Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm on a Covid run all this week, for some reason I thought it would be quite easy, starts in St Andrews then Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Cumbernauld then Glasgow over 200 miles. I drop of empty Test boxes and collect the ones that are ready to go to the Labs for results.   Every Testing Station today said they had not been very busy over the weekend, it was quite nice weather over the weekend which is more than likely the reason for the lack of numbers.
    • Credit file: One account(showing balance of £0 due) for main line showing missed payments from December 2020 (when the contract itself was terminated in August 2020). One account(showing loan of £204 due) for second line showing as being in default since November 2020. As a result of these my credit score has gone down-this is due directly to these two accounts which showed on my credit report as a 'negative factor'   Credit disadvantage: When my Virgin contract ended, I attempted to take up a new contract with another company. I was prevented from doing so at Vodafone as they required a deposit of £150, plus I would not be entitled to the free handset, but would have had to pay £179 for it and the monthly payments would be increasd. I was able to take out a handset at Three, but again instead of being entitled to it free, I had to pay £189 for it.   I will check carefully to estimate the amount of time involved-I have queries going back to October 2019 attempting to deal with this.   I have also received from Virgin another letter giving me the password to unlock the files they sent me(shame it doesn't actually work) and a second email again confirming they will erase my data unless they have to keep it.   I'm wondering if they're planning to use that email as their response for the ICO where he gave them until March 11 to either tell me what they are going to do to put things right or explain why they believe they have met their data protection obligations'?      
    • “We want to get Amigo back to life again” – CEO’s statement as lender posts £87m loss View the full article
    • My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!   Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020   VCS v Ward  1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.  Semark-Jullien Case  2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.  3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield  a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html  ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  
    • I'm ready to reject Hermes offer and issue the letter before claim. I've registered on the MCOL website and filled in my claim with the below particulars.   Should I tick the box to send the particulars directly to the defendant?   Should I also tick the box for the right to claim interest. If so do what date would I put for when the money became owed,  what is daily rate of interest up to the date of judgment?    Thanks again      
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4021 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

I don't think you are getting ahead of yourself I think you can make 2+2=4

Bailiff already close by..drives around ...tracker confirms

To cold to get out of car and deliver,knock,call etc..what the hell I can show I have been and thats what counts..

 

I think if they want to rely on it they'd need to show more than a gps signal at a certain time/date.

 

However unfair it may seem the judgement lottery is based on probability, I was looking for a speedy and cost effective resolution for the OP without resorting to further time encumbrance chasing the bailiff for data they probably won't disclose.

 

Thanks

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I assume as this is a company car it has business insurance

 

bailiffs cant levy or remove a work tool in this case the car

 

 

Thankyou, I was very curious about this too and was wondering if it would come up. Not knowing anything about pcns per se have been loitering in the background...

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thankyou, I was very curious about this too and was wondering if it would come up. Not knowing anything about pcns per se have been loitering in the background...

Rae.

Expertly making the refreshments as usual:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that 7 years ago, on a £195 warrant, on a 1st visit the bailiff was looking for around £350, 2nd was around £570 and 3rd was around £800.

 

 

Surely these charges are outright extortion :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely these charges are outright extortion :eek:

 

I'd say so too (my opinion anyway), HCE has worked the other side of the fence 'so to speak' in a previous life so its good to get this info out into the open forum of what Bailiffs deem to be reasonable fees levied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Expertly making the refreshments as usual:)

 

The usual WD? Heavy on the pickle...

 

I'm curious to know if the 'need it for work' rules apply. Is there an exemption for a business being the focus? Are the rules and regulations different?

 

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ENFORCEMENT AGENTS may 2002

List B

 

I'm sure this includes parking tickets

 

 

Such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary for use personally by the tenant in their employment, business or vocation and such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions are as necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the debtor and his family

 

Hallowitch, you are wrong I'm afraid...

 

Firstly, Limited Companies are NOT protected by 'Tools of the Trade'. I'm not sure if in this case it is a 'Limited' Company though.

 

Secondly, the vehicle has to be for the sole use of the debtor personally. As the debtor has already admitted that several people drive the car this wouldnt apply.

Edited by High Court Enforcer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, the vehicle has to be for the sole use of the debtor personally. As the debtor has already admitted that several people drive the car this wouldnt apply

 

HE said that the other people who drive it are employees of the company

therefore the car is used for employees to do there job

Link to post
Share on other sites

My interpretation is that a vehicle has to be essential i.e. a driving instructors/ ice cream vanpick up truck all of which are specificly modified, or if someone lives in a rural area and they have no means to public transport.

 

Also HCE is correct in saying the car has to be solely for the use of the debtor.

 

The fees in this case do look about right, in comparrison to what most companies charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also HCE is correct in saying the car has to be solely for the use of the debtor

 

I disagree with that the car is a company car it doesn't belonged to the debtor it belongs to the company and is used by his staff

Link to post
Share on other sites
irrespective of who the debtor is it is a work tool therefore it should not have been removed in the first place

 

All this is irrelevant:

 

If the debtor is the company and the company is 'Limited', which most are, then no protection under tools of the trade is afforded. The car could be taken.

 

If the debtor is the individual, as he admits it is not for his sole use and therefore no protection under tools of the trade is afforded. The car could be taken.

 

Hallowitch, you can disagree as much as you like but the above are the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi kbd

 

I wouldnt get too far ahead of yourself with this.

 

Fees levied aside..........

 

I think the best course of action would be as follows:

 

1. Get the driver to put his/her hands up

 

2. Check their contract of employment (another bod on here should be able to help in the employment section) to see if monies recoverable. Seems very unfair I know but hey they've benefitted from what looks to be a pool car and dumped this mess on your desk.

 

3. Contact Bailiff co requesting breakdown of all charges and evidence/data held for any services effected in recovery.

 

If 1 & 2 are possible and leave you with no out of pocket expenses it saves the headache of 3

 

If you have been able to resolve with 1 & 2 leave it to the employee to deal with 3.

 

Gez

 

Thx Gez. Unfortunately, the culprit left the company before i returned. He was temp staff, so not sure if i can chase him up on it, or if its worth the hassle. That leave me option 3 to do myself.

 

Can anyone confirm the issue with the vehicle being used/necessary for business? And who deems it "necessary"? The courts, bailiffs, or you?

If my work involves lots of commuting, with equipment/stock to carry, doesn't the car then become "necessary"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
All this is irrelevant:

 

If the debtor is the company and the company is 'Limited', which most are, then no protection under tools of the trade is afforded. The car could be taken.

 

If the debtor is the individual, as he admits it is not for his sole use and therefore no protection under tools of the trade is afforded. The car could be taken.

 

Hallowitch, you can disagree as much as you like but the above are the facts.

 

well put, what would stop the company hiring a car to continue working?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thx Gez. Unfortunately, the culprit left the company before i returned. He was temp staff, so not sure if i can chase him up on it, or if its worth the hassle. That leave me option 3 to do myself.

 

Can anyone confirm the issue with the vehicle being used/necessary for business? And who deems it "necessary"? The courts, bailiffs, or you?

If my work involves lots of commuting, with equipment/stock to carry, doesn't the car then become "necessary"?

 

Please see my post above.

 

With regards to your ex-employee, if you can prove he was aware of the PCN and it the result of his failiure to disclose this information (he may of hid post that come in about it?) that you have incured these costs then you could proceed againt him with a claim (form N1).

 

Unfortunatley, with regards to what has happened so far, it all looks like it has been carried out correctly. Others will disagree, but that's my honest opinion.

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the car is a company car, it is used for the company so this means it is a tool of the trade, yes? then surely they cannot take it as the company cannot function without this specific 'tool of the trade'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the car is a company car, it is used for the company so this means it is a tool of the trade, yes? then surely they cannot take it as the company cannot function without this specific 'tool of the trade'.

