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

Unpaid TFL PCN, Potential enforcement action. Ready for the fight.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 150 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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 they don’t play by the rules 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

Edited by DTP77
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.                 

                                                                                                                                 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Edited by DTP77
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 would like to correct an error I made in regards to Forced Entry.

Section 15(1) is nothing about forced entry. It allows bailiffs to apply to the court for authority to enter and search for the debtor's goods on premises not specified in the enforcement power. It applies if the debtor keeps goods at another address not specified on the warrant or writ.,     

Section 20 – 22, of The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007- Schedule 12, Application for power to use reasonable force. Is the correct statute to which a bailiff has authority if granted by the court.

But this is irrelevant as...

 Schedule 12- Section 17 - General powers to use reasonable force, 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.

Schedule 12 – Section 18A(1) - This paragraph applies if these conditions are met— (d) the sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt.

There is no power for the bailiff to enter any domestic premises using force for traffic contravention debts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Edited by DTP77
Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

@Bailiff Advice

At no point have I asked anyone on this forum to assist me or “to outline ways in which a person can get out of paying for a PCN”.    

Neither am I looking for approval or criticism from anyone here, it is solely my decision if I pay or not.

I only posted here to ask the question -  is my understanding of the legislation correct in regards to the enforcement process and the regulations, in relation to the issues I have raised, that’s all.

If not, could anyone here show me within the legislation and point out the parts I have misunderstood.

I then merely went through a possible scenario of events if a bailiff attended my home.   

Then a “Site Team” member made a number of false statements in regards to force entry, applications to the court and bailiff fees, then when confronted with proof (the actual legislation), Instead of acknowledging the mistake he doubles down with short blunt remarks and emojis implying I’m crazy.

Considering this person has been a member since 2006 and has been involved in hundreds of threads advising people with their bailiff issues you would have thought he would have known there is no power to use reasonable force when collecting a traffic contravention debt. That no other person then the enforcement agent can make an application to the court for further enforcement, and once the notice of enforcement as expired the bailiff fees no longer stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

I know, I only brought the matter up to debunk dx100uk statements.

I can assure you its not me confusing  enforcement of Magistrate Court FINES with the enforcement of a debt for an unpaid Transport for London contravention, It was dx100uk. 

I was replying to dx100uk in regards to the statement he made in post (#4) and later (#6)

 Quote:   The next step is the council could apply to a magistrates court to grant forced entry,  post #4

the bailiff does not apply for it?

Quote:   The Issuing Authority can take the case to magistrates for further enforcement        post #6

    So you can clearly see I’m not the one confused.

 But I must disagree with you on the following….

Paragraph 18a of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is relevant to my case.

It Cleary states in…

Schedule 12- Section 17 - General powers to use reasonable forcewhere 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.

 Schedule 12 – Section 18A(1) - This paragraph applies if these conditions are met— (d) the sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

 

Update.

After a number of visits from the enforcement agents. I stood my ground and ignored their threats. I received this letter from Marston’s. They intend to return the warrant to their client (TFL).

So, looks like I was right after all @Bailiff Advice.  Lets see what happens next?

Either way the bailiff fees are no longer enforceable!

 

2023-10-04 Marstons returning warrant to TfL.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...