Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Recycler

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Recycler

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. nb the top part of Crouch End Hill Bus Lane has not been repainted since roadworks a year or so ago
  2. remember TPT is the provincial version of PATAS - case load split nationally 10% TPT / 90% PATAS (London) The London adjudicators have not (yet) followed Mr Binns lead at TPT... The argument needs developing into a stronger piece of work - relying on the statutory / operational guidance is probably not going to be sufficient (IMHO) as there is no MUSTS only SHOULDs...... Suggest you look at Lambeths 2009 parking report "The council operates the CCTV cameras in accordance with London Councils’ CCTV Code of Practice" & importantly when you check the CCTV Code of Practice out you need an original version - not the latest as the signs requirement seems mysteriously to have dissapeared....
  3. Jane Packer contains references to the definition of loading covering more than the immediate physical act of loading goods into a vehicle - ie paperwork, travelling in & out of buildings etc etc If you can provide evidence to support your claim ie invoices relating to pc servicing etc & check the online images to see if any photos support your arguments
  4. TPT key cases also hold a credit card surcharge case relating to Bristol from 2005...the other grounds are also interesting & have wider relevance to appelants Example Cases - Traffic Penalty Tribunal BS881 A Council is required to inform the motorist how payment of a penalty charge may be made. Various methods may be used including, for example, payment by cash, cheque or card. What the Council may not do, however, is add a surcharge on payments made by credit card. That would amount to an unlawful increase of the amount that may be charged by way of penalty. The Council has no power to demand the payment of any extra charges of this nature. The appeal was allowed (also on other grounds)
  5. http://www.hackney.gov.uk/parking-services-financial-report.pdf 2008 - 2009 tickets down - revenue up....differential parking?
  6. without a warrant the company is chasing an unpaid invoice - fees for letters & visits relating to the collection of rd traffic debts are regulated via statutory instruments and acts of parliament laying out the procedures to be followed. Philips & Westminster appear to be playing a different game!
  7. adjudicators take a dim view of stopping on a bus stop in my experience to be a bus stop it MUST have a sign - which will carry the no stopping red cross on a blue circle and words no stopping at any time except buses - most are signed correctly...
  8. sounds like youve been on the receiving end of some serious tandem fee charging bailiffs fees are based on the "sum due" - say £150 due to Westminster for each PCN + £5 Ct Fee a bailiffs letter fee can be applied of £13.16 per warrant If on visiting a bailiff has 16 warrants to collect, they may do the calculations per warrant thereby increasing the fee dramatically eg 1. Sum due on 16 warrants = £2480 - bailiff maths for visits is 28% of first £200 then 5% of amount over £200 = £56 + £114 = £170 (+VAT) eg 2. Sum due on 16 warrants - by calculating each fee seperately & then adding them up = £43.40 x 16 = £694.40 big difference If you got hit with £2000 bailiffs fees they must have claimed for up to 3 visits with tandem charges...
  9. The baillif company having been granted leave to appeal the decsion have decided not to pursue the application... The Judge had specified in granting permission to appeal "The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheelclamping before. My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking. Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard" More interesting quotations from the original decision The Submissions 21. The principal submission from Mr Culligan as to whether or not he is liable to pay the bailiff's charges is straightforward and simple: he says that the bailiff has wrongly characterized the immobilisation fee as a removal expense under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 whereas, in his view, the application an immobilisation device i.e the wheel clamp, took place at the time of seizure which is all part of levying distress and should be dealt with under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 22. The converse argument advanced by the Defendants is that the application of an immobilisation device is not necessary in order to complete a levy which itself is complete at seizure, and that the application of an immobilisation device is a separate and distinct act 23. The answer to these competing submissions is of no little consequence or importance If i find against the Defendants it will significantly affect and impact upon their ability to charge, and the extent to which they can charge, for any wheel clamping, certainly in the London Borough of Camden and, I suspect, a number of other London Boroughs who operate the same sort of agreement that the bailiff currently has with Camden. Indeed, if Mr Culligan is correct then the immobilisation fee of £100 is not chargeable insofar as it does not fall within or exceeds the 28% limitation (or the £38.14 in this particular case) in respect of levying distress imposed by Schedule 1 & findings 65. Indeed, neither that charge nor that made in respect of the proposed removal of Mr Culligan's vehicle is recoverable because there is no evidence by the receiving party of reasonableness of those charges 66. I realise that the non-payment of PCN's in London and other metropolitan l areas is a huge problem. I am also conscious that my findings in this case, (and I am clear in my conclusions on the arguments and authorities before me) may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress To do otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful 67. I would also add that if the Defendant's or either of them in the light of this judgment now continue to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be unlawful
  10. the judgement is quite specific in that the effect wil be on all future bailiff clamping activity not past... more details to follow..
