OHs unpaid Parking Ticket Fine and Swift Bailiffs Fees

[gramtrad2]

I had an early morning visit from Swift; they are certfied bailiffs I believe.

 

They called to collect a speeding fine from a few months ago. I did not pay it and agree that it is due. However, I am not happy with the way this person behaved in order to recover the money!

 

When I answered the door (6.30 a.m) he advised me that they (Swift) had written to me giving me 7 days to pay the fine. I have received no such letter; if i had received it, I would, of course have moved to sort it out rather than allow it to get to the stage where they were calling to collect it.

 

I suspect, looking at some of the tricks that these guys play, that they probably did not even send a letter!

 

 

The total bill came to £350, which included their £210 seizure costs.

 

I had no money or means to pay at that time in the morning. Sod's law - bank account had insufficient funds! Would have had to go to the Building Society, which of course was not open at that time!

 

First of all, he said that he would have to clamp my car and that if he did that there would be an extra charge! And he would then need paying by 10.00 a.m.

 

He then offered to take a "walking possession" as an alternative and that he would then come back later for the money.

 

I agreed to that, let him in, and he wandered around writing down a few items. Then he announced that he had to phone his boss to "clear it with him". He made a quick call (I was not even sure if he was talking to his boss!) and then announced that his boss did not agree!

 

So, now having gained access to the house, he now said that unless we found payment he was calling for a lorry to remove the goods he had listed!!

 

At our wits end, we had to call my wifes father who is elderly and ask him to pay, which he reluctantly did - by debit card.

 

I pointed out to him that he had gained entry under false pretences and that I was not happy about how I had been treated and the upset that this caused with my wife and her elderly father.

 

It also concerned me that he was looking to take jointly owned items, whereas the debt was mine.

 

I would really like to take this matter much further. Can anyone suggest a way that I can rattle the cage of this odious company, please?

 

Suggestions and advice warmly welcomed.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

The official advice on bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid magistrates court fines: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf On page 3 under Magistrates courts. It says …are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined, however, additional costs fro removing and selling goods may be added to the amount you owe.

 

This literally means, if no goods have been moved by a bailiff then the only amount is the outstanding fine, and if a bailiff tries to tell you otherwise then he commits an arrestable offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

The law (Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003) only provides for HM Court Service to tender a contract with a fee agreement for collecting unpaid fines, bailiff companies then tender-bid for these contracts. This allows a bailiff to deduct his fee at the agreed rate out of fine paid. A fine is not the same as a debt, and bailiffs cannot lawfully increase a fine by adding fees. The contract is not legally binding on any convict or defendant unless a magistrate has made a Cost Order against the convict (very Rare!) - and that only happens when the defendant has an opportunity to defend it. A costs order will have the costs amount shown on the certificate.

 

The following procedure currently has a 100% success rate. The letter below asks the bailiff to pass a truth-test about his fees. Three things can happen, 1) The bailiff can try to convince you his fees comply with legislation – and you now have a written confession he intended to defraud you. 2) He can refund you – and this is mitigation the bailiff intended to defraud you. 3) No reply – you can proceed with litigation against bailiff and council. In any event, you have caught the bailiff with pants at half mast with this letter.

 

The Bailiff firm

Their Address 1

Their Address 2

Their Address 3

Postcode

 

BY POST AND BY EMAIL

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: [YOUR NAME + REF]: Your fees.

 

I write following visits by your bailiff, however looking at your documents and seeking advice there appears to an irregularity with your fees. I now ask you to provide the following within seven (7) days:

 

1) Written confirmation of your fees

 

2) Written confirmation of the original debt

 

3) The name and address of the organisation that instructed you

 

4) Truthfully confirm in writing that your fees are lawful and comply with legislation or b) refund me the unlawful fees plus reasonable compensation for being cheated by your bailiff with his fees by midday the seventh day from the date of this letter.

 

A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 2 of the Act specifically describes a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. If no satisfactory refund is made to me by 12.00 midday seven (7) days from the date of this letter I will automatically make a criminal complaint to Police under the 2006 Fraud Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act. If you have charged VAT on unlawful fees then you may be reported for VAT fraud and your documents will be given in evidence.

