Jump to content

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4522 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

hi all,

recieved a notice from jbw on fri 09/07/09, with notice for £400, from tfl, over traffic violation,come monday 13/07 foud vehicle clamped, £680 release fee, the offence dates back to jan 2008, when my partner was in hospital with brain heamorage, all other tickets around this date were cancelled, this was left o/s.....spoke to tfl, they said they spoke to us and could not confirm payment, no further correspondence, jbw say they sent letters 3 times prior, but we recieved nothing, have paid the money, as i have to use car for work daily, any way of getting some of this back?.....

2 children debts and car is buisness use, and would have lost my job if no car......:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Bailiffs chose not to pursue appeal of detailed assesment decision topics 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"


Link to post
Share on other sites

the vehicle is on finance, and is insured class1 buisness insurance, as i am a surveyor,finance in my name,car registered to my partner due to parking permit restrictions, court order for recovery of 180quid, the rest in bailiff charges, do i really have a hope?.....thanks for your help and info.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't worry you will soon get the hang of this site

anything you want to know you post on this thread and everyone can read it and help you

i don't usually deal with bailiffs collecting traffic penalty's but there are plenty people on here that do but i will help you to the best of my ability


you have every chance of getting your charges back it wont be easy but if you stick at it you will get them back


goggle this and have a read


The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993


before the bailiff clamped you car you should have had a walking possession agreement given to you by the bailiff or put through the letter box did you recive one

Link to post
Share on other sites

recieved a red letter on fri 10/07/09, outlining debt of £404.00, no info as to what it was, bar a ref no., and telling us that jbw had ben in contact previously and had made visits-none of which is true, contact details specified no. to call for info, or to write, seeing this did not think it was something that needed attention over the week-end, only to discover my car clamped at 8am mon 13/07/09, bailiff left details called him.....£680 please, contacted jbw, they said it was out of their hands, called bailliff, he said full payment, or i lift it, which will cost another £280 plus £25 a day storage, i explained that it was my work vehicle, and he told me because its in my partners name, its dual purpose and he will lift it if i dont pay within the hour......i got in touch with t.f.l who issued the ticket 18mths ago, in jan 2008, they said we had succesfully appealed and the ticket had been reduced to£60, but had no record of payment....then 18mths later, this happens......i have to say that the bailliff, after some conversation, left the vehicle clamped for 2 days without the initial threat of removal, which i hate to say, made me feel like he'd done us a favour.....so to end the tale of woe, ended up borrowing the money from mum in law, who cant afford it either, and my partner wont speak to me.....and wondering how we will get by.....same as always....by the skin of my teeth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

if this was council traffic violation get yourself along to the council ask who you complain to and make a complaint to the council it doesn't matter who's name on ticket or who's name the car is in it is on H P


letter on 10th clamp on 13th did the bailiff chap your door and ask for payment before he clamped the car

do you know the bailiffs name

if it was a police fine same get yourself along to the court and ask who you complain to

put your complaint in writing to what ever authority fine you if they uphold the bailiffs charges file a form 4 complaint against the bailiff

i don't usually help with bailiffs dealing with traffic don't know that much about it hopefully someone who does will come along and help you

but find out who you complain to and start the process of trying to get your money back

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the advice, will get onto it.....believe 14 day appeal window, is this correct, and do all parties, have to submit docs/evidence in this period........oh and while your here, i have an ongoing claim with halifax, for bank charges, some £1200 levied in a three month period, trying extreme financial hardship, but they just want more and more of the same info, and are continueing to charge me upto £100 month, just for being o/d by a tenner......that is what you call high street robbery, let alone banking......:!:

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...