Jump to content

John McKenna

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John McKenna

  1. Section 5 (C.4.c) of the Registration Certificate states The Registered Keeper is not necessarily the legal owner DVLA access proves nothing when "assuming" ownership. A bill of sale supported by, for example, a bank statement or similar showing the exchange of funds would help matters but is not always defining evidence (especially when sale/transfer is between spouses/relatives). This is especially important if the debt is "civil" (not criminal) where a debtor's assets are considered "bound" from the date the warrant/liability order is issued. Sales in "good faith" (before the debtor is aware of the debt) are sometimes considered but ultimately up to a judge to decide based on the evidence before them.
  2. If the bailiff hasn't visited you, the most he can charge is £108.16 per warrant. £95.00 inc of £5 debt registration £13.16 inc vat 1st letter fee Several months ago, a judge in Manchester ruled that a van fee (£120) could only be charged if goods were seized. An ATR (attendance to remove £120) could only be charged if returning to remove goods ALREADY seized. If the bailiff hasn't visited, seized goods and left you with a "Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory", he's applied the fees incorrectly. It looks like he's charged either a van or ATR fee on both warrants plus two visits. If the bailiff has multiple warrants, he's only able to charge you a van and ATR on the first warrant unless there are +10 warrants outstanding. In other words, warrants 2-10 can only have "visit" fees applied which in this case would be 29.74+vat and 38.02+vat if two visits without seizure had occured. I would consider making a Subject Access Request and once armed with further evidence, consider making a Form 4 Complaint if you're adamant the bailiff has overcharged you.
  3. How much were the original PCN's? Have Equita sent you letters by Royal Mail asking for £366 per ticket or is it the bailiff who's demanding this amount?
  4. beetlebug1, A stat dec is usually filed when someone claims they knew nothing of the offence and/or court summons. As this was a fixed penalty issued by a police officer, I don't think you've got a leg to stand on. However, before jumping to conclusions, can you tell us more about the fine itself? Do you know how much the fine was before bailiff fees have been added? Has the fine been doubled at the court as a result of non payment?. You mentioned an original amount of £60 but penalties like these often increase if you default.
  5. Unfortunately, the debtor's assets are "bound" from the day the liability order is issued. Any court in the land would see through this attempt to avoid enforcement.
  6. Lisa, Just to be straight, bailiffs do have the power of arrest. Arrest warrants with/without bail and commital are all dealt with by bailiffs in certain areas of the country. However, the bailiffs dealing with your case have a distress warrant (a court order to seize goods) which if unpaid "could" result (but unlikely) in a warrant "with bail" being issued for you. If this happened, an HMCS warrant officer would pay you a visit and bail you to appear in court on a certain date. Failure to attend would result in a "no-bail" warrant. With regards paying HMCS direct, unless you were lucky enough to speak to an inexperienced HMCS employee, they would NOT accept your payment. HMCS are contracted to refuse any kind of payment while a distress warrant is live with the bailiffs. For the benefit of "Fair-Parking", this is a contractual obligation (not statute). Has a bailiff visited yet or are you being told the oustanding amount by call centre staff? Was the original fine £175? Is it Marston's or another bailiff firm dealing with this?
  7. I like your bluntness It looks like the bailiff has only charged for 2 visits. 95.00 PCN (no vat) 11.20 Letter Fee 29.74 1st visit 120.00 Van Fee 59.08 2nd visit 38.50 VAT ---------------- 353.52 Total ----------------
  8. The bailiffs could take the vehicle but would depend on several things. If the vehicle has been specifically modified for the purpose of your trade, the bailiffs can't touch it. If your trade is a "driving" trade, the vehicle would be exempt if it was the only company vehicle on the books. ie: a self employed taxi driver's car would be exempt but one of several taxi's owned by a cab firm could be seized. If you use your vehicle to get to and from work and it's not critical to the job itself, the bailiffs can take it. In other words, a vehicle isn't vital for an electrician to perform his job as there are other forms of transport he could use. Do you have business insurance on the car? If it came to it, it might just help you prove the vehicle is used for work purposes if you have business insurance.
  9. Which council issued the original PCN? Why didn't you/her pay it in the first place?
  10. Many believe sending an official bill dated within the last 2 months would suffice. Council tax bill, tenancy agreement, mortgage statement are preferred if possible.
  11. berrylover, Think the whole episode through to it's logical conclusion. Any level headed individual would find the bailiff's actions completely inappropriate. Enough said. If you're not a level headed individual, don't bother replying....
  12. Fair-Parking, Just to be straight, when I speak of HMCS guidelines, I'm not talking about general HMCS employees telling the bailiff it's alright to put his foot in the door. HMCS's legal department issue guidelines to the bailiff company's legal department about what level of action is considered resonable. If you would like to do some extra reading in your own time with regards the use of force and forced entry, can I suggest you consult the following cases: Nash vs Lucas (1867) LR 2 QB590, Southam vs Smout (1963) 1 All ER104 Vaughan vs McKenzie (1968 ) 1 All ER The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 ss2,3,4,5 As for showing the householder the warrant, unlike a search warrant there is no right for the debtor to see a distress warrant and no duty for the bailiff to show it. However, it's good practice for a "copy" of the warrant to be available for inspection: Butlers Case (1587) 1 Leon 50 R vs Purdy (1974) 3 WLR 367 There is also no legal requirement for the officer to have the "original" warrant in his possession when enforcement action is taken: s125D(1) Magistrates Court Act as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999. That should keep you busy for a while. If you refuse to believe such a power exists because I've failed to provide you a link to the "exact" wording you seek in statute, there's not much more I can say to you on the matter...... In my experience, taking issue with me personally for the misdemenours of fellow bailiffs is exactly what some members do quite regularly. Luckily I'm rather thick skinned but there comes a time when you just have to start ignoring people. Otherwise, every topic I frequent degenerates into a pointless battle of witts. I haven't once excused the bailiff's action in this sorry tale. My opening comment in this topic stated I found her actions "abhorent". After my initial comment, I've only ever commented on the legality of the "foot in the door" and use of locksmiths as a point of law - NOT in relation to this case specifically. Do I think that knocking a baby over is part of my job? Do Marston's defend that kind of action? What sort of idiotic and mindless questions are those? .
