Strewth, thanks for all the help. The morning after the event, I even went to Tesco HQ in Cheshunt to complain about the 'naziesque' treatment I had the night before and requested a copy of the CCTV images, and strangely enough they didn't have it!? Even stranger was that their inventory didn't even have those 2 discs as being in stock, so they queried as to why it was the staff took them. As far as the police are concerned its now a civil matter, and as RLP seem to have opened that door I've contemplated replying that I'm willing to attend court and will be seeking punitive damages from both parties (Tesco's and RLP) for seizure theft of personal property, contravening data protection by issuing my details to 3rd parties and for my unlawful detainment.

Hello guys, you've provided useful info in the past with regards to a case I had posted here awhile ago with regards to exorbitant bailiff fees, so how about this for a story... I popped into Tesco's store a couple of weeks ago and in my bag I had a blu-ray disc (which I was going to watch at my brothers) and another blu-ray I was going to post. After searching their shelves for a jiffy bag, I did the rest of my shopping and left. As I was leaving the store I was accosted by 3 staff who immediately asked to see my bag! When I showed them what I had they immediately seized the disc (even with the receipt that was inside) and asked that I go with them. I told them to return my property, however the 3 of them surrounded me and proceeded to frogmarch me to a back room against my express wishes... They continued to bully and accuse me and said the whole event was filmed on CCTV, however they could not see when and how I had possibly removed the red security tags, so if I did not want to pay for the items they would consider further legal action!? I continued to protest my innocence and continually requested that the police attend - during my two hour imprisonment I had to wait 45mins to use the toilet and I was not even allowed to smoke or call for assistance on my phone (they made sure there was no reception in that area). Once the police arrived, I asked to speak to the officers alone and explained that I had entered the store with those discs and that they belonged to me (I even had the receipts to prove this) and that there was no way for those red tags to have been removed and the police search verified I carried nothing capable of doing this; I even told the officers that as a security precaution most if not all of my discs have a security mark upon them, even if they're unopened.. . After the police spoke with Tesco's they declined to press any charges, and the police decided to not proceed any further as Tesco had now seized my discs!!! I have now received a letter from RLP alleging that Tesco now seek compensation of between £500-800 for their loss, but will consider a final payment of £183 to settle the matter without further civil litigation. So what should I do now, the police say its a civil matter and if I want my discs back I need to take Tesco to court, however RLP now want to claim money from me for the inconvenience of my false imprisonment and the seizure of my own personal property???

OB, I thought you'd say that, so I've replied to that effect - "With regards to the Judge requesting that I complete a Form 4, I am somewhat ambivalent in doing so because in the last correspondence I received from the bailiff (Confero Collections Ltd.) it is intimated that should I consider making a formal complaint about his alleged behaviour then he will have no recourse but to vigoursly, and with the full weight of the law, pursue legal action to defend his good character and business practices; which will result in him seeking an award of compensation/damages for the false and litigious allegationse brought against him. Therefore, in light of what he has written can you please confirm (in writing) that I will not incurr any further legal/financial expense if I should complete this Form4 (which has been issued at your request) and that the actions of Confero Collections Ltd. would be unlawful and unwarranted in threatening to pursue further litigious and malicious action against me; should I submit a complaint against them." I'll be interested to read their reply...

ha ha ha, got a letter today from Chelmsford County Court, where Confero's "Rent-A-Thug" is registered, and the Judge wants me to complete a Form 4... I suspect its because I fired off a letter asking if the Court had issued the bailiff with a clamping order and if they had authorised him to recover his costs/fees. Obviously, its a tricky thing, so I sent another letter off asking if I'll be liable for any further financial burdens or legal action if I complete and submit the form, so I'll wait for their response - this flys in the face of current thinking as the bailiff is under the belief that if I complain then he will consider me 'litigious' and pursue a claim for defamation and seek damages. Are they having a laugh... tomtubby - cheers I'll check now and get right back to you

Thanks for all the information, the Local Authority seem totally ambivalent to this and obviously just think that my case rests with the bailff and his "Rent-A-Thug", so they don't really want to be involved in any contentious litigation. The LGO just seem like a bunch of toothless tigers, with all the information I've supplied them with, they still keep asking the same old questions, so the only way I see moving forward on this is to go the route of the N1 small claims and have them explain themselves in court. tomtubby - I've not heard back from you about the Culligan v Marston papers and I can't PM you my details so I'm unsure how else I can receive a a copy of the full judgement... It would obviously be very useful to pore over Mr. Culligans arguments, especially with regards to the how he tackled the question of costs/fees charged for visit/attendance/towing, so that I best prepare my case on paper for submission. cheers

Sorry tomtubby, but it says I can't PM you because my 'post count' is too low... I've exhausted the complaints procedure with the Local Authority, as they say they only authorised the 'seizure' and they have no responsibility for the actions, conduct or subsequent fees accrued by their bailiff. I read a post elsewhere on here that struck a cord with relevance to my case - the guy that came to 'levy distress' is registered under another company name as self-employed with the court and it seems that not only did the LA contract Confero but they too appear to have sub-contracted this out.