 

the car is shared, so is not exempt,

the car is not modified i.e an ice cream van, recovery vehicle ect , so is not essential

 

OP company could hire a car, public transport

Link to post
Share on other sites
the car is shared, so is not exempt,

the car is not modified i.e an ice cream van, recovery vehicle ect , so is not essential

 

OP company could hire a car, public transport

and where does it state this ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

the car is shared, so is not exempt

 

I have to agree with this to a certain extent I'm sure i read this somewhere

however i would have thought that if it is shared by employees in the course of there employment this would make a difference

Link to post
Share on other sites
and where does it state this ??

 

It doesn't and comes down to interpretation.

 

Over the years I have been challenged regarding vehicles and the claims of tools of the trade. On every occasion the judge has sided with me.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

1) A van used by a builder. The judge stated that the builders tools were his tools of the trade and not the vehicle used to transport them.

 

2) A car used by a salesman. The judge stated that the salesman could use public transport to see his customers.

 

3) A minicab. The car was also used by the defendants wife to pick the kids up and go shopping and she was on the insurance. The judge stated that as it was not for the sole personal use of the defendant it did not fall under section 138 3a.

 

4) A courier van. As the van was not taxed, it was not deemed roadworthy and the judge stated it could not be a tool of the trade for this reason.

 

Hope this gives some guidance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't and comes down to interpretation.

 

Over the years I have been challenged regarding vehicles and the claims of tools of the trade. On every occasion the judge has sided with me.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

1) A van used by a builder. The judge stated that the builders tools were his tools of the trade and not the vehicle used to transport them.

 

2) A car used by a salesman. The judge stated that the salesman could use public transport to see his customers.

 

3) A minicab. The car was also used by the defendants wife to pick the kids up and go shopping and she was on the insurance. The judge stated that as it was not for the sole personal use of the defendant it did not fall under section 138 3a.

 

4) A courier van. As the van was not taxed, it was not deemed roadworthy and the judge stated it could not be a tool of the trade for this reason.

 

Hope this gives some guidance.

 

Im presuming that this is what you are referring too;

 

Section 138(3A) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides as follows—" (3A) Every sheriff or officer executing any writ of execution issued from the High Court against the goods of any person may by virtue of it seize—

  • (a) any of that person’s goods except—
    • (i) such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to that person for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation;

     

    • (ii) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of that person and his family; and

     

(b) any money, banknotes, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties or securities for money belonging to that person." .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is helpful to the OP.

 

 

    Goods seized in execution

 

    6. After Order 17, rule 2 there shall be inserted the following new rule—


        "Claim in respect of goods protected from seizure
        2A.—(1) Where a judgment debtor whose goods have been seized, or are intended to be seized, by a sheriff under a writ of execution claims that such goods are not liable to execution by virtue of section 138(3A) of the Act[4], he must within 5 days of the seizure give notice in writing to the sheriff identifying all those goods in respect of which he makes such a claim and the grounds of such claim in respect of each item.
         
        (2) Upon receipt of a notice of claim under paragraph (1), the sheriff must forthwith give notice thereof to the execution creditor and to any person who has made a claim to, or in respect of, the goods under rule 2(1) and the execution creditor and any person who has made a claim must, within 7 days of receipt of such notice, inform the sheriff in writing whether he admits or disputes the judgment debtor’s claim in respect of each item.
         
        (3) The sheriff shall withdraw from possession of any goods in respect of which the judgment debtor’s claim is admitted or if the execution creditor or any person claiming under rule 2(1) fails to notify him in accordance with paragraph (2) and the sheriff shall so inform the parties in writing.
         
        (4) Where the sheriff receives notice from
          (a) the execution creditor or

         

          (b) any such person to whom notice was given under paragraph (2),

        that the claim or any part thereof is disputed, he must forthwith seek the directions of the Court and may include therein an application for an order restraining the bringing of any action against him for, or in respect of, his having seized any of those goods or his having failed so to do.

         

        (5) The sheriff’s application for directions under paragraph (4) shall be made by summons in the action and, on the hearing of the application, the Court may

          (a) determine the judgment debtor’s claim summarily or

         

          (b) give such directions for the determination of any issue raised by such claim as may be just.

         

        (6) A master and a district judge of a district registry shall have power to make an order of the kind referred to in paragraph (4) and the reference to master shall be construed in accordance with rule 4." .

         

7. The following shall stand as Order 45, rule 2—

"Notice of seizure

2. When first executing a writ of fieri facias, the sheriff or his officer shall deliver to the debtor or leave at each place where execution is levied a notice in Form No.55 in Appendix A informing the debtor of the execution." .

Link to post
Share on other sites

2. When first executing a writ of fieri facias, the sheriff or his officer shall deliver to the debtor or leave at each place where execution is levied a notice in Form No.55 in Appendix A informing the debtor of the execution." .

thanks for this sm... yet another nail in the sherforce coffin as they gave no paperwork not even a used kleenex when they executed the writ of fi'fa' until after they had taken £4000 from us

Link to post
Share on other sites
2. When first executing a writ of fieri facias, the sheriff or his officer shall deliver to the debtor or leave at each place where execution is levied a notice in Form No.55 in Appendix A informing the debtor of the execution." .

thanks for this sm... yet another nail in the sherforce coffin as they gave no paperwork not even a used kleenex when they executed the writ of fi'fa' until after they had taken £4000 from us

 

I think they should of left something like this;

Address of Premises:

THIS NOTICE is left by an Officer of the Sheriff of ...........

 


    TAKE NOTICE:
    1. A formal seizure of the goods at the above address has been made under a Writ of Execution directed to the Sheriff by the High Court. The Sheriff accordingly has conduct of the execution.

 

 

    2. The goods seized are now in the custody of the Sheriff, as an officer of the Court, and must not be removed, sold or otherwise disposed of. This will remain the position until the sum due under the execution has been paid in full. The only exceptions are goods of the type referred to in section 138(3A) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. (This section is set out overleaf). Enclosed with this NOTICE is a WALKING POSSESSION AGREEMENT in the form prescribed by law. You must read this agreement and sign it to acknowledge the seizure and hand it to the Sheriff’s Officer attending your premises or return it to this Office. Failure to sign the Walking Possession Agreement may result in the removal of the goods seized without further notice pending disposal by public auction.

 

 

    3. The judgment debt of £ and £ costs of execution are due under the Writ [together with £ interest and Sheriff’s Charges] or [You must be in touch IMMEDIATELY with this Office so that you can be told the exact amount due for interest and Sheriff’s charges].

 

 

    4. Payment must be made to this Office in CASH or by BANK DRAFT. Payment by cheque may be accepted if the Sheriff agrees but may be subject to such charges (if any) as are made by his bankers for special clearance.

 

 

    5. If payment is not made and the execution proceeds, the Sheriff’s officers or their agents will attend and remove the goods seized for sale by public auction or as the Court may direct.

 

 

    6. If any of the goods seized are not your property, you must tell the owner about the seizure and he must write to the Sheriff claiming the goods.

 

 

    7. If any of the goods seized are the subject of a hire purchase or any similar agreement, you must send full details in writing to the Sheriff.

 

 

    8. If any of the goods seized are not liable to seizure by virtue of section 138(3A) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (set out overleaf) this Office must be sent full details in writing within 5 days of the seizure or within such greater period as the Court may, on your application, allow.

 

 

    9. You must inform this Office if another bailiff seizes, levies on or distrains the goods to pay another debt and you must inform that bailiff of this seizure.

 

 

    10. You must also inform this Office of any Petition in Bankruptcy or application to liquidate a limited company that may have been or is subsequently served on you.

 

 

    11. The goods seized are all those referred to at 2 above but, in case there is any doubt, the following items ARE INCLUDED IN THE SEIZURE:
    ..........
    ..........
    ..........
    Dated the day of 199 Signed:
    Address:
    [Reverse of form:
    Section 138(3A) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides as follows—
      " (3A) Every sheriff or officer executing any writ of execution issued from the High Court against the goods of any person may by virtue of it seize—
        (a) any of that person’s goods except—
          (i) such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to that person for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation;

         

          (ii) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of that person and his family; and

       

        (b) any money, banknotes, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties or securities for money belonging to that person." .

    "

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...