Hullo all Just posting an update. I received a video of the incident and it was clear enough that my brother had committed the offence and no argument was possible. Due to on going money situation I could not pay the bill and in the normal course of things it escalated by stages to £202 before being flicked out to Marstons who added another £11.20 of fees. Anyway I finally had the money to pay it and phoned them today to pay and they added another £1 as a debit card fee! I asked them how I could pay them without incurring the debit card fee and they said it was always added. I then asked them why they did not just add it to their fees and was told to write and complain if I wanted! (PS They started asking me a lot of questions including what my mobile number was. I asked them why they needed the data when all I was doing was paying the bill. They said it was data protection. Anyway I refused to give them my mobile number and said they had sufficient information to accept my payment. They took the money!). (Their payment automation line was not working when I called). Clearly they don't need all the things they are asking for so as a guide to others in the same situation I suggest once you have quoted their reference number and your vehicle details they have sufficient information and you should tell them so. So first of all thanks to all who contributed to this thread which from the point of view of dealing with the traffic offence I can now close. Secondly, anybody want to comment on the extra £1. Is there by any chance a fiddle being carried out by Marstons? I wonder if they have a contract with Transport for London with set fees which they have sneakily added a £1 to without telling anyone? Your comments welcome on this thread. Thank you all.

Hi all I have returned the Representation Form ticking the box to state that there was no contravention. I have added additional typewritten notes which say as follows: This vehicle was being driven by my brother at the time. When he entered the box junction the exit route was clear and he continued moving through the junction. However, he was forced to stop by pedestrians crossing in front of him. He did not stop until forced to do so by pedestrians who were not obstructing the exit at the time he entered the box junction. I therefore appeal the penalty. If you still wish to pursue the penalty please provide me with a copy of all evidence you wish to rely on and in particular the video evidence. The video or other evidence will need to clearly show that a. He entered the box junction without the exit being clear and b. that he could have SAFELY cleared the junction without striking any pedestrians and was therefore not forced to stop. It is paramount that pedestrians are not endangered by vehicles attempting to leave a box junction to avoid a penalty. Given his care in looking after pedestrians rather than speeding through the junction, and given the location of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention which although on the box is not obstructing traffic moving left to right across the box you may wish to give consideration as to whether pursuit of this alleged offence is fair and appropriate. Anybody wishing to view the notice and the positioning of the vehicle is welcome to look at the attached notice in PDF.

Thank you Michael sailor and Mean for your prompt responses. As I understand it then I am responsible for the actions of another driver. Does not sound very just to me but so be it. I do not know if the box is/was compliant or the exact circumstances surrounding the incident except to say I understand the exit was clear when my brother entered the junction and he was forced to stop because of pedestrians. Another vehicle had to do the same thing. I will post pics and details in a later post and formulate a reply to TFL for you all to have a comment on if you want. Thanks again and watch this space.

Hi all I lent my car to my brother who took it to London and whilst there was imaged entering/stopping a boxed junction. I have received the penalty charge notice which I intend to appeal. However, a technical issue exists on the form. It says I can make representations on any of the five grounds listed which summarised are; I was not the owner, the offence was not committed, the car was stolen, it was a hire car, the penalty amount is wrong. My personal defence is that I was not the driver but nowhere on the form is there an option to state that. As I am the registered keeper of the vehicle am I personally liable for the driving offences carried out by people using my vehicle? I somehow think not. I would be grateful for any advice and opinions on how to respond to this form. I guess at some point the offence may find its way back to the true defendant in the form of an amended notice in which case I guess I would continue the thread as my brother was forced to stop in the box by pedestrians obstructing his exit. Many thanks in advance PS According to the notice it is supposed to be possible to make representations online at www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers Feel free to have a look at that site. anyone able to tell me where exactly I can find the link to enable me to do this?

I would like to see at least one minor change to the charging order regime and that is that a loan, for example a credit card or something similar which will have started life as an unsecured loan with a correspondingly higher interest rate should not be allowed to be converted to in effect a secured loan. Charging orders should not be allowed on these types of transactions as the interest rate charged reflects the risk of default. Currently the lender is having his cake and eating it. Other kinds of debt such as trade debt etc might be a different matter, but not unsecured cash loans.

