Hi
I’m looking for some clarification or advice to my situation
Before I go any further I would like to point out I would not normally let a PCN get to this stage I would usually get it cancelled or just pay it
So, this is my current situation, I received a PCN from TFL sometime back, went through the appeals process (unsuccessfully) and now It’s at the enforcement stage. I’m not going into all the details surrounding the PCN, other then I strongly believe I should not have to pay this due to circumstances beyond my control.
I am willing to do this as I believe I have a good understanding of the enforcement power and process and I’m willing to take the chance, plus the contravention vehicle is owned by motability.
TfL has now registered the PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court Business Centre (CCBC). The TEC has authorised TFL to issue a warrant of control. The TEC authorising the issuing of a warrant of control, this does not result in a County Court Judgement (CCJ)
A certificated Enforcement agents (bailiffs) have no power to force entry when collecting civil debt (PCN) on Residential Premises, if Peaceful entry has not previously been achieved and a controlled goods agreement is in place and the goods remain on the premises but the debtor has failed to comply with the terms of the controlled goods agreement.
The bailiff can only enter the relevant premises as set out within the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Schedule 12 (paragraph 14). Entry without warrant. This can only be achieved by Peaceful entry via an open or unlocked door, or if invited in by a competent person over the age of 16.
The bailiff cannot take control of goods if they don’t belong to the debtor (the contravention vehicle is owned by motability). 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.
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 warrant cannot be renewed after 12 months from the original issue date. The debt dies Part 75.7(10) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
(10) A reissued warrant will only be valid for the remainder of the 12-month period beginning with the date it was originally issued.
So, with all the above in mind, If I keep my doors locked and don’t let them in there’s not much they can 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 am also aware the Police can be problematic but again if I keep the door locked and don’t cause a breach of the peace. Which after a while I would imagine the bailiff would hand the debt back to TFL.
Enforcement for TFL-PCN
Re: Enforcement for TFL-PCN
Bailiffs cannot take any vehicle that is owned by Motability.
Motability vehicles never become owned by a person until after they have returned it to the dealership and sold as a used car.
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.
I've never known a controlled goods agreement being made inside a home for a traffic debt. Bailiffs gererally only use controlled goods agreements in the enforcement of High Court writs.
I have not seen a bailiff enter a home using force to access controlled goods inside. That rule ended in 2014. Now, the bailiff must give notice of an intention to re-enter. Paragraph 61 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014.
Before 2014, it was Lavell v O'Leary [1933] 2 KB 200 that allowed bailiffs to re-enter to access seized goods, but in 2016, Merton council lost a landmark case after a bailiff broke into a rented house and changed the locks to take away controlled goods, namely a carpet cleaner to auction while the occupant was out. Merton's defence was McLeod v Butterwick [1996] but Merton was defeated because of an unrelated breach in the Schedule 12 provisions.
If you are looking for a time limit, the bailiff is likely to raise his ugly head, then regulations give 12 months. In reality its 90 days.
The 180-day limit is set in the Enforcement Services Agreement that originates from the Local Government Association. Individual authorities tweak it for outsourcing their enforcement. 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.
Motability vehicles never become owned by a person until after they have returned it to the dealership and sold as a used car.
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.
I've never known a controlled goods agreement being made inside a home for a traffic debt. Bailiffs gererally only use controlled goods agreements in the enforcement of High Court writs.
I have not seen a bailiff enter a home using force to access controlled goods inside. That rule ended in 2014. Now, the bailiff must give notice of an intention to re-enter. Paragraph 61 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014.
Before 2014, it was Lavell v O'Leary [1933] 2 KB 200 that allowed bailiffs to re-enter to access seized goods, but in 2016, Merton council lost a landmark case after a bailiff broke into a rented house and changed the locks to take away controlled goods, namely a carpet cleaner to auction while the occupant was out. Merton's defence was McLeod v Butterwick [1996] but Merton was defeated because of an unrelated breach in the Schedule 12 provisions.
If you are looking for a time limit, the bailiff is likely to raise his ugly head, then regulations give 12 months. In reality its 90 days.
The 180-day limit is set in the Enforcement Services Agreement that originates from the Local Government Association. Individual authorities tweak it for outsourcing their enforcement. 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.
Re: Enforcement for TFL-PCN
Hi, thank you for your input.
