OHs unpaid Parking Ticket Fine and Swift Bailiffs Fees

[Nintendo Pü]

quoting Happy Contrails' claptrap.

 

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

 

You both go back a long way I see...

[ploddertom]

A thought -

 

On reading back through your thread I don't see what Goods were seized, did they ever leave you a list and if so are you certain there were no exempt items on it?

 

PT

[Nintendo Pü]

I think the OP would have said if his goods were transported and sold at auction, even is they have, there is no legislation - not even reasonable costs - providing for bailiffs to charge a debtor for the work done.

 

My feeling is the OP should make a copy of the bailifs letter, and using a flourescent yellow marker pen, highlight the words A Distress Warrant was issued and this allows for payment of the amount due together with our costs, and enter the copy-letter as an exhibit with his Form N1.

 

It appears the bailiff is deliberately trying to mislead the OP the court made a costs order against him, and thats why its important he contacts the court. If such an order exist then he has a right to defend it. If no such costs order exists then the bailiff now has a problem.

[gramtrad2]

A thought -

 

On reading back through your thread I don't see what Goods were seized, did they ever leave you a list and if so are you certain there were no exempt items on it?

 

PT

Hi,

Nope. They did not seize any goods. They tricked their way into my house by saying that they would arrange a "walking possession order" and that would give me the chance to come up with the money later in the day.

 

The bailiff then went around and listed various items (my 3 piece suite, microwave, table, chairs and my car). He then called his boss (I suspect he was not actually talking to him!) and said that the boss would not allow the walking possession, so he had to remove the goods!

 

I did not sign any paperwork, but he left me with a list of the items.

 

Rather than have the goods removed, I called an elderly relative and he agreed to pay the £350 for me by card. That solved the immediate problem, but left me resolute in my belief that they must not be allowed to get away with treating people like that.

Edited December 31, 2009 by gramtrad2
correcting my howler of a spelling mistake!

[hallowitch]

my 3 piece suite table, chairs

 

2) The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from distress if they are at the time of the distress in a dwellinghouse and are reasonably required for the use in the dwellinghouse of the person residing there or a member of the household-

a) beds or bedding;

b) household linen;

c) chairs or settees;

d) tables;

e) food;

f) lights or light fittings;

g) heating appliances;

h) curtains;

i) floor coverings;

j) furniture, equipment or utensils used for cooking storing or eating food;

k) refrigerators;

l) articles used for cleaning, mending, or pressing clothes;

m) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse;

n) furniture used for storing-

(i) clothing, bedding or household linen;

(ii) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse; or

(iii) utensils used for cooking or eating food;

[hallowitch]

you may have been charged fees for an invalid levy

 

Irregular Distress (Levy) by Bailiffs

With thanks to Tomtubby

[edit]MRS AMBROSE v NOTTINHGAM CITY COUNCIL

This is another well known legal cases that has been relied upon many times when either issuing proceedings, or one that can be referred to when writing a letter of complaint. This case concerns a lady by the name of Mrs Ambrose who claimed that a levy (distress) was irregular as bailiffs had removed goods from the home that were necessary for “providing the basic domestic needs of the family”

Background:

Mrs Ambrose and her husband had an unpaid Council Tax bill for £851.00 owing to Nottingham City Council. In September 2003, Rossendale’s Bailiffs attended at their home to levy distress on goods. Rossendale’s had entered the property, where they identified items that were listed on a Walking Possession. Next to those items listed, the bailiff wrote the words: “and all other goods on the premises unless exempt or specially exempt by statute.” The bailiff had not looked around the house; he had merely entered one room and was therefore unable to see which items were “exempt”

Regulation 45 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 lists the following items as being exempt from seizure:

"Such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary for use personally in employment, business or vocation"

"Such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying basic domestic needs of the person and family".

As the Council Tax remained unpaid, the bailiff returned with a van to seize furniture that included a sofa, footstool and two dining chairs.

District Judge Cooper agreed that the seizure was irregular as the bailiff had removed furniture that was necessary for “satisfying the basic domestic needs of Mrs Ambrose and her family” This was because, amongst other items removed, the bailiffs had removed 2 dining chairs. They left behind the table and the remaining two chairs. As the family consisted of Mrs & Mrs Ambrose and one child, the bailiffs should have left seating for 3 people, not two.

Nottingham City Council had argued that there could not be any irregularity as Mrs Ambrose had signed the Walking Possession. This was rejected by Judge Cooper who agreed that Mrs Ambrose was faced with the prospect of having her goods removed unless she signed the Walking Possession.

As important as the above is, the Judge also agreed that the wording on the Walking Possession was deficient in that the reference to “all other goods on the premises unless exempt” did not specify what those other goods were, and which ones were exempt. The Judge agreed that the levy was also irregular for this reason.

[Nintendo Pü]

The bailiff then went around and listed various items (my 3 piece suite, microwave, table, chairs and my car). He then called his boss (I suspect he was not actually talking to him!) and said that the boss would not allow the walking possession, so he had to remove the goods!

 

I did not sign any paperwork, but he left me with a list of the items.

 

Rather than have the goods removed, I called an elderly relative and he agreed to pay the £350 for me by card.

 

You want to add this if the Judge asks you about it. Make written notes of actual events while they are still fresh in your mind.

 

Its very important to show the judge the letter you received from the bailiff. I know its not my place to be the Judge but he will see straight away the bailiff have tried to pass you off with some serious bovine fecal matter, and this amounts to fraud by false representation.

 

The bailiff memtioned the "Magistrates Courts Act 1980" I think they refer to Section 64 of the Act, but this is about civil procedure and nothing to do with court fines.

 

They also quote the "Magistrates Court Rules 1981" but much this was reppealed when the Courts Act 2003 went onto the statute book. Its under section 93 of the Act a bailiff must make an application for his costs against you the defendant. Its clear no such order exists.

[gramtrad2]

I think the OP would have said if his goods were transported and sold at auction, even is they have, there is no legislation - not even reasonable costs - providing for bailiffs to charge a debtor for the work done.

 

My feeling is the OP should make a copy of the bailifs letter, and using a flourescent yellow marker pen, highlight the words A Distress Warrant was issued and this allows for payment of the amount due together with our costs, and enter the copy-letter as an exhibit with his Form N1.

 

It appears the bailiff is deliberately trying to mislead the OP the court made a costs order against him, and thats why its important he contacts the court. If such an order exist then he has a right to defend it. If no such costs order exists then the bailiff now has a problem.

 

Thanks for your prompt advice and comments.

 

I have no recollection of any previous mention of a Distress Warrant being issued. Presumably, if it had been, I would have been notified about it in writing by the courts. So, I guess Swift have dug themselves a nice hole!

 

I am going to write to the court manager and set out the position as I see it and invite them to refund me. I will also ask them to clarify the position with regard to the alleged Distress Warrant.

 

In the event of Swift being correct with regards to the issue of a Distress Warrant, from what you say, I should have been put in a position where I was given the opportunity to defend it! So, this, I would guess may open a whole new ball game.

[Nintendo Pü]

Ive never known a distress warrant to be an order for costs. Those are two completely separate documents.

 

Read this thread, the OP contacted the court complaing a bailiff charging fees and the matter was resolved without further ado.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/229873-help-philips.html#post2547500

[gramtrad2]

Ive never known a distress warrant to be an order for costs. Those are two completely separate documