Hope you can help. Bailiffs came to my house today to sieze goods for an unpaid PCN. I wasn't in at the time but when arrived back they where in the process of towing my work van away with all my tools inside. I explained to him that I am self-employed 3 times that he can't sieze any essential work items but he insisted he could. I couldn't afford the £560 he wanted and offered £140. He took that and said he would ring his boss and if the £140 was acceptable he would off load my van. He called his boss and he said the £140 was not acceptable and would not off load my van and said he was keeping my £140 as part payment and gave me a receipt. But they still took my van. I am suposed to go to work tomorrow.

Upon reading their "Helful Information" section on their paperwork it states:

"The only goods enforcement agents can't take are:

Household items like clothing, bedding, furniture and provisions that are necessary to satisfy basic domestic needs.

Tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment that are necessary for work. A motor vehicle that a person may use for work can be taken unless it is necessary to the job and not used by anyone else or for any other purpose.

I have to arrange for the bailiff to come back tomorow (Thursday) to collect the rest of the money I owe so that I can get my van back ASAP so that I can go to work. Where do I stand.

Your help is very much appreciated.

Skiton

Not grat with parking tickets

get on to the council who issued the parking ticket

don't let them fob you off with its no longer anything to do with them as its in the hands of the bailiff

this is simply not true the council are responsible for all bailiffs actions

what bailiff company is this

no the bailiff cant remove work van and tools as i said the council are responsible for this unlawful action by there employees

when did the bailiff leave you a notice of seizure of goods and inventory listing the van

what paperwork did they leave you today

when was the pcn issued

how many bailiff visits have you had before this removal

is the van insured in the company or your name

Not grat with parking tickets

 

get on to the council who issued the parking ticket

 

don't let them fob you off with its no longer anything to do with them as its in the hands of the bailiff

this is simply not true the council are responsible for all bailiffs actions

what bailiff company is this

 

no the bailiff cant remove work van and tools as i said the council are responsible for this unlawful action by there employees

when did the bailiff leave you a notice of seizure of goods and inventory listing the van

 

what paperwork did they leave you today

 

when was the pcn issued

how many bailiff visits have you had before this removal

I was left with a "Notice of seizure of goods and inventory" a "inventory of goods" and a "Enforcement notice"

The PCN was issued in June 2009. Yes I hold my hands up and I should have paid it. I do work abroad a lot and sometimes I am away for months on end. I just forgot about it.

This was the first visit by the bailiff.

Skiton

is the van insured in the company or your name

The van is registered and insured in my name.

no the bailiff cant remove work van and tools

Not true HW.

It does depend on the individual circumstances.

If you choose to pay this in order to retrieve your vehicle, check VERY carefully that everything is there. It is not unheard of for things to go mysteriously missing from an impounded vehicle...

Best wishes

Rae

The law does provide protection for a vehicle to be exempt from seizure and the regulations state the following:

From what you have said it would APPEAR that the vehicle would be exempt. It is always the case that it is better if a vehicle had signage on it as well.

The most important thing to do is to get the vehicle back. From what you have said it is not CLEAR whether you are just paying the bailiff and then you have to collect the vehicle or whether he is going to return it.

There is a POSSIBILITY that he will charge for storage. BE CAREFUL.

Where there has been wrongdoing is that the bailiff should NOT have immediately removed the vehicle. Instead, he should have abided by the Court ruling in the matter of Culligan v Marston and left the vehicle for a "reasonable period of time" to allow for payment. Instead, by taking the course of action that he has done he has ENSURED additional payment for his company.

PS: And the fees are NOT in accordance with statute law and that is why you MUST insist on a breakdown. Also ENSURE that the bailiff is certificated. You will need to see PROOF and the certificate must provide the name of his employer as well.

Even the HMCS Contract for the collection of Magistrates Court FINES stipulates that a bailiff must NOT take a vehicle but that he should instead leave it clamped for 24 hours to allow for payment o be made.

The time to make a complaint is AFTER you have had the vehicle returned.

PS: Please do not take the following the wrong way:

[EDIT].I would URGE anyone to ensure that they just pay the ticket or else appeal it at an early stage as otherwise bailiffs companies are making an absolute fortune from us all.

I would URGE anyone to ensure that they just pay the ticket or else appeal it at an early stage as otherwise bailiffs companies are making an absolute fortune from us all.

From experience, its people who dont know they have a ticket that receive bailiffs. The number of wont-payers are very low, as is the number of cant-payers.

Its not a lucrative being a bailiff unless you are in the management heirachy, or a director of one of the large firms of bailiffs with juicy Westminster-like contracts.

One of my employees, a rent collector, worked at Equita and described the vast difference in income for a director with a cerificate, and a self-emplyed bailiff. Directors with a ceritifate cherry-pick the assignments for big cars, lavish goods and expensive properties, the common certificated bailiff is left with gone-aways and council flats crammed full of immigrtants with babies with 25 unpaid PCNs.

Council tax work pays even less money, the majority are cant-payers and gone-aways. Few people want this kind of work which is why its left to Portugese and Polish immigrants. These either work on a company-sponsored certificate, or work under the supervision of a certificated director based in the office. They rarely earn more than £400 a month and rely on tax credits to supplement their income.

Just curious, at the time of the uplift, where was your vehicle parked?

a: On the public highway outside your dwelling

b: On the public highway, but parked away from the dwelling

c: On a private driveway

If the answer is b , did you, after confronting the bailiff surrender the vehicle keys to him/her?

If the answer is no, and the bailiff continued to remove the vehicle after uplifting/removing from a public highway, you could file complaint against the bailiff (c.15 Statute of Marlborough 1267).

If the answer is a, the bailiff could claim exemption (Hodges v. Lawrence (1854)18 PJ 347 and Gillingham v. Gwyer (1867) 16 LT 640)

Hello stranger !!! Nice to see you back..

What about scenario "c"

S

Hello S, been a while! ;-)

As for your question....

a: Uplifting a vehicle from a public highway : Bailiff can claim exemption (Hodges v. Lawrence (1854)18 PJ 347 and Gillingham v. Gwyer (1867) 16 LT 640)

b: Statute of Marlborough 1267 : A breach of statute law will take place if the Bailiff/Enforcement Officer performs a 'keyless' uplift/removal (Only applies if the debt is NOT a tax debt) (For Tax debts the Statute of Marlborough 1267 will not apply) AND providing that a exisiting Walking Possesion Agreement is not in force

c: Provided that the Bailiff/Enforcement officer makes no damage entering the private driveway AND providing that no notice withdrawing the implied right of entry has been served, the Bailiff/Enforcement Officer can remove the vehicle

What about these self employed ANPR drivers !!

Wonder when someone would ask this one!

This is where it gets a bit tricky....

In most of the cases I`ve either heard of or dealt with, Roadside enforcement operations (usually in conjunction with police) result in the driver surrending the keys, in this case if the debt being chased is a non tax debt, there has been argument that a claim for compensation (damages by way of a action of duress) take place.

As for ANPR vans driving around untill a 'hit' takes place, again dubious. Again argument is that for a bailiff/enforcement officer to justify uplifting and performing a keyless removal, the bailiff/enforcement officer would need to be able to prove that goods of the debtor are 'bound' by the bailiff enforcment officer, for this to take place the bailiff/enforcement officer would need to prove that the debtor is aware that the debt is now in the hands of enforcement (either by way of personal service of document or service of documents under Civil Procedure Rules), if that was the case the bailiff/enforcement officer would be able to justify removal as the debtor is attempting to defeat distress.

Of course none of the above applys if the debtor is being chased for HMRC/VAT Debts.

EXCELLENT explanation as always.

