scrap
naat
(page created 22 September 2019)
Main Mersey Gateway Penalties page

star WARNING. IN FEBRUARY 2023 A HIGH COURT JUDGE REVERSED THE DECISIONS MADE BY ADJUDICATORS OVER THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS. HE RULED THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PENALTIES WAS LEGAL.
THIS HUMPTY DUMPTY DECISION MEANS THAT SOME OF OUR PREVIOUS ADVICE NO LONGER APPLIES. WE HAVE TRIED TO REFLECT THE NEW SITUATION IN OUR OTHER PAGES DEALING WITH THE PENALTIES BUT THE PAGE BELOW HAS NOT BEEN REVISED.

MERSEY GATEWAY PENALTIES - TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CENTRE DETAILS OF CORRESPONDENCE

This page goes into more detail about the correspondence that we have had with the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

  • Complaint
  • Freedom of Information Queries Two
  • Applicant Name
  • Bailiff Certificates
  • Application Refusals
  • Freedom of Information Queries One
  • Questions On TE7 And TE9 Forms
  • Bbbb And General Questions About The TEC Forms
  • Aaaa And General Questions About The TEC Forms

  • (Our main page dealing with the apparent illegal use of TEC by Merseyflow)

    Complaint

    Following difficulties in getting straight answers from the TEC we used the Resolver service. Which says "Resolver can help you send your complaints to Traffic Enforcement Centre, It’s quick, simple and totally free".
    We raised the complaint on 6th February and have got almost nowhere.

  • 6th February 2019 SMT to TEC-
    "I refer to the message below that was sent to the TEC last month.
    There has been no reply. If there is no substantive reply to our questions by the start of next week we will escalate this by complaining elsewhere, probably through either Resolver or the Parliamentary Ombudsman."     (The message was that on 11th January on thread Aaaa.)

    (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)


  • 25th February 2019 SMT to TEC-
    "There has been no reply from the TEC to my message of the 6th (Feb).
    Our intention was to complain through either Resolver or the Parliamentary Ombudsman. We have now decided that it would be more appropriate to complain to the ICO and will do so if we do not get a response before Wednesday."     (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)


  • 31st March 2019 SMT to TEC- "Please see attached document- QUESTIONS TO TEC, INCLUDES SUMMARY OF VARIOUS EMAIL THREADS FROM 26TH NOVEMBER 2018 TO 26TH MARCH 2019
    We regard this as being a serious matter and suggest that it is referred to a senior officer.
    If you require further information such as copies of emails or documents then please let me know. As indicated in the document if we do not get proper and satisfactory answers then we will call for an investigation into the behaviour of the TEC."     (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)


  • 16th April 2019 11.48 SMT to TEC- "I refer to the email and document that we sent you on the 31st March. The only reply that we have got is an auto acknowledgement. If we do not get a reply by Thursday then we will make this public."


  • 16th April 2019 12.36 TEC to SMT- They asked for out PCN number.


  • 16th April 2019 13.40 SMT to TEC- "....The issues that we raised with the TEC were not about any specific PCNs, they were about issues concerning our members (currently over 5,400) many of whom have reached the TE3 or later stages of the recovery process. We have at various times asked the TEC questions which though they mainly arose from specific cases were of general application. We did not receive proper answers to what we think were legitimate questions. The document (which has been reattached to this email) that we sent you on 31st March summarised and expanded on the questions. To be frank, we think that the TEC is covering up what has been happening and as we said on the 31st March if we do not get proper and satisfactory answers then we will be calling for an investigation into the behaviour of the TEC." (The attached document wasd the one that had been sent to the TEC on 31st March.)
    (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)


  • 20th April 2019 SMT to Bob Neil MP, Chair of the Justice Committee- "I am sending you this email in your role as chair of the Justice Committee. Our group campaigns against tolls on the crossings of the Mersey. We realise that this is not a subject that is within the remit of your committee, but we think that there are two issues relating to the enforcement of penalties on the Mersey Gateway crossing which might concern your committee.

    The Mersey Gateway opened in October 2017 and like the Dartford Crossing has no toll booths. It relies on drivers paying the toll in some other way and there are enforcement provisions. If it seems that a toll is due but has not been paid on time (by midnight on the day following the day of the crossing) then a penalty charge notice is issued.

    We wish to make you and the committee aware of two issues with this system-

    1. Your committee has been looking at bailiffs and your recent report "Bailiffs: Enforcement of debt" said at paragraph 8 that "Many people are also affected by the introduction of new road pricing (eg. Mersey Gateway, Dartford Crossing)". That is somewhat of an understatement as the experience in our area has been horrendous.
    The legality of the tolls and their enforcement is dubious **, despite this the authority or whoever it is that acts in their name have not only continued to demand tolls but to relentlessly pursue those who are alleged not to have paid.
    The authority have refused to give more recent figures but up to the end of December over one million Penalty Charge Notices had been issued and nearly 250,000 Charge Certificates. We estimate that by now around 200,000 Recovery Orders will have been issued by the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton most of which will have been passed to a 'debt' enforcement firm.
    The amounts demanded are disproportionate. An alleged unpaid £2 toll can result in a demand from the enforcement officers for £143, to which is added £235 if the enforcement officer goes to their home. There have been numerous complaints about alleged bullying and lies used by enforcement officers.

    2. We believe that various aspects of the tolls and enforcement are illegal, but we particularly draw to your attention what is happening at the Traffic Enforcement Centre. In our view the TEC has not followed the proper procedures for issue of Recovery Orders. We have at various times asked the TEC questions which though they mainly arose from specific cases affecting members of our group were of general application. The questions that we raised are summarised in the attached document. We think that the TEC may be covering up what has been happening and we think that there should be an investigation into the behaviour of the TEC.

    Regards....

    ** It is the view of ourselves and others that the Gateway tolls and their enforcement do not comply with the law. A recent decision of Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicator following a test case allowed an appeal on the grounds of 'procedural impropriety'. Since the crossing opened in October 2017, all appeals that have been made in the proper form have been allowed.
    https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/mersey-gateway-bridge-charges/
    The authority have requested a 'Review' of this recent decision. It is not known whether there will be a review, but there was one last year following a previous judgment that there had been 'procedural impropriety' and the adjudicator at the Review confirmed the original decision."     (Also sent was a copy of the Questions put to TEC on 31st March.)


  • 20th April 2019 SMT to TEC- Complaint via Resolver


  • 20th April 2019 TEC to SMT- Automated Response via Resolver


  • 27th April 2019 SMT to TEC- via Resolver "... I see this is an automatically generated message and I would not have replied, but-
      1. The message says that I need to make sure to quote a PCN number. That does not apply to my complaint.
      2. Resolver is asking me can the case be closed. The answer is obviously no."


  • 1st May 2019 SMT to Lord Chancellor-
    LETTER POSTED TO LORD CHANCELLOR ON 1ST MAY 2019
    ATTACHMENT TO LETTER


  • 2nd May 2019 10.03 Justice Committee staff to SMT- This was reply to message sent to Bob Neil MP, Chair of the Justice Committee, on 20th April.
    "Thank you for your email drawing these matters to our attention. I understand that you have also been in correspondence with the Transport Committee. With regret the Justice Committee is not able to look into individual cases."
  • 2nd May 2019 10.50 SMT to Justice Committee staff- "....My message was not about 'individual cases', it was about a major problem with the TEC and the enforcement system which we thought might concern the committee. We will now take it that the committee is not interested."
  • 5th May 2019 SMT to TEC via Resolver- "I made a complaint to you on 20th April. The only response was an automated message that was not relevant. I have now been asked if I want to 'escalate' this case. I do and look forward to getting a proper reply."


  • 7th May 2019 TEC to SMT- Response via Resolver


  • 7th May 2019 SMT to TEC- Reply via Resolver


  • 14th &15th May 2019 TEC to SMT - Four messages about a password protected 'email' that would only be available for 5 days. Also one message from us seeking clarification of the email address that replies were to go to.


  • 15th May 2019 TEC to SMT- Reply to complaint made to them on 20th April via Resolver


  • 17th May 2019 SMT to TEC- REPLY TO TEC OF THEIR REPLY ON 15TH. Covers various issues and is 7 pages long.


  • 7th June 2019 SMT to Resolver complaint system- Message escalating complaint to HMCTS Customer Investigation


  • 26th June 2019 HMCTS Customer Investigation to SMT- Letter in reply to complaint
    How seriously they took our complaint is illustrated by the last paragraph which treats us as if the group were an an individual seeking legal advice.


    28th June 2019 SMT to Justice Secretary (copy to Disclosure Team) on- Use of TEC by Merseyflow for Mersey Gateway Toll penalties - your ref 669976-
    "I refer to a letter dated 1st May which was sent to the Justice Secretary. Today I received a letter dated 26th June from xxxxxx of the Customer Investigations Team. In my view the Ministry have not supplied satisfactory answers and we will be making this issue public next week."

    (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)


  • 30th June 2019- As we threatened, we made this issue public - or tried to. We sent out a press release, but the news media did not want to know.


  • 2nd August 2019 Resolver complaint system to TEC- asking if we wanted to close the complaint!!!.