From what I have been told by the CAB, Marston chose not to proceed with an appeal because it would have been judged by someone of the next highest level, and so may have been heard in a Magistrates Court; whereby the result may well have set a legal precent in future cases. I've also been told that Confero may well lodge an 11th hour settlement, albeit not for the full amount, so my best way forward is to site the Local Authority as 1st defendant, Confero as 2nd defendant and their employee as 3rd defendant. That way all the money can be claimed back from the Local Authority because they were negligent in allowing the bailiffs to levy 'irregular distress' and ultimately therefore are complicit in the overcharges. Is this true? Also, I've been searching everywhere for the full case papers for Culligan v Marston/Camden 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 But I've had no luck, so can somone point me in the right direction or send a link to the attachments. Cheers

You're right Old Bill the case was heard at the Central London County Court, and the defendant applied to appeal then changed his mind...

Strewth guys, thanks a lot for all the info. It seems that Confero used to be a company called DBK or something like that its history is convoluted, seems like its still the same people though - Mr & Mrs Rowland. The guy that turned up with the warrant is registered under a different company at the court, so is it possible that Confero sub-contracted for this guy to do the collection? I saw the CAB today, so they could peruse my N1 claim form, and from the looks of things I just need to edit it a liitle and put the parts in that you've mention like the HMCTS charges and the MoJ guidelines - just to bolster the strength of my argument. They also said it would be good to mention Culligan v Marston and the Baroness Young spiel about bailiffs with ID and fraud etc. I also understand that whilst Culligan set a precedent, because Marston never followed up on the appeal its not set out as legal precedence - true or false? I'm just trying to do an iron clad case to nail these guys and hopefully set something out for future users here - would be helpful if I could find the original case papers for the Culligan case as the arguments and summary by Advent are quite succinct and I really would like to know all the things Confero might throw at me if this goes all the way. Keep it coming guys, I've got a couple of weeks before the N1 needs to go off, so the more ammo the better Cheers

Thanks for your help 'old bill' and the attachments - they were very useful. From what I've managed to glean from the information in the 'attachments' it seems that - 1. the letter cost seems about right, he charged £11.20 + VAT @ 20% = £13.44 2. the first visit fee of £28.00 + VAT @ 20% = £33.60 does look wrong as he's qouted £37.20 3. the attendance fee of £180.00 looks wrong, as the qouted rate should be no more than £28.00 as the debt to collect was less than £100 (PCN=£90) 4. the Tow Truck fee of £180.00 is definitely an overcharge as how can he make a charge for something that was not done!? So what's the next step 'old bill' ? I've an appointment with the CAB later because I think the only way forward is a N1 via the small claims court, I'm just having problems filling that out at the moment - the particulars of claim is easy enough and what I'm suing for is an 'overchage of bailiff costs/fees' its just that prevailing evidence seems to indicate I'd be better off suing the Local Aurthority as 1st defendant, then the bailiff and his staff as 2nd & 3rd defendants. Obviously I'm going to try and sue for the entire cost of £507.55 because if the Local Authority had followed the MoJ guidelines they would have kept me notified of the outstanding debt and the PCN would have been cancelled by PTAS. Also, is it worth doing a Form 4 - bailiff complaint or should I just stick with the N1 claim !? I've already used a stencil letter provided elsewhere on the forum to make the complaint with police for their failure to attend.

