N244 form filed, baliffs after me cost escalated

[tomtubby]

It doesn't state that at all it says Baliffs should liase with LAs if the address is wrong as the NTO may not have been served and the order invalid. In fact sect 10.73 says the goods can be seized at any address and the certified baliff can ammend the warrant to the new address.

On the point of a bailiff amending the warrant to reflect a new address, when the Operational Guidance was released, Lord Lucas raised a Parliamentary Question on this very point to ask on what legal basis can a certificated bailiff alter the address on the warrant.

 

Lord Bassam of Brighton responded as follows:

 

This sentence repeats the guidance given to local authorities in 1995 about decriminalised parking enforcement outside London. It does, however, appear that the sentence has no legal basis and this was not identified in the responses to the consultation on the draft operational guidance. We will amend the guidance and notify those who have already received it.

 

 

As you may know the Operational Guidance replaced the 1/95 Guidance on

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement outside London and is very much much a copy of the 1/95 Guidance.

 

In 1995, the TEC had only just been set up ( initially as the Parking Enforcement Centre) and its purpose was merely as an administration point to register the debt and to authorise a Warrant of Execution. An Out of Time Declaration and N244 Application was not even thought of.

 

Last year over 50,000 Out of Time Declarations were submitted to TEC.

 

A massive error was made by DfT when releasing this new Guidance. There is a section on informal appeals, formal representation and adjudication.....but the Guidance has LEFT OUT ........

 

ANY REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO OUT OF TIME DECLARATIONS/N244 OR THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES ROLE WHEN AN OUT OF TIME IS FILED !!!

 

I have brought this to the attention of DfT etc......

Edited January 1, 2010 by tomtubby

[lamma]

IMO it is known to be outwith the law but the authorities turn a blind eye when allowed to get away with it.

[tomtubby]

On the point of a bailiff amending the warrant to reflect a new address, when the Operational Guidance was released, Lord Lucas raised a Parliamentary Question on this very point to ask on what legal basis can a certificated bailiff alter the address on the warrant.

 

Lord Bassam of Brighton responded as follows:

 

This sentence repeats the guidance given to local authorities in 1995 about decriminalised parking enforcement outside London. It does, however, appear that the sentence has no legal basis and this was not identified in the responses to the consultation on the draft operational guidance. We will amend the guidance and notify those who have already received it.

 

As you may know the Operational Guidance replaced the 1/95 Guidance on

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement outside London and is very much much a copy of the 1/95 Guidance.

 

In 1995, the TEC had only just been set up ( initially as the Parking Enforcement Centre) and its purpose was merely as an administration point to register the debt and to authorise a Warrant of Execution. An Out of Time Declaration and N244 Application was not even thought of.

 

Last year over 50,000 Out of Time Declarations were submitted to TEC.

 

A massive error was made by DfT when releasing this new Guidance. There is a section on informal appeals, formal representation and adjudication.....but the Guidance has LEFT OUT ........

 

ANY REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO OUT OF TIME DECLARATIONS/N244 OR THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES ROLE WHEN AN OUT OF TIME IS FILED !!!

 

I have brought this to the attention of DfT etc......

 

 

 

If the vehicle owner had not received any statutory notices because they had been sent to a previous address ( and their Out of Time Application had been rejected) it is important when filing an N244 that reference is made to clause 10.70 of the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities on Parking Enforcement under the TMA 2004 which states as follows:

 

If the NtO and/or the Charge Certificate were never served the Warrant of Execution should not be served. An NtO (or Charge Certificate) should be served to the name or the address established by the bailiff.

 

.

[maya222t]

My n244 was recently sent back due to one documentation being outdated(dated Oct 2009). Therefore thanks for this, I can re-note this on my N244).

 

Alot of consideration has been put towards my post here on Consumeraction, where I am grateful of all replies.

 

Thank you

[YANO BEMUSE]

As I have made clear in these replies, a bailiff can only enforce a warrant of execution at the address on the warrant.

 

In the event that a motorist has moved home, it is commonplace for the bailiff to wait to see if the vehicle can be located by one of their in house ANPR vehicles.

 

Naturally the vehicle (if found) is then located at a place that is NOT the address on the warrant and as far as I am concerned, I do not believe that it is legal for a bailiff to enforce the PCN in these circumstances and further...that if payment is to be made to a bailiff after being stopped by an ANPR..he can only request that the motorist make a "voluntary payment".

 

I am sure that I am right...and would welcome comments...

 

 

 

As much as I respect tomtubby's opinion, I must disagree...