  • 21st September 2019 Uploaded two documents to the system- Letter on 2nd September to TEC about FoI requests   Complaint to Information Commissioner on 20th September.
    Also sent a message to Disclosure Team about lack of response.

    Back to top

    Freedom of Information Queries Two

    Following the failure of our previous Freedom of Information Queries, on 8th May we tried what we thought was a fairly simple request for figures. There have been various messages and letters back and forth, but we have not got the figures and complained to the Information Commissioner on 20th September.

  • 8th May 2019 SMT to TEC- "Our group has 5,500 members and I hereby make a request for information under FoI rules. We want this information on Mersey Gateway penalty charges:-

    TE9 WITNESS STATEMENTS FOR UNPAID PENALTY CHARGE

    How many statements have been received by the TEC?
    How many have been accepted and Merseyflow told to revoke the Recovery Order?
    How many have been turned down?
    How many are awaiting a decision?

    TE7 APPLICATIONS TO FILE A STATEMENT OUT OF TIME

    How many applications have been received by the TEC?
    How many have been accepted by Merseyflow?
    How many have been opposed by Merseyflow and that rejection has been confirmed by a court officer on behalf of the TEC?
    How many have been opposed by Merseyflow but the court officer on behalf of the TEC has decided to accept the application?
    How many are awaiting a decision?"
  • 9th May 2019 09.46 SMT to TEC- "I sent you an information request last night. After sending it I realised that we missed out one related item off. Will you please add this item to the request. We would want if possible all the figures to be as at the same date.
    TE3 RECOVERY ORDERS FOR UNPAID MERSEY GATEWAY PENALTY CHARGES
    How many Orders have been made?"
  • 9th May 2019 12.22 TEC to SMT- Says "..We cannot help you without Penalty Charge Number (PCN). If you have not this PCN number, please contact with Local Authority."


  • 9th May 2019 13.28 SMT to TEC- "..If you actually read my email you will see that it is an information request under the FOIA, it is not a query about a PCN. Will someone please acknowledge that the TEC understands this."
  • 9th May 2019 16.34 TEC to SMT- Says that "..Freedom of Information requests to the Judicial Office are managed centrally via the Ministry of Justice.." Tells us to redirect request to Disclosure Team.


  • 9th May 2019 17.20 SMT to Disclosure Team, Ministry of Justice-
    "..I have made an FoI request to the TEC. Rightly or wrongly they have told me to redirect my request.
    The thread is below, but I have repeated what we have asked for. It all relates to Recovery Orders nominally issued by the TEC in respect of unpaid Mersey Gateway Penalty Charges..."
  • 13th May 2019 TEC to SMT- acknowledgement of request of 9th May.

  • 29th May 2019 TEC to SMT- Letter refusing to supply the information requested on 9th May.


  • 30th May 2019 SMT to TEC-
    I refer to your email and attached letter sent yesterday.
    I note that your department waited nearly three weeks before sending a reply refusing to provide the requested information.
    We hereby ask that the refusal be reviewed.

    Your letter claims that providing the information would exceed the cost limit. You give no indication as to how you have estimated that supplying the information would take more than 3.5 working days. It is not credible that the TEC does not have a database that would provide the information that we seek. If there was some part of the information that was not readily available from your database, then you could have indicated what that was, so that we could consider how we might revise what we asked for and exclude anything that was not readily available.

    You say "It may also help if I explain that we keep statistics of the number of unpaid penalty charges that have been registered via TEC but the individual penalty charge numbers are not held." How is that supposed to help us? It should be absolutely clear that we have not asked for "individual penalty charge numbers", so why is that of any significance? If you are keeping statistics then you could at least have indicated what statistics that you kept.

    I assume that your office does not operate in a vacuum. You must be aware that one purpose of our question was that the TEC have recently been refusing TE9 out of time applications and we wanted to see to what extent the TEC was just doing what Merseyflow told you to do.

    This all seems to be part of what we believe may be the Ministry of Justice covering up breaches of the rules by, amongst other things, allowing Merseyflow to use the TEC facilities. We have an ongoing complaint about this. I notice that your letter does not refer to this but does say "I note that you have been sent a response to your complaint under separate cover." It is not clear what you are referring to but we have not received any recent communication from you, either direct or via Resolver. The last 'email' that we were sent was on 15th May and we responded on 17th May detailing why we were not satisfied.

    I also draw to your attention a letter that we sent to the Minister on 1st May, a copy of the letter and its attachment is attached to this email. No one has bothered to reply on behalf of the Minister, and we will soon be making this situation more widely known."
  • 4th June 2019 TEC to SMT on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 190530005. Acknowledges receipt of request made on 30th May for review of a refusal to supply information


  • 18th June 2019 TEC to SMT- Letter on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Outcome of Internal Review – 190530005 still refusing to supply figures.


  • 20th June 2019 SMT to Disclosure Team at Ministry of Justice on 190509013- "Thank you for the reply of 18th June.

    You say on the timing of the reply to the original request that "The response was therefore compliant with the requirements of the FOIA." The FOIA section 10 (1) says that public authorities should reply "promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt". My point on 30th May was that you waited three weeks to tell us what you could have said almost immediately.

    You say that our request goes over the cost limit because you would need to "interrogate" "approximately" 170,000 cases at 2 minutes per case. Your responses are not absolutely clear, but it appears that you are saying that you keep no counts or statistics other than the total number of "registered" cases. Will you please confirm that is the only figure that you keep. If in fact you do keep any figures at all on TE3s, TE7s and TE9s for the Mersey Gateway then we hereby request those figures.

    In any case your answer is puzzling. I had assumed that all of the "cases" would be on a computerised database, and that TE7s and TE9s received would be entered on to the database and further entries made when the witness statements and out of time applications were either accepted or rejected. You however say that this is all "processed manually" rather than electronically. Given what you say it must be difficult for the TEC to somehow produce the printed letters that you send out in reply to the statements and applications. And I have seen emails that the TEC have sent out where someone has submitted, by email, duplicate TE7s and TE9s (i.e. for the same PCN). The email replies from the TEC are about an hour after the emails to you were submitted. This is a commendably fast response but even more remarkable if the TE7s and TE9s are not in a database.

    Still on the assumption that the TE7s and TE9s are not in a database but have been "manually processed". It is not clear why you would go through the 170,000 TE3 case records, rather then through the presumably very much smaller number of TE7 and TE9 records. Could you explain that?

    You say that "I can confirm that the TEC is impartial when an out of time is processed it is then sent to the Local Authority who have 19 days to respond to the TEC confirming if they accept or refuse the respondents application. If they refuse the out of time then this is passed onto a court officer for an impartial decision. The Court Officer is not required to give a reason for the refusal and record is not kept on the file."

    As the TEC is not really dealing with a 'local authority', how can you say that the out of time applications are sent to one. Can you tell us exactly who and where the applications are sent to?

    And are the TEC really saying that when the court officer makes this judicial decision, no record is made of why they have rejected the application?

    The TEC may be aware that it has been noticed by us that the acceptance or rejection of the TE7 out of time applications seems to be random. Applications have been rejected while identical ones (apart from the PCN number) submitted at the same time by the same person have been accepted. The decision making by the court officer seems to be done on the toss of a coin. Though of course, given the TEC refusal to supply the requested information, we have no way of knowing whether the court officer is in practice doing anything more than rubber stamping whatever the Merseyflow response is. In our view there has been an unsuccessful attempt to mask who your customer is for the Mersey Gateway recovery orders and warrants of execution. Your TE3 recovery orders until recently said that the 'applicant' was "Mersey Gateway Crossing". We have noticed that within the last week or so, the forms are now showing the applicant is "Halton Borough Council". Perhaps the TEC were not aware of that change as I understand that it is a company employed by Merseyflow who send the forms out?

    I also notice that in your latest letter you say that "since joining the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) Mersey Halton have registered (approximately) 170,000 cases". There seems to be some confusion in the TEC as to who you have been working for.

    We are considering whether to complain to the ICO about your response, but before doing so we will wait to see what response, if any, the TEC makes to the queries and fresh requests in this email.
  • 21st June 2019 SMT to Disclosure Team at Ministry of Justice on 190509013- "Thank you for a prompt reply. The last email included 'fresh requests', as you seem to have ignored them, we will put them in a separate email."


  • 21st June 2019 Disclosure Team at Ministry of Justice to SMT on 190509013- "Thank you for your email. As your initial request has gone through an Internal Review, if you are still not happy with the response, the next stage is to contact the ICO with your concerns. Thank you once again for submitting your request.


  • 21st June 2019 SMT to Disclosure Team at Ministry of Justice on Mersey Gateway TE forms- "My email yesterday contained some fresh requests. As you seem to have ignored them in your reply (ref 1905 09013) earlier today, I have extracted them and hereby make it clear that this is a freedom of information request.

    1. If you do keep any figures at all on TE3s, TE7s and TE9s for the Mersey Gateway then we hereby request those figures. This will include any counts (e.g. total number of TE3s issued) or samples (e.g proportion of TE7s rejected) whether done by computer or manually.