  13. I haven't blamed my employers. If you read my comments above again you'll see I've specifically exonerated them from blame. I and every other bailiff who works for Marston's have been reminded time and time again what they can and can't do. Any action to the contrary is down to the bailiff concerned. Where does this self pity lark come into anything I've said? I've been lurking around here long enough to know people's reasons for disliking bailiffs. It's easy to start thinking that all bailiffs are legalised criminals if you spend too much time on this forum but as with all platforms that publicise bailiff action, you only ever get told about one side of the industry. You're not likely to get someone starting a topic on here detailing the bailiff's professionalism are you? (*queue the trolls!*) Believe it or not, some people are grateful for the bailiff's mind set as the many pm's I've had would testify but unfortunately many regulars on this forum take issue with virtually everything a self confessed bailiff posts simply because they're a bailiff. I'm ok with that though, it's their perogative just as it's mine to fight my corner. I do not and never have spoken for the bailiff masses.
  14. This type of action will undoubtedly lead to a bailiff visit IMO. Courts, local authorities and debt collection companies don't just write off debts because they've had mail sent back to them unopened. They will proof before they stop sending letters to the property.
  15. I'm afraid several of your fellow bailiff bashers have done nothing but dispute it. My opening comment about the use of forced entry (post 71) was specific to HMCS distress warrants. I've also stated that my comments do not relate to the collection of any other type of debt. Which is what I've been saying. Unfortunately, some people aren't able to see the wood from the trees and only read what they want to read. Agreed. The employers probably are to blame. I can only speak for Marstons when I say they've made it quite clear to all bailiffs that the use of the "foot in door" and the verbal/written procedure regarding locksmiths can ONLY EVER be used when dealing with HMCS warrants. If any Marstons bailiffs step outside these remits, be it on their back. They all know the rules. I'm damned either way but accept some may find it provacative. As such I've changed it just for you.
  16. Joncris and Fair-Parking, I know you don't want to accept it but it's a fact that HMCS considers the foot in door "reasonable" as a means of continued communication. This is a guideline to the bailiff companies involved in the collection of unpaid criminal fines only. I haven't for one minute suggested this is a legal forum of "peaceful entry". If you want to take issue with this I suggest you contact HMCS yourself. With regards the use of locksmiths (with Police in attendance), I'm afraid it's a well known fact that although not often used, the power does exist for both civilian and approved enforcement officers to use if necessary. Magistrate Court Fines,Distress Warrant,Clamping Orders,Fines,HMCS,warrants,Drakes Group,Philips Collection,Swift Credit,Warrant of distress,CSA & Debt Collection Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28)
  17. There is no legislation I can quote you nor direct you to which states that putting one's foot in the door to continue communication is legal. Likewise though I'm sure you'll find it difficult to quote me such legislation which specifically says otherwise. However, I'm sure if you ask tomtubby nicely she'll have a word with HMCS to clarify that they consider this action "reasonable" as a means of continuing communication and avert the need for further enforcement.
  18. JonCris, I thought I made myself quite clear. I even used bold type to highlight my understanding. I'll try again so please read the following carefully. Is the foot in the door peaceful entry? NO. Is the foot in the door legal? YES but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure so that communication can continue. Can the bailiff force the door open even if his foot is firmly wedged? NO, this would be FORCED entry and highly illegal. Can the bailiff use a locksmith where entry is denied if the Police are present? YES. The Police ensure there's no breach of the peace by arresting anyone obstructing the bailiff executing the distress warrant. Are we clear now?
  19. I very much doubt mumof3boys provided a full and accurate transcript of every word exchanged between herself and the bailiff so your comments are completely out of context and off-topic. The bailiff's "threat" of a locksmith was probably delivered as a consequence of non-payment/failing to comply. Either way, he's done nothing illegal by providing verbal procedure to this effect. It may be distasteful but is a power which exists for the collection of criminal fines whether you agree with it or not. It has nothing to with changing the locks or eviction. If a locksmith was called, he would simply be there to open the door (not change the locks).
  20. When executing HMCS distress warrants, the "foot in the door" action is perfectly legal but ONLY as a means of preventing door closure. The bailiff is not entitled to use further force of any kind to force the door open. The person trying to shut the door is perfectly within their rights to apply as much force as possible in an attempt to close the door. If the bailiff sticks to the letter of the law it would result in a stalemate as no "peaceful entry" is possible. However, in such circumstances, the bailiff could quite easily justify the use of a locksmith once entry is refused. With the Police in attendance to ensure there's no breach of the peace, "peaceful entry" could be gained.
  21. Eviction hasn't got anything to do with TV license fines and the use of locksmiths or indeed this topic. What are you talking about?
×
×
  • Create New...