I feel I should share my experiance

[coleys0]

Today we have had such an ordeal with a Bailiff and his company I thought we were under Nazi regime, we felt so helpless and dominated and I feel it my duty to warn you about this company, so here goes.

 

My wife was given a Parking ticket on the 28th December 2008 and we did not pay it, we didn’t pay it because we were in no state to even think about money during the following months as my Wife had a miscarriage with twins and it was an extremely traumatic time for us both. Consequently things got out of hand and we received a letter from Phoenix Commercial Collection stating that they had gained a warrant of execution to gain the outstanding balance of £125.38. My wife promptly phoned them on the 16th June 09 and spoke to a gentleman who said that we could pay the debt off on the 26th June 2009 when my wife was paid, unfortunately to our cost she did not get his name.

On the 25th June around 6am in the morning a Bailiff Mr. Walker attended our property and fitted a clamp on our car, he never knocked and just left a sign on the windscreen stating not to remove the car and to contact him immediately. My wife phoned him 25th June 8.30am and she explained that she had contacted Phoenix Commercial Collection offices and had arranged a payment date; he denied any knowledge and said the car would be towed away if the full balance was not paid by the end of the day. My wife then phoned 25th June 9am Phoenix Commercial Collection offices and tried to explain the events of the morning and what had been said by Mr. Walker, she explained about the miscarriage and how she had made arrangements to pay the debt over the phone using her card on the 26th June 2009. The woman she spoke to was so arrogant, rude and unprofessional to the point of sounding like a gangster. The woman said to my wife that she was wasting her time and that nobody in that department would make such an arrangement she then put the phone down.

My wife then phoned back 25th June 9.15am and spoke to a man who said “stop pleading with me there is nothing I can do “my wife then asked him to check his records for her phone call on the 16th June 2009 he replied “there is no point it’s out of my hands phone the bailiff” my wife then asked do they record telephone conversation so that they could check, he replied that they didn’t, again he was totally arrogant and completely unprepared to even listen.

My wife by this time was a complete mess and had to make an appointment at the doctors for her nerves as she has still not fully recovered from the miscarriage, so we have no choice but to pay the £555.48p they are demanding £125.38 outstanding fine charges and £430.10p Bailiff Charges, Mr. Walker claims to have visited our house twice before which is a lie, from the first letter being delivered 8th June to him clamping our car 25th June is a total of seventeen days and reading through some legal documentation I believe you have two weeks from the first letter to make arrangements to pay the debt off which we did. I am unemployed at the moment and I am at home 95% of the time and we have never had a letter through the door to say that anyone has been, when Mr. Walker was confronted about the charges he then back tracked and said it was for the clamp charges.

How can they justify the charges, I have even had to ask for a break down and documentation of these charges when he comes tomorrow, this is extortion at it’s highest form all be it legal and is being abused by this company with ridiculous charges and the most foul people for staff I have come across. I have come to the conclusion that this company saw an opportunity to make money on other peoples misery before the date was up for us to make the payment of £125.38 on the 26th June as we originally agreed.

I am so angered by this mostly about the way they treated my wife, maybe if she was a Member of Parliment she could have claimed on her expenses, if anyone else has had trouble with this company I encourage you to report them to Fair Trading as they so proudly display their certificate but don't live up to it's policies.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

The bailiff appears to be charging you a fee to fix and remove a wheelclamp to your car and he commits an offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

The law prescribing bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid parking tickets is Schedule 1 et-al of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs)(Amended 2003) Regulations 1993. If you have been overcharged then you have a right to reclaim them. Broadly speaking the law provides:

 

Letter Fee £11.20. If letter arrives after first visit is made then £0.00

Levying Distress up to £100 (excluding bailiffs fees but including court fees) - £28

More than £100 - 28% for the first £200 then 5.5% on everything over £200.

If no levy is made then bailiffs can charge fees for a maximum of three visits.

Multiple fees cannot be charged for simultaenous unpaid ticket collections.