    2. In response to the previous request you said "when an out of time is processed it is then sent to the Local Authority who have 19 days to respond to the TEC confirming if they accept or refuse the respondents application". Can you tell us exactly who and where (i.e. a postal or email address) the applications are sent to?
  • 25th June 2019 TEC to SMT- on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 190621006- says our request of 21st June should be answered by 19th July.


  • 18th July 2019 TEC to SMT- Freedom of Information Act request 190621006


  • 2nd August 2019 SMT to Disclosure Team, Ministry of Justice- Freedom of Information Act request 190621006. Points made in answer to their response of 18th July.


  • 12th August 2019 SMT to TEC copied to Disclosure Team at Ministry of Justice- The TEC have again got me confused.

    We recently sent these four emails-
    a. 'Certificated 'bailiffs'' email to County Court Business Centre only on 1st August at 13.47;
    b. 'Merseyflow TE7 application rejections' email to County Court Business Centre, copied to Disclosure Team, on 1st at 21.33;
    c. 'Applicant name on TE3 and TE9 forms for Mersey Gateway' email to County Court Business Centre, copied to Disclosure Team, on 2nd at 12.09;
    d. '190621006' email to Disclosure Team, copied to County Court Business Centre, on 2nd at 16.56.

    Email (a) did not need a response.
    We hoped for a response to the other three emails.
    What we have got from you on the 6th mentions email (d) but it is on the thread for email (a). It seems that it is intended to deal with all four emails together.
    Your message was not copied to the Disclosure Team. I would hope that further replies will not be confined to answers from the County Court Business Centre. Our emails deal with very serious matters concerning the TEC, matters which as part of our complaint through Resolver were escalated to HMCTS (Customer Investigation) on 7th June - albeit that they have not replied."
  • 15th August 2019 10.43 TEC to SMT- "..Points A, B, C and D have been escalated as internal review. I can confirm we won’t respond to point A in the outcome letter.
    The County Court Business Centre (CCBC) are the department responsilbe for responding to Traffic Information (TEC) FOI requests. Information will be provided in the outcome letter, on how you can appeal the internal review, should you be disasstisfied with the response. Please note it is not standard practice for us to copy in the disclosure team in emails to requesters."
  • 15th August 2019 11.43 SMT to TEC- "....As I said on the 12th we think that these matters should be dealt with outside the CCBC, but I note your response...."


  • 15th August 2019 14.49 TEC (using Disclosure Team, MoJ letterhead)- Letter saying ".....Thank you for your request dated 2 August 2019 for an Internal Review of FOI 190621006.....Your request is being handled under the FOIA. A review is currently being conducted and a response will be issued to you in due course...."


  • 28th August 2019 TEC to SMT- Further response to Freedom of Information Act request 190621006


  • 2nd September 2019 Reply to TEC letter of 28th August- Letter on 2nd September to TEC about FoI requests


  • 20th September 2019 Complaint to Information Commissioner.

    Back to top

    Applicant Name

    We have asked some questions on the use of incorrect or illegal names on the forms that nominally are issued or authorised by the TEC. They have not answered the questions.

  • 28th June 2019 15.54 Message sent to TEC- on Applicant name on TE3 and TE9 forms for Mersey Gateway "As you know we believe that the TEC have been allowing Merseyflow to use the TEC facilities while claiming that it is the 'local authority' who are using the facilities.

    As you also know the applicant name that appeared on the TE forms for the Mersey Gateway was shown as "Mersey Gateway Crossing". You may or may not (as the TEC do not send out the forms) be aware that recently the applicant name has been changed to "Halton Borough Council".

    We would like some information related to this change.

    1. Did the TEC approve the change of the applicant name on the TE3 and TE9? If so then who exactly requested for the name to be changed? When was the request made and when was the change approved? By "who" we want the full details of who the request for a change came from and we hope that you are not going to use the excuse of data protection to try and avoid revealing who the request came from.

    2. The warrants of control also give or gave the applicant name as 'Merseyflow'. It seems to be rare for the people being chased by the enforcement agents to be shown these warrants and even rarer for someone to take a picture of one. So we do not know whether the applicant name has also been changed on the warrants. Has it been changed? If so then we want the same information as at (1)- Who exactly requested for the name to be changed? When was the request made and when was the change approved?
  • 28th June 2019 16.40 TEC to SMT- on Applicant name on TE3 and TE9 forms for Mersey Gateway
    They asked for out PCN number, but then recalled the message.


  • 19th July 2019 Very brief reply from TEC to query to them on 28th June about the Applicant name on TE3 and TE9 forms for Mersey Gateway (See file on 2nd August.)


  • 2nd August 2019 Email to TEC on Applicant name on TE3 and TE9 forms for Mersey Gateway. Points made in answer to their response of 19th July.

  • 12th August 2019 SMT to TEC copied to Disclosure Team at Ministry of Justice- The TEC have again got me confused.

    We recently sent these four emails-
    a. 'Certificated 'bailiffs'' email to County Court Business Centre only on 1st August at 13.47;
    b. 'Merseyflow TE7 application rejections' email to County Court Business Centre, copied to Disclosure Team, on 1st at 21.33;
    c. 'Applicant name on TE3 and TE9 forms for Mersey Gateway' email to County Court Business Centre, copied to Disclosure Team, on 2nd at 12.09;
    d. '190621006' email to Disclosure Team, copied to County Court Business Centre, on 2nd at 16.56.

    Email (a) did not need a response.
    We hoped for a response to the other three emails.
    What we have got from you on the 6th mentions email (d) but it is on the thread for email (a). It seems that it is intended to deal with all four emails together.
    Your message was not copied to the Disclosure Team. I would hope that further replies will not be confined to answers from the County Court Business Centre. Our emails deal with very serious matters concerning the TEC, matters which as part of our complaint through Resolver were escalated to HMCTS (Customer Investigation) on 7th June - albeit that they have not replied."
  • 15th August 2019 10.43 TEC to SMT- says that this has "been escalated as internal review".


  • 15th August 2019 11.43 SMT to TEC- "....As I said on the 12th we think that these matters should be dealt with outside the CCBC, but I note your response...."


  • 22nd September 2019 SMT to TEC- Messages from the TEC had implied that this Applicant Name thread and one on 'Application refusals', would somehow be dealt with by the TEC as part of their response to a separate thread (Freedom of Information Queries Two) where we had asked for some figures. We got a letter from the TEC on FoI thread on 28th August. That letter did not deal with either 'Applicant name on TE3 and TE9 forms for Mersey Gateway' or the 'Merseyflow TE7 application rejections threads'. Neither did we get any other replies, so we now asked "What is happening?"

    Back to top

    Bailiff certificates

    We were trying to see if the people that Marston were using as enforcement agents were on the 'Bailiffs' Register. This was difficult, partly because the various notices left by the agents did not give full names and partly because it seemed that none of the names were on the register. we raised this with the TEC who said that we had to contact the court where the agent was registered. This of course raised the question of how you know which court? We abandoned getting anywhere on this, but in any case around August all of a sudden we were able to find names on the register. It seems that either the search facility on the register had been faulty and was now corrected or that the names had only recently been put on the register.

  • 17th June 2019 SMT to TEC on- Certificated 'bailiffs' -
    "As you know we represent people who use the Mersey Gateway. You have issued over 80,000 warrants of control to enforcement agents. We have at various times tried to check names of agents in the Certificated Enforcement Agent (Bailiff) Register.
    The names that we have looked for do not appear there.
    Are these agents registered at your court or some other court? In any case where is it that we can check whether the agents being used by Marston have valid certificates?"


  • 1st July 2019 SMT to TEC- on Certificated 'bailiffs' being used for Mersey Gateway 'debts' as they had not replied to message of 17th June -
    "This should be a simple query. As these enforcement agents are acting in the name of the court it is not reasonable that you are not promptly telling us how the people who are confronted by the agents can check whether they are dealing with authorised enforcement agents or not. Are you going to tell us or do we have to make a complaint?"

    (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)

  • 11th July 2019 TEC to SMT- reply from to query to them on 17th June about the Certificated 'bailiffs'.
    "Please note that bailiffs are usually given their certification by their local county court. Therefore you may wish to check the geographical location of the individuals and contact the relevant court."
  • 17th July 2019 TEC to SMT- reply to answer to them on 13th July about the Certificated 'bailiffs'.
    "Thank you for your email, I am sorry to hear of your disappointment but hope that you manage to gain the information you require.
    You may have noticed that I mistakenly copied my colleagues individual email addresses into my reply. Please note that these are not regularly monitored due to working patterns, leave etc and you will not receive a reply from either of these mailboxes. Please continue to send any emails to the CCBC-KILO email address in order to receive a response."


  • 13th July 2019 SMT to TEC- reply to their reply of 11th July about the Certificated 'bailiffs'.
    "Should I be surprised or not that it took over three weeks for the TEC to supply this short answer which is not particularly helpful?
    We will try to do as you suggest, though I suspect we may have some difficulty when we ring up some court or other and ask if 'Mr Jones' (apparently a very busy enforcement officer) or 'blank' has been certified by their court."


  • 18th July 2019 TEC to SMT - another reply to query to them on 17th June about the Certificated 'bailiffs'. (Identical to their answer of 11th July.)
    "Please note that bailiffs are usually given their certification by their local county court. Therefore you may wish to check the geographical location of the individuals and contact the relevant court."


  • 1st August 2019 SMT to TEC- reply to theirs of 19th July about the Certificated 'bailiffs'.
    "I was a bit confused by the duplicate replies, but this is to let you know that so far we have been unable to check on a single one of the supposedly 'certified' enforcement agents. They seem to be shy of showing their identification and as I said it is a bit difficult to check on 'Mr Jones' or 'blank' that they give as their name on the notices that they leave at people's homes. I assume that the TEC is quite happy that enforcement agents do not clearly identify themselves on these notices."
  • 6th August 2019 TEC to SMT- "....your emails have been treated as an internal review of 190621006. You will be sent an acknowledgement accordingly, advising of the deadline."
  • 12th August 2019 SMT to TEC-
    The TEC had sent us two emails on the 1st and another two on the second. Our message on the 12th referred to the confusion and said that we did not expect a further reply on this issue.


  • 15th August 2019 10.43 TEC to SMT- says that this has "been escalated as internal review".


  • 15th August 2019 11.43 SMT to TEC- "....As I said on the 12th we think that these matters should be dealt with outside the CCBC, but I note your response...."


    Back to top

    Application Refusals

    We have asked some questions on the refusal by the TEC of TE7 out of time applications. These refusals are being made at the request of Merseyflow and have the effect that people have almost no options left. The refusal letters sent out by the TEC refer to a mythical 'response from the local authority'. Our questions have not been properly answered.

  • 17th June 2019 SMT to TEC on- Merseyflow TE7 application rejections- "As you know we believe that the TEC has been illegally helping Merseyflow in the enforcement of Mersey Gateway penalties and has been trying to hide what has been happening. That has yet to be resolved. In the meantime we have some queries which we would like an urgent answer to. We are sending this email to multiple addresses due to the difficulty in getting any clear replies. If you prefer these messages to go to one email address, then will you say which one we should use.

    Around the beginning of May, the TEC at the request of Merseyflow, started rejecting TE7 out of time applications.
    This seems to have been done on a random basis, with TE7 applications being rejected while identical applications sent by the same person for another PCN have been rejected. Can you explain why this is happening on a random basis? To what extent, if any, have the TEC been approving TE7 out of time applications where Merseyflow have requested you not to?

    The rejection letters that the TEC send out say in the first paragraph- "The response from the local authority with regards to your out of time application should already have been served to." We have asked our members and no one has seen such a letter from "the local authority" or Merseyflow or anyone else. The TEC knows full well that there is no local authority involved in this process. So why are the TEC sending out misleading letters? Can the TEC also say why Merseyflow are not sending any letters out to the people whose applications were refused after Merseyflow asked you to?

    Can I repeat that this is an urgent issue as the people that you have been sending these letters to have only 14 days to decide what they can do."
  • 28th June 2019 SMT to TEC on- Merseyflow TE7 application rejections as they had not replied to message of 17th June-
    "I refer to the message below. It ends "Can I repeat that this is an urgent issue as the people that you have been sending these letters to have only 14 days to decide what they can do" There has been no response despite our members who have had TE7 applications turned down only having a limited time to decide what to do. When can we expect a response?"


  • 11th July 2019 TEC to SMT- Email reply to query on 17th June about the Merseyflow TE7 application rejection (See file on 1st August.)


  • 1st August 2019 SMT to TEC Email on Merseyflow TE7 application rejection. Points made in answer to their response of 11th July.

  • 12th August 2019 SMT to TEC copied to Disclosure Team at Ministry of Justice- The TEC have again got me confused.

    We recently sent these four emails-
    a. 'Certificated 'bailiffs'' email to County Court Business Centre only on 1st August at 13.47;
    b. 'Merseyflow TE7 application rejections' email to County Court Business Centre, copied to Disclosure Team, on 1st at 21.33;
    c. 'Applicant name on TE3 and TE9 forms for Mersey Gateway' email to County Court Business Centre, copied to Disclosure Team, on 2nd at 12.09;
    d. '190621006' email to Disclosure Team, copied to County Court Business Centre, on 2nd at 16.56.

    Email (a) did not need a response.
    We hoped for a response to the other three emails.
    What we have got from you on the 6th mentions email (d) but it is on the thread for email (a). It seems that it is intended to deal with all four emails together.
    Your message was not copied to the Disclosure Team. I would hope that further replies will not be confined to answers from the County Court Business Centre. Our emails deal with very serious matters concerning the TEC, matters which as part of our complaint through Resolver were escalated to HMCTS (Customer Investigation) on 7th June - albeit that they have not replied."
  • 15th August 2019 10.43 TEC to SMT- says that this has "been escalated as internal review".


  • 15th August 2019 11.43 SMT to TEC- "....As I said on the 12th we think that these matters should be dealt with outside the CCBC, but I note your response...."


  • 22nd September 2019 SMT to TEC- Messages from the TEC had implied that this Application refusals thread and one on 'Applicant name on TE3 and TE9 forms for Mersey Gateway', would somehow be dealt with by the TEC as part of their response to a separate thread (Freedom of Information Queries Two) where we had asked for some figures. We got a letter from the TEC on FoI thread on 28th August. That letter did not deal with either 'Applicant name on TE3 and TE9 forms for Mersey Gateway' or the 'Merseyflow TE7 application rejections' threads. Neither did we get any other replies, so we now asked "What is happening?"

    Back to top

    Freedom of Information Queries One

    This complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office on 5th March followed on from the various emails up to the 25th February 2019.
    The ICO decided that we had not been asking for information and so could not complain. This attempt to get information was abandoned.

  • 5th March 2019 SMT to ICO- Details of complaint as sent to ICO.
    Also sent to the ICO were their complaint form, details of email thread from 26th November 2018 to 25th February, and copy of a letter from TEC on 10th January 2019.


  • 2nd April 2019 ICO to SMT- Email refusing to deal with the complaint- "...The FOIA is to do with transparency of information held by public authorities. It gives an individual the right to access recorded information (other than their own personal data) held by public authorities. This includes information held on computers, in emails and in printed or handwritten documents as well as images, videos and audio-recordings.
    The FOIA does not require public authorities to generate information or to answer questions, provide explanations or give opinions, unless this is recorded information that they already hold.
    Your request can be in the form of a question, rather than a request for specific documents, but the authority does not have to answer your question if this would mean creating new information or giving an opinion, explanation or judgement that is not already recorded.

    Your complaint

    From the information you have provided it does not appear that you have made a valid request for recorded information. It appears that you are asking the Traffic Enforcement Centre to provide you with explanations regarding particular forms.
    I note that the Traffic Enforcement Centre has engaged with you and attempted to answer your queries. If you are not satisfied with its response(s) then you should pursue the avenue of complaint it has suggested.
    If you want copies of recorded information that the Traffic Enforcement Centre holds then you should submit a request for information, clearly describing the recorded information you are seeking access to.

    .....As there does not appear to be any actions for us to take in relation to your complaint this case will now be closed. If you have any queries you can respond in writing, or I can be contacted on the number below."
    Details of complaint as sent to ICO.
    Also sent to the ICO were their complaint form, details of email thread from 26th November 2018 to 25th February, and copy of a letter from TEC on 10th January 2019.


  • 3rd April 2019 SMT to ICO- "...We are of course disappointed that the ICO has decided that it was not a valid request.
    The reason that you give is that what we asked for was not using your emphasis recorded information. We used the word 'information' five times in the email thread that was copied to you and I would have thought that some of the information that we asked for would have been recorded.
    We will probably not attempt to follow this up with you, but will you please first confirm that, as the ICO decided that it was not a valid request you did not contact the TEC?
    If you did contact the TEC, have you told them that you considered that our complaint to you was not a valid complaint?"
  • 8th April 2019 17.36 ICO to SMT- "...The Ministry of Justice is ultimately responsible for responding to FOIA requests made to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. However, I can confirm that we have not contacted the Ministry of Justice or the Traffic Enforcement Centre in relation to your complaint as we do not consider there is anything to address."
  • 8th April 2019 22.37 SMT to ICO- "...We will not attempt to follow the original complaint up with you."
    Back to top

    Questions on TE7 and TE9 forms

    This was what you would expect to be a fairly simple question for the TEC to answer. But they did not even try. The issue then became lost as we with little result asked the TEC other questions.

  • 25th February 2019 SMT to ICO- "Our group has 5,000 members who use the Mersey Gateway bridge. Various members have had TE3s issued to them and have subsequently completed and returned TE9 Witness Statements and where appropriate TE7 Out of Time applications. The TEC refers to these people as the 'respondent' and to the body that applied for the Recovery Orders as the 'applicant'.
    There is some confusion as to what is happening with the TE9s and TE7s.
    My understanding is that -

    a) If the TE9 is submitted late together with a properly completed TE9 then in the first instance it is up to the applicant at 9 Howard Court, Manor Park, Runcorn whether the TE7 and thus the TE9 should be accepted. If the applicant does not accept the TE7, then we understand that the applicant's decision is reviewed by a TEC officer.

    b) If the TE9 is submitted on time then it is automatic that the TEC will write to the applicant ordering that the "order for recovery of unpaid penalty charge be revoked". The applicant can reissue the penalty charge notice but they have no say on whether the TE3 recovery order is cancelled.

