Ok here is the deal.

Around Feb 14 - We had a parking fine in Swansea council car park.

Appealed to the council, got rejected.

Went to the court (TEC) and the amount reached £82.

Andrew James got involved, TEC helpline suggested I do an out of time application.

Somebody from Andrew James visited the business premises to inform us that we need to pay £392. He went away that time without much hassle.

Did out of time application but the appeal was rejected. Amount o/s at this time - £82

I spoke with Swansea Council who didn't accept the payment and told that I deal with Andrew James.

I took a chance and posted a cheque for £82 to the Swansea council with Parking Ticket ref on the back of the cheque - Jan 15.

Council banked the cheque and it cleared.

Somebody from Andrew James came again to the business premises (owned and operated by a Limited Company) in Feb 15 to pay or they will take goods. Informed that it has been dealt with the council. He went away.

17 March 15 - Two bailiff's arrived at the business premises and didn't leave. Police were called but didn't do anything.

Bailiff's started removing Ltd co's good and told us that they are aware that we have paid council the £82.00 but must pay another £420.00 there and then in cash or they will take half the shop away.

I didn't agree and they started moving the items in front of many customers. To save embarrassment, we took cash from the till (£420.00) and they took the cash, gave the receipt, said thanks to the police for not doing anything and went away.

Same day, I MCOL'd a £420 + court fee on Andrew James Limited and the claimant was my Limited Co.

A few days ago their solicitors wrote to me to advise me that they shall be their legal rep in the court and they need particulars of claim. They also requested to know why the limited company has started the claim and not the "individual" on the TEC warrant of control.

Any advise would be kind.

If you were the boss of swansea council parking, then you would get away with this (as seen from below links)

You could contact South Wales / Swansea Evening Post, I am sure they would run this story.

It seems unfair that you have to pay an £80 fine when people working in the same council are not fined. It seems highly unfair that bailiffs can charge you an increased fee for a fine youve already paid.

As this is in the bailiff section forum, I know there are some good experts who will be along to advise you! Personally, I would also contact the evening post...

Can you clarify a number of point please as I am a bit confused here.

Was the parking ticket addressed to you personally or was it addressed to a Limited Company?

You say that you initially appealed the PCN to the council but that your representation was subsequently rejected. I am confused as to why you then filed an Out of Time Application. An OoT may only be filed on the following four strict grounds:

The address where Andrew James should attend would have to be the 'warrant' address (unless an application had been made at TEC to amend). Can you be clear on whether the warrant was addressed elsewhere.

Personally, I would not have suggested immediate legal action without first making all the background enquiries.

The PCN letters were all addressed individually. The Car is owned individually and the V5 is also in individual's name.

TEC appeal was made as we didn't receive the PCN.

Council appeal was rejected as we didn't reply to "Notice to Owner" as I was away.

Also, ignoring the fact that they picked "limited co's" goods for a second, if we paid to the council and council accepted, which means all bailiff actions should cease?

To add, the TEC warrant was addressed to the individual at the business address.

Surely if the limited company makes the court claim, then they should win, as the enforcement agents threatened to take the companies goods and took money from the business.

The outstanding liability was owed by a private person and not the limited company.

I have CCTV recording of all the activity that took place on the premises.

I have CCTV recording of all the activity that took place on the premises.

Contact the Solicitors and tell them that you have it all on CCTV recordings that the enforcement agents threatened limited company goods for a private liability. The EA's were aware of this. Advise the Solicitors that they have no defence to the way in which the EA's acted.

 

If we paid to the council and council accepted, which means all bailiff actions should cease?

This is not the correct position at all !!

For instance, the amount due under the PCN would change depending when the debt was paid to the council.

If you paid within the time frame on the Notice to Owner then payment would be at the early discounted rate.

If you paid after the Charge Certificate had been issued the debt would have increased by 50%.

If you had paid at the Order for recovery rate the debt registration fee of £7 would have been added and this forms part of the debt and accordingly, a different amount would have been applicable.

If you paid after a warrant had been issued and passed to Andrew James then a different amount would be applicable given that the 'amount due' includes the legally applicable 'Compliance Fee'.

When was payment made to the council?

Did you give them the money or did they seize the money? if you gave it to them, then YOU have paid. If they SEIZED it, then you can submit a 3rd party claim. They could have legally removed goods and awaited a third party claim as many commercial goods are owned by the directors themselves and leased to their own companies.

We see this day in day out and the courts are fully aware of the practice. Thats why we often cannot remove goods from a ltd company, as the director owns everything. But until proof is seen, we would continue and remove goods.

Also, ignoring the fact that they picked "limited co's" goods for a second, if we paid to the council and council accepted, which means all bailiff actions should cease?

The above is wrong. the fact you have paid AFTER the EA started enforcement action means the fees remain payable and enforcement will be taken to collect those fees.

Contact the Solicitors and tell them that you have it all on CCTV recordings that the enforcement agents threatened limited company goods for a private liability. The EA's were aware of this. Advise the Solicitors that they have no defence to the way in which the EA's acted.

