Are you suing a bailiff for his fees ?

[letsmakeamark]

Are you suing a bailiff for his/her fees or for goods they have taken or anything like that in the small claims court ? If so when you claim you must claim for restitution. I know someone who has discovered that if you claim for this the bailiffs will automatically blame the council for it. They will explain to the court that they have kept the fees and have passed on X amount to the council/local authority. Although they do not want to do this they are forced into it to protect their own backsides. I know someone dealing with these and will post further on this subject. If they do this your claim goes straight against the la/council and worst to worst the bailiffs will not want to go head to head with the council in court.

[Scorpion666]

Subbing with interest

[hazza]

unjust enrichment

[ploddertom]

Are you suing a bailiff for his/her fees or for goods they have taken or anything like that in the small claims court ? If so when you claim you must claim for restitution. I know someone who has discovered that if you claim for this the bailiffs will automatically blame the council for it. They will explain to the court that they have kept the fees and have passed on X amount to the council/local authority. Although they do not want to do this they are forced into it to protect their own backsides. I know someone dealing with these and will post further on this subject. If they do this your claim goes straight against the la/council and worst to worst the bailiffs will not want to go head to head with the council in court.

 

I would have thought if you were doing an N1 in the County Court against a Bailiff & his Company you would automatically name the Council/Creditor as Co-Defendant. In most cases a copy of your proposed action may spark a response without having to actually submit the Claim. After all Bailiff Companies don't want CCJ's as it affects their ability to renew their CCL.

 

PT

[letsmakeamark]

No You must do it for restitution as this is what you want. The same as if you took a bank to court. Restitution does magic wanders when apllied correctly.

[bladeboy]

Never heard of this. I'm currently suing in the small claims court for fees charged outside the scope of the relevant statutory instrument.

 

The particulars were very detailed and linked with quoted case law and statute information.

 

The defence has been a joke and I'm applying for Summary Judgement.

 

Will keep you posted.

[tomtubby]

Never heard of this. I'm currently suing in the small claims court for fees charged outside the scope of the relevant statutory instrument.

 

The particulars were very detailed and linked with quoted case law and statute information.

 

The defence has been a joke and I'm applying for Summary Judgement.

 

Will keep you posted.

 

You would be well advised to rely upon the Judgment of District Judge Avent in the Detailed Assessment case between Anthony Culligan v Marston Group. This would certainly assist you.

[bladeboy]

Is there a link to it anywhere?

 

The question in my case is not detailed assessment in nature. They have charged outside the scope of the relevant statutory instrument and admitted that they have. The defence is simply that the 'council say they can' and that is all. They haven't even bothered to submit and supporting paperwork or cited any act/section

[bladeboy]

JUST FOUND IT!!!!

 

Brilliant stuff and one to be quoted!!!

 

This really stuffs them. Thanks very much.

[tomtubby]

JUST FOUND IT!!!!

 

Brilliant stuff and one to be quoted!!!

 

This really stuffs them. Thanks very much.

 

 

Do you have part of it or the entire Judgment?

 

Please do not ask me to explain because it is confusing but the regulations do provide that the fees "are the fees of the local authority" and so too is the levy.

 

It is for this reason that the local authority are wholly responsible for the fees charged by their "agents".

 

If a bailiff is saying that the fees are agreed by the council then with respect that is utter nonsense . The fees applicable are laid down by Parliament under a Statutory Instrument. It is that simple. If a local authority permit a bailiff company to charge fees that are not in accordance with the law then that is grounds for a complaint to the local authority.

 

In any event, it would be interesting to ask them to provide a copy of the Contract or Service Level Agreement with the council.

[bladeboy]

Oh yes, I intend to.

 

The local paper is now interested in my case and intends, following its conclusion, to ask the council for official comment.

 

The bailiff firm and their solicitors have acted like pompus bullies at nearly every stage. Arrogance and pride is clouding their thinking I reckon.

 

I am also going to fire off a Form 4 complaint. The basis of the complaint will be that bailiffs, above all people, should know what they are allowed to charge and that they over-charge without fear in the hope that the debtor does not have the knowledge/resources or will to fight back.

 

The entire system is corrupt!

 

If bailiffs don't like the fee limitations in the statutory instrument then lobby parliment for a change in the law. Don't rip people off instead.

 

Did Marstons Group appeal the case above?

[tomtubby]

Oh yes, I intend to.

 

The local paper is now interested in my case and intends, following its conclusion, to ask the council for official comment.

 

The bailiff firm and their solicitors have acted like pompus bullies at nearly every stage. Arrogance and pride is clouding their thinking I reckon.

 

I am also going to fire off a Form 4 complaint. The basis of the complaint will be that bailiffs, above all people, should know what they are allowed to charge and that they over-charge without fear in the hope that the debtor does not have the knowledge/resources or will to fight back.

 

The entire system is corrupt!

 

If bailiffs don't like the fee limitations in the statutory instrument then lobby parliment for a change in the law. Don't rip people off instead.

 

Did Marstons Group appeal the case above?

 

 

In his summing up District Judge Avent said that:

 

"I am 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 so otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful"

 

and that:

 

"The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years . No one has challenged the right to charge for wheel clamping 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"

 

NOTE:

 

If Marston Group had appealed, the case would have been transferred to the Court of Appeal and if the Lord Justices agreed with the Judgment of District Judge Avent this would have meant a precedent being set and this landmark ruling could have led to significant claims being made against all bailiff companies by debtors.

 

Marston Group did indicate to the court their intention to appeal but shortly after this, they advised the Court that they had decided that they no longer wished to proceed to appeal.

 

 

PS: I do not have a PM facility and so I cannot provide a full copy of the Judgement to you but there are a few regulars on here who I have provided copies to and hopefully they will see this post.

.