Thanks Tomtubby You deserve the back story so here it is. My brother bought a business in 2004 which had over two acres of land. The council were all over him like a rash the moment he got on the site and tried to wrap him up in planning issues. At first he tried to comply but then it turned out the council got their planning decision wrong and he was not required to do things to nearly the extent they said he did. The following years were spent in legal wrangle that led to a public enquiry where the main points about the development were won by our side at a cost of over £25,000 and the effective financial destruction of the business. At that point I wrote a long letter of complaint to the council covering around ten points in their conduct. As a coup de grace the valuation agency came on site and upped the business rates by twenty times! My brother was forced to throw in the towel and sold the site at a stonking loss. The council pursued the new and completely unaffordable rates. The first we knew of bailiff involvement was when they arrived at his house with two identical letters but for different amounts relating to two different tax years. These were the standard bailiff "second" letter I have come to know. I thought I would complain to the council as they had attempted to double charge for a single visit and were charging the second charge not the first charge and were thus incompetent as they had not come for the "first" visit. While I was at it I did a FOI request and asked them chapter and verse about their management of bailiffs. I got quite a lot of material back and it also turned out that the "first" visit had gone to the original business according to them. I struggle to believe it as the council were notified by me of my brother's home address at the time he left the business in case they wanted to make something of it. Additionally the council were well aware of the business collapse and the inability of my brother to pay the figure, even if he was willing which he is not. Therefore why they bothered with bailiffs is a mystery. This last visit, a third one, was somewhat unexpected by us as they normally try twice and go back to say they cant collect leaving the council to take alternative action. I think this third visit was an attempt by the council to do two visits at the same address or may simply be vindictive. Had the council been prepared to admit to their own planning errors at the start and work with my brother to build his business it would now be in a position to be employing twenty or more people, to pay local and national taxes and would be a nice and needed amenity to the local people. Anyway that is the story. We are fairly well clued up on what the bailiffs can and cant do with the excellent resources of this site to educate ourselves. The council will not be getting a penny as there is none, and no equity anywhere. Any fees the bailiffs or anyone else want to charge are therefore irrelevant to us so they can type what they like into their systems as it is their paper and their hard disks. The council may well take the next step of summoning my brother to court and threatening him with imprisonment. It is probably the only step they have left. If that happens and the story comes out it is unlikely a magistrate would imprison him. He has no money, no equity and a young family. But if it came to that a personal bankruptcy would solve the problem.

Renegadeimp, I thought about ramming him but although my car is old now it has been very good to me and intend to keep it until it literally falls apart. I am not prepared to impale my beautiful trashmobile on some dickwood bailiff's brand new mondeo-like, tempting though the idea fleatingly was. But it would have been an honourable death for the old girl!

I agree up to a point. But he only has our words for it to say who we are and for all he knew I was my brother taking away a seizable asset. Having said that my car is (very obviously) 13 years old and the bailiff himself said it would not make enough to nearly cover the debt.

It was Constant & Co in Bedfordshire. He was answered at the door by my brother who is the debtor. It was he who asked me to discuss the debt with the bailiff. The bailiff was therefore given permission to discuss it with me so I am comfortable no data protection breach was made. I handle this sort of thing for my brother as I have helped him in his business over the last few years and business being what it is I have become somewhat adept at these matters with the help of CAG of course!

Hi All Just a quick and mild incident but would be interested in comment and opinion. I was parked in a family member's drive when a bailiff called to collect unpaid business rates from another property which the council is not going to get as the business is bust (ironically by the same council). My brother opened the door and when he found out who it was he called me to the door to sort it out as I have a bit more confidence in these matters. I told the bailiff we would not sign anything, would not give him any money and would not be granting him legal entry. He was a bit unhappy but could not do much about it. As it happened I was leaving so I went out to my car. When I tried to move it he said he was seizing it to pay the debt. I told him it was mine and not my brothers and attempted to drive away. He reversed his car to block my path and said he was going to clamp it. I told him he could do so but I would take on his company for obstructing my lawful movement of my property. He said since I knew so much of the law I should know he has a right to seize the car. If I could prove it was mine he would let me go. I pointed out that the log book was elsewhere but that would not conclusively prove the car was mine, just that I was the keeper. In the end he pulled away and I was able to get on with things at a cost of no more than five minutes of time. Clearly the guy was bluffing. He was in a car so un-likley to be carrying a clamp and was going to have to stay there for quite a while if a clamper was being sent for. So other CAGers should note that. Clearly he did not want to hang around. My question is though, what rights does he have to detain my car and what rights do I have to stop him detaining the car? Also, do I have any claim against his firm? Has he committed any criminal offence by obstructing me? All comments, anecdotes, opinion and such like welcome.

Hullo all Many thanks for the many replies and here is an update: The council had written the following to me: The payments can be divided into 12, rather than 10, so if you just pay a twelfth i.e. £95.08 in April. Once this payment shows I will amend your instalments from May - March. So I guess I have established my right to pay by equal instalments. I think it is a pity this was not properly and openly offered in the first place. As I have achieved what I have set out to achieve I no longer seek any advice from other CAGers. However, I am very happy for this thread to be continued by anyone wanting to discuss the topic. Thanks again for all your input.