The EA can threaten to remove any goods on site and the 3rd party would have to submit proof of ownership to the courts if the EA does not accept it. The EA had been TOLD they were ltd company goods, but this my means proves they were ltd company goods and therefore seizure continued.

You must furnish the defendants (Andrew James) with the particulars of your claim or the claim could be struck out.

Was the pcn addressed to the Ltd company and sent to the business address? is your car registered at the business premises as opposed to your home address?

WD's questions are important. Some clarification is needed.

They could have legally removed goods and awaited a third party claim as many commercial goods are owned by the directors themselves and leased to their own companies.

We see this day in day out and the courts are fully aware of the practice.

 

Really? So you remove goods in full knowledge they may belong to a third party, then await a third party claim?

Is this not intentionally removing goods you know may well not belong to the debtor?

How does this sit alongside:

10. An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor.

If there is doubt, would the EA not try to get a Controlled Goods Agreement in place first? A shop is hardly likely to remove all its stock afterall. This would then give the shop owner time to prove ownership, save the removal fee for the debtor (Does the EA get a cut of this or not?), and save the EA having to remove anything at that point in time.

Surely this would be a better remedy than removing straight away.

In what way do the courts condone this? Have they given guidelines to EA's stating it is accepted practice or are they just happy for the debtor to incur an unnecessary removal fee of £110 to turn a fine for £82 into something far greater?

I do appreciate the issue in this case is not clear cut until we know more detail, but your statement is clear that it is 'common practice'. That seems to me to be a dubious one.

Yea, they are goods of the debtor until proven otherwise. The EA may only take goods of the debtor but the fact remains its not for the EA to prove ownership. Nor is it for us to admit or dispute ownership. If they are at the warrant address, then we will continue on the basis they belong to the defendant if the defendant is present and depending ont he circumstances, we will remove if the defendant is not present.

Companies are the worst for disappearing overnight so no, I wouldn't have entered into a cga if there were sufficient goods on site.

Its a better remedy your way UNTIL we go back and the shop is empty and the claimant has lost their money and we ours. And it may turn out that he was a sole trader trading from a ltd companies cover(this happens ALOT).

We dont take anyone's word for it when it comes to companies or the directors of. Either the debt is paid or the goods are removed. If there is a 3rd party claim we will review it and pass it onto the claimant to admit or deny.

You comment while morally correct is based on the fantasy that all debtors should be given chance. When in reality, most debtors that we come across would use that chance to do disappear and therefore we counter that by removing those goods unless absolute proof of ownership or payment has been made.

With regards to the comment about percentages, I believe the bailiff earning a cut of the costs went out a long time ago. Most bailiffs are no longer commission based so as to stop complaints like that. No idea about Andrew James though.

Addressed to Grumpy. YOU GIVE EA's a bad name...

It is the responsibility of the EA to prove ownership on company premises.

You come to my place of work to enforce warrant addressed to me privately ? And threaten to remove LTD goods ? Ground for a form 4 there alone. Probable theft. Your warrant allows you only to remove goods that have proven to belong to the debtor - not that are on site and maybe. Evidence of the shop being a LTD is displayed.

You can use a smartphone and query companies house on the spot free of charge to find relevant information. A sole trader under a LTD company ? No benefit to that.

So before you attend you have already decided that its money or goods ? Arrangement to pay ? Assessment of debtors ability / vunerability under regs ? Not with you - this is what the 190 + VAT fee is for in Stage 1.

I can categorically state that bailiffs do receive a percentage. A very recent claim I instructed a firm on a debt of 6k they earnt 1565.00 in fees - albeit a lot less that previous regs.

[removed]

Greetings

N

Form 4 complaints no longer exist for a start.

It never has been and never will be for the EA to prove ownership. Thats for the defendant or the 3rd party to sort. All we need is suspicion that the goods may belong.

A lot of ltd companies have assets and stick that belong to the directors personally.

It was asked if the bailiff earns a cut of the fees. No, as a general rule they don't. You have quoted some fees that the bailiff COMPANY earned.

Obviously we take into account vulnerabilities etc.

Your comments as a whole make no sense and list appear to be anti bailiff with no reason or rhyme.

Sounds like FOTL crap especially with the whole form 4 rhetoric.

Sounds like FOTL crap especially with the whole form 4 rhetoric.

Yep

[removed]

Err

I despise bailiffs. They have no purpose other than to add suffering to individuals.

As for the fotl comment ? Really ? Form 4 was a legit address to improper bailiff action. Coincidentally back in 2008 I won with said against bailiffs that seized personal items for a Ltd company debt. The said bailiffs also accessed accommodation attached to business premises to do so. The legal entity was displayed as required by the companies name act. The bailiff also had his license revoked.

As a qualified and practising accountant I have to use hceos in my professional life. Do I like to do so....no I damn well don't. What I do expect is agents working for me to do so in a humane manner in respect to the debtors involved. I have used several of the companies in the UK, SO being the most 'morally' acceptable that follow my instructions.