Although the warrants are issued by local authorities (with the authorisation of TEC), they are ‘in the nature of a writ of fieri facias’ and the bailiffs who enforce them do so ’as if they were bailiffs of the court’ (although there are a few differences). Importantly, the warrants are not like distress for rent warrants and so the goods that can be seized are not just those at or outside the premises (or deliberately removed from the premises to undermine enforcement).

This is all set out in The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993, especially in article 4.

It therefore follows that bailiffs can seize goods anywhere within the jurisdiction they are allowed to work – that is, anywhere within England & Wales.

I don’t know of any law that requires the warrant to be served, although a copy should be when goods are seized and a Form 7 (Notice of Seizure and Inventory of Goods) issued. For reasons I shall not go into here, use of the form is in fact governed by paragraph 7(2) of The Distress for Rent Rules 1988, which says that it must be delivered to the defaulter or left at the premises where distress is levied (that is, goods seized).

(The reason some bits of rent enforcement and some bits of county court enforcement apply to these debts is because, when the procedure was created in the early 1990s, it was a stop-gap measure because everyone expected that Lord Mackay's review of bailiffs would quickly lead to major reforms.)

[YANO BEMUSE]

On the point of a bailiff amending the warrant to reflect a new address, when the Operational Guidance was released, Lord Lucas raised a Parliamentary Question on this very point to ask on what legal basis can a certificated bailiff alter the address on the warrant.

 

Lord Bassam of Brighton responded as follows:

 

This sentence repeats the guidance given to local authorities in 1995 about decriminalised parking enforcement outside London. It does, however, appear that the sentence has no legal basis and this was not identified in the responses to the consultation on the draft operational guidance. We will amend the guidance and notify those who have already received it.

 

As you may know the Operational Guidance replaced the 1/95 Guidance on

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement outside London and is very much much a copy of the 1/95 Guidance.

 

In 1995, the TEC had only just been set up ( initially as the Parking Enforcement Centre) and its purpose was merely as an administration point to register the debt and to authorise a Warrant of Execution. An Out of Time Declaration and N244 Application was not even thought of.

 

Last year over 50,000 Out of Time Declarations were submitted to TEC.

 

A massive error was made by DfT when releasing this new Guidance. There is a section on informal appeals, formal representation and adjudication.....but the Guidance has LEFT OUT ........

 

ANY REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO OUT OF TIME DECLARATIONS/N244 OR THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES ROLE WHEN AN OUT OF TIME IS FILED !!!

 

I have brought this to the attention of DfT etc......

 

 

 

 

I think the fuss being made about changing the address on a warrant is a red herring. Lord Bassam's reply to Lord Lucas surprised me because bailiffs have always endorsed warrants with new addresses. Obviously bailiffs cannot change what is on the warrant, which is a legal document, but they can and should make notes.

 

The crucial point is that if the address is wrong, it raises the question of whether the correct address was used by the local authority when issuing the PCN and registering it at TEC. If it wasn’t, the warrant should be cancelled and the whole process starts over, with the local authority serving the relevant documents at the correct address.

 

If, however, the address on the warrant is simply out of date and all the documentation that led to its issue was served at the correct address, and the defaulter moved later, it shouldn’t matter and the bailiff should follow that procedure used by bailiffs in the past and the warrant endorsed (or noted) with the new address.

 

Bailiffs have always found new addresses for people: all that’s changed in recent years is that technology has made it ('address cleansing') much easier to do so and so they find far more than they would have ten or twenty years ago.

 

The result of all this is that local authorities should be proactive when their bailiffs discover new addresses. The local authorities should look to see if all the documentation they are required to serve on people was in fact served at the correct address and, if it wasn't, cancel both the TEC registration and warrant and then re-issue the PCN to the correct address.

[lamma]

As much as I respect tomtubby's opinion, I must disagree...

Although the warrants are issued by local authorities (with the authorisation of TEC), they are ‘in the nature of a writ of fieri facias’ and the bailiffs who enforce them do so ’as if they were bailiffs of the court’ (although there are a few differences). Importantly, the warrants are not like distress for rent warrants and so the goods that can be seized are not just those at or outside the premises (or deliberately removed from the premises to undermine enforcement).

This is all set out in The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993, especially in article 4.

It therefore follows that bailiffs can seize goods anywhere within the jurisdiction they are allowed to work – that is, anywhere within England & Wales.

I don’t know of any law that requires the warrant to be served, although a copy should be when goods are seized and a Form 7 (Notice of Seizure and Inventory of Goods) issued. For reasons I shall not go into here, use of the form is in fact governed by paragraph 7(2) of The Distress for Rent Rules 1988, which says that it must be delivered to the defaulter or left at the premises where distress is levied (that is, goods seized).

(The reason some bits of rent enforcement and some bits of county court enforcement apply to these debts is because, when the procedure was created in the early 1990s, it was a stop-gap measure because everyone expected that Lord Mackay's review of bailiffs would quickly lead to major reforms.)

 

In 'the nature of' a fi fie. but thats just a blind. In the regs you quote " (2) In this Order— "the authority" means the London authority to whom the debt is payable; "enforcement officer" means a bailiff certificated in accordance with the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993" Buts see The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993. "1. — (1) These Regulations may be cited as the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 and shall come into force on 1st September 1993. (2) In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, “the Act” means the Road Traffic Act 1991; “the Rules” means the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 " Distress For Rent Rules rule, unequivocally in my opinion.

[TwistedEdge]

I'm in a similar situation here, although I never changed address ... I simply never receieved 2 NTO's and knew nothing of the issue until a bailiff turned up on my doorstep. I have no idea why this was the case, but in my research I have discovered that the Local Authority were not registered as Data Controllers for the administration of parking services through the Information Comissioner's Office.

 

In nearly every case that we have seen, the District Judge at your N244 hearing will accept your application, in particular that you need to make it clear that you had moved home. Ensure as well that yo have updated your DVLA records. You will also need to ask the DJ to order that the local authority pay the costs of your application (£75).

Considering the above, are my chances of this still reasonably high even though I never moved and the address is the same?

 

One an N244 has been submitted, the bailiff company are "strictly prohibited" from enforcing the warrant and they should not therefore be pursuing you. You need to write to them to advise them that they are in breach of clause 8.1 of Part 75 of the CPR Rules.

I have sumbitted N244's and am awaiting a hearing date ... Does this mean I can stop hiding my van and it is currently safe? Edited January 30, 2010 by TwistedEdge

[YANO BEMUSE]

Your van should be safe because enforcement should be put on hold until your N244 application is decided (as Tomtubby rightly explains). Whether the bailiff company complies with this, and whether the local authority is bothered if it doesn't, is another matter entirely!

 

You have a problem because at the hearing you have to prove a negative: that you did not receive the Notices. Someone who can give a reason why that happened (for instance, they moved) is in a stronger position than you if you don't know what went wrong.

 

At risk of stating the obvious, are you aware of other post going astray? Have you checked for undelivered post at your local sorting office? Might there be a detail wrong in the address held by DVLA - perhaps a digit wrong in the postcode? Did some data cleansing go wrong to create an error in the address?

 

The issue of the local authority not being registered to handle data is something you should take up with it and, if you're lucky, the PCNs might be cancelled - and with them the registrations at TEC and the Warrants of Execution. I don't think, however, that it will help any at the N244 hearing, which is concerned only with why the registrations should be cancelled.

[Jamberson]

I don't think, however, that it will help any at the N244 hearing, which is concerned only with why the registrations should be cancelled.

 

This is pretty much true - but it's a case on "one step at a time". The N244 hearing is concerned with whether there is a valid reason why the stat dec is out of time.

 

However your case is weak in my opinion, if the address is correct. Put yourself in a judge's shoes: If the address is correct, you want him/her to accept that you were sent, but did not receive (and neither were these returned to sender):

 

NTO number 1

NTO number 2

Charge Certificae 1

Charge Certificate 2

Order for Recovery 1

Order for Recovery 2

 

- that's six successive documents vanished.

 

Please understand I am not saying you aren't telling the truth - but it's not a convincing story to put before someone. Nevertheless, I understand they are commonly successful.

 

If you win the N244, you're home and dry in the sense that you will be sent a new NTO and can take things from there, as if the clock has been put back.

 

Let us know of any further developments

[TwistedEdge]

At risk of stating the obvious, are you aware of other post going astray? Have you checked for undelivered post at your local sorting office? Might there be a detail wrong in the address held by DVLA - perhaps a digit wrong in the postcode? Did some data cleansing go wrong to create an error in the address?

It's quite common in this block for mail to not arrive, but that's been going on for years ... I think that's more a fault with the postal service ... this is a flat within a block and therefore it has two numbers i.e. Flat 2 Blahblah house, 16 Doodoo Street, London ... and mail has been known to go to alternatives of the correct address.

 

However there was also some extensive building work going on around here last year, which turned the building into a complete mess for around two months. This might also have contributed ... but I also never received the actual PCNs, so it wouldn't surprise me if there was more to it than this.

 

It's worrying as I don't know how to prove not receiving something, and it almost points the finger of blame in my direction.

 

The issue of the local authority not being registered to handle data is something you should take up with it and, if you're lucky, the PCNs might be cancelled - and with them the registrations at TEC and the Warrants of Execution. I don't think, however, that it will help any at the N244 hearing, which is concerned only with why the registrations should be cancelled.

They (Tower Hamlets) were not registered to process parking tickets and had no entry in the ICO data register. I even reported this to the TEC and the day my letter arrived, Tower Hamlets coincidentally corrected the entry in the register .... I have clear evidence of this through the freedom of information act.

 

The markings are also non-compliant (two transverse lines at the end of a complete row). I have a letter prepared to send off to the Local Authority; I'm just hoping that this is enough to get it cancelled before the court date ... but considering the amount of time since the alleged offence I'm not holding out any hope.

 

As you can tell, I've been busy

[TwistedEdge]

- that's six successive documents vanished.

 

Please understand I am not saying you aren't telling the truth - but it's not a convincing story to put before someone. Nevertheless, I understand they are commonly successful.

Yeah I know .. and while true I can see it being difficult to explain as I can't explain it myself and can't think of any other way to work it out apart from incompetence from the local authority or someone having it in for me.

 

I can use the Data Protection Act information and lack of marking compliance as evidence of general incompetence.

 

If you win the N244, you're home and dry in the sense that you will be sent a new NTO and can take things from there, as if the clock has been put back.

Out of interest, do you know what happens if they don't accept my appeal?

Edited January 31, 2010 by TwistedEdge

[Jamberson]

Out of interest, do you know what happens if they don't accept my appeal?

 

If the N244 is rejected, the debt as it currently is will stand, and will be payable to the bailiffs as now. The local authority will extend the hold on the case for a period (14 days I think) and then the bailiff will resume (and whatever they do, they will lump on more charges!).

 

This is the last line of appeal open to you. If they do reject it, you have no further route to resolve it other than paying. But as I say, they seem to be accepted in the majority of cases, so you have a reasonable chance.

 

Don't forget you can claim costs with an N244 (if you win) and can get the fee for filing it returned to you.

[YANO BEMUSE]

The local authority will extend the hold on the case for a period (14 days I think)...

 

They might put it on hold but they may well not. If you lose at the N244 hearing, it may be best for you to pay at the very earliest opportunity because even just one more visit by a bailiff will add to the amount you owe. (The bailiff may insist on visiting to collect payment, which you should resist because any visit will incur a fee.)

[tomtubby]

It's quite common in this block for mail to not arrive, but that's been going on for years ... I think that's more a fault with the postal service ... this is a flat within a block and therefore it has two numbers i.e. Flat 2 Blahblah house, 16 Doodoo Street, London ... and mail has been known to go to alternatives of the correct address.

 

However there was also some extensive building work going on around here last year, which turned the building into a complete mess for around two months. This might also have contributed ... but I also never received the actual PCNs, so it wouldn't surprise me if there was more to it than this.

 

It's worrying as I don't know how to prove not receiving something, and it almost points the finger of blame in my direction.

 

They (Tower Hamlets) were not registered to process parking tickets and had no entry in the ICO data register. I even reported this to the TEC and the day my letter arrived, Tower Hamlets coincidentally corrected the entry in the register .... I have clear evidence of this through the freedom of information act.

 

The markings are also non-compliant (two transverse lines at the end of a complete row). I have a letter prepared to send off to the Local Authority; I'm just hoping that this is enough to get it cancelled before the court date ... but considering the amount of time since the alleged offence I'm not holding out any hope.

 

As you can tell, I've been busy

 

I have also noticed that Tower Hamlets are NOW registered with the ICO !!

 

You need to telephone TEC in the morning and ask them to confirm to you the actual address on the Warrant just to establish whether the address is correct or not. It is certainly worth the phone call.

 

Clause 8.1 of Part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules specifically states that all enforcement must cease when an N244 application has been made.

[TwistedEdge]

Yes I wrote to the TEC telling them about Tower Hamlets failure to register. They received that letter on 4th Jan. Tower Hamlets corrected their entry on 4th Jan (I have this confirmed by the ICO) ... strange coincidence I think not and probably the best case I've got in my favour

 

The only fear I have with bailiffs is them removing my van again. The van is going to be sold soon anyway, so that would mean them entering my property to levy goods, which I don't think they can do unless they don't break in ... so, as long as the courts don't impose any fines on me as a result of a failed appeal the bailiffs will be a relatively minor worry.

 

I'll give the TEC a call in the morning.

[TwistedEdge]

Oh, and apologies for hijacking someone else's thread. It seemed the best place to start, but if a mod wants to split me off then I have no objections.