Thanks for the replies, I have done as you've said (I think this is the format of the letter you're talking about) and got a reply back this morning, though it was sent 3wks ago and the bailiff chose not to answer the question/s I asked... Dear Sir/Madam Re: Bailiff Costs to Date/Fees. I write following a visit by your enforcement officer, when looking at the document he presented me with, and after seeking further legal advice, there appears to be an irregularity with the breakdown of your fees. I now ask you to provide the following information within seven (7) days of this notice: 1) Written confirmation of your fees 2) Written confirmation of the original debt 3) The name and address of the organisation that instructed you to proceed with this seizure 4) If you have charged non-statutory fees prescribed in law, a breakdown of your costs to show they are reasonable and not charged for the purpose of making a gain for yourself or another 5) Truthfully confirm in writing that a) your fees are lawful and comply with legislation or b) refund me the unlawful fees plus reasonable compensation for being cheated by your bailiff with his fees by midday the seventh day from the date of this letter 6) Show me in where in legislation, or the court order, it stipulates I have to pay any of your fees A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 2 of the Act specifically describes a person who dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. If no satisfactory refund is made to me by 12.00 midday seven (7) days from the date of this letter I will automatically make a criminal complaint to Police under the 2006 Fraud Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act. If you have charged VAT on unlawful fees then you may be reported for VAT fraud and your documents will be given in evidence. This is a letter before action and is not a request to access any personal data about me in the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998. This document is a notice of intended proceedings and is delivered by the Royal Mail, and I therefore deem it to have been served upon you by the ordinary course of post in the meaning of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It now is your responsibility and in your best interests that this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation. The bailiff has replied - Letter fee - £13.44 Visit Fee - £37.20 Attendance Fee - £180 Tow Truck Fee - £180 Obviously, he's charged for a letter, which I got and replied to in March when I requested the TE7 & TE9, the Visit Fee is wrong because it was his first and only visit, what's the Attendance Fee? And why charge a Tow Truck when there was no Tow Truck?? The whole thing looks overinflated and the bailiff says that if I think he's wrong (!) then I can request the court to check it via a 'Taxing' request which is chargeable and may incurr me further charges if my allegations are found to be malicious... So what's my next step?

TEC said that because of the backlog they couldn't say they had the TE7 & TE9 so thats why they wanted a fax copy ASAP and for me to notify the Local Authority that it would be processed by close of business that day (16/05/12). The Local Authority refused to accept that TEC would either take that long to clear a backlog or that they would fastrack the forms so quickly, so they informed the bailiff to either get the money or take the car. No tow truck/lifter was at my mothers house, and because a neighbour saw what was happening, paid the money on my behalf. My car in any event was not taken but the alloy wheel was damaged when the bailiff attached/removed the wheelclamp. I've had other replies since posting here, and the main concensus is that I use the case of Culligan v Marston to sue the local authority and the bailiff for the return of the money and for damages. My question is how do I complete the N1 form to do this, what would be my argument, that the local authority were negligent in pursute of this PCN or that the bailiff were fraudulent in the charges they accrued - the PCN was £97 the Costs/Fees of the bailiff was £410.55...

Thank you for responding so quickly, I didn't know the depth of information required initially but here's the answers to you questions - 1. When I called the TEC on the 16/05/12 they said they were dealing with a backlog of forms, so they could not confirm that mine had been processed. They suggested I fax a copy to them immediately and inform the LA that it MUST be put on hold until close of business that day; the LA refused and instructed the 'bailiff' to proceed with either taking the car or the money... 2. I submitted the TE7 & TE9 on 11/04/12, 16/05/12 and 22/05/12 but the LA refused to accept that these forms had been submitted or that the matter should be put on hold 3. A final response from LA was that the matter was resolved, so TEC sent me notification of this !!! Please let me know if you need more info

Hello everyone, I'm new here so bear with me, but I really do need some sound advice. 1. I got a PCN in October 2011 for parking in a residents parking bay, even though I am a resident and my permit was clearly displayed. 2. I submitted a 'formal representation' immediately that same day and enclosed photographs of my vehicle, it was opportune that the police were there that day and I had a timed photograph... 3. I heard nothing from the local authority (LA) , or anyone else, until March 2012 when I got a letter from Confero Collections Ltd. demading £97 4. I called the local authority and they feigned ignorance of my letter and advised me to contact Northampton County Court (TEC) to complete a TE7 & TE9 'out of time' statement 5. I submitted my forms and heard nothing again until 16th May 2012 when a man arrived claiming to be a bailiff (with no identification) and clamped my car. He told me if I didn't pay him £507.55 he would take my car and sell it to recoup his costs. 6. I called the Police but they said it was a domestic dispute so refused to intervene... 7. I called the TEC and they said it was on hold but obviously the LA had not communicated this to Confero, the LA refused to acknowledge that my TE7 & TE9 were submitted and authorised the 'bailiff to proceed with removing my car 8. I showed him the letters and forms I submitted to the TEC, the LA and his office, but as far as he was concerned the LA specifically told him to get the money or the car 9. There was no tow truck or lifter, but the bailiff told me I had 1 hour to get him his money or I would lose the car and be charged for it's removal... Now the situation is this; I'm unemployed, I get no benefit whatsoever because I have a running dispute with my former employer, my mother's an 85 year old pensioner and we're both surviving on what she gets as a pension and what I saved for my pension. She had a hospital appointment that day and thankfully a kind neighbour saw my predicament and gave the man the money on my behalf - so how do I get the money back for her?