I've put this same question out on other forums as well, the only answer I got back was, if the enforcement agent was unable to collect on the debt resulting in the debt being handed back to TFL within the 90-180 day timeframe, with the remaining time on the Notice of Enforcement, TFL could instruct the Enforcement agent to make an application to a Court for a forced entry warrant under Paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Now personally I don't believe this to be correct, as from what I understand this can only be achieved in the following...
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 If a County Court bailiff with a CCJ or High Court Enforcement Officer with a writ for a civil debt, was unable to make peaceful entry could go back to the Court that sent them to collect the debt and request a forced entry warrant, even in this case there is no certainty that a judge would issue such a warrant.
Also, I cannot see anywhere, within any legislation where an "enforcement agent" can apply to the court to make the application to force entry to residential premises because peaceful entry has not been achieved for a traffic debt (PCN) that was issued by TEC.
Furthermore, Paragraph 20 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 says, a bailiff cannot falsely imply that a debtor refusing entry to a property is classed as an offence.
any thoughts ?
I've put this same question out on other forums as well, the only answer I got back was, if the enforcement agent was unable to collect on the debt resulting in the debt being handed back to TFL within the 90-180 day timeframe, with the remaining time on the Notice of Enforcement, TFL could instruct the Enforcement agent to make an application to a Court for a forced entry warrant under Paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Now personally I don't believe this to be correct, as from what I understand this can only be achieved in the following...
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 If a County Court bailiff with a CCJ or High Court Enforcement Officer with a writ for a civil debt, was unable to make peaceful entry could go back to the Court that sent them to collect the debt and request a forced entry warrant, even in this case there is no certainty that a judge would issue such a warrant.
Also, I cannot see anywhere, within any legislation where an "enforcement agent" can apply to the court to make the application to force entry to residential premises because peaceful entry has not been achieved for a traffic debt (PCN) that was issued by TEC.
Furthermore, Paragraph 20 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 says, a bailiff cannot falsely imply that a debtor refusing entry to a property is classed as an offence.
any thoughts ?
Re: Enforcement for TFL-PCN
The 90-day limit is not a statutory one, but a contractual one.
If the creditor wanted to pursue a debtor for the full 12 months, the validity of the Notice of Enforcement, they can.
Paragraph 15 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 is dangerous for bailiffs to do this. Back in 2016, an insurance company hired me to deal with a shoe shop business that had its £270,000 of stock removed.
The enforcement failed because the writ was a defective instrument because it, as well as the judgment, had the wrong address on it from the very beginning.
The second failure was the enforcement agent did not make the paragraph 15 application. By enforcement agent, I mean section 63 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Instead, the creditor, a solicitor, made the paragraph 15 application under his own volition. The enforcement failed because the solicitor did not have a valid enforcement certificate to qualify himself as a section 63 enforcement agent to make that application. The solicitor also could not show he had onboarded the enforcement agent (identity checks etc) before applying on the enforcement agent's behalf.
The solicitor left his firm, but his firm's indemnity insurer picked up the bill. They disputed my consultancy fee, but that also failed because the client's business insurance rather than the client company itself hired me.
I have never seen a paragraph 15 application being made to recover unpaid traffic debts. Again, it would be perilous when it's easier for bailiffs to clamp a car outside on a highway.
I think it would be difficult and expensive for bailiffs to make a paragraph 15 application. The judge would want to see lots of evidence the debtor keeps goods at the application address, and further evidence the debtor is not responding to demands for payment.
I think a paragraph 15 applications for a traffic debt is a non-starter.
If the creditor wanted to pursue a debtor for the full 12 months, the validity of the Notice of Enforcement, they can.
Paragraph 15 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 is dangerous for bailiffs to do this. Back in 2016, an insurance company hired me to deal with a shoe shop business that had its £270,000 of stock removed.
The enforcement failed because the writ was a defective instrument because it, as well as the judgment, had the wrong address on it from the very beginning.
The second failure was the enforcement agent did not make the paragraph 15 application. By enforcement agent, I mean section 63 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Instead, the creditor, a solicitor, made the paragraph 15 application under his own volition. The enforcement failed because the solicitor did not have a valid enforcement certificate to qualify himself as a section 63 enforcement agent to make that application. The solicitor also could not show he had onboarded the enforcement agent (identity checks etc) before applying on the enforcement agent's behalf.
The solicitor left his firm, but his firm's indemnity insurer picked up the bill. They disputed my consultancy fee, but that also failed because the client's business insurance rather than the client company itself hired me.