[tomtubby]

Yes I wrote to the TEC telling them about Tower Hamlets failure to register. They received that letter on 4th Jan. Tower Hamlets corrected their entry on 4th Jan (I have this confirmed by the ICO) ... strange coincidence I think not and probably the best case I've got in my favour

 

The only fear I have with bailiffs is them removing my van again. The van is going to be sold soon anyway, so that would mean them entering my property to levy goods, which I don't think they can do unless they don't break in ... so, as long as the courts don't impose any fines on me as a result of a failed appeal the bailiffs will be a relatively minor worry.

 

I'll give the TEC a call in the morning.

 

25% of London authorities have now correctly registered with the Information Commissioners Office as Data Controllers ( which they should have been doing since the time when they opted for decriminalised parking !!!

 

Please post back when you have spoken with TEC.

[Freedomboy]

Tomtubby, you may recognise my name from having an interest in this particular subject a couple of weeks ago on another thread. I believe that LA's had no idea that the passing on of drivers details to 3rd party bailiffs was an offence against their own Data Protection Policy.

Am I right?

[TwistedEdge]

You need to telephone TEC in the morning and ask them to confirm to you the actual address on the Warrant just to establish whether the address is correct or not. It is certainly worth the phone call.

Please post back when you have spoken with TEC.

Phoned the TEC, and they informed me that the warrant was issued on the 17th August 2009 but they couldn't tell me the address.

 

I phoned Tower Hamlets Parking and they told me the paperwork was submitted to bailiffs on 6th September 2009.

 

The bailiffs visited on 3rd December 2009 claiming they had made numerous attempts to contact me

 

According to Parking Services, my name and address were correct.

Edited February 1, 2010 by TwistedEdge

[Fair-Parking]

Freedomboy. Yes it is an offence for an LA not to register with the Information Commissioner's Office under section 17 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 for purposes they to need process data under. Further it is more than ironic that LA's claiming various rights and exemptions under the Data Protection Act 1998 (exemptions that don't exist except in their minds) are not even registered with the ICO to claim any protection under that Act.

 

Twisted Edge - I sent an email to Tower Hamlets chief executive's office on December 15 2009 advising them that TH was acting illegally by not registering with the ICO. They broke for Christmas Holidays on 18 December, returning on January 4 2010, the very day TH applied to register. Like you I have received confirmation from the ICO that TH has been offically registered since 12 January 2010 for the purpose of administering and enforciing decriminalised parking.

 

It is difficult to read this in any way other way than this is an acceptance that all previous registrations with the ICO were insufficient to administer and enforce parking and thus it follows that ALL PCNs issued by TH previous to 4 January 2010 are illegal.

 

Thus I would make that point to both the TEC and the parking services manager of Tower Hamlets and if they try to sidestep the issue, ask them for an explanation (written would be best) as why they feel that they can justify the issue of PCNs before registering for the administration and enforcement for that purpose and if they try - why, having now taken the decision to register for those purposes they now feel the need for them if the previous registration was deemed to be sufficient?

 

Where does now leave the 27 London Boroughs and TfL plus many of the main provincial LAs who still remain unregistered for the administration and enforcement of parking?

Edited February 1, 2010 by Fair-Parking

[TwistedEdge]

Fair-Parking .... I recognise your user name from your similar email address, I think it's your advice I've been following on this issue anyway.

 

Letter sent of to Tower Hamlets today by recorded delivery - asking them to explain their illegal actions and to cancel the tickets before the hearing - in the meantime I'm still keeping my mind open to all other suggestions ... so, fingers crossed.

[tomtubby]

Twisted Edge.

 

I have just noticed something with your address that is niggling me !!

 

Can you contact the local authority and ask them to provide you with a "true copy" of the "original" notices that had been sent to you !!

 

Please post back with any response.

[TwistedEdge]

Well, I wrote a 10 page letter to Tower Hamlets.

• I explained their Data Protection Act contravention.
  
• I explained their markings contravention.
  
• I requested a copy of the Warrant of Execution.
  

Today I received me the following for each of the two tickets:

 

We are in receipt of your latest letter in appeal of the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

 

We are unable to respond to your late representation as you have failed to make full payment or file a statutory declaration within 21 days of receipt of the Notice of Registration sent to you. As a result a Warrant of Execution in Pursuance of the outstanding charge has been applied for at the County Court. You must, therefore wait for correspondence from our registered bailiffs for further advice on this matter.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Which makes it look like they didn't even read my letter

Edited February 5, 2010 by TwistedEdge

[lamma]

"You must, therefore wait for correspondence from our registered bailiffs for further advice on this matter." Yeah right ! Tomtubby will love this.