 

This is a letter before action and is not a request to access any personal data about me in the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998. It is delivered by Royal Mail and deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It now is your responsibility and in your best interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

YOUR NAME

Copied to: [NAME OF MAGISTRATES COURT ATTN: THE COURT MANAGER]

 

 

If you don't get a refund in seven days or the bailiffs fob you off with excuses, download and complete a Form N1 from the HMCS website. The Defendants are addressed as:

 

[NAME OF BAILIFF COMPANY] a firm

 

Brief Details of the Claim - enter - Reclaiming unlawful bailiff's fees.

 

Particulars of claim:

 

I received a bailiff acting for the defendant collecting an unpaid magistrates court fine. The bailiff dishonestly charged me [£AMOUNT] bailiffs fees. This is contrary to the official published guidelines on bailiffs fees for collecting court fines by HM Court Service (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf) and on page 3 under Magistrates courts, it does not provide for bailiffs to charge me any fees where no goods have been transported or sold by a bailiff. The bailiff did not move any goods in a van and I did not sign any documents for the bailiff. I have been defrauded by the bailiff who is cheating with his fees and I asked for a refund but it was the bailiff's choice to keep the money. On 20 April 2007, Lord Lucas in the House of Lords asked HM Government (inter-alia) "whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter"? Baroness Scotland of Asthal, The Minister of State, Home Office replied: (inter-alia) "A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006". Reasonable costs have been defined by District Judge Advent on the 9th & 24th September 2008 presiding over Case No 8CL51015 Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). The court ruled that “because the Bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable". I claim i) the sum of [£AMOUNT], ii) Interest under Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from the date the money became due at the daily rate of 0.00022%, iii) reasonable costs the court thinks fit for being defrauded by the defendant iv) Reasonable costs the court thinks fit for Discovery of Information and compiling this case for court, v) costs allowed by the court at the prescribed rate.

 

If you are on a low income then complete an EX160 fee remission form.

 

File the Form N1 at you local county court. The claim will be defended (with the same old bailiff's ramblings) and the court will send you an allocation questionnaire. Keep all documents and receipts given to you by the bailiff and await the hearing date. Do not be bullied by bailiffs or their barrister outside court to get you to drop the claim. You want ALL your money back plus your costs and interest in CLEARED FUNDS. Go before the Judge and ask for it. When the judge has awarded your judgment, always ask the judge for your "costs of today at the prescribed amount", he'll award you an extra 60-quid on top of your costs. Remember, you are a litigant-in-person and court rules say the judge must advocate for you in court.

 

When a bailiff defrauds you with his fees he commits an arrestable offence. Your document is sufficient evidence and the police should at minimum, arrest the bailiff and question him under caution at a police station and the bailiffs DNA records permanently go on police databases!

 

The Chief Constable

Name of Police Authority

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Postcode

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Reporting a crime committed under the Fraud Act 2006

 

I enclose a document given to me by a man saying he is a bailiff firm [and threatened to commit breaking and entering and take property unless I pay him £AMOUNT]. He charged fees £AMOUNT when the law does not provide for any. The official published guidelines on bailiffs fees for collecting court fines by HM Court Service (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf) and on page 3 under Magistrates courts, it does not provide for bailiffs to charge me any fees where no goods have been transported or sold by a bailiff. The bailiff did not move any goods in a van and I did not sign any documents for the bailiff. I have been defrauded by the bailiff who is cheating with his fees and I have asked for a refund without success.

 

I appreciate the police have a propensity to dismiss bailiff crime to be a civil matter, but the official legal position is the bailiff commits an arrestable offence under the 2006 Fraud Act. Lord Lucas at the House of Lords on 20 April 2007 when he asked HM Government whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) replied with, inter-alia (quote) A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 (unquote).

 

Section 1 means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

The law can provide reasonable costs in respect of bailiffs transporting goods in a van (attending to remove fee) however no goods have been levied and no document has been signed by me. District Judge Advent on the 9th & 24th September 2008 presiding over Case 8CL51015 Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). The court ruled that (quote) because the bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable (unquote).

 

Any offence committed under the 2006 Fraud Act is an arrestable offence under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Please assign a crime reference number and I request the crime is investigated professionally and objectively and I am happy to help you in your enquiries and stand as a prosecution witness at trial.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

YOUR NAME

Enc: copy of bailiff document giving contact details

 

If the police fob you off with excuses or tries a delay tactic, write down the name and rank of the police officer and contact the IPCC and your MP with a written complaint of 'Perverting the Course of Justice'. It is an offence under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to conceal a crime under false pretences. You will then find the police will start cooperating soon enough!