    Will you please tell us whether our understanding is correct. If there is any document that sets this process out then can we also have a copy of that."     (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)


    Back to top

    Bbbb and general questions about the TEC forms

    This thread started in early December 2018 when we were contacted by a woman who had received letters from Marston and was having difficulty with the TEC. She was also the first person that we know of where enforcers visited a home and clamped a car. There was a back and forth correspondence with the TEC, confused at one stage because Merseyflow had given an incorrect PCN number to her in an email. The case raised a lot of questions which the TEC eventually refused to answer on the grounds that we were not Bbbb. Bbbb's father was very ill at the time, so we abandoned this thread and started asking questions on behalf of the group.

  • 6th December 2018 11.44 SMT to TEC-
    "I am contacting you on behalf of bbbb bbbb of xxxx, who we have been advising on a TE3 Recovery Order that you had apparently sent her giving the name of applicant as 'Mersey Gateway Crossing'.
    bbbb is ill and has recently been in hospital we advised her to send back to you the TE7 and TE9 forms which she did last Friday. As I understand it the normal process would then be that the Recovery Orders would be cancelled and that probably new PCNs would be issued.
    In this case bbbb received yesterday a Notice of Enforcement dated 3 December from Marston.
    I assumed that her sending the forms back to you must have crossed in the post with the Notice of Enforcement, so what is bbbb supposed to do now?
    This situation may also affect other members of our group which has over 5,500 members. So we will be making them aware of your advice on what to do in these circumstances."
  • 6th December 2018 11.58 TEC to SMT and 12.35 SMT to TEC-
    Brief messages as we had missed a digit from the PCN number.

  • 6th December 2018 13.08 Bbbb to TEC-
    "I am writing this e mail as I have recently received 2 letters from a dept collection agency.
    I have returned all my TE7 and TE9 forms on Friday, yes they wHere late going back but I’ve recently been in hospital and am still not 100% well and to put it plainly all these letters are not helping with my illness. I understand from others who have been in my predicament they have had the court squashed and pnc been paid . May I ask why I am diffident ?
    What I find disappointing about all this is I genuinely did forget to pay as I have xxxx, had I received a reminder or polite notice to make me aware of this I would have paid immediately.
    Instead I received letters I didn’t understand and when asking for help on how to fill them in and what they required of me ? My reply was to go the the CAB or to phone I have phoned and left messages as I did on Friday and as of yet no one has replied? I could not get an apt at the CAB due to my working hours.
    I filled the forms in and accompanied them with a letter explaining things.
    I then received the letter and your forms back saying I’d filled them in wrong, with no acknowledgment of my letter ? This came while I was in hospital I only returned the forms again on Friday 30th November.
    I find this all very distressing and hard to believe you would inflict this much stress on family’s just before Christmas. As I said in my letter had there been an option to pay there and then it would make things more easy for people with my condition or other mental health issues.
    Can you please advise as what I am to do next"     (Following this there was the previous thread of SMT messages to TEC.)

  • 6th December 2018 14.02 TEC to Bbbb-
    Asked bbbb for her PCN number (though already in thread).

  • 6th December 2018 14.02 Bbbb to TEC-
    Gave them four PCN numbers.

  • 12th December 2018 10.15 SMT to TEC
    "I contracted you on the 6th on behalf of Bbbb Bbbb. She contacted you the same day. The emails are shown below in date order.(Thread up to 14.02 on 6th)
    The only response from TEC has been to ask for PCN numbers.
    The enforcement officers have now been to seize Bbbb's car.
    The basic point is that all this has happened despite the fact that she returned the TE9 witness statements to you. So far you have not even confirmed that you received the witness statements. If you did then as I understand it you should have contacted whoever is responsible for issuing the TE3s and the recovery process should have been stopped, though the PCNs may have then been reissued.
    Will you please respond urgently to the emails of the 6th."
  • 12th December 2018 12.09 TEC to SMT-
    "I acknowledge receipt of your ‘out of time’ application. This was processed on 05.12.2018.
    The TEC has notified the Local Authority concerned that an application has been received and processed. Upon receipt of this notification the Local Authority is required to suspend any enforcement action.
    A copy of your application has been sent to the Local Authority.
    The Local Authority is given 19 working days to decide if they wish to accept or reject your application.
    If the Local Authority accepts your application within this time limit, the court registration will be revoked (i.e. cancelled). N.B. This does NOT cancel the original penalty charge. The matter will be referred back to the Local Authority.
    If the Local Authority rejects your application, the court file will be referred without a hearing to a Court Officer who will make an impartial decision. You will be notified of the result.
    All enforcement action should have been suspended whilst the Local Authority investigate, please contact them directly as your car should not have been seized after that date."
  • 12th December 2018 13.04 SMT to TEC
    Thanked them for reply of 12.09.


  • 23rd January 2019 Merseyflow to Bbbb
    This was a reply to a message by Bbbb to Merseflow where she asked about the status of the various PCNs. Merseyflow said that she had not filled in a "TE7 out of time statement", though she thought she had.


  • 23rd January 2019 SMT to TEC-
    "I refer to the messages as below from December. I had thought this was sorted out but Bbbb has received an email today at xx.xx saying that she needs to fill out a TE7 out of time statement for PCN XMxxxxxxxx. This is one of the ones that it was implied had been sorted out in December, will you say whether you received a TE7 for this PCN or not." Message included thread to 12th December plus the message from Merseyflow.

  • 3rd February 2019 TEC to SMT-
    "The penalty charge number you are quoting is not on the TEC system. Please check and resubmit your query."
  • 6th February 2019 16.43 SMT to TEC-
    "The TEC must be aware that you are assisting in a massive exercise that is at the moment causing a lot of distress to many people including Bbbb.
    It was Merseyflow, who you are acting, for who told Bbbb that "For PCN XMxxxxxxx, I must advise you will be required to make an “Out of Time Witness Statement” to the Traffic Enforcement Centre" (see 23rd January email below).
    It is not reasonable that the TEC waits a week and then says that this PCN is not on your system. Was the PCN ever on your system, and if so then when was it taken off?"
  • 17th February 2019 10.07 TEC to Bbbb-
    "I can confirm that a Revoking Order was issued to you on 18.01.19 for the subject PCNs – XMxxxxxxxx/ XMxxxxxxxx / XMxxxxxxxx
    Please be advised that this does not cancel the original penalty charge and the matter is still to be resolved between yourself and the Local Authority pursuing you.
    I acknowledge receipt of your ‘out of time’ application – XM0655079A . This was processed on 31.01.19.
    The TEC has notified the Local / Charging Authority concerned that an application has been received and processed. Upon receipt of this notification the Local / Charging Authority is required to suspend any enforcement action.
    A copy of your application has also been sent to the Local / Charging Authority. The Local / Charging Authority is given 19 working days to decide if they wish to accept or reject your application:
    • If the Local / Charging Authority accepts your application within this time limit, the court registration will be revoked (i.e. cancelled). N.B. This does NOT cancel the original penalty charge. The matter will be referred back to the Local / Charging Authority.
    • If the Local / Charging Authority rejects your application, the court file will be referred without a hearing to a Court Officer who will make an impartial decision. You will be notified of the result by post to the address we hold on file.
    Please note that the whole process can take up to 2 months.
    If you have any further queries, you may contact us via our helpdesk or by email; contact details are provided at the top of this letter. Information on TEC procedures is also available on the website detailed above.."
  • 17th February 2019 16.50 SMT to TEC-
    "There was no reply to the message sent to you at 16.43 on 6th Feb. But you have today sent a message to Bbbb bbbb in reply a message that she sent you at 16.47 on 28th January. The message, without the older thread, is shown below ....
    You will appreciate that a lot of people are confused by the conflicting communications that they get from you, Merseyflow and the bailiffs. So can the TEC explain how you can send a message at 10.32 on 10th Feb saying that "PCN XMxxxxxxxx" is "not on the TEC system". And then on the 17th Feb say that her out of time application for this PCN "was processed on 31.01.19" but you are waiting to hear from them and so this is still live."
  • 6th March 2019 TEC to SMT-
    "The acknowledgment receipt of the ‘out of time’ application processed on 31.01.19 is for XMx655xxxx , XMx665xxxx is not on the TEC system."
  • 7th March 2019 SMT to TEC-
    "FOR URGENT ATTENTION

    Thank you for yesterday's message. My apologies, I gave you the wrong number though as explained below I was repeating the number as given to Bbbb by Merseyflow.

    The background to this and another PCN which Bbbb is still being chased on is detailed below.

    There are six questions and we would appreciate urgent answers. You will know that a lot of people are being harassed and we believe that various organisations including possibly the TEC may be ignoring the proper procedures. The emails mentioned below are lower down in this thread.

    XM x655 xxxx

    Bbbb wrote to you about this PCN (and others) on 15th October 2018, you replied on 4th November saying that she needed to send to you TE9 and TE7 forms, which she believes that she did.

    Marstons then gave her a Notice Of Enforcement dated 3rd December for this PCN.

    We contacted you about this on 6th December.