As for the personal attack I apologise.

Having read your posts they are somewhat incitive and tend to inflame and be posted for just this reason.

I believe the word is trolling.

Good day sir

Err

 

I despise bailiffs. They have no purpose other than to add suffering to individuals.

 

As for the fotl comment ? Really ? Form 4 was a legit address to improper bailiff action. Coincidentally back in 2008 I won with said against bailiffs that seized personal items for a Ltd company debt. The said bailiffs also accessed accommodation attached to business premises to do so. The legal entity was displayed as required by the companies name act. The bailiff also had his license revoked.

 

As a qualified and practising accountant I have to use hceos in my professional life. Do I like to do so....no I damn well don't. What I do expect is agents working for me to do so in a humane manner in respect to the debtors involved. I have used several of the companies in the UK, SO being the most 'morally' acceptable that follow my instructions.

 

As for the personal attack I apologise.

 

Having read your posts they are somewhat incitive and tend to inflame and be posted for just this reason.

 

I believe the word is trolling.

 

Good day sir

I despise all accountants as they are all con men. see http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/accountant-jailed-183000-pensioner-con/546605

Im only joking, I dont really. Im not pathetic enough to tar a whole trade based on the actions of a few.

So, to continue, you use them in your line of work as an accountant and yet claim they have no use other than to cause suffering. So there are people out there that you just want the bailiffs to go and see to add suffering? Would you like to clarify where you stand?

Form 4 WAS. It no longer is.

Really, you had a bailiffs licence revolked because he removed goods not of the debtor and because he accessed accomodation that was attached to the business. Those themselves are nt grounds for a licence to be revolked but would depnd on lots of other factors, so would you like to elaborate further in a new thread as your actions may help others in the same situation.

You post quite frankly is condecending rubbish that does not help the OP in the slightest.

Thank you for the apology. Accepted.

GTSTL

Form 4 was dispensed with a year ago and replaced with EAC 2 instead. In the meantime can we calm down & be civil with each other.

numbers, there are good and bad in every occupation. bailiffs are just doing a job, but same as traffic wardens there is unfortunately a natural dislike for them.

ive read a few posts from Grumpy and they appear to be very informative and helpful.

i think you lost all credibility when you apologised to grumpy whilst immediately after you accused grumpy of trolling.

whilst bailiffs actions can be seen to be unfair, what happens if nobody took the job as a bailiff? there would almost certainly be a lot of debt owed, council tax etc, services would suffer.

the unfairness i see in this thread is that the OP was fined for a parking offence, yet the boss of Swansea Council parking can park anywhere he likes and get away with it, which was recently widely reported in the media

HI Grumpy, firstly I resemble your remark regarding accountants.

I have a question though. According to the TCE the removal for sale fee can only be added to the amount outstanding if the visit was made to remove for sale, since the visit was the enforcement stage (first visit)then the only fee that could be charged would be the enforcement stage fee.(not the £110)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/5/made

©the sale or disposal stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the property for the purpose of transporting goods to the place of sale, or from commencing preparation for sale if the sale is to be held on the premises, until the completion of the sale or disposal (including application of the proceeds and provision of the information required by regulation 14).

 

You comment while morally correct is based on the fantasy that all debtors should be given chance. When in reality, most debtors that we come across would use that chance to do disappear and therefore we counter that by removing those goods unless absolute proof of ownership or payment has been made.

 

With regards to the comment about percentages, I believe the bailiff earning a cut of the costs went out a long time ago. Most bailiffs are no longer commission based so as to stop complaints like that. No idea about Andrew James though.

Thanks for the reply - it's always interesting to see the replies from those at the chalk face. You misunderstood my comment I think. I did not state debtors should be given a chance, my concern was that any fees incurred should be kept to a minimum, so getting a CGA would be cheaper for the debtor than charging an additional £110 for removal (pending your answer to Dodgeball above).

Surely most businesses are able to produce receipts and invoices for the goods? If they can't, heaven help them when they do their tax return.

I'm simply not in a position to know whether your comment about many businesses disappearing overnnight is true, but I would doubt many would do it over an £82 bill.

.

 

Surely most businesses are able to produce receipts and invoices for the goods? If they can't, heaven help them when they do their tax return.

 

There are many businesses whose paperwork is kept in a central location in the case of multi-sites or just off site in the case of a sole trader - maybe at home. Often a 3rd party - accountant, bookkeeper - may have them, so not all available immediately.

Thank you to everybody who has replied so far.

However, I am not yet clear whether the bailiff's lifting Limited Co's goods were correct or not? I had a couple of documents on the table addressed to the Limited Co which I showed even to the police but they were adamant and even suggested that if I stop "officers of the court" they will arrest us!

I can't see of any possible reason where I could've stopped them other than to pay whatever they asked for!

So if my Ltd co's claim is valid, what should we put in the particular's of claim?

Many Thanks