Hello all,

An acquaintance of mine got a parking ticket some time ago.

The ticket and all correspondence went to her Grandmother’s address as she had previously lived there before being rehoused by the Council.

The ticket remained unpaid and was escalated and the amounts increased. She lodged an appeal and a rejection dated 1st March was send to her stating that her appeal had been received out of time. The letter further stated that she would have 14 days to further appeal if she was not satisfied with the outcome.

The letter arrived either Saturday 3rd or Monday 5th and waited in the house unopened by the Grandmother until today 6th March.

I happened to be working with a family member (the girls Auntie and the householder’s daughter) when we got the message that Marstons HCE had knocked on the door and been let in!

I at once went with the Auntie to the house which is a well-to-do four bedroom property to find a single and very unpleasant HCE from Marstons. The hall had some items in it that the guy had taken out of the dining room and living room, notably a TV, a nice small draw set and some pictures (prints I think rather than originals and not of significant value).

I pointed out to the guy that these items were not the property of the Grand daughter who no longer lived there. He said we would need to prove that. I know for a fact the daughter lives elsewhere as I have known the family for over three years.

I asked to see the paperwork related to the search and he said he did not have any as it was all on a tablet computer. He refused to let me see it as he said (probably correctly) that under data protection rules he could not show it to third parties. I do not know if he showed it to the grandmother (presumably under DPR he should not have!!) or if she comprehended what it was.

By this time a Community Police support Officer had arrived (we had called the police) and she stated she was there to stop a breach of the peace and not to take sides which I expected and accepted and is I think the proper police stance.

I pointed out to the officer that no printed paperwork had been produced or was in evidence, that the guy was not apparently making a list of items for removal and that he had been told by three different people that the granddaughter did not live there and as he had already stomped all over the house it was self-evident she did not live there. It was further evident that the items being taken were the property of the householder, they were not taken from any of the bedrooms that might conceivably be occupied by a granddaughter but from the living room and dining room.

At that point the support officer called for backup and in short order two uniformed constables arrived.

The police I think found themselves in a quandary as the HCE was adamant that it was up to the householder to prove the items did not belong to the granddaughter not the other way around but I thought this was an abuse of the situation as, to repeat my phrase from above, it was self-evident that the items were that of the householder.

One o the police officers was shown the tablet computer and confirmed that a warrant (or writ or whatever the document is) was there for the collection of the fine or removal of goods) though I never saw it myself.

The situation came to an end when the Granddaughter was got on the phone and asked her grandmother to pay the fine of which about half could be raised.

The HE was unrelentingly hostile and rude. He did not like the situation reversing as one moment he was in a large house by himself towering over a small woman in her seventies and then next he was confronted by myself, a daughter and three uniformed officers. When we told him we would peacefully obstruct him from removing any goods (by standing in front of the doors) he threatened to "remove us" to use his terminology.

The woman was left (temporarily) out of pocket some hundreds of pounds and left shaking and her house was in some disorder.

My questions here are as follows

1. If this is at appeal should HCE action be suspended?

2. Once the letter is issued rejecting the appeal should HCE action be allowed to continue during the 14 days the Rejection letter allows for a further appeal.

3. Is it reasonable for HCE to arrive six days after the DATE of the Rejection letter, it can hardly have had time to be opened and read, never mind acted upon?

4. Should the HCE not have paper copies of any authority he has to gain entry and seize goods?

5. If he has been told by two other parties as well as the householder that the Grand Daughter did not live there and the items he was attempting to seize were not those of the granddaughter should that not be enough proof?

6. The lady was elderly and had a blood pressure condition. No attempt was made to determine if she was vulnerable and as such refer the Warrant back to the creditor/issuer to see if they wished to continue enforcement, is there a case against HCE for this omission?

I hope fellow CAGers will understand that we are all very angry. I beleive that whatevere the merits of the fine and it's collection that the grandmother and her house have been violated. Any ideas who we need to go after?

Do we have a case of any sort against Marstons?

Do we have a case of any sort against the Council?

Can we develop a case against the individual HCE for his behaviour or his firm?

As of now the case is over as the outstanding amount has been collected by aggression and dirty tricks and despite the appeal process not being exhausted.

Any responses gratefully received.

So she never told the DVLA of her change of address and now we are here.......

Hi CBJ

Welcome back to CAG - Im sure one of the team will be along shortly to advise.

But for now hold tight - We will be with you shortly

the route cause of this is the grand daughter NOT updating DVLA V5C.

not being funny

but there is little you can complain about here.

the only route might be that the council did not update the bailiff upon the correct address IF that's what the daughter used in her replies to the council?

I have a feeling we don't have all the true story either.

dx

Hello all,

 

An acquaintance of mine got a parking ticket some time ago.

 

The ticket and all correspondence went to her Grandmother’s address as she had previously lived there before being rehoused by the Council.