    On the 12th December the enforcement officers came to seize Bbbb's car and showed her a 'Warrant of Control" (a copy is attached) I emailed you about this the same day and you replied the same day saying that you had received the forms and processed them on the 5th and that enforcement action for this (and other PCNs) would be suspended while the out of time application was considered.

    There was an email on 23rd January from Merseyflow saying that "For PCN XMx665xxxx, I must advise you will be required to make an “Out of Time Witness Statement” to the Traffic Enforcement Centre." That email was copied to you. Note that Merseyflow quoted the reference number as beginning XM0665, but we assume that must be the same PCN as the one that other documents show as beginning XM0655. I did not notice that the number was slightly different but emailed you the same day (23rd) saying "This is one of the ones that it was implied had been sorted out in December, will you say whether you received a TE7 for this PCN or not."

    In the meantime Bbbb must have sent you a TE7 even though she believes that she had sent you one before. In fact your email of 12th December implies that you did receive it. ( I am aware from other people that we have been helping that the TEC was at one stage sending TE forms back on the grounds that the TEC said the wrong version of the forms was being used.)

    You replied on the 3rd February saying that this PCN number (beginning XM 0665) was not on your system. I still had not noticed that Merseyflow had quoted an incorrect number and on 6th Feb replied and asked "... Was the PCN ever on your system, and if so then when was it taken off?"

    You replied on the 17th February and said " I acknowledge receipt of your ‘out of time’ application – XM0655xxxx . This was processed on 31.01.19."

    You had at this point picked up what I assume is the correct number but you did not mention the difference and I was still not aware of it. So the same day I sent you an email querying what was happening. Yesterday, the 6th, you sent a brief email highlighting that there were two different numbers being quoted.

    The TEC apparently getting Bbbb's original TE forms for this PCN and then apparently not having received them and Merseyflow then apparently getting one digit of the number wrong has wasted a considerable amount of time but now seems to be sorted out. However I am now taking this opportunity to ask questions that we intended to raise anyway.

    1. We recently became aware that when a debt enforcement officer visits someone with a Warrant of Control then the warrant has to be issued by the TEC and in a certain form. The Warrant of Control that was shown to Bbbb on 12tgh December was not paper but on a hand held device, will you confirm that is allowed.

    2. The form of the warrant does not say that it has been issued by the court, it is very brief and could easily be made up by anyone. Is this the Warrant of Control as authorised to be used by the TEC? If it is then will you give us the information which shows this particular format was authorised.

    3. We note that the Warrant of Control gives the applicant name as "Merseyflow", we believe that can not be a valid applicant. Merseyflow is not a local authority and would not be allowed to use the TEC processes. The TE3 Recovery Orders give the "Applicant" name as 'Mersey Gateway Crossing'. We believe that also can not be a valid applicant as 'Mersey Gateway Crossing' is a bridge and not a legal entity. (We have a complaint, made on 5th March, to the ICO about the TEC refusal to supply information on whether the TE forms being used by Merseyflow were authorised and to say who is sending the forms out.) Even if either "Merseyflow" or 'Mersey Gateway Crossing" was a valid applicant, then we believe that it should be the same name on both the Order and the Warrant. Will you give us the information which shows the authority for the use of different applicant names between the Order and the Warrant.

    XM xxxx xxxx

    Bbbb wrote to you about this PCN (and others) on 15th October 2018, you replied on 4th November saying that she needed to send to you TE9 and TE7 forms; which she did.

    Marstons then gave her a Notice Of Enforcement dated 3rd December for this PCN.

    We contacted you about this on 6th December. You replied on the 12th saying that you had received the forms and processed them on the 5th and that enforcement action would be suspended while the out of time application was considered.

    Bbbb must have also made a representation against this PCN (and others) as she received a letter on 10th January 2019 rejecting her representation but offering to accept a reduced payment. Bbbb must have then made a payment as there was an email on 23rd January from Merseyflow noting that a £2 payment had been made for this PCN (and others). This was followed by a letter dated 29th January from Merseyflow saying that there was nothing outstanding and no further action would be taken.

    That seemed to be that but then Bbbb received from Marstons a document headed 'Removal Notice', dated 27th February with the client name given as 'Merseyflow' and the reference as "xxxxxx". I have attached a copy of this document. Bbbb did not recognise the reference number and rang the number given on the form. They told her that it was in respect of PCN XM 0656 xxxx. For various reasons many people will have paid the demand even if they did not have the money, but Bbbb contacted us.

    Bbbb also contacted Merseyflow who told her that this PCN is not outstanding.

    We have the following questions-

    4. As explained at item 3 above, is it allowed to quote client name as 'Merseyflow'?

    5. Is it allowed to demand money while quoting a reference such as "xxxxxx" which the 'respondent' could not recognise?

    6. Most importantly, given that the enforcement agent is apparently demanding money for a PCN that should have been cancelled a month earlier, how is anyone to know that on top of the demands from the authorities, there is not also unsanctioned extortion and fraud? Such fraud is made easier by Marstons not accepting cheques. Most people will therefore pay by cash or bank transfer to the bank sort code that is given to them by the 'enforcement agent' so the money could be going anywhere."
  • 19th March 2019 TEC to SMT-
    "Please be advised that you are not the named respondent in these matters. As such, we cannot discuss the matters with you."
    Back to top

    Aaaa and general questions about the TEC forms

    This was our first contact with TEC. It arose because an SMT member that we had been helping was told by the TEC that the form which she had completed and returned to them was the wrong form. Unravelling this helped to reveal the can of worms that is the TEC's illegal dealings with Merseyflow.

  • 26th November 2018 Email to TEC querying the forms being used "I am contacting you on behalf of aaaa aaaa, who we have been advising on a TE3 Recovery Order that you apparently sent her giving the name of applicant as 'Mersey Gateway Crossing'.
    Her details are- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    The Recovery Orders were for four PCN’s, two on the 21st June and two on 8th July. One of them is numbered xxxx, another is xxxx.
    Car reg: xxxx

    We advised aaaa that we thought that the Recovery Order you sent her might not be proper, but that she should in any case tick whatever box was appropriate on the TE9 Witness Statement and return it to the required address. She did this on 7th November.
    On the 22nd she received a letter dated 16th November apparently from you. The letter said that she had completed the wrong form and that she had to complete a "Dart Charge TE9". You enclosed copies of the blank Dart Charge forms and returned the forms that she had sent you on the 7th.

    The Dart Charge of course refers to the Dartford Crossing and aaaa's alleged contraventions were on the Mersey Gateway Crossing.
    I tried to ring you about this shortly after 4.30 today, but eventually got a message indicating that I would be unlikely to reach the top of the answer queue before your office closed at 5.00.

    What you are asking aaaa to do seems to be incorrect, will you please confirm that she must do this.
    What you are doing with aaaa, may also have affected or will affect other members of our group which has over 5,500 members. So we want the following information, and would appreciate an early response -

    1. Why you are sending out TE3 'Mersey Gateway Crossing' forms and then when you get them back you are returning them and saying that people have sent you the wrong forms?

    2. The answer to the above may be that you did not send out the TE3 Mersey Gateway Crossing forms. If so, then who has sent these forms out? And did you authorise the sending out of these forms?

    3. Why are you telling people who have been issued with a PCN and Recovery Order for the Mersey Gateway Crossing to complete a form which is for the Dart Charge?
  • 5th December 2018 15.26 SMT to TEC-
    "On the 26th I sent you the message below on behalf of aaaa asking that you confirm that aaaa has to complete the Dart Charge forms that you sent her. I also asked for some information for our group.
    All that we have had back is an automated acknowledgement. In expectation of a reply to the question, aaaa has not yet done anything with the Dart Charge forms. Are you going to reply to the email?"
  • 5th December 2018 16.21 TEC to SMT-
    "The Dart Charge TE9 is the correct form, Mersey Flow won’t accept any other TE9.
    Please complete the enclosed TE9 and TE7."     Attached was a TE7 form, a TE9 form (Dart Charge version) and an 'OUT OF TIME WITNESS STATEMENT INFORMATION SHEET' (note that this is another example of the incompetence of the TEC as there is no such form).


  • 5th December 2018 17.02 SMT to TEC-
    "Thank you for the reply, I will forward it to aaaa and suggest that she does as you suggest though your answer is in my opinion incorrect. Other members of our group seem to have done the same as aaaa and the forms have been accepted.
    (Facebook link)
    Given that the forms which were originally sent to aaaa are said to have been incorrect it is even more important that we get an answer to the three questions which we asked you on the 26th."
  • 6th December 2018 08.54 TEC to SMT-
    "All original correspondence is sent out by the Local Authority so it would have been them that sent you the TE3.
    The reason we accept the Dart Charge TE9 is because it has more options on the grounds to appeal. Please see attached, I have added a Dart Charge TE9 and a Parking TE9. Mersey Flow will only accept a TE9 that is set up like the Dart Charge TE9."     Attached was another copy of the TE9 form (Dart Charge version) and a copy of the TE9 form that is used for Parking offences.


