Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Mass identity fraud using www.akvehicle.com - - TfL penalties/PCNs Hire Vehicles not mine but in my name whilst abroad - now bailiffs - help!!

Recommended Posts

I am confused as to why you had paid a fee of £275 to have a 'review' of the rejection of an Out of Time Application. In the past two years since Covid 19, I don't know of any motorist who has decided to seek a review by way of a PERSONAL hearing in court. The correct procedure would have been for you to seek a 'review' 'Without a Hearing', the fee would have been significantly less and you would have received a response within a few weeks. 


Second point:

In relation to the tickets for TfL unpaid congestion charge fees, you have the PCN numbers (which would start with TZ and be followed by 8 numbers). You also have the vehicle registration number. Have you viewed the actual contraventions on the TfL website in order to ascertain the make and model etc of the actual vehicle itself? 


I am making separate posts so as not to confuse matters. 

I have just read your initial post a 2nd time. You mention that you have tried speaking with TfL but that they cannot assist you as you do not have the PCN numbers. Is that still the case?


If so, have you called CDER Group to request the PCN numbers? They MUST provide this information to you!!


As you clearly have the vehicle registration number, then surely TfL should have been able to let you know whether or not there are any further penalties outstanding against this vehicle registration mark (VRM).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the PCN numbers would allow you to be able to file Out of Time STATUTORY DECLARATIONS (not witness statements). You would need the forms PE2 and PE3 (not forms TE7 and TE9). However, there is absolutely no reason for submitting these appeals at this moment in time. 


Whilst it is helpful that you have a letter from your employer confirming that you had been overseas between the period of 28th Feb to 6th August, this will merely give you grounds in which to file Stat Dec's (on the basis that you were not in the Country at the time that the Penalty Charge Notice had been issued). This will NOT be sufficient to get the penalties cancelled. 


The reason being that according to Transport for London you are the registered keeper of a vehicle that had entered the TfL congestion charging zone without making payment of the daily fee. It is not the responsibility of the driver to make payment....it is the registered keeper. Until evidence is provided otherwise, you may have been out of the country but had allowed a friend/relative etc to have the day to day use of the vehicle. It is precisely for this reason that any Out of Time Application must wait until such time as you have received a letter from DVLA confirming that your name and address have been removed from their records as having any association with this vehicle. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in my post last evening, without the letter from DVLA, I cannot see that Out of Time Statutory Declarations would be accepted. I appreciate that DVLA are taking quite a while to provide a letter to you. Prior to COVID 19, it had been the case that DVLA would provide these letters (which by the way.....are VERY common indeed) by return email. Sadly, that is no longer the case as many DVLA staff have been working from home for the past 12-18 months.


Please remember that CDER Group cannot force entry into your home. Although they can seize goods, this would almost always be a motor vehicle and in this respect, they would be seeking to clamp or remove the vehicle that had been involved in the TfL contraventions. Well clearly they are not going to find this vehicle outside of your home !!


Although bailiffs can remove goods form INSIDE a property, they can ONLY do so if you either leave the door open or them...or your INVITE them into your home. Both should be avoided. And in any event, because of COVID, bailiffs are NOT wanting to enter residential properties, so please do not panic. 


PS: These type of debts do NOT lead to court judgments and are not recorded with credit reference agencies either.  



Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response. As you have never owned a vehicle in the UK, then CDER Group would have immense difficulty in enforcing any of the TfL warrants (or any other warrants that other companies may be enforcing). 

How long have you been waiting for the DVLA letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very common for parking penalties to be issued against a hire company and what happens when this occurs is this:


A Penalty Charge Notice would be issued against the registered keeper of the vehicle.


Purely for the sake of example, a vehicle had been hired from Zipcar. The Penalty would be received by Zipcar and once received, Zipcar would return the Penalty back to Transport for London (for example) and request that Liability be transferred to the vehicle hirer. They would provide the name and address of the hirer and this information would come from the Hire Agreement.


It is not easy for a hirer of the vehicle to provide somebody else's name as the hirer. This is because; almost all vehicle hire companies, will also request sight of the hirer's DRIVING LICENCE. The reason for this being that Zipcar would need to satisfy themselves that the hirer:

1. Held a valid driving licence

2. That the hirer was not banned from driving

3. Was a UK resident.


The hire company would also request a valid credit or debit card. 


As I have advised before, you really should call Transport for London. When doing so, you would need to provide the PCN number and vehicle reg number  for one of the tickets. Simply ask the operator to confirm the precise name and address where the INITIAL Penalty Charge Notice had been sent.


If the operator refuses to assist you, I would suggest that you advise him or her that you will be looking to make a Formal Complaint 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

When did you get the letter from DVLA and what exactly does it say?


This changes everything. So the vehicle in question, belongs to a hire company.


You need to get back to TfL as soon as possible. 

They have confirmed to you that they have received a copy of 'a valid hire agreement' from the hire company with your name on it. Excellent.......You need a copy of this 'hire agreement' right now.  They must provide it to you. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

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. 


Since you last posted almost 3 months ago, has there been any further development on the PCN's issued by Transport for London? Have you received a copy of the supposed 'rental agreement'?


On 27/04/2022 at 08:55, helpneeded. said:

This one relates to the Redbridge council penalty charge and I have found out that for this one, the vehicles were hired from a company called AK Vehicle Management Limited. I've never heard of them, there isn't much info online about them and they ignored a SAR request that I submitted.


You are correct, there is almost nothing available online for this company. However, (and it could be a coincidence) but a google search on one of the directors does reveal a Gumtree advert for '71' plate electric cars for rent that are 'UBER ready' and PCL Approved'. Might be worth a look.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
On 15/06/2022 at 07:52, helpneeded. said:

It doesn't show the creditor and let's you know this before you go through the payment process for the search. 

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?

Edited by Bailiff Advice
missing information
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...