I have never seen a paragraph 15 application being made to recover unpaid traffic debts. Again, it would be perilous when it's easier for bailiffs to clamp a car outside on a highway.
I think it would be difficult and expensive for bailiffs to make a paragraph 15 application. The judge would want to see lots of evidence the debtor keeps goods at the application address, and further evidence the debtor is not responding to demands for payment.
I think a paragraph 15 applications for a traffic debt is a non-starter.
Re: Enforcement for TFL-PCN
So if I'm understanding this correctly, section 14 - (1) a bailiff can enter relevant premises, either by walking through and upon or unlocked door or if invited in, to search for and take control of goods.
If this is the case why would a bailiff need make a application to the court for a warrant under section 15 - Because section 14, (1) already allows them to enter the premises to search for and take control of goods ,but again this can only be achieved by walking through and upon or unlocked door or if invited in.
Even if the court was satisfied with, part-2 (a),(b) and (c) of section 15 they still have no power to enter with force.
Am I missing something here?
This only concerning a unpaid traffic contravention debt.
If this is the case why would a bailiff need make a application to the court for a warrant under section 15 - Because section 14, (1) already allows them to enter the premises to search for and take control of goods ,but again this can only be achieved by walking through and upon or unlocked door or if invited in.
Even if the court was satisfied with, part-2 (a),(b) and (c) of section 15 they still have no power to enter with force.
Am I missing something here?
This only concerning a unpaid traffic contravention debt.
Re: Enforcement for TFL-PCN
Paragraph 14 allows bailiffs to enter the enforcement address on the warrant or writ.
Paragraph 15 applies if the debtor keeps goods at another address not specified on the warrant or writ.
There is no power for the bailiff to enter any domestic premises using force. Paragraph 18(a).
Paragraph 18(a) was a later amendment to the Schedule 12 enforcement provisions. A police officer allowed a bailiff to break and enter a conservatory door at the back of a property to recover an unpaid parking ticket.
One of the two police officers involved lost his police pension fund over this incident. Parliament legislated to prevent bailiffs from using force to recover traffic debts.
Paragraph 15 applies if the debtor keeps goods at another address not specified on the warrant or writ.
There is no power for the bailiff to enter any domestic premises using force. Paragraph 18(a).
Paragraph 18(a) was a later amendment to the Schedule 12 enforcement provisions. A police officer allowed a bailiff to break and enter a conservatory door at the back of a property to recover an unpaid parking ticket.
One of the two police officers involved lost his police pension fund over this incident. Parliament legislated to prevent bailiffs from using force to recover traffic debts.
Re: Enforcement for TFL-PCN
Thank you, that clears things up.
Just a few more questions.
If the bailiff is unable to collect on the debt, resulting in handing it back to the Issuing Authority (TFL), what is the likelihood of TFL applying to the county court for a CCJ, is there any precedent, has this ever happened before that you are aware off?
Are there any other options left for TFL to recover the unpaid traffic debt ?
Just a few more questions.
If the bailiff is unable to collect on the debt, resulting in handing it back to the Issuing Authority (TFL), what is the likelihood of TFL applying to the county court for a CCJ, is there any precedent, has this ever happened before that you are aware off?
Are there any other options left for TFL to recover the unpaid traffic debt ?
Re: Enforcement for TFL-PCN
There is no procedure for an authority to apply for a judgment for an unpaid traffic contravention debt.
Once the debt is returned, it's usually a lost cause and not financially tenable to carry on pursuing it.
Its cheaper to the public expense to bin it once all the prescribed enforcement action has been spent.
Once the debt is returned, it's usually a lost cause and not financially tenable to carry on pursuing it.
Its cheaper to the public expense to bin it once all the prescribed enforcement action has been spent.
Re: Enforcement for TFL-PCN
sorry one more question
what are the rules regards bailiff fees after the notice of enforcement has expired?
am I right in thinking they legally have no right to collect them.
what are the rules regards bailiff fees after the notice of enforcement has expired?
am I right in thinking they legally have no right to collect them.
Re: Enforcement for TFL-PCN
The 180-day limit is set in the Enforcement Services Agreement that originates from the Local Government Association,
I've been trying to find more information on this but not having much luck.
could you please provide me a link to the document.
I've been trying to find more information on this but not having much luck.
could you please provide me a link to the document.
Re: Enforcement for TFL-PCN
Its not a public document.
Its a commercial agreement between an authority and a company.
Its a commercial agreement between an authority and a company.