Jump to content

Bailiff Advice

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bailiff Advice last won the day on July 8 2016

Bailiff Advice had the most liked content!


3,276 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As you have said in another post, the lodger does live at your property and you see him maybe twice a week. There is therefore no point at all in lying by saying that he has moved out. Yes, the bailiff may gain entry into your premises BUT can only so so by what is called 'peaceful' means. This usually means by gaining entry through an unlocked door or being invited in. He is unable to legally force entry. IF, the bailiff is able to gain 'peaceful' entry, then he may remove goods BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR. The problem is, that he would want to establish which items actually belong to him. Almost certainly, he should engage with the bailiff. I am unsure what is meant by the reference of 60 days with Stepchange. I would expect that it refers to a period of time before they can assist him.
  2. I really did not think that the forum was advising posters to by pass enforcement companies and instead, to pay the council direct. Also, the £75 Compliance Fee does not belong to the council...it belongs to the enforcement company. Furthermore, legislation provides that the Compliance fee MUST be deducted first from any payment made.
  3. An Out of Time application is a 'time sensitive' application and as such, should ALWAYS be sent to the Traffic Enforcement Centre by email.....and not by post. The 12th August was a Thursday. I am assuming that when posting, you had sent the documents to Northampton County Court. If so, and assuming that the court received your correspondence on Friday 13th August (which would be most unlikely), it would have to be passed by the court to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. By the time that this would have been received by TEC would not have been before Monday 16th August at the very earliest. Currently...due to COVID 19, TEC staff are still working from home. That is why there is a 2 day delay in processing email applications. Postal applications.... much longer. You mention that you had also notified Marston of your intention to file Witness Statements and requesting that they place a 'hold' on your account. There is absolutely no legal obligation on Marston to abide by your request. It would be for the local authority to instruct Marston's to place the account on hold. If your application is accepted (a decision will take approx. 6-8 weeks), the local authority would then reissue you with a fresh Penalty Charge Notice. You can then pay the council at the earlier discounted rate. If the application is rejected, bailiff enforcement will re-commence.
  4. Thank you for responding. As you will have ascertained, we are all here to offer advice and help. If you are able to find out what your daughter had written on her application form, please do post back.
  5. Very disappointing for contributors who spend time offering assistance on the forum only to find that the original poster does not respond and further.
  6. As you were very late in sending the Out of Time application, it would have been far better if you had contact Marston's to set up a payment arrangement. That would have avoided a visit being made and the car being clamped. Most importantly, you would have avoided the debt increasing by £235 (to cover the enforcement fee). Once a payment arrangement is set up....you are still able to submit an Out of Time Application. You can even do so if you had paid the amount requested. If the application is accepted, you would be given a refund.
  7. Sending an Out of Time witness statement by POST as opposed to sending by email was a mistake. Email is always the correct option for these 'time' sensitive applications. Many members of staff at the Traffic Enforcement Centre are still working from home so it is taking around 2 days to actually process applications. By sending the forms in the post on Thursday, they may have been received on Friday the 13th but actually 'processing' the applications takes longer. A case file would have to be set up and AFTER 4pm email notification is sent by TEC to the relevant local authority advising them of the application and instructing them to contact their relevant enforcement company to request that they cease enforcement of the warrant. As you had chosen to post the application forms, the very earliest that TEC would have emailed the local authority would have been AFTER 4pm on Friday (but more likely, to be on Monday). Being Friday, the local authority would have actioned that email on MONDAY morning and notification would have been received at the enforcement company possibly later that day but usually, by the following morning (Tuesday). You also mention that you had written to Marston by recorded delivery advising them of the application and REQUESTING that they place the account on hold. I am sorry to advise you but they would only obliged to cease enforcement once they receive formal instruction from their client (the local authority)...OR...if you had set up a payment arrangement.
  8. Filing an Out of Time Statutory Declaration is doomed to fail unless your daughter is able to establish a REASON as to why she had not received any of the previous notices from the council. There would have been 3 letters; a Penalty Charge Notice, a Charge Certificate and an Order for Recovery. If it is the case that the car had been correctly registered (at your address), then there should be no reason why she would not have received any of the notices. It really is important for her to contact the council to ask them to confirm the exact address and post code where their notices were being sent. Regarding 'vulnerability', if it is the case that your daughter can provide some evidence of HER vulnerability, then in most cases, this would allow the enforcement company to pass her account to their in-house Welfare Department. This should avoid a personal (and the debt increasing by £235). A payment arrangement can then be set up. Just because somebody claims to be vulnerable is not sufficient to stop enforcement. Evidence is usually needed.