[gramtrad2]

The official advice on bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid magistrates court fines: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf On page 3 under Magistrates courts. It says …are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined, however, additional costs fro removing and selling goods may be added to the amount you owe.

 

This literally means, if no goods have been moved by a bailiff then the only amount is the outstanding fine, and if a bailiff tries to tell you otherwise then he commits an arrestable offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

The law (Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003) only provides for HM Court Service to tender a contract with a fee agreement for collecting unpaid fines, bailiff companies then tender-bid for these contracts. This allows a bailiff to deduct his fee at the agreed rate out of fine paid. A fine is not the same as a debt, and bailiffs cannot lawfully increase a fine by adding fees. The contract is not legally binding on any convict or defendant unless a magistrate has made a Cost Order against the convict (very Rare!) - and that only happens when the defendant has an opportunity to defend it. A costs order will have the costs amount shown on the certificate.

 

The following procedure currently has a 100% success rate. The letter below asks the bailiff to pass a truth-test about his fees. Three things can happen, 1) The bailiff can try to convince you his fees comply with legislation – and you now have a written confession he intended to defraud you. 2) He can refund you – and this is mitigation the bailiff intended to defraud you. 3) No reply – you can proceed with litigation against bailiff and council. In any event, you have caught the bailiff with pants at half mast with this letter.

 

 

 

 

If you don't get a refund in seven days or the bailiffs fob you off with excuses, download and complete a Form N1 from the HMCS website. The Defendants are addressed as:

 

[NAME OF BAILIFF COMPANY] a firm

 

Brief Details of the Claim - enter - Reclaiming unlawful bailiff's fees.

 

Particulars of claim:

 

 

 

If you are on a low income then complete an EX160 fee remission form.

 

File the Form N1 at you local county court. The claim will be defended (with the same old bailiff's ramblings) and the court will send you an allocation questionnaire. Keep all documents and receipts given to you by the bailiff and await the hearing date. Do not be bullied by bailiffs or their barrister outside court to get you to drop the claim. You want ALL your money back plus your costs and interest in CLEARED FUNDS. Go before the Judge and ask for it. When the judge has awarded your judgment, always ask the judge for your "costs of today at the prescribed amount", he'll award you an extra 60-quid on top of your costs. Remember, you are a litigant-in-person and court rules say the judge must advocate for you in court.

 

When a bailiff defrauds you with his fees he commits an arrestable offence. Your document is sufficient evidence and the police should at minimum, arrest the bailiff and question him under caution at a police station and the bailiffs DNA records permanently go on police databases!

 

 

 

If the police fob you off with excuses or tries a delay tactic, write down the name and rank of the police officer and contact the IPCC and your MP with a written complaint of 'Perverting the Course of Justice'. It is an offence under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to conceal a crime under false pretences. You will then find the police will start cooperating soon enough!

 

Excellent reply, thanks.

 

I have blasted off my reply along the lines of the letter and will keep this form posted on developments.

 

Just one nagging doubt ! SWift are certified bailiffs and on page three of the document on the law surrounding (URL="http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf") this is says "Certificated and non-certificated bailiffs — are entitled to charge fees and add them to the money you owe."

 

Also. re fees that can be charged , it says "There is no statutory scale of fees for bailiffs enforcing magistrates’ courts fines. You can contact the magistrates’ court direct and ask for the agreed scale of fees that bailiffs can charge."

 

My reading of the above is that they may be able to charge extra fees and if those fees have been agreed by the Magistrates Court, then I may be stuffed!

 

Any views on this please? Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Edited October 28, 2009 by gramtrad2
second thoughts

[gramtrad2]

Excellent reply, thanks.

 

I have blasted off my reply along the lines of the letter and will keep this form posted on developments.

 

Just one nagging doubt ! SWift are certified bailiffs and on page three of the document on the law surrounding (URL="http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf") this is says "Certificated and non-certificated bailiffs — are entitled to charge fees and add them to the money you owe."

 

Also. re fees that can be charged , it says "There is no statutory scale of fees for bailiffs enforcing magistrates’ courts fines. You can contact the magistrates’ court direct and ask for the agreed scale of fees that bailiffs can charge."

 

My reading of the above is that they may be able to charge extra fees and if those fees have been agreed by the Magistrates Court, then I may be stuffed!

