Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


UR4S

TASK Bailiff just paid. Is there anything I can do?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3999 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi all. I had a bailiff at my doorstep this morning after he clamped my vehicle. I paid him £420 as I needed to use the van there and then. The question is the warrant was against a camera ticket which I was trying to appeal to TfL but was having problems with communication. Last letter sent to them was on 13.07.2009. Obviously the bailiff didn't want to hear anything (how surprisingly).

Now I've got the payment recipt, debit card slip, Notice of seizure and copy of warrant of execution. What is the best way to get my money back?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact tomtubby on this site, they are the bailiff expert and should be able to help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is the van linked to your work?

if so totally illegal for them to clamp it.

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is, however due to parking restriction it's registered to my girlfriend. I appear on the insurance, but it's social use only. Thanks for your replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if its registerd to your girl friend then it must surely belong to her so they could not use that for your debt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's her vehicle and I'm the driver, thats how it is. However Transport for London doesn't care who drives the vehicle, they charge the owner so the bailiff came to see her. That's not really the point now, the point is money has been paid and need to be recovered.

 

I'm planing to fill Statutory out of time on the ticket and this should work as the alleged offense was on 11/11/2008 and I received 1st letter about it on 02/09. They keep on delaying. I just don't know how to cope with the bailiff company. Should I start with form 4 straight away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should contact TOMTUBBY she will help you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please list out the breakdown of fees and charges so we can see how this £420 has been calculated


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it's her vehicle and I'm the driver, thats how it is. However Transport for London doesn't care who drives the vehicle, they charge the owner so the bailiff came to see her. That's not really the point now, the point is money has been paid and need to be recovered.

 

I'm planing to fill Statutory out of time on the ticket and this should work as the alleged offense was on 11/11/2008 and I received 1st letter about it on 02/09. They keep on delaying. I just don't know how to cope with the bailiff company. Should I start with form 4 straight away?

 

On what basis are you filing the Out of Time late Statutory Declaration?

 

You have said that you were trying to appeal tis PCN with TfL but an y appeal should have been done at the Notice to Owner stage. Did your partner receive the documentation??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I understand SoD is there is the autority didn't keep the popper procedure. In this case they sent me Order for recovery 3 months after the contravention and this was the first when I learned about it. After that I asked them to see proof of the above but was sent a letter instead stating that I can pay £** within two weeks from (insert date here). I sent another letter with no luck untill 20.05 when I got a letter from Task asking me to pay £72. I then sent two further letters to TfL the last one a week ago but no answer again. I think this should be enough to fill SoD?

As for the breakdown:

Debt/penalty charge notice £60

Letter £14.70

Visit fee £28

Attendance to remove goods £120

Levy fee £100

Immobilisation fee £50

Vat on enforcement costs £46.38

Total £419.08

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the original notice I got from the bailiff.

task.jpg

Edited by UR4S
No idea how to make it readable:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone? Am I wrong or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

have a google

cant read attachment to small

if the car is on finance then they cant put a levy on it

 

have a read of this

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"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. This is brilliant. Should I fill form 4 straight away then or wait for the answer from Northampton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes send a copy of the form 4 complaint to the bailiffs company give them 14 to return any unlawful fees if the do not return fees or acknowledge your letter then sent form 4 to the court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when you send a form 4 the court ask the bailiff for a reply to the form 4 if the judge is not happy with the bailiffs reply or there is no reply he then asks the bailiff to appear in person you may have to go to court so if your not prepared to go to court then don't send the form 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the Statutory thingy? Should I do it first, at the same time or otherwise? I haven't sent it yet, just want to get my ducks lined up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about the Statutory thing? Should I do it first, at the same time or otherwise? I haven't sent it yet, just want to get my ducks lined up.

 

sorry i cant help you with the statutory thing but if i was you i would say yes get it sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...