Hi, yes this is a set aside application and I have completed the N244. I was womdering if my answer to Q3 on the N244 was OK before I commit to returning it to court.

The court has allowed me to make without a fee, an application to set aside the Order of July 15 and enclosed an N244. Any Advantage/disadvantage in a telephone hearing or going without a hearing? Dont really want to commit any more time in attending. Any comments on my Q3 above?

I dont understand why you are fretting. If you dont have any assets and you dont agree with the fees, then dont pay him. Simples. What can he do about it?

What was your question regarding data protection act?

Then you can pay the bailiffs fees, and if it is later discovered the fees are avoidable (no legislation/court order/contract), then claim on the solicitors Professional Indemity policy for giving wrong advice. The solicitors insurance company then recovers it from the bailiff. Its up to you what you do.

You dont need to fight him. You just call police on 999 and ask the bailiff to leave. If your son is not available then there is nothing you can do.

That means the council has not obtained a costs order. Its only been through the Traffic Enforcement Centre for enforcement so only the statutory 28% enforcement charge on the fine is payable. Others on this forum may be better informed.

If he returns to the property, do as police say, call 999 quoting the incident reference. If the council wont let your son pay the fine then he doesnt need to do anything. The enforcement fee on a parking fine is 28%. He doesnt have to pay the hundreds of pounds of costs the bailiff is asking for, unless a court has made a costs order. Only the council can answer that, so ring them again and ask them when the costs order was made and at which court. Others on here may be better informed.

Thats easy enough done: Just ask Lord Lucas: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peer/lord_lucas Send a Question:

If you have the connections, then asking Lord Lucas to ask PQ on the legal position on defendants liabilities to pay enforcement fees on court fines without having a means tested costs order. Until that is cleared up, I think its best you refrain from giving advice that could mislead defendants they are liable to pay enforcement fees.

I have spoken to someone who worked in government from 1992 to about 2000 and not subject to OSA, but I must emphasise this is all hearsay and I dont have any links to the source. The Lord Chancellors department received a complaint from HM Prison service that Magistrates were sending too many yobbos who were not paying their fines and asked for a solution to reduce taxpayer burden. Warrant officers attached to magistrates courts were responsible for service process and collecting unpaid fines, but their work didn't deal with the problem of serial non-payers because procedure returns the case to court and an arrest warrant issued. A few options were considered, namely to contract out enforcement to bailiffs similar to decriminalised traffic offences. Those regulations set out statutory bailiff's fees and fixed penalties are not means tested. Defendants receiving criminal fines were commonly on benefits and therefore their (non motoring) fines and prosecution costs orders were generally minimal, because these are means tested. Fixing a statutory scale of enforcement fees prescribing a Fees Order for unpaid means-tested fines contradicted means testing. Ordering £275 in costs for recovering an unpaid £45 public order fine from a defendant who is on jobseekers allowance contradicted the statutory poverty threshold. Only the maximum £5 a weeks could be deducted from benefits. The alterative is contractor asks the defendant to pay the fess (which are set in a contract between court and contractor), and if the defendant agrees to pay it then the bailiff gets his £275. If the defendant declined to pay – for which he is allowed – then he is only liable for paying the fine and nothing else. The bailiff deducts his fee from the amount collected. If a defendant has paid bailiffs fees on a court fine in the last six years, he can reclaim them if the bailiffs mislead the defendant he was liable to pay he fee, or indicate payment of his fee is a statutory obligation or said a court order had been made against the defendant. See section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980.

The contract doesnt specify the number of visits the bailiff can make, nor sets a charge per visit.

I will endeavour to speak with my contact and revert back. I dont speak for anyone else.

if it is out of time then you dont need to write to them at all. Its their problem so NEVER admit to any debt.

You need to tell the council you didnt live at the address for which the liability exists. They will amend their records. Phone your local councillor and tell him what you have said above and he'll sort it.