Fair-Parking, can you provide the link to the next article which "will expose how and why local authorities allow bailiff enforcement despite not one of these authorities ever printing a warrant of execution as they are required to under Civil Procedure Rule 75 (7) (3)." It is of particlar interest as I've complained to TEC and HMC&TS about who is issuing and maintaining these "warrants" and the fact that they are not warrants at all, simply notices. Noone has been able to provdie me with a copy of the warrant authorising the bailiff to levy distress. The only documents "issued" by LA are in fact notices as they are addressed to the respondent rather than the bailiff. As such, they can not be considered warrants at all under CPR75...

The Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement have been recently revised: 10.40 addition ...only after the period of payment for the PCN has expired and it is still unpaid. These details are only to be used to issue the NTO and collect outstanding monies. The details cannot be used to issue other correspondence (e.g. reminder letters) prior to issue of the NTO 10.45 content removed 10.68 (was 10.69) addition ...incorrect name and address.... However, if the debtor has moved since the issue of the warrant the bailiff should return the warrant to the local authority for them to apply for a reissue. 10.72 (was 10.73) removed irrespective of address and the bailiff can therefore amend the details of the address on the warrant and seek to enforce the warrant at the motorist's new address. This is now fully complaint with CPR75.7

Typo. I meant Operational Guidance para 10.73, not 10.69...sorry for confusion

Update. Hearing 29/09 adjourned part-heard with permission to relist. Although the Judge made no ruling, he did made the following important points: That I had been “overcharged” for the following bailiff's fees : Levy and Attendance. There was no Levy and an Attendance fee should not exceed the visit fee That an overcharge of fees in one area would have an “exponential” impact on other fees given that they were charged cumulatively The award of exemplary damages was questionable as it could exceed the small claims limit of £5000. However costs could be awarded as if the claim had been dealt with as “fast track” according to CPR parts 27.3 and 27.14(5) and 27.14(6) Bailiff could not state on whose authority the contravention date and address on the second and third warrants had been replaced The legality of three warrants when only one had been authorised by TEC and issued by LA was doubtful. In the Judge's words, “I have my doubts on the warrant.” LA was liable for the actions of its bailiff under the law of agent and principal and therefore would not be removed as a defendant if the case was relisted LA had delegated the enforcement process to such an extent that they were unaware of their own responsibilities under the law He would not accept quotations from Detailed Assessments Mishcon v Drakes and Throssell v Leeds cc as evidence that charging for multiple fees is not permitted! Not sure what to do here. Contacted Brentford cc where MvD was held in 12/07, but they no longer have a copy of the judgement. Would not discuss the charge of fraud as "very difficult to prove"! Made no comment on bailiff choosing to follow Operational Guidance 10.69 instead of CPR75.7(7)! I've since written to TEC and MoJ complaining about abuse of CPR75.7(7) above. Response from TEC is: "You have advised that the bailiffs believe that the new address must be established to be that of the correct respondent before the LA may request reissue of the warrant. CPR 75.7(7)(B) does indeed state that where the address of the respondent has changed since the issue of the warrant, the LA may request reissue of the warrant by providing evidence that the new address of the respondent does relate to the respondent named in the order and against whom the enforcement is sought. However, in order to enforce at the new address, the LA must send a warrant reissue request to TEC." " I appreciate that the bailiffs have advised you that no error has been made. In order to establish that the CPRs are being followed, I have contacted Ms xxxx [LA's representative at the hearing], the manager at LA [she's actually Deputy Parking Services Manager]. I have informed LA that when they are notified of a new address, a warrant reissue request must be sent to TEC before the bailiff can attend at the new address."

Council as defendant 1, and Bailiff as defendant 2

You have the correct understanding. LA simply provided a history of PCN rather than acknowledging my reasons for OOT was that my address had changed. Bailiff supplied warrant as part of SAR 27/03/10. The Date of Contravention date was wrong and in this format "Aug 21, 2008". The address was my Berkshire address. In defence papers received yesterday, bailiff supplied copy of original warrant with Oxfordshire adddress with correct contravention date in this format "15-Aug-2008". They then supplied another copy of the warrant which repeated the format of the original date "15-Aug-2008", but with my Berkshire address! So they have TWO reprints of the original, both with replaced address, but one with the right date and one with the wrong. Their comment on this was " PCNs issued by post have a contravention date and an issue date [sic]. The date shown on the copy warrant (which one?!) was the issue date not the contravention date. This was simply a clerical error."

What date was the Warrant of Execution authorised by TEC - 07/05/09 What address was on the Warrant? - My original Oxfordshire address 0 What DATE did the local authority apply to TEC to have the address on the Warrant CHANGED? - TEC confirm LA NEVER requested permission to reissue under CPR75.7(7), though TEC had noted my COA as a result of my OOT declaration. OOT rejected as a result of LA SoT 08/01/10 not accepting my COA reason, despite (as I now know) being informed by their bailiff 20/11/09 that my address had changed! LA also confirm each warrant was only "prepared" by them ONCE. Grateful thanks. Court case is at 10:00 29/09/10...