As we of course know, an ANPR operator would simply be issued with a memory stick and sent on his merry way to await a vehicle passing him and in many of these cases, the car is NOT even owned by the driver as it had been sold long ago or otherwise the keeper had no knowledge of a PCN as all notices had been sent to a previous address.

These self employed ANPR owners or drivers are of course not even registered with the Information Commissioner and should not be permitted to have access to personal data. Data Protection Act 1998 ????

You were wondering when this one would rear its head !!!

Be assured I am on the case!!

Thanks for the help. Just to update you all. The vehicle was parked on a public highway away from my dwelling, lock and alarm set. At no point did the bailiff ask for the keys, so I kept them.

This morning (Thursday 27th May) I called the local authority who issed the PCN to complain about the bailiffs actions and they weren't interested. I called the CAB and they were very helpful and confirmed that the vehicle should not have been lifted.

I have an appointment with a solicitor in the morning to discuss the matter. I have the bailiffs name, number and the issuing court of his certificate.

Will post here any updates.

skiton

Just curious, at the time of the uplift, where was your vehicle parked?

 

a: On the public highway outside your dwelling

b: On the public highway, but parked away from the dwelling

c: On a private driveway

 

If the answer is b , did you, after confronting the bailiff surrender the vehicle keys to him/her?

 

If the answer is no, and the bailiff continued to remove the vehicle after uplifting/removing from a public highway, you could file complaint against the bailiff (c.15 Statute of Marlborough 1267).

 

If the answer is a, the bailiff could claim exemption (Hodges v. Lawrence (1854)18 PJ 347 and Gillingham v. Gwyer (1867) 16 LT 640)

I am unable to find the posts that were made about the statute of Marlborough that were made in the past,but i remember the gist of the post.

Section 15 is simply making it law that no "common"man can not just walk up and take goods for money owed,not in the kings highway nor in the common street.BUT ONLY TO THE KING OR HIS OFFICERS,this means someone who has authority from the crown or his representatives,and bailiffs have been granted a certificate by a judge who is a representative of the crown.

So how is it wrong/illegal to remove that vehicle:?:

Some other info. The company in question is JBW.

I believe they failed to adhere to the rules set out in the NSEA.

A bailiff is only allowed to take sufficient goods to cover the outstanding bill and his costs. Total bill £560. Bailiff took £5000 worth of goods.

Accoring to the Ministry of Justice Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill:

Schedule 12 – Taking Control of Goods

Paragraph 3 – General interpretation

132. An enforcement agent will only be able to take control of goods that are not exempt from seizure. The list of exempt goods will be included in the regulations. Paragraph 3(1) defines “exempt goods” as goods that regulations exempt by description or circumstances or both”.

133. Exempt goods will include tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to the debtor for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation; and such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying his basic domestic needs and those of his family. The definition will also include domestic pets, and sufficient cash to support basic domestic needs.

Failed again.

Will be discussing this with solicitor.

skiton

The company in question is JBW

no surprise there

would this be southwalk council

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/260098-jbw-removed-my-car.html

A bailiff is only allowed to take sufficient goods to cover the outstanding bill and his costs. Total bill £560. Bailiff took £5000 worth of goods.

bailiff will simply state that the car was the only goods available which covers them

Hi Hallowitch

The council in question is Islington.

I called them yesterday to complain about the bailiffs behaviour and as far as they are concerned they followed their procedures and are not responsible for the bailiffs actions. They told me I would have to take it up with the bailiffs direct.

Another question. Is there a statutory time limit from the time a order for recovery is issued to when the warrant of execution is issued. I have a order for recovery which has no issue date but the post mark is dated 14/8/09 and the warrant of execution is dated 20/5/10. Thanks

Hi Hallowitch

 

The council in question is Islington.

I called them yesterday to complain about the bailiffs behaviour and as far as they are concerned they followed their procedures and are not responsible for the bailiffs actions. They told me I would have to take it up with the bailiffs direct.

WRONG !!!