 

The law does not provide for a bailiff to charge a fee to fix or remove a wheelclamp to a car or sending a tow truck to an address. The law provides reasonable costs for attending an address with a view to transporting goods in a van, if no goods are transported in the van then the van fee is £0.00 - the bailiff already has access to the van and there is no costs incurred.

 

Phone the bailiff on his mobile and tell him you are filing a Form 4 complaint against him for defrauding you with his fees. Ask him for the name of the court that issued his bailiffs certificate and quickly end the call. If the bailiff refuses to disclose it then phone the Ministry of Justice Public Register of Bailiffs on 020 3334 6355 and ask which court issued his certificate. Download the complaint form to make an official complaint against the bailiff http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/form4_0606.pdf and send the form to the certificating court enclosing supporting evidence such as the bailiffs document showing the bailiffs fees he is trying to charge and any amounts paid.

 

You can send this letter to the bailiff firm: It usually solves the fee irregularities out fairly quickly.

 

TThe Omnipotent Bailiff Co, Plc

Their Address 1

Their Address 2

Their Address 3

Postcode

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: [YOUR NAME + REF]: Fee irregularities. Opportunity to compensate

 

I write following visits by your bailiff however there appears to be irregularities with your fees. I ask you to provide the following within fourteen (14) days:

 

1) The name of the certificating court and certificate number for the bailiff in charge

 

2) Written confirmation of a) your fees, and b) the original debt

 

3) Truthfully confirm in writing your fees are lawful and comply with legislation

 

4) The name and address of the person or body you act for

 

 

If an irregularity with your fees is later discovered within the statutory time limit of 6 years as prescribed under Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980, I will enter no further correspondence with you and automatically file a Form 4 at court for dishonestly defrauding me with your fees. This may also involve a criminal investigation by police and your bailiff and firm's director(s) may receive a criminal record for assisting an offender, benefiting from proceeds of crime and committing offences under the Fraud Act 2006.

 

This document is delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It is your responsibility and in your best interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

YOUR NAME

 

[coleys0]

Thank you so much Happy Contrails, you have given us some glimmer of hope and ammunitation to gaining some justice against these Council Backed criminals who hide behind a title to extort money from people.

 

Browsing the internet today whilst trying to find advice has opened my eyes to the many people who have fallen victim of this [problem] not just from the mentioned company but from many different bailiff agencies.

[hallowitch]

found this hope it helps

 

 

 

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.

__________________

[Guest Happy Contrails]

I remember Anthony Cullinghan very well. He tirelessly built his case over the years to some of the most intricate detail ever seen by a Litigant in Person. It was a landmark case in challenging a bailiffs entitlement to charge a fee that is not prescribed by legislation. He contributes to www.logiclaw.co.uk for those legislation geeks among you, and a regular at London Motorists Action Group.

[JrnyFan4Life]

You can send this letter to the bailiff firm: It usually solves the fee irregularities out fairly quickly.

 

TThe Omnipotent Bailiff Co, Plc

Their Address 1

Their Address 2

Their Address 3

Postcode

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: [YOUR NAME + REF]: Fee irregularities. Opportunity to compensate

 

I write following visits by your bailiff however there appears to be irregularities with your fees. I ask you to provide the following within fourteen (14) days:

 

1) The name of the certificating court and certificate number for the bailiff in charge

 

2) Written confirmation of a) your fees, and b) the original debt

 

3) Truthfully confirm in writing your fees are lawful and comply with legislation

 

4) The name and address of the person or body you act for

 

 

If an irregularity with your fees is later discovered within the statutory time limit of 6 years as prescribed under Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980, I will enter no further correspondence with you and automatically file a Form 4 at court for dishonestly defrauding me with your fees. This may also involve a criminal investigation by police and your bailiff and firm's director(s) may receive a criminal record for assisting an offender, benefiting from proceeds of crime and committing offences under the Fraud Act 2006.

 

This document is delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It is your responsibility and in your best interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

YOUR NAME

 

Could I use this letter to send to Philips?