Update 15/09 Bailiff has made an interesting statement in justifying why the LA had not reissued the warrant on change of address. "CPR75.7(7) states 'Where the address of the respondent has changed since the issue of the warrant, the authority may request the resisue of the warrant....providing evidence that the new address does relate to the respondent in the order...' Therefore in order to request a re-issued warrant [the bailiff] must establish that the respondent does in fact reside at the new address. Counsel is currently being sought by the Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies and the British Parking Association in relation to this point." Surely this is ridiculous? Has anyone heard about this "defence" before?

Woah - wish I hadn't posted that link now. People seem to have gone off at a tangent!

Update. Bailiff's defence is "Amount claimed has been paid". Deadline 27/05 cheque dated 25/05. Council's defence: Admit they issued PCNs registered as TWO orders - Is PLURAL important? I have copy of two warrants both with the exact same date and time of authorisation/issue, but each refers to a different PCN. Should the warrants have a unique ref no? The warrant states the contravention date is 21/08 but the council keep insisting the contravention date is 15/08 - does this invalidate the warrant? Admit they instructed bailiff to enforce order by way of a WoE - Is SINGULAR important? Admit receiving payment for combined PCNs from bailiff collected from me. Neither admit/deny the attendance fees are unreasonable or contrary to s1 ERTDR 2003! Deny they are responsible for the attendance fee charged by their bailiff! Deny they acted dishonestly or committed fraud. Deny they received my LBA - this despite me having a signed PoD and them acknowledging the letter! Deny they owe me any money. Require me to prove by legislation, agreement or negligent act that they are liable for any claimed losses - Is breach of ERTDR and FA 2006 insufficient? I think the crux is how do I prove they are responsible for their bailiff? I have the LGO v Thurrock CC report "There is no legislation that allows for the fee to be charged" and "the council...failed to monitor the actions being taken by the private company." But that is council tax rather than PCN fees. http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2010/feb/thurrock-council-charged-illegal-fee-council-tax-payment-plan/ Is there anything else? Is the "acting as agent for a principal" part of contract law, or implied when they're intructed by receiving the warrant? They have failed to defend at all my allegation of multiple fees charged when enforcing more than one PCN at the same time or charging fees (D/C) not described in ERTDR - this, according to the N9B form, may be taken as an admission. This posted for interest, but any further advice gratefully received as always.

Thanks for the respoinses. I did not claim "incidentals" on the N1. These I assumed would be covered by an award of costs were I to succeed and I did not believe costs could be claimed up-front under the assumption of winning. The court says both the council and the bailiff have until 1600 today to defend. Neither have so far. The court seemed surprised that I would want to continue if the bailiff had paid in full. When I said I wanted to ensure that the bailiff was prevented from habitually fraudulently charging others, they said the case would not have helped in that area at all as the judge would only consider my own issues in the case. The court findings would not be public record, so the council/bailiff would not be subject to bad publicity. I've received no response to my complaint to the council and have put that in the hands of the LGO. All I really want is an apology, but as tomtubby comments, I might be waiting a very long time! I will inform the police of the outcome and hope that they will now proceed with their fraud investigations.

Thanks ploddertom. So despite them using the words "without prejudice" - neither the letter nor facts therein may be produced as evidence against them in court - they can still include in their defence that a settlement has been attempted? What if they haven't filed a defence (N9B?) and have only sent the settlement letter. What if I don't accept the cheque and ask them to pay legitimate costs? ie £10 for SAR, postage, photocopying etc. Thanks.

Update. Filed N1 claim against council and bailiff. Service date 29/04. Both responded with their intention to defend all of the claim. This requires them to file a defence by 27/05. Received recorded letter today from bailiff enclosing a cheque for claim + court fee + their estimate of interest. They say they are doing this only because "of the fact that you have been receiving treatment for cancer." Should I wait for them to file the required defence - unlikely, or accept the cheque or what? I wanted my day in court and be awarded costs and damages for all this hassle. This letter could be seen as their admission of guilt despite their "without prejudice" statement. Happy for any advice please.

Happy contrails just reread your comment "There are no statutory bailiffs fees payable by the defendant." Sorry, but what does this mean? Are you saying the bailiff was only allowed to collect the £60 PCN plus the uplift of 50% plus debt registration fee plus the letter fee? ie 107.88 incl VAT at 15% per PCN? ie No vist/levy or attendance fees at all? Meaning Schedule 1 to the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) 1993 does not apply to bus lane PCNs? Becoming more and more confused now!

OMG after all this time and advice are you saying that because it's a bus lane contravention rather than a parking ticket PCN ALL the rules are different?!?!? So I now need to research from scratch the Bus lane contraventions regs 2005 and Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 instead? There appears to be no deadline for the council's reject notification unlike TMA 2004. The big question though is are the bialifs still governed by Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 (amended 2003):and NSEA 2002 and Fraud Act 2006? Sorry, calmed down a bit now.....!