  • 6th December 2018 10.53 SMT to TEC-
    "Thank you very much for a quick response to the request.
    You say that you want the 'Dart Charge TE9' form to be used "because it has more options on the grounds to appeal". The difference seems to be that "I appealed against the local authority’s decision to reject my representation, within 28 days of service of the rejection notice, but have had no response to my appeal." has three sub options. Even if this is materially different from the other TE9 form, why does the TEC expect people to complete a form which is clearly intended for the Dartford Crossing and which has no mention on it of either the Mersey Gateway Crossing or 'road user charges' in general?

    You say that "All original correspondence is sent out by the Local Authority". I suspected that might be causing the confusion over the forms, but if it is not the TEC who are sending the forms out then can you say who exactly is sending the TE3s, TE7s and TE9s out? As I understand it, Halton Borough Council, the local authority who are nominally responsible for the Mersey Gateway Crossing, in practice do nothing and will not have sent any forms out or been involved in any way.

    Whoever it is that is sending out these TE forms, they appear to come from the TEC and the TE3 Recovery Orders say at the bottom that they are "drawn on the authority of: Traffic Enforcement Centre". So how and when did the TEC authorise the wording on the TE3, TE7 and TE9 forms that have been being sent out by somebody in respect of the Mersey Gateway?

    As aaaa was sent what you say was the wrong TE9 Witness Statement form, then what steps have the TEC taken to draw this mistake to the attention of whoever is sending out these forms, who did the TEC tell and when did the TEC do so?"
  • 13th December 2018 09.31 SMT to TEC-
    "Aaaa told me last night that she had completed and sent your Dart Charge forms back to the TEC by recorded delivery on Monday. She has had no acknowledgement yet. Will you please confirm that the forms have been received.
    It is now a week since I sent you the email below. There were various questions as we are trying to find out what is going on. Some of our members yesterday had visits from Marston, the debt enforcement agents. This action was despite the various test cases being considered by the TPT. Can we please have an urgent answer to our questions about the TE forms."
  • 13th December 2018 10.27 TEC to SMT-
    "I acknowledge receipt of your ‘out of time’ application. This was processed on 12/12/18.
    The TEC has notified the Local / Charging Authority concerned that an application has been received and processed. Upon receipt of this notification the Local / Charging Authority is required to suspend any enforcement action.
    A copy of your application has also been sent to the Local / Charging Authority. The Local / Charging Authority is given 19 working days to decide if they wish to accept or reject your application:
    • If the Local / Charging Authority accepts your application within this time limit, the court registration will be revoked (i.e. cancelled). N.B. This does NOT cancel the original penalty charge. The matter will be referred back to the Local / Charging Authority.
    • If the Local / Charging Authority rejects your application, the court file will be referred without a hearing to a Court Officer who will make an impartial decision. You will be notified of the result."
  • 13th December 2018 14.17 SMT to TEC-
    "Thank you for the quick reply which I forwarded this morning to Aaaa aaaa.
    Her position is now clear, but I am concerned that the TEC seems to be ignoring the three items of information that we asked for on the 26th November. Are we going to get an answer or is there someone that I can complain to if the request is apparently ignored."
  • 17th December 2018 SMT to TEC-
    "Is there any way that I can escalate this? As the TEC may be aware there are now debt enforcement officers out enforcing the warrants of control that you have issued, they are visiting some of our members. It is not reasonable that you are not answering our concerns, expressed on 6th December, with regard to the TE forms that have been issued. If there is no reply soon then we will make this situation public." (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)

  • 21st December 2018 16.08 TEC to SMT-
    "This is the regulation that the Mersey crossing comes under http://www.merseygateway.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Roads-User-Charging-Scheme-Order-2017.pdf
    It uses the same legislation for crossings that came into play in 2014 that HE uses for crossings so is eligible to use the same forms.
    This is a useful paper covering road tolls and crossings including Mersey
    http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00442/SN00442.pdf
    This link may also be useful
    https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/legislation-mersey-gateway-bridge-crossings/"
  • 21st December 2018 17.02 SMT to TEC-
    "The TEC has not answered the questions put to you on the 26th November. You have instead sent me three general links which we were already aware of and which are in no way relevant to the questions that were put to the TEC.
    I ask again is there someone we can complain to about the TEC's refusal to answer the questions?"
  • 31st December 2018 14.03 SMT to TEC-
    "I realise that it has been the holiday period, but will someone please tell us whether there is any way that we can complain about the lack of a proper reply?"
  • 31st December 2018 14.29 TEC to SMT-
    "If you wish to submit a formal complaint you may do so to this email address. (There was none)
    To clarify answers that my colleagues have provided to your questions from 26 November 2018

    1. Why you are sending out TE3 'Mersey Gateway Crossing' forms and then when you get them back you are returning them and saying that people have sent you the wrong forms?

    TEC do not send out forms unless requested by the respondent named on the Penalty Charge Notice. Forms are provided to Local Authorities by TEC for them send out when necessary. If you have been sent an incorrect form by a local authority, you may wish to address this with them.

    2. The answer to the above may be that you did not send out the TE3 Mersey Gateway Crossing forms. If so, then who has sent these forms out? And did you authorise the sending out of these forms?

    Please see above. TEC sends authorised forms to Local Authorities who then send forms out when necessary, i.e. when they do not hear from the registered keeper of a vehicle regarding a penalty charge. It is the responsibility of the local authority to send out the correct forms.

    3. Why are you telling people who have been issued with a PCN and Recovery Order for the Mersey Gateway Crossing to complete a form which is for the Dart Charge?

    Mersey Gateway do not currently have a specific set of forms with which a respondent can apply for more time to respond. Dart Charge forms provides the same formatting and required extra grounds for appeal that Mersey Gateway require. The forms would be identical were they Mersey Gateway specific, the only difference being they are marked “Dart Charge”. While this is not completely ideal, the forms have exactly the same effect if they are submitted to us correctly completed.

    I trust this provides you with a little more clarity about these forms."
  • 31st December 2018 16.27 SMT to TEC-
    "1. Thank you for confirming that it is not in practice the TEC that sends out the forms. In this particular case the TEC did of course send out a form to Emma. This was not done at the request of the "respondent named on the Penalty Charge Notice". She had returned the forms that she had been sent and it was someone at the TEC who decided that they were the wrong forms. It is how this could have happened that was the purpose of the following questions

    2. Your answer to this question is so general that it is not really an answer. We asked who sent these forms out. Your answer is the 'local authorities'. We want to know specifically who was authorised to send these forms out. Our belief is that for the Mersey Gateway Crossing they are not sent out by any local authority. So who is sending the forms out? Or does the TEC not know?

    We also asked did the TEC authorise the sending out of the TE9 Witness Statement forms that you returned to Emma Burrows as not being the correct forms. You have not answered what seems to be a simple question.

    I am aware that the user guide for authorities says "A sample copy of the Order for Recovery, Statutory Declaration, Witness Statement and Warrant of Execution will need to be approved by the TEC before any live registrations can be processed."

    So had the TEC approved the forms that were being sent out for the Mersey Gateway crossing?

    3. You say "Mersey Gateway do not currently have a specific set of forms with which a respondent can apply for more time to respond." That sounds like the TE7 form, but the issue that was raised with you was the TE9 witness statement form. I assume that it is really the latter form that you are referring to.
    The rest of your answer is perplexing. How can the 'Mersey Gateway' "not currently have a specific set of forms with which a respondent can apply for more time to respond". It seems that the TEC had not approved the forms that were going out.

    You say that "Dart Charge forms provides the same formatting and required extra grounds for appeal that Mersey Gateway require. The forms would be identical were they Mersey Gateway specific, the only difference being they are marked “Dart Charge”. While this is not completely ideal, the forms have exactly the same effect if they are submitted to us correctly completed." In my opinion it is an understatement to say that using a form that is marked as for a different crossing "is not completely ideal". But this brings us round in a circle to how the TEC approved (or did not) the forms that were originally sent to Emma.

    I will wait a week to see if there is any response to this message, before making a formal complaint."     (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)

  • 8th January 2019 SMT to TEC-
    "It is now a week since my last message and I have received no reply, so I am now hereby making a formal complaint about the TEC not giving the requested information and in particular not answering the two questions highlighted in bold in our message of 31st.

    In the meantime I have noticed something else that we would like clarification on.

    The TE3 forms for the Gateway which are being issued by someone in the name of the TEC say that- "If you want to file a Witness statement - unpaid penalty charge (form TE9), you can do so by email or by post.
    By email - download form TE9 from www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/tec.htm complete form and send it to tec@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk.
    By post........"

    The web address for downloading the TE9 form (and presumably the TE7, though this is not mentioned) seems to be invalid, neither does it redirect to another page. Will the TEC please confirm that the web address on the TE3 form is invalid. If it is invalid then we would also like to know who approved the use of the TE3 forms for the Mersey Gateway."     (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)

  • 10th January 2019 TEC to SMT-
    Response to 'complaint'

  • 11th January 2019 SMT to TEC-
    "Thank you for a quick reply. Your attached document dated the 11th refers to our email of 21st December but I assume that this is a reply to my message on 8th January which related to a thread (see below) going back to November."

    In my message of 31st December I emphasised the information that we are seeking-
    "So who is sending the forms out? Or does the TEC not know?" and,br> "So had the TEC approved the forms that were being sent out for the Mersey Gateway crossing?"

    1. You say in your doc dated the 11th (but sent to us on the 10th) that "The local authority sends out the Order for Recovery along with the relevant Statutory Declaration / Witness Statement forms according to the type of charge...." You later indicate that the local authority in this case is "HALTON BOROUGH COUNCIL".

    This answer is basically the same as the one the TEC gave us on 6th December. Our reply the same day said "As I understand it, Halton Borough Council, the local authority who are nominally responsible for the Mersey Gateway Crossing, in practice do nothing and will not have sent any forms out or been involved in any way."

    I still believe the TEC answer to be incorrect as we know that the local authority has no involvement with the process. Can we have a correct answer, or if you still believe your answer to be correct then can you tell us what correspondence you have had with Halton Borough Council that leads you to believe that the local authority is sending the TE forms out.

    2. You say "The TEC provides local authorities ‘master forms’ to use for their PCNs. The local authority may then add their own logos, contact details and payment details. TEC will authorise a sample of their individualised forms when they first register to use the TEC. Following your email, I have asked that the forms sent out by HALTON BOROUGH COUNCIL are checked."

    Our question was "So had the TEC approved the forms that were being sent out for the Mersey Gateway crossing?" You have not answered the question and it seems to me that the likely reason is that the TEC do not want to admit that either it approved forms that may be incorrect or that forms have been used which were not, as required, approved by the TEC. Can we have an answer, or if the TEC still refuses to say what has happened then is there a higher level that we can complain to?

    3. You say "The Witness Statement forms for both the Mersey Gateway Crossing and Dart Charges are the same. Our staff should not have referred to the forms as ‘Dart Charge’, as they are generic forms used for all ‘free-flow charging’. I can see that this has caused some confusion and would like to apologise for this. The team have been made aware of this mislabelling and the impact this may have"

    You refer to "generic forms used for all ‘free-flow charging’" As I understand it the only "free-flow" charging that the TEC deals with is on the Dartford Crossing and the Mersey Gateway. An almost identical system is used for parking. If anyone is downloading the TE7 and TE9 forms from your website then they have two options - the 'parking' version or the 'Dart Charge' version. If the form is meant to be used for other than the Dart Charge, then the problem is not as you suggest your staff referring to them incorrectly. The fault is what is shown on your web links for both forms and what is printed- 'Dart Charge'. on the the TE9 form.
    The fact that TEC staff rejected the version of the TE9 form that had been sent out by someone as being incorrect and then told the driver to complete the 'Dart Charge' form, does of course add to our impression that the TEC either did not approve the forms or if it did then it failed to inform the TEC staff.

    4. Our message of the 8th had a new point about what is shown on the TE3 forms that have been sent out for the Mersey Gateway. We said-
    "The web address for downloading the TE9 form (and presumably the TE7, though this is not mentioned) seems to be invalid, neither does it redirect to another page. Will the TEC please confirm that the web address on the TE3 form is invalid. If it is invalid then we would also like to know who approved the use of the TE3 forms for the Mersey Gateway.

    You have not given an answer to this point. Can we please have an answer."     (SMT only got an automated response to this message.)

  • 6th March 2019 SMT to TEC-
    "I was in touch with you in November on behalf of Aaaa aaaa (see email below (26th November)). The questions we asked you have now become the subject of a complaint to the Information Commissioner, but I am now contacting you on another matter.

    Aaaa has recently received a TE3 against her issued for the 'Mersey Gateway Crossing' applicant for an alleged 'contravention' on 08/07/2018, PCN number XMxxxxxxxx. This is one of the PCNs for which she returned the TE9 and TE7 forms to you last November and December.

    Due to a theft Aaaa no longer has the paperwork from last year but I assume that this is a new TE3 and I have advised Aaaa to complete the TE9 and return it to you. But there are two questions that we would like answered.

    1. As it has the same PCN number, how is the 'respondent' supposed to know that this is a new TE3 which requires a fresh response?

    2. As I understand it you will have ordered that the original Charge certificate be cancelled. Our understanding was that if the 'applicant' then wanted to pursue this then they would have to reissue the PCN giving Aaaa the opportunity to either pay the PCN or make a representation. That has not happened. Can you tell us as a matter of urgency what the proper process should be if the applicant decides to pursue enforcement of the PCN?"

  • 7th March 2019 08.59 TEC to SMT-
    "The Local Authority concerned have re-registered this PCN with TEC; this can be due to the fact that after it was revoked the first time, the original fee was not settled. As it has been registered again, you will need to complete another Witness Statement TE9. Please find this form attached."
    (A Dart Charge TE9 form was attached.)
  • 7th March 2019 13.19 SMT to TEC-
    "Thank you for the quick reply at 08.59, but you have not answered our questions, which I have repeated below.
    This may be an oversight or a deliberate refusal to answer the questions. In case it is the latter then I hereby ask the TEC under the FOIA rules to review the refusal to answer the questions-

    1. As it has the same PCN number, how is the 'respondent' supposed to know that this is a new TE3 which requires a fresh response?
    2. As I understand it you will have ordered that the original Charge certificate be cancelled. Our understanding was that if the 'applicant' then wanted to pursue this then they would have to reissue the PCN giving Emma the opportunity to either pay the PCN or make a representation. That has not happened. Can you tell us as a matter of urgency what the proper process should be if the applicant decides to pursue enforcement of the PCN?."
  • 15th March 2019 12.44 TEC to SMT-
    "....I understand that you have asked 2 specific questions – I have responded below:

    1. As it has the same PCN number, how is the 'respondent' supposed to know that this is a new TE3 which requires a fresh response?

    When a local authority re-register an unpaid penalty charge, it is assigned a new ‘suffix’ –the initial registration would be given a penalty charge number in the format AA NNNNNNN N 0 the re-registered unpaid penalty charge was given the number AA NNNNNNN N 1 in order to differentiate the two. In addition to this, the local authority would have sent a new order for recovery with a witness statement or statutory declaration, dependant on the type of contravention concerned, for the respondent to complete.

    2. As I understand it you will have ordered that the original Charge certificate be cancelled. Our understanding was that if the 'applicant' then wanted to pursue this then they would have to reissue the PCN giving Emma the opportunity to either pay the PCN or make a representation. That has not happened. Can you tell us as a matter of urgency what the proper process should be if the applicant decides to pursue enforcement of the PCN?

    As above, a new order for recovery should have been sent to the respondent by the local authority, if the respondent has not received this, they should contact the local authority concerned."
  • 15th March 2019 16.23 SMT to TEC-
    "Thank you for the email but it does not really answer our questions.
    On the 6th March we asked- " 1. As it has the same PCN number, how is the 'respondent' supposed to know that this is a new TE3 which requires a fresh response?"

    Your answer is-
    "When a local authority re-register an unpaid penalty charge, it is assigned a new ‘suffix’ –the initial registration would be given a penalty charge number in the format AA NNNNNNN N 0 the re-registered unpaid penalty charge was given the number AA NNNNNNN N 1 in order to differentiate the two. In addition to this, the local authority would have sent a new order for recovery with a witness statement or statutory declaration, dependant on the type of contravention concerned, for the respondent to complete."

    Neither the original nor the apparent reissue have the suffix "0" or "1". They both have the suffix 'A".
    Does the TEC not know what is going on? Will you please escalate this to someone who can give an answer.

    We also asked-
    " 2. As I understand it you will have ordered that the original Charge certificate be cancelled. Our understanding was that if the 'applicant' then wanted to pursue this then they would have to reissue the PCN giving Emma the opportunity to either pay the PCN or make a representation. That has not happened. Can you tell us as a matter of urgency what the proper process should be if the applicant decides to pursue enforcement of the PCN?"

    Your answer is-
    "As above, a new order for recovery should have been sent to the respondent by the local authority, if the respondent has not received this, they should contact the local authority concerned."

    Your answer indicates that contrary to what we believed the applicant is not supposed to reissue the PCN if they want to pursue it. If this is the 'proper process' then that is fundamentally different from what we understood, so we would require something to confirm what you have told us. In what document or regulations does it say that when a TE9 is accepted the applicant can issue a new TE3 recovery order without reissuing the PCN? We need an URGENT answer to this question as what you have told us is contrary to the advice that we have been giving our 5,000 members and which we also publish on a website.

    In both your answers you refer to the "local authority". Will someone tell us why you are referring to the applicant as the local authority when the TEC knows full well that the applicant is not a local authority?."
  • 26th March 2019 TEC to SMT-
    "....Thank you for your email, I am afraid your will need to redirect your 1st enquiry to the local/issuing authority as they are the ones that send all the forms out, they will be able to provide you with a timeline of events so you will be able to see when each document was sent to you.

    The revoking order means that the penalty is cancelled with the court but this is still active with the local/issuing authority, after the penalty has been revoked the local/issuing authority and yourself are given an opportunity to come to a suitable settlement regarding the penalty if this is not achieved then the local/issuing authority can then reregister the penalty charge with TEC.

    The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is a registration point for Local/Charging Authorities to register unpaid penalty charges with the County Court prior to enforcement.

    I hope this helps with your inquiry.


    Back to top