living there when they are delivered, then that all makes sense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned before, it is grounds to appeal and may be good evidence to support a TE7/TE9 but it's also good grounds for the application be to rejected as the council can argue that it made every effort to contact the keeper at the correct address held by the DVLA and it's the owner's responsibility to update those details.


Also out of interest where do you get the information from that a TE7/TE9 can be resubmitted up to nine times for the same PCN?

Edited by Will Goodfellow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was homeless I didn't have anywhere to go,  slept in couple homeless shelters, until a friend was happy to take me in. At this point changing address of my Peugeot wasn't a priority because I never had a permanent address , I didn't know how long I would stay at my friend for , and in addition i wasn't informed of the tickets. That's why I didn't change the address


sorry , but I don't have a solicitor,  I filled TE9 and 7 myself.

I filled the first  one wrong because I wasn't really too sure what information to add on it , I still waiting on the on the outcome of the two that  filled as well



@Manxman in exileYeahhh that's pretty much it , but I didn't get solicitor involved 


@Will GoodfellowWhat should I do?


@Jamberson Thank you so much I will do it right away! , I keep you posted 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debtor files witness statement on the grounds he did not receive the notices.

Council looks to see whether that is plausible. If it is, witness statement should be accepted.

The whole point that out of times are possible is because problems like this arise, and the most common grounds for filing them is this one.

It's what the process was set up for.

Failure to update DVLA is common and whoever's fault that is doesn't matter.

OP has a legal right to defend himself against forfeiture of goods and so the Council must serve him notices first.

He hasn't been served any because he was not living at the address they sent them to.

That's all that matters for the sake of PCNs.

The nine submissions came from when I used to run an appeals team in my local Council.

We were aware we were probably non-compliant in some respects so I had one of my team research the Council's whole legal obligation and this is one of the facts which came up.

I imagine most councils don't even know, but it's not really important.

There's no grounds to reject a witness statement on the basis that another witness statement was submitted before.

It will only be accepted or rejected based on the material facts concerning the notices and the reason for late submission.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, okay. So a TE7/TE9 appeal can be submitted, which will stop enforcement action and if that's rejected, another one can be submitted to stop enforcement action again and if that one is rejected, another one can be submitted to stop enforcement action and if that's rejected, another one can be submitted to stop enforcement action, and again and again and again and again and again. That's a great tactic to delay enforcement! I'm surprised not everyone does it. You state it is the council's legal obligation to accept nine submissions so it shouldn't be too hard to dig up the relevant legislation.


Or is it that a TE7/TE9 can only be submitted once, and if that is rejected, there is no further right of appeal and an N244 has to be submitted to the court for a district judge to hear the case if the PCN is still contested? That sounds way more feasible, as it would be the correct process.


It's true that a TE9 can't be rejected on face value but the council can object to it, and acceptance or rejection varies widly between different councils. One of the op's TE9 applications was already rejected.

Edited by Will Goodfellow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry LUGHO - I'm not being funny or doubting you, but you did say:

They may not have been a "solicitor", but you do describe them as a "lawyer". 

How did they assist you in completing the other TE7/9s after the one for your first PCN was rejected?

  If this person drafted a form of words for you to use to explain why you didn't get any of the PCN documentation, why can't you just repeat this wording and submit another application for the first PCN?

  (I'm ignoring the issue as to whether you can or cannot re-submit).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say "It's what the process was set up for... ", but it's not as simple as that is it?  Surely the whole point of the OOT process is to accommodate those "normal" situations where the RK does not receive any notices because their V5C address at the DVLA is temporarily wrong because they are in the middle of moving house or of buying/selling a car?  Those seem to me to be entirely legitimate (or "plausible" if you will) grounds for not receiving any correspondence and are the grounds that the OOT is designed for.


Now (leaving the OP aside for a moment) I think any council would object to an OOT where the reason the RK never received anything is not for any of the "legitimate" reasons above, but simply because the RK had failed - whether by accident or design - to keep DVLA updated with their address, which is an offence in itself.  I'm sure the council would take the view (rightly or wrongly) that the RK had brought this about by their own actions and would object to the OOT - and I'm also pretty sure the traffic court would agree (rightly or wrongly) with their objection.  It's then open to the RK to appeal to a district judge - if they can afford it.


Getting back to the OP, I actually think he might have a legitimate reason for not receiving any papers.  He was chucked out of his home (which was his V5C address) and was subsequently homeless with no fixed address (for how long OP?) and because of that he felt that he didn't have an effective address he could change his V5C to.  Whether it was practicable for him to collect mail from his former address - and should he have done so - well, we don't know.


Unfortunately we don't know what the OP put on his first OOT statement that was rejected (he hasn't told us) and he hasn't told us either what his lawyer friend advised putting on the subsequent statements.  It might be useful to know.


So what practical advice can be given to the OP?  So far he's been advised to submit another OOT saying that his friend was the driver ( 100% mistaken in my view) and that Birmingham CC are wrong to tell him that he is liable and not the driver (again 100% mistaken to suggest the council are wrong).


So, assuming he is able to submit further applications in respect of this first PCN - and I'm not convinced* he can - what form of words does he use to maximise his liklihood that the traffic court will accept it?  I would be wanting to say something like" I'd been chucked out of my home and had been made homeless with no fixed address or other address where I could be reliable contacted and so decided not to update my V5C address... etc"


Or are there any other alternative lines of defence for the OP?  Bearing in mind that if his OOT is wrongly rejected by the court, then he can't afford to appeal against that decision.


*I'd be a tad surprised if it were possible to submit up to nine separate applications in respect of each PCN.  Did the person researching that not give some sort of authority for that proposition?  Nine is such an odd number for a limit

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...