  9. You mention that the letter from the enforcement company states that payment must be made by 23.59pm. You have not mentioned what DATE the payment had to be made by. Secondly, what date did you get the Out of Time Statutory Declaration signed. And lastly, what was the exact date that you sent the forms to the Traffic Enforcement Centre?
  10. From your initial post, the impression given was that you had very little idea about the VAT position and were seeking advice for a friend from the forum. From your above post, you clearly know the position.....but disagree with it. I will not be getting into a debate regarding this given that as I have stated above, the guidance outlined by the High Court Enforcement Officers Association has been issued in consultation with MOJ and HMRC pending a decision from the High Court which will almost certainly be in quite some detail.
  11. The matter of charging VAT on fees charged by a High Court Enforcement Officer has been the subject of much debate since 2014 when the current fee scale was implemented. Earlier this year a company called JUST (started by Jamie Waller....previously JBW), instigated action in the High Court regarding the charging of VAT on HCEO fees. Their view (and one that I share) is that VAT should never be payable by the debtor. The High Court are due to hand down their decision in the Summer and in advance of the decision, and following discussions with both the Ministry of Justice and HMRC, the High Court Enforcement Officers Association issued guidance to all their members in June this year advising that their treatment of fees should be changed as soon as possible, but in any event, by 1st August at the latest. In simple terms, where the instructing creditor is VAT registered (such as utility companies etc), VAT should be charged to the creditor and never to the debtor. In cases where the instructing creditor is not VAT registered, the HCEOA recommends that a sum equivalent to VAT should be charged to the debtor. HCEOA issues members with updated recommendation re: VAT on High Court enforcement fees WWW.HCEOA.ORG.UK Welcome to The High Court Enforcement Officers Association's Website PS: Once the Judgment has been handed down, it may be worthwhile for me to introduce a 'Sticky' on this subject.
  12. And as you will know from my previous responses, the court is absolutely correct (that the warrant has not been cleared by your payment direct to the court and sadly, as you had failed to pay the 'Compliance fee' (of £75), the enforcement fee of £235 is also valid. There is a slight problem with the courts response but sadly, it will not be of any help to you. Under the 2013, Taking Control of Goods Regulations, it specifically provides that a Notice of Enforcement should be sent to the debtor's 'usual' address. I note that you have claimed that you advised the court that you have moved. I'm not sure without reading the thread again whether or not the court accepted that you had notified them? HOWEVER, this is actually irrelevant in your case given that in fact, you have not been disadvantaged with the Notice of Enforcement being sent to your previous address. This is because, you have confirmed that not only did you receive the letter, but you then contacted the court the next day and despite the Notice of Enforcement providing precise instructions on how to make payment......you choice to ignore the instructions....and pay the court direct (minus the Compliance fee of £75).
  13. I have been responding to 'bailiff enquiries' on this forum for over 14 years and anyone knowing me will know that in order for me to provide an accurate reply, I will always ask for 'background' information (such as I have done in your case). Anyone knowing me will also know, that the 'subject matter' (of paying a court fine direct to the court after receiving correspondence from an enforcement company) is a subject that I have significant experience in, an one that I have written about on this forum MANY, MANY TIMES. Thank you for your response. You have confirmed my worse fears. After receiving a Notice of Enforcement (which included the statutory Compliance Fee of £75), you chose to IGNORE the wording on the notice and instead, paid the court fine direct to the court.......leaving the Compliance fee....unpaid. Unfortunately, by paying the court direct (minus the Compliance Fee), means that you have only partly settled the warrant. Once a Notice of Enforcement is issued, the amount due under the warrant INCLUDES bailiff fees (which in your case) would, at the time of making payment...be just £75. It is foolhardy to pay a court direct in circumstances such as yours. In almost all cases where this happens, the relevant court will write to the individual to advise that as the payment had been made after a warrant had been issued that the payment (made to the court), has been forwarded to the enforcement company. You mention that after making payment that you then received a letter from the Court (which you effectively ignored), do you know what it actually said? As I have outlined in my above post, the fact of the matter is that by failing to pay the 'Compliance Fee' of £75, the warrant has NOT been paid in full.
  • Create New...