It is a great pity the case was lost. I believe these cases are recorded and it is possible to get the recording transcribed. Don't know what that would cost or whether it is worth it but reading the transcript could throw up some grounds for complaining about the judge. Having said that the OP is going bankrupt. In my opinion this is probably the best thing that could happen to them because they are very likley to be releived of the burden of their debts and will be out of it within a year. The OP will then be free to pursue their lives whilst RW will be left with nothing but a big legal bill. That will be a kind of justice.

Hi all I am in the North Herts District Council region and have just had my council tax bill. The total sum is £1140.97. They have calculated it in ten instalments with the first being £114.97 and the balance being another 9 at £114.00. So far so good. According to the new rules issued by the government I have the right to ask for this to be paid in 12 instalments. I therefore e-mailed the council as follows: Please re-issue my council tax bill to show repayments in twelve equal instalments and adjust your billing system to expect payments in twelve rather than ten payments. Today I received the following: Thank you for your email requesting 12 monthly instalments for your council tax. Once we have received your April instalment, I will amend your instalments from May - March and a revised bill will be issued. So on the face of it they are requiring one tenth of the figure to be paid first and I only want to pay one twelfth. Now it is only a small thing but if the government says I can pay equally over the year then I want to pay equally over the year. In short I want to pay £95 in April, not £115. I don’t want to give them £20 until I have to. I wrote this back to them: That is all very well but what am I supposed to pay in April? You seem to be wanting one tenth of the annual amount before spreading the other nine tenths over the remaining eleven months. Is that correct? As I understand it the new regulations allow for equal monthly payments over twelve months. Please clarify your position. Anybody else getting this sort of thing? Anybody got any comments?

Been following. Just to wish you all the very best for tomorow. CBJ

Hi I think you will find that if they sell the debt to Robinson Way they should give you the "goodbye" letter and Robinson Way should give you the "hullo" letter. However, if the debt is still owned by SADtander then Robinson Way will be acting on behlaf of them and no Deed of Assignment is needed. See what others say.

Hi This is truly appalling. I offer my help in composing your letters of complaint. Please post back if you want some sample letters. You should be complaining to the police, the council, the ministry of justice and your local MP. This stinks.

Been following this but not commenting up to now.........just to say woowhee and zippididoda! Congratulations and well done.

That is great. Many thanks

Would you mind posting a link to the "epic thread" thanks.

How is this for an orchestrated campaign. Why not organize a boycott of one of RLP's clients. We can post mass complaints on their Facebook account(s), twitter etc as well as not frequent that shop. It would take about five minutes for them to announce they were not doing business with RLP anymore and we can then move onto the next one. I have nothing against Boots as such but as they have been mentioned in this thread, why not start with Boots?

Proper, impartial and strict regulation of the industry is a must. The assertion that regulation will only impose red tape on businesses is nonsense in the case of the bailiff industry. In most industrial/commercial scenarios both parties contract with each other and it can be argued that to some degree they should be allowed to get on with it. But in this case the debtor has no choice in the matter. The bailiff has been given the upper hand by force of law. As such their actions MUST be regulated. They should not be treated as regular businesses, but as bodies contracted to carry out a difficult but necessary public service.

Hi all I have been on the wrong end of bailiffs for six years and a couple of points immediately spring to mind: 1. The assumption should be that the debtor is in financial stress. As such, and even though the bailiff industry is a business, it must not be organized in such a way as to be a cash cow as it is now. Bailiff firms should receive a reasonable return for carrying out the work and that is all. If they cannot or do not want to work within the fees limitation then don't do the work. 2. In the case of multiple warrants on a single visit the debtor should not be made to pay multiple times. This is just imposing additional hardship. For example if a bailiff has traveled forty miles and wants to charge a mileage fee charge it once, as he only came in one van. 3. I have seen attempts to charge a removal fee when no vehicle was ever hired. This is nothing less than fraud. It certainly never showed up and nothing was removed. Therefore it must be demonstrated that all third party costs have in fact been contracted for by production of the third party invoices and those services must be carried out or at least attend the property so that it can be seen that the cost was in fact incurred. This is a bit extreme but some of these bailiffs are criminal. 4. There should be a single central mediation body which a debtor can appeal to for a reasonable fee that will solely deal with matters of disputed bailiffs costs. If the decision is in the debtors favour the bailiff should pay the fee. However, if there was a statutory (simpler) laid down set of fees this ought not need to be referred to very often. 5. the whole thing is absolutely useless with out proper regulation with teeth. These people don't want to be regulated and I can understand why, which is exactly why they must be. 6. I am not at all sure why there needs to be a link between the amount of the debt and the amount charged. In other words why can they charge a percentage of the debt. It costs them the same to collect £10 as it does to collect £1000. The fees should be linked to the cost of the work done to recover the debt, not the value of the debt. 7. Finally, for the moment, are we falling into the trap of discussing modifications to a poor system rather than trying to come up with a better twenty first century solution.