The local authority are WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE for the actions of their "AGENTS" and don't let them tell you otherwise !!

Yet another question.

From the Ministry of Justice TCE Bill

Paragraph 34 – Inventory.

167. Having taken control of goods, the enforcement agent must provide the debtor with an inventory of all those goods taken into control. The form of the inventory, and what it should contain, will be laid out in regulations under paragraph 34(4) it is anticipated that the regulations will contain a draft example of an inventory. It is intended that the inventory will contain exact details of all the goods that have been taken into control e.g. if a car is taken into control, rather than just saying make and colour of car, it should confirm the registration and chassis numbers. Where cash has been taken into control, the inventory will be a receipt which will state the exact amount of cash that has been taken into control.

I checked the my Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory and although in my case it was a van, only the Make, Model, Colour and registration number appear to be on it and not the chassis number.

Does this make it null and void.

I checked the my notice of seizure of Goods & Inventory and although in my case it was a van, only the Make, Model, Colour and registration number appear to be on it and not the chassis number.

Does this make it null and void

no i don't think it would ( i could be wrong)

I have been thinking about the tools in your van (i assume the bailiff didn't allow you time to remove them)

1) work tools cant be seized

2) as the tools in the van are not on the levy could this be classed as theft (just a thought but i would think a valid one)

have you had a read of this

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part75.htm#IDA1POQ

as i said don't know much about parking tickets but if i find anything that might help i will post it up for you

this was taken post 8 (tomtubby)

Where there has been wrongdoing is that the bailiff should NOT have immediately removed the vehicle. Instead, he should have abided by the Court ruling in the matter of Culligan v Marston and left the vehicle for a "reasonable period of time" to allow for payment. Instead, by taking the course of action that he has done he has ENSURED additional payment for his company.

this is what TT is refering to

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgement:-

"Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure.

====================================================

In the Central London county court - Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). Before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008

Mr Culligan challenged the bailiffs fees & charges imposed by Mr Simkin and Marstons when levying distress and seeking to remove Mr Culigans car for non-payment of a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Camden.

The Judgment goes a long way to clarify exactly what a Bailiff can charge for levying distress. Bailiffs have always sought to charge for fixing an immobilisation device by clamping a vehicle, and an attendance to remove. These charges in Anthony Culligan's case were £200 (£100 for the clamp and £100 for attendance to remove). The Bailiffs have argued that the Fee Regulations permit them to make a charge for levying distress (that is 28% on the first £200 demanded, and for removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods are removed, reasonable costs and charges). Bailiffs have claimed that the costs of putting on a clamp, etc. are costs to be included in attending to remove where no goods are removed, if payment is made before the vehicle concerned is removed.

DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:-

1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods.

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:-

"Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so I cannot see that Form 7 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7".

The District Judge went on to find that the application of the clamp falls within the act of levying distress and does not form part of the removal process, whatever the Bailiff's Contract with Camden says.

The Bailiff also charged Anthony Culligan £100 for the " reasonable costs " of removing the vehicle (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at Anthony Culligan's home. Because the Bailiff produced no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived at he was unable to show that it was reasonable.

The District Judge in his conclusion says:

"I am also conscious that my findings in this case ... may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress. To do otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful... I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgment now continued to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be unlawful....".

What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed.

You should know however that Marstons obtained permission to appeal from the District Judge. His reasons for granting the permission were :

"The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheelclamping before.

My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking.

Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard"

Finally, Camden now as a matter of urgency, need to revise their Contract with Bailiffs such as Marston, to take account of the District Judge's Judgment generally, and in particular to remove the authority to charge a fee for an immobilisation device over and above that provided for in the Statutory Fee Regulations.

__________________

Hallowitch.

The bailiff never offered me the opportunity to remove my materials or tools. If he did, I would not have had anywhere to put them. but he didn't know that.

My visit to the solicitors this morning gave me confirmation that the van was levied illegally. So will be taking further action.