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.

If the debt was more than 6 years old when the case was brought to court then it is statute barred and is unrecoverable under Section 2 of the 1980 Limitation Act. Whats the definition of "forced entry"? If you mean breaking and entereing then no he cant. No and yes, provided it is not on finance. Yes. and yes (they cant remove goods in yuor absence anyway) The probably wont turn up. Just leave him waiting outside but move your car. There is a good chance this is not a bailiff. its a debt collector, and if that is the case, then you should take the documents to a police station and make a complaint of fraud by false representation. (s2 fraud act)

Speak to your MP and explain the above points of argument. See if he can get the official position whether a defendant has a statutory obligation for bailiffs fees without a magistrate odering costs against him. Meanwhile I'll ask if the information can be posted in a forum, it did come from up in the heirachy of MoJ several years ago when it was Lord Chancellors dept. I dont work for government so I am not bound by OSA 1989.

and there is a schedule of statutory scale of bailiffs fees: 28% plus a letter fee about £12'ish. Correct. Its a contract. There is no statutory Fees Order for bailiff fees payable by defendants. I am privvy to knowledge why HMCS will not prescribe a bailiffs Fees Order on court fines on the statute book. Long story, but HMCS favoured (for political reasons) setting a contract instead that allows bailiffs to ASK defendants to pay their fees.

Do you actually read this stuff? which are handled by the magistrates court. Which is handled by TFL and it doesnt set a statutory Fees order. Since when has Philips been instructed by a court to collect parking tickets? Since 1992 its councils that instruct the bailiffs.

Toms link above is a good source, follow it to the legislation quoted and it says a costs order or a Fees Order is needed, and gives the procedure that must be followed. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/39/section/92 So far we only have a contract between bailiff and court. Nothing to do with the person paying the fine.

The links above are both fines, one is a bus lane fine. What kind of proof are you looking for? Have you been telling posters to pay fees on fines then? and discovered they didnt have to pay them after all. Quite a responsibility for your company professional indemnity insurance policy.

You are right, conflicting evidence. Do you fancy being a Guinea Pig? Start the official court service complaints procedure: and read this taken from another post.

and the one I looked at a minute ago is just gone offline: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf It might come back up. Do a search on the forums too. theres several posters the same as you who didnt have to pay the fees. Entitled to charge for services is not the same as being ordered to pay them.

Search the court service website for Form EX345 and its on page 3.

It says Marston can ask for them, but it doesnt say the person being fined is ordered to pay them. No contract.