Hi Here is something a bit radical.........As I understand it failure to provide all the information requested by a SA is a criminal offence. So if you have proof why not report it as a crime to the police! Wonder what other CAGers think. Would love to see these boys in front of a magistrate!

hi DP Given you only have a couple of hours left to try and put some sort of defence together and as I don't know your personal circumstances may I suggest you print out the following Text and hand it to the court. It is far from perfect but in the absence of any other advice on here it will at least give the judge a couple of points to think about and you may get a friendly one: IMPORTANT: You can only use the defence of your other creditors not being advised if you actually do have other debts. The other debts can be things you are still paying, so other loans, credit cards etc. Bear in mind that if they don't know about this and they then get a letter from your creditor's solicitors it could damage your relationship with them. however, the CCJ you have will also have done that to some degree. I ask the court to consider the following before issuing a Final Charging Order: 1. A creditor is supposed to list all the other creditors that they are aware of in the application for an interim charging order. The court can order the interim order to be sent to the other known creditors but does not have to do this. This means that creditors who may want to object to the final charging order being made will not know about the hearing. I have a number of other creditors who may be disadvantaged if a charging order is granted. I respectfully ask the court not to allow the charging order to become final until my other creditors have been notified about this hearing so that they are not unduly prejudiced by the charging order being made. 2. There are other ways the court can enforce payment of the debt. I ask the court to consider making an instalment allowing me to make monthly payments I can afford. Alternatively, an attachment of earnings order could do the same thing. 3. If the court decides a Final Charging order is appropriate I respectfully ask the court not to let my house be sold as long as I maintain monthly instalments.

Here is some more detailed information I have copied form another website. The court must consider whether it is reasonable to make a charging order. Under The Charging Orders Act 1979 the court has to consider all the circumstances of the case and in particular: The personal circumstances of "the debtor" Whether any creditor would be "unduly prejudiced". This means the court has to decide if making a charging order would disadvantage other creditors. The arguments you can use against the order being made will vary depending on your circumstances, whether you have any other debts, whether you have equity in your house and own your home in joint names or on your own. These are some of the factors that the court may consider: Does any member of your family have a disability or serious illness? If you have a number of debts and making a charging order in favour of one creditor would give them unfair priority over other unsecured creditors. It is particularly useful if you can show you already have a payment arrangement in place with your other creditors. This would be upset by an order being made. Point out if any of the debts are larger than this debt and if any other creditors have frozen the interest. Your creditor is supposed to list all the other creditors that they are aware of in the application for an interim charging order. The court can order the interim order to be sent to the other known creditors but does not have to do this. This means that creditors who may want to object to the final charging order being made will not know about the hearing. You can raise this in your written objections and at the hearing if you think a creditor may be "unduly prejudiced" by the charging order being made. Could the creditor have given you a secured loan when you first took out the loan? If they decided to offer an unsecured loan instead, this could be particularly relevant if you have other unsecured creditors who may be disadvantaged by a charging order being made. There are other ways the court could enforce payment of the debt. You could ask the court to make an instalment order so you make monthly payments you can afford, or an attachment of earnings order so that the instalments would come directly from your wages. This is only useful if you are employed and your employment would not be at risk. If your debt is covered by the Consumer Credit Act you can apply for a Time Order. Ask the court to look at this application before the charging order. A Time Order can change the monthly payments and extend the length of time you pay the debt for. If you owe less than £5,000 in total to all your creditors, you can argue that the debt should be included in an administration order rather than the charging order being made final. If you are likely to be made bankrupt, you can argue that a charging order would give the creditor an unfair advantage over other unsecured creditors. If your home is worth less than your mortgage (also known as "negative equity"), then you can argue it is not worth a charging order being made, as the creditor would not be paid off, even if they forced your home to be sold. If the debt is very small in comparison to the amount of equity in your home, argue that a charging order would be unfair. You should point out any particular hardship which your family would suffer if a charging order was to lead to the sale of the home. This is particularly important if the debt is in your name but you own your home jointly so it is not even your partner's debt. If none of these arguments are successful and the court makes a final charging order, you can still ask the court not to let your house be sold as long as you pay monthly instalments. Make an offer to pay in monthly instalments at the hearing. If the court will not look at your offer at the hearing, you can still apply to pay in instalments by using an application form called N245.