 

Any views on this please? Am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

Just an addition to this point - I found this in another part of the forum :

 

"Guidance issued by LCD to all magistrates' courts in 1997 stated that every MCC should "determine a scale of fees which it considers reasonable and not disproportionate to the amount due under any warrant. It should then … seek to ensure that the scale is adhered to."

[Guest Happy Contrails]

 

Just one nagging doubt ! SWift are certified bailiffs and on page three of the document on the law surrounding (URL="http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf") this is says "Certificated and non-certificated bailiffs — are entitled to charge fees and add them to the money you owe."

 

The law sets those amounts for each type a debt a certiifcated bailiff collects. e,g council tax, parking tickets etc.

 

Also. re fees that can be charged , it says "There is no statutory scale of fees for bailiffs enforcing magistrates’ courts fines. You can contact the magistrates’ court direct and ask for the agreed scale of fees that bailiffs can charge."

 

My reading of the above is that they may be able to charge extra fees and if those fees have been agreed by the Magistrates Court, then I may be stuffed!

 

Any views on this please? Am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

It is a contract between the magistrates court and bailiff company. Its not legally binding on the convict, and no legislation exisats that requires a convict to pay ANY bailiffs fees when paying a court fine unless a magistrate has made a costs order agaisnt the convict. Very rare.

[gramtrad2]

The law sets those amounts for each type a debt a certiifcated bailiff collects. e,g council tax, parking tickets etc.

 

 

 

It is a contract between the magistrates court and bailiff company. Its not legally binding on the convict, and no legislation exisats that requires a convict to pay ANY bailiffs fees when paying a court fine unless a magistrate has made a costs order agaisnt the convict. Very rare.

 

Excellent reply.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I will be sure to post up any reply from Swift and update the case as it proceeds, in order that others may benefit.

[%Ostrich%]

I'll provide the update for you if you like.

 

Swift will reply that they are legally allowed to charge you fees on top of your fine and reject your request for the fees to be reimbursed.

 

The Court in question will also confirm this position in law after you address them quoting Happy Contrails' claptrap.

[gramtrad2]

I'll provide the update for you if you like.

 

Swift will reply that they are legally allowed to charge you fees on top of your fine and reject your request for the fees to be reimbursed.

 

The Court in question will also confirm this position in law after you address them quoting Happy Contrails' claptrap.

 

Thanks for those comments. Sounds like you may have some personal experience of this. Would you share that please? I would be interested.

 

Contrails - do you have rebuttal to make on this please?

[Guest Happy Contrails]

You are free to follow %Ostrich% advice if you like. This is a public forum where comments by contributors can be challenged.

 

Alternatively you can follow the official advice from HM Court Service: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf on Page 3.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Happy Contrails

[gramtrad2]

You are free to follow %Ostrich% advice if you like. This is a public forum where comments by contributors can be challenged.

 

Alternatively you can follow the official advice from HM Court Service: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf on Page 3.

 

Thanks, Contrails. I appreciate the advice and help that I have been given on this forum from all parties. I have sent out the letter that you suggested; so we will see what, if anything, they come back with.

 

It is always difficult, as a layman, to decide what to do when you have conflicting opinions.

 

I guess , nothing ventured - nothing gained!

[tomtubby]

I'll provide the update for you if you like.

 

Swift will reply that they are legally allowed to charge you fees on top of your fine and reject your request for the fees to be reimbursed.

 

The Court in question will also confirm this position in law after you address them quoting Happy Contrails' claptrap.

 

I thought that it was only cats that have claws !!!

[gramtrad2]

I thought that it was only cats that have claws !!!

 

Hi Tomtubby,

 

Looks like these two guys have locked horns before now! I can see that from searching on previous posts as part of my efforts to effectively resolve my situation.

 

Whilst I appreciate all of the help given by this friendly and well respected forum, I do understand that some folk, right or wrong will have different views.

 

Not yet being an expert or having had experience in this area previously, I am left in a bit of a quandary. I have jumped in and used Contrails suggested letter and see the points that he confidently makes. So, we will see how this plays out if and when the reply come in and I drive it further to conclusion.

 

However, in the meantime, I have picked up on he Ostrich's views and done a bit more digging.