[hallowitch]

yes its for any bailiffs company

[coleys0]

Well they came this morning and suddenly changed the Bailiff charges to £425 including card payment from £555.48, this is still extortionate

 

 

When they knocked on the door I asked for list of charges, he would not provide one, I then informed him that I was filing a form 4 against him and got my son to take pictures of the bailiff, van, wheel clamp on my car and the second bailiff who turned up with the key to the wheel clamp. I also informed him that I was filing a complaint with the police for Fraud, this did not seem to phase him, however it did the second bailiff who had the key to the clamp.

 

We documented everything pictures, sound and witnesses and we intend to pursue this to the very end, after seemingly being proffesional they turned a little unproffesional whilst we were taking photos of both their vehicles registrations by waving at the camera and one baillif tried to hide his face.

 

One of the bailiffs suddenly decided that he didn't like what we were doing and shouted as they were leaving that they should have towed the car away as they would have made loads of money on that, those are his exact words.

Edited June 26, 2009 by coleys0

[Guest Happy Contrails]

The law does not provide for a bailiff to charge a fee to fix or remove a wheelclamp to a car or sending a tow truck to an address. The law provides reasonable costs for attending an address with a view to transporting goods in a van, if no goods are transported in the van then the van fee is £0.00 In the case of Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants) before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008 - the court ruled that because the Bailiff produced no breakdown of his charges then he is unable to show that it is reasonable costs. Therefore, van fees, tow truck fees and attending to remove fees = £0.00. More

[tomtubby]

Anthony Culligans case made it clear that a bailiff CANNOT charge a clamp fee. We have a copy of the entire Judgment which is stunning.

 

Without a doubt the fees being charged are wrong.

 

I have never been in favour of naming a bailiff on a public forum but as you have named this bailiff I can respond to say that our company have a database of all certificated bailiffs and we do not appear to have a Mr Walker working for Phoenix Commercial. Before posting this reply I have made an enquiry with the Ministry of Justice and they have confirmed that their records are also showing that Mr Walker does not appear to be certifcated as working for Phoenix ( although there are two female bailiffs with the surname of Walker working for that company).

 

Sadly, it is the case that County Courts make errors so before jumping to any consulsion I would urge you to ask the bailiff for details of the court where he was certificated and the date that the certificate was granted. If he confirms that he is certificated, I would suggest asking him to confirm which company name is on his certificate. If the bailiff fails to answer his telephone, I would suggest sending him a text.

 

Please post back once you have more info.

 

PS: A bailiff enforcing and unpaid parking ticket whilst uncertificated is commiting an act of trespass and any action would be against the local authority as well.

 

PPS: Can you also ask Phoenix Commercial to confirm the date of the Warrant of Execution.

[hallowitch]

question if a bailiff is certificated, and works for company A cant he just move to company B with the same certificate

[coleys0]

I asked to see his idenity and for his certificate number but he said they don't provide certificate numbers anymore they just put the name on id badge which he showed me and it did only contain his name. This whole saga has smelt wrong from start to finish.

 

I can't stress enough how gratefull my family are that you are taking the time to provide us with this information.

Edited June 26, 2009 by coleys0

[coleys0]

On another note, I did take the phone number where he said he got the id badge from and I have just phoned it and the number has not been recognised. I have also phoned manchester county court who have no record of him being a bailiff neither

Edited June 26, 2009 by coleys0

[tomtubby]

question if a bailiff is certificated, and works for company A cant he just move to company B with the same certificate

 

No he can't.

 

All bailiffs are certificated under the Distress for Rent Act 1988 and this Act of Parliament was amended to provide a Clause 12 which stipulates that the bailiff MUST WITHOUT DELAY advise the court of ANY CHANGE to his certificate. This would mean a change to his name, address or employer.

 

The Court will then issue a NEW certificate to reflect the CHANGES.

 

What is VITALLY important however is that when the bailiff leaves his previous employer, his bailiff bond ( which is a form of insurance to the value of £10,000) is CANCELLED.

[hallowitch]

thanks for reply tomtubby very much appreciated

[casbah]

So why would a bailiff go to another court to re-new his certifiate or can they have multiples, to cover more areas?

 

Cas