  11. In the 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 Mr Culligan challenged the bailiffs fees & charges imposed by Mr Simkin and Marstons when levying distress and seeking to remove Mr Culigans car for non-payment of a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Camden. The Judgment goes a long way to clarify exactly what a Bailiff can charge for levying distress. Bailiffs have always sought to charge for fixing an immobilisation device by clamping a vehicle, and an attendance to remove. These charges in Anthony Culligan's case were £200 (£100 for the clamp and £100 for attendance to remove). The Bailiffs have argued that the Fee Regulations permit them to make a charge for levying distress (that is 28% on the first £200 demanded, and for removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods are removed, reasonable costs and charges). Bailiffs have claimed that the costs of putting on a clamp, etc. are costs to be included in attending to remove where no goods are removed, if payment is made before the vehicle concerned is removed. DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:- 1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods. 2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage. DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:- "Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so I cannot see that Form 7 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7". The District Judge went on to find that the application of the clamp falls within the act of levying distress and does not form part of the removal process, whatever the Bailiff's Contract with Camden says. The Bailiff also charged Anthony Culligan £100 for the " reasonable costs " of removing the vehicle (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at Anthony Culligan's home. Because the Bailiff produced no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived at he was unable to show that it was reasonable. The District Judge in his conclusion says: "I am also conscious that my findings in this case ... may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress. To do otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful... I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgment now continued to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be unlawful....". What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed. You should know however that Marstons obtained permission to appeal from the District Judge. His reasons for granting the permission were : "The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheelclamping before. My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking. Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard" Finally, Camden now as a matter of urgency, need to revise their Contract with Bailiffs such as Marston, to take account of the District Judge's Judgment generally, and in particular to remove the authority to charge a fee for an immobilisation device over and above that provided for in the Statutory Fee Regulations. London Motorists Action Group
  12. Audit commission windows now open but closing in @ 5 days background & generic objection After completion of a council’s annual statement of accounts it is made available for public scrutiny for one month before the District Auditor checks and approves them (or requires changes). Most or many council’s financial year ends 31st March with accounts published during July. Councils are required to publish in the local press these details in the month before. Any elector of the council’s area (or anyone acting on behalf of an elector) can provide in writing a Notice of Objection to the DA to any item of the council’s income or expenditure that appears contrary to law. Income from penalty charges will be contrary to law if the PCNs were issued at places where parking/traffic signage (notices and road markings) are illegal. If so proved to the DA with clear evidence he must disallow money taken by the council which has been shown to be unlawfully-derived income and therefore never in lawful ownership of the council. PCNs are issued for alleged contravention of those parking/traffic restrictions that are authorised for enforcement by a Traffic Order, all Traffic Orders (TROs or TMOs) are created by the powers provided by the Road Traffic Act 1984. The RTRA 1984 specifies that parking/traffic must be exactly as prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, or, exactly as specified by a Special Direction authorised via the DfT. If parking/traffic signs are not exactly in accordance with this requirement of the RTRA 1984 then the signage is automatically illegal so the TRO/TMO is not lawfully enforceable and penalty money taken by the council was/is income contrary to law. Income relating to illegal parking/traffic signage is unlawfully-derived income that is subject to being disallowed by the auditor whether a council knew that signage on the street was illegal or not (if they did know the taking of penalty money was/is criminal conduct subject among other things to the Fraud Act and requires investigation by the police and prosecution if proved. It is very unlikely that income from on-street or off-street penalty charges will be shown in the Statement of Accounts. It is usually or always in a subsidiary account which is collected together with other associated incomes and expenditure into a general item in the Statement of Accounts such as ‘Car Parking’. If the DA agrees that there is unlawfully-derived income in the accounts it will then be for the council to extract and summate those monies that are unlawfully derived and due to be disallowed. The procedure is to send a formal Notice of Objection to the DA with copy to the Finance Department of the council. The opportunity of an audience with the DA will then follow at the end of the public scrutiny period. be exactly as prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, or, exactly as specified by a Special Direction authorised via the DfT. If parking/traffic signs are not Procedure preliminaries. Before writing a Notice of Objection the following steps are recommended. 1. Find when the council’s accounts are open and subject to objection. The information may be available at Orchard News Bureau Ltd . If not, enquire from the council offices. The council website should show under committee meetings agenda, minutes etc of the Audit Committee (of the council) which should also show the Statement of Accounts if it is current. 2. Find the full contact details of the District Auditor assigned to the council. Either phone the Audit Commission on 020 7828 1212 3. If not already known when a Notice of Objection can/should be made – ask the office of the DA. Enquire from the DA’s office all you need to know about dates and procedure. 4. Details of electors’ rights and procedure for notifying an objection are set out in statute and regulation. Relevant extracts are available on this website (Information > Documents > Legal Documents). See documents 12. 5. Evidence is not required with the Notice of Objection but will be required at interview with the auditor or if otherwise requested by him/her. 6. When presenting evidence and arguing the case you will make reference to the RTRA 1984 and other legislation to prove the illegalities as set out in your Notice of Objection. A set of the necessary extracts of all these relevant legal documents is available on this website – documents 3, 4, 5, 6. and 7. These can be discussed with and given to the auditor as required. (Note that neither the RTRA 1984 nor the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 1 are published on the web; documents 3 and 6 provide the necessary extracts). Tip: For easy reference this post can be copied and pasted into a blank document for printing out as a reminder-check list. (probably the best way) or enquire from the council. & Generic Objection Letter Audit Commission Website Councils' accounts Your Rights: England
  13. which council issued the ticket & find out when which bailiff co (not the bailiffs name)((Tom T can check the bailiffs certification out)) check when TEC issued the warrant (only valid 1 year) sounds like you have every right to file a statutory declaration at TEC a £40 ticket would end up at £120 with a £5 court fee background to pt 4 complaints & links to the forms here London Motorists Action Group - Bailiff Certification Complaints Process do some research & get your ducks lined up before sending off the forms...
×
×
  • Create New...