 

I can see the argument that the agreement on fees charged is between the Bailiff and the Magistrate - " it is a contract between the magistrates court and bailiff company. Its not legally binding on the convict, and no legislation exisats that requires a convict to pay ANY bailiffs fees when paying a court fine unless a magistrate has made a costs order agaisnt the convict. Very rare....." However, many other sources seem to be falling in line with Ostrich's view that the agreement on fees is legally binding on the convict (gulp, that's me! Don't like that word!).

 

Tomtubby, you seem to be an active and respected participant on this forum and have commented eloquently and with authority (ok grovelling over) on a few bailiff related issues. Can you adjudicate on this one? What is your view please?

[Guest Happy Contrails]

the agreement on fees is legally binding on the convict "

 

Tomtubby, Can you adjudicate on this one? What is your view please?

 

Perhaps we can start by looking for the legislation making a contract between court and bailiff legally binding on a convict without a magistrate signing a costs order.

[tomtubby]

Hi Tomtubby,

 

Looks like these two guys have locked horns before now! I can see that from searching on previous posts as part of my efforts to effectively resolve my situation.

 

Whilst I appreciate all of the help given by this friendly and well respected forum, I do understand that some folk, right or wrong will have different views.

 

Not yet being an expert or having had experience in this area previously, I am left in a bit of a quandary. I have jumped in and used Contrails suggested letter and see the points that he confidently makes. So, we will see how this plays out if and when the reply come in and I drive it further to conclusion.

 

However, in the meantime, I have picked up on he Ostrich's views and done a bit more digging.

 

I can see the argument that the agreement on fees charged is between the Bailiff and the Magistrate - " it is a contract between the magistrates court and bailiff company. Its not legally binding on the convict, and no legislation exisats that requires a convict to pay ANY bailiffs fees when paying a court fine unless a magistrate has made a costs order agaisnt the convict. Very rare....." However, many other sources seem to be falling in line with Ostrich's view that the agreement on fees is legally binding on the convict (gulp, that's me! Don't like that word!).

 

Tomtubby, you seem to be an active and respected participant on this forum and have commented eloquently and with authority (ok grovelling over) on a few bailiff related issues. Can you adjudicate on this one? What is your view please?

 

As to your question concerning my views on the legality of fees being applied when enforcing a magistrates court fine..... I lean towards the argument put forward by our knowledgeable poster HC.

 

On 2 April 2009, Lord Lucas raised a parliamentary question in the House of Lords as follows:

 

"To ask Her Majesty's Government in respect of the wording of rule 52.8 (13) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (Si 384 of 2005), what legislation sets out and authorises a person to charge the " proper costs and charges of the execution of the warrant".

 

The response from Lord Bach was as follows:

 

"The relevant primary legislation is Part 3 Of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, the necessary implication of which is that proper costs associated with the execution of the warrant are chargeable. There is common law authority that such costs may be added (see Cook v Plaskett 1882) 47 JP 265)"

 

HC....knowing how you like to delve into legal cases, I have sent you a PM with more info on the matter of Cook v Plaskett.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

Hi Tomtubby,

 

Looks like these two guys have locked horns before now!

 

If that comment is directed at me then can you provide a link showing an example?

 

If you are referring to %Ostrich% you will find nearly all his posts have one thing in common. They are on threads tomtubby is active & backup posts or comments made by tomtubby - or make insults directed at me.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=2921799

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/227178-what-can-bailiffs-take.html#post2519122

 

I really wish you would stop giving people duff information.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/228745-swify-credit-services-have.html#post2538410

 

Happy Contrails' claptrap.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/197308-bailiffs-pcn.html#post2141187

 

Happy Cocktails.

[gramtrad2]

If that comment is directed at me then can you provide a link showing an example?

 

If you are referring to %Ostrich% you will find nearly all his posts have one thing in common. They are on threads tomtubby is active & backup posts or comments made by tomtubby - or make insults directed at me.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=2921799

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/227178-what-can-bailiffs-take.html#post2519122

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/228745-swify-credit-services-have.html#post2538410

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/197308-bailiffs-pcn.html#post2141187

 

Hi HC,

Sorry, it was not my intention to stir up any controversy or offend anyone. I don't think that is what the spirit of this forum is all about. I was simply pointing out that you and Ostrich have differed previously.

 

I value the contributions that everyone has made to my debate.

 

I was simply trying to see if Tomtubby would come down on either side since there were opposing views. Just basically trying to get to the bottom of it.

 

Tomtubby has responded to my invitation for him/her to adjudicate, but I need to go back on that since I am still not clear.