 

The ticket remained unpaid and was escalated and the amounts increased. She lodged an appeal and a rejection dated 1st March was send to her stating that her appeal had been received out of time. The letter further stated that she would have 14 days to further appeal if she was not satisfied with the outcome.

 

The letter arrived either Saturday 3rd or Monday 5th and waited in the house unopened by the Grandmother until today 6th March.

 

I pointed out to the guy that these items were not the property of the Grand daughter who no longer lived there. He said we would need to prove that. I know for a fact the daughter lives elsewhere as I have known the family for over three years.

 

He had been told by three different people that the granddaughter did not live there

 

As he had already stomped all over the house it was self-evident she did not live there.

Before addressing what happened during the visit, would you mind clarifying a few things.

From your post it would appear to me that the granddaughter had at one time been living with her grandmother and had then been rehoused by the council.

It would seem that she received a penalty charge notice and had 'appealed' it. That 'appeal' appears (and please correct me if I am wrong) to have been an Out of Time witness statement and had been rejected. If so, I have concerns about this appeal:

In most cases, a late appeal such as this (called an Out of Time witness statement) is submitted because the motorist had not received any previous notices from the council (typically, because he or she had moved address). When an Out of Time witness statement is submitted on such grounds, the vehicle owner (in this case the granddaughter) would be required to explain why she had not received any previous notices (because she had moved) and she would be required to provide her 'current' address.

In this particular case, it would seem that the granddaughter had provided her previous address (her grandmothers) on the application !!! This would explain why the rejection letter had been sent to the grandmothers house. I am at a loss to understand why the granddaughter would have done this because on the one hand, she would be stating on oath that she had not received any correspondeence...and on the other hand, providing her current address as her grandmothers !!!

PS: If I have misunderstood the position about this 'appeal' I do apologise. It would be helpful if you could clarify the position.

Hello all and thanks for your responses so far,

Hi DX

... And I would agree that the root cause of this visit is the actions of the granddaughter who uses her grandmother as a convenient postal address.

My point however is that notwithstanding the actions of the granddaughter that we were faced with a bailiffs visit that did not provide any paperwork to support entry, who did not check on the vulnerability of the sole occupant of the house who clearly was not the person they were after, and who tried to seize goods which clearly did not belong to the original offender and in so doing caused distress and disruption to a pensioner.

It is that behaviour I am looking for support in fighting as I believe this woman was violated by the bailiff and by the system.

sorry don't think that will go anywhere.

answer post 5 see if BA can help.

dx

Hello bailiff advice.

Thank you for your response and I think you are very close in your appraisal.

I do not condone the actions of the granddaughter not that I know everything that is going on.

The point of my post however is to explain what happened to the naive and innocent grandmother, how an HCE took advantage of her and manipulated the situation by attempting to take goods that plainly could not belong to the person named on his warrant, and further not having any hard copies of any of the documents to present to the householder who had no idea what had gone on previously.

I am seeking help with regard to the actions of the bailiff company and the court/Council that instructed them and highlighting how an Innocent person can be victimised by a court and bailiff system and by the actions of an individual who knew full well that the items he was trying to take could not be the property of the person named on his warrant of which no copy could be left with the householder.

Whatever lead to the events of the day the actions of the HCE were very wrong.

got to admit some of your thinking smacks that you've been reading those freemen of the land sites...bad idea jimmy.

They do not have to show you paperwork. Dpa act. The existence of the warrant is enough. Just because they have a copy in electronic form is a bonus for the person named to see to stop argument's.

The enforcement agent acted within the law. You have nothing to complain about.

The enforcement agents do not have to carry a warrant signed by a judge and any website that tells you different are lying.

Freeman of the land tosh and nonsense

Hi DX

Whilst I am slightly aware of the Freeman of the Land subculture I have not joined any groups and neither have I read any of their materials or looked at websites so I don't really know what they are all about.

However,. I simply think that if a bailiff shows up at a property he ought to be able to explain to the householder why he is there and proffer some sort of document, and if it becomes obvious that the target of his recovery is not there then he should not be able to try his luck on another householder or in this case the occupant of the house that lives there even though the original target does not.

I know that the law is not always just but I do feel that a wrong has been done against the grandmother.

 

I asked to see the paperwork related to the search and he said he did not have any as it was all on a tablet computer.

 

I pointed out to the officer that no printed paperwork had been produced

 

It was self-evident she did not live there.

 

At that point the support officer called for backup and in short order two uniformed constables arrived.

 

One of the police officers was shown the tablet computer and confirmed that a warrant (or writ or whatever the document is) was there for the collection of the fine or removal of goods) though I never saw it myself.

 

The situation came to an end when the Granddaughter was got on the phone and asked her grandmother to pay the fine of which about half could be raised.

 

When we told him we would peacefully obstruct him from removing any goods (by standing in front of the doors) he threatened to "remove us".

 

The woman was left (temporarily) out of pocket some hundreds of pounds and left shaking and her house was in some disorder.

You may consider that my reply is a bit harsh, but please do not take offence.

The granddaughter appears to have submitted an Out of Time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and it was rejected. If so, bailiff enforcement may recommence.

Sadly and for whatever reason, the granddaughter must of provided her current address as the grandmothers. Clearly she made an error in this but that error would not help her argument that she lives elsewhere.

The bailiff did not force entry. He entered the property by peaceful means (by being allowed into the property by the grandmother). The fact remains, he had every right to be in the property as it was the 'warrant' address. Accordingly, your threats of 'peacefully removing' him would have got each of you into trouble as it is an offence to 'obstruct' a bailiff from enforcing the warrant.

PS: I will try to address the specific questions that you have raised in your initial post in a short while but otherwise, it will be in the morning.

Hi Sgt

Well I do not know the law which is why I am looking for comments on this forum. The bailiff was taking goods that were most unlikely to be the property of the granddaughter. He had walked all over the house including all the bedrooms and was not able to find a room given over to the granddaughter. They were just spare bedrooms.

The guy then tried to take personal effects that he well knew were the property of the grandmother. When challenged on this point he said it was the responsibility of the grandmother to prove that the items were hers. This may be correct in law or it may not and it is that which I am seeking to get help with.

To restate my View, I do not believe it is right to seize the goods of somebody else when you know full well that those goods are not those of the person named on the warrant or writ.

The wrong has been "done" by the granddaughter either

Not informing the dvla of a change of address on driving licence and/or V5C. Both carry an up to £1000 fine.

Or using the address for correspondence for dvla purposes and not picking the mail up in a timely manner.

Or trying to hide behind the address.

Remember its the relatives fault that the enforcement agents called because of the actions or lack of by the relative, not the agents.

Once a warrant is issued the agents are commanded to remove goods.

The only way to prevent this is to pay in full.

It is up to ANY third party to prove ownership not the agents to prove the named person owns them

Thanks BA , no offence taken.

To be clear we had no intention of peacefully removing him but rather of peacefully obstructing his ability to move items by for example blocking the doors.

I reiterate my point again but I am not sure but by doing so we would have been breaking the law as we would have been stopping the removal of items that did not belong to the person named on the warrant.

Hi Sgt

 

The bailiff was taking goods that were most unlikely to be the property of the granddaughter.

 

He had walked all over the house including all the bedrooms and was not able to find a room given over to the granddaughter. They were just spare bedrooms.

 

The guy then tried to take personal effects that he well knew were the property of the grandmother. When challenged on this point he said it was the responsibility of the grandmother to prove that the items were hers. This may be correct in law or it may not and it is that which I am seeking to get help with.

Can I just reassure you that goods from within a property are very rarely ever taken.

I have been assisting debtors with bailiff enquiries for almost 12 years and have only come across 3 cases where goods within a residential property were 'actually' taken. As to moving items into a hallway......that is exceedingly common and whether we like it or not, it is the 'threat' of goods being taken that does get the debt paid (as was the case today that you refer to).

That is enough for obstruction.

Its passive aggressive.

Its up to the owners of property to prove they own them not the agents to prove the debtor owns them.

The warrant address is the warrant address.

 

My questions here are as follows

 

1. If this is at appeal should HCE action be suspended?

 

The 'appeal' had been rejected and it would seem that the granddaughter was advised in the rejection notice that she could seek to have the rejection 'reviewed'. This would be by way of an N244 Application and a £100 court fee would be payable.

 

2. Once the letter is issued rejecting the appeal should HCE action be allowed to continue during the 14 days the Rejection letter allows for a further appeal.

 

When an Out of Time witness statement is submitted, all bailiff enforcement is placed 'on hold' for approx 6 weeks. Whilst it is the case that the granddaughter can ask the court to 'review' the rejection, she would need to make the application (and pay the fine) within 14 days. That does NOT however mean that bailiff enforcement is placed ' on hold' (for another 14 days).

 

3. Is it reasonable for HCE to arrive six days after the DATE of the Rejection letter, it can hardly have had time to be opened and read, never mind acted upon?

 

Once the Out of Time witness statement is rejected, bailiff enforcement can recommence. Naturally a period time should be afforded for the letter from the Traffic Enforcement Centre to arrive (which did happen in this case). At one time, I would argue as you are doing that a further 14 day 'hold' should be afforded to allow for an N244 to be submitted but sadly, this point was rejected in court a couple of years ago.

 

4. Should the HCE not have paper copies of any authority he has to gain entry and seize goods?

 

No, there is no requirement for a 'paper' warrant and this same subject was part of a Local Government Ombudsman's report a few weeks ago (I posted a copy on the forum so will try to find the link for you).

 

5. If he has been told by two other parties as well as the householder that the Grand Daughter did not live there and the items he was attempting to seize were not those of the granddaughter should that not be enough proof?

 

The granddaughter in her 'appeal' appears to have provided the grandmothers address as her 'current' address. She should not have done so and this has not helped the situation at all.

 

I will respond to any further questions in the morning.