 

Your suggested letter is a good one and I have sent it to Swift; so we will see what they have to say.

[gramtrad2]

As to your question concerning my views on the legality of fees being applied when enforcing a magistrates court fine..... I lean towards the argument put forward by our knowledgeable poster HC.

 

On 2 April 2009, Lord Lucas raised a parliamentary question in the House of Lords as follows:

 

"To ask Her Majesty's Government in respect of the wording of rule 52.8 (13) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (Si 384 of 2005), what legislation sets out and authorises a person to charge the " proper costs and charges of the execution of the warrant".

 

The response from Lord Bach was as follows:

 

"The relevant primary legislation is Part 3 Of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, the necessary implication of which is that proper costs associated with the execution of the warrant are chargeable. There is common law authority that such costs may be added (see Cook v Plaskett 1882) 47 JP 265)"

 

HC....knowing how you like to delve into legal cases, I have sent you a PM with more info on the matter of Cook v Plaskett.

 

Hi Tomtubby,

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Sorry if I appear a little "thick" ; just need to clarify your arguments.

 

You are coming down on the side of HC, who argues that any extra charges are unlawful and can be challenged, yet you refer to Part Three of the Magistrates Court Act which says "proper costs associated with the execution of the warrant are chargeable".

 

Are you saying, here, that - "yes, proper costs are chargeable" but there is still a debate to be had as to what constitutes "proper costs".

 

Grateful if you would clarify, please.

[Jach]

subbing

[Guest Happy Contrails]

 

Are you saying, here, that - "yes, proper costs are chargeable" but there is still a debate to be had as to what constitutes "proper costs".

 

Grateful if you would clarify, please.

 

The law provides for bailiffs to claim "reasonable costs" from you for transporting your goods in a van. He cannot transport goods in a van to make a financial gain. If no goods have been transported there cannot be any reasonable costs. The law does not provide for bailiffs to charge "fees" for using a van.

[gramtrad2]

Hi Folks,

 

I wrote out to swift as suggested by HC and they have now replied. Please see copy of letter that I have uploaded.

 

As you will note, they claim that the bailiff "seized goods" and accordingly a seizure fee of £210 was incurred! From my original post you will see that the bailiff in fact tricked his way into my house offering to take a "walking possession" on the basis that I would be allowed to pay later! I should add that I signed nothing.

 

I guess, technically, they have seized goods if went around and made a list.

 

That said, the thrust of the arguments on this forum suggest that since no goods were removed, then no costs were incurred and I should be entitled to claim back the same. Furthermore, I did not receive the letter that they are also making a charge for ! (had I done that, I would have reacted to it and not been in the position where they had to call).

 

Predictably, they say that their fees are "as contractually agreed" by their clients, the court service.

 

I really would like to nail these people. I am minded to move it forward through the courts as well as the fraud angle via the police. However, I would like to write one more letter to Swift to give them a chance to rectify the situation (this will no doubt add weight to any court case that follows). Can anyone give me some ammunition by way of quoting specific laws and a pointer on the wording that I should adopt, please.

 

Much appreciated.

swift scan 13 nov 09.pdf

[gramtrad2]

Hi Folks,

 

I wrote out to swift as suggested by HC and they have now replied. Please see copy of letter that I have uploaded.

 

As you will note, they claim that the bailiff "seized goods" and accordingly a seizure fee of £210 was incurred! From my original post you will see that the bailiff in fact tricked his way into my house offering to take a "walking possession" on the basis that I would be allowed to pay later! I should add that I signed nothing.

 

I guess, technically, they have seized goods if went around and made a list.

 

That said, the thrust of the arguments on this forum suggest that since no goods were removed, then no costs were incurred and I should be entitled to claim back the same. Furthermore, I did not receive the letter that they are also making a charge for ! (had I done that, I would have reacted to it and not been in the position where they had to call).

 

Predictably, they say that their fees are "as contractually agreed" by their clients, the court service.

 

I really would like to nail these people. I am minded to move it forward through the courts as well as the fraud angle via the police. However, I would like to write one more letter to Swift to give them a chance to rectify the situation (this will no doubt add weight to any court case that follows). Can anyone give me some ammunition by way of quoting specific laws and a pointer on the wording that I should adopt, please.

 

Much appreciated.

 

Bump.

 

Any thoughts please?

[Nintendo Pü]

 

Predictably, they say that their fees are "as contractually agreed" by their clients, the court service..

 

That contract is not binding on you, its between bailiff and court service.

 

It only allows bailiffs deduct their agreed fee from the money they collect.

 

Yur question was answered here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/228745-swify-credit-services-have.html#post2533966

[gramtrad2]

That contract is not binding on you, its between bailiff and court service.

 

It only allows bailiffs deduct their agreed fee from the money they collect.

 

Yur question was answered here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/228745-swify-credit-services-have.html#post2533966

 

Thank you. Noted.

 

I intend to reply to Swift along those lines.

 

The thrust of my earlier post was that I was seeking help with some strong wording or legal examples/ cases. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. If I can convince them that I am serious about pursuing this, then I may get a result before court action (or at least it may strenghen my case).

 

With regards to pursuing them for fraud - I have mentioned this to the police and, as expected they "Pooh poohed " the idea! So, I also have some work to do in that area to convince them!

[gramtrad2]

Hi All,

 

An update on my case.

 

I wrote to Swift, giving them one last chance to reply. I append a copy of my letter and their reply.

 

You will see that, as expected, they are holding their ground.

 

The first point that they make is that a Distress Warrant had been issued and that "this allows for payment of the amount due together with costs".

 

Earlier in the history of this thread it was mentioned that the only way that the bailiffs could have taken £350 odd from me was if "costs had been awarded". Is a Distress Warrant the same thing?

 

And does anyone have any comments on the letter from Swift, please?

 

I am minded to go for them, buy would like to be certain of my ground first.

 

Any help, comments, suggestions, always appreciated.

 

Thanks.

My letter to Swift threatening legal action 3 dec 09.pdf

Reply from Swift 22 dec 09.pdf

[Nintendo Pü]

The bailiff thinks an agreement between thelselves and the court is legally binding on the debtor. You have given the bailiff reasonable opportunity to pay the money they owe and you have a right to start litigation.

 

It is very important you contact the court service and tell them what has happened, give them an opportunity to refund you as they are liable for its agents.

 

Download and complete a Form N1 from the HMCS website. The Defendants are addressed as:

 

[NAME OF BAILIFF COMPANY] a firm - 1st Defendant

 

Optional: The Secretary of State for Justice - 2nd Defendant

 

Brief Details of the Claim - enter - Reclaiming unlawful bailiff's fees.

 

Particulars of claim:

 

I received a bailiff herein referred to as "The Defendant" acting for the Court Service collecting an unpaid magistrate's court fine. I understand there is no legislation prescribing bailiff fees for collecting unpaid fines and The Defendant dishonestly charged me [£AMOUNT] under a pretence he has a statutory right to charge me bailiffs fees. This is contrary to the official published guidelines on bailiffs fees for collecting court fines by HM Court Service (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf) and on page 3 under Magistrates courts, it does not provide for The Defendant to charge me fees where no goods have been transported or sold by The Defendant. The Defendant did not move any goods in a van and I did not sign any documents for The Defendant. I have been defrauded by The Defendant who is cheating with his fees I understand is contrary to Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 and confirmed in the House of Lords on 20 April 2007. I asked for a refund but it was The Defendants choice to keep the money. There is no order for costs against me and the defendant appears to be under a belief that contractually agreed fees between himself and the Court Service for collecting unpaid fines is legally binding on me. I claim i) the sum of [£AMOUNT], ii) Interest under Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from the date the money became due at the daily rate of 0.00022%, iii) reasonable costs the court thinks fit for being defrauded by the defendant iv) Reasonable costs the court thinks fit for Discovery of Information and compiling this case for court, v) costs allowed by the court at the prescribed rate.

 

If you are on a low income then complete an EX160 fee remission form.

 

File the Form N1 at you local county court. The claim will be defended with the same old bailiff's ramblings - apparently, its a standard defence statement that originates from the ACEA. The court will send you an allocation questionnaire. Keep all documents and receipts given to you by the bailiff and await the hearing date.

 

Do not be bullied by bailiffs or their barrister outside court to get you to drop the claim. You want ALL your money back plus your costs and interest in CLEARED FUNDS. Go before the Judge and ask for it. When the judge has awarded your judgment, always ask the judge for your "costs of today at the prescribed amount", he'll award you an extra 60-quid on top of your costs. Remember, you are a litigant-in-person and court rules say the judge must advocate for you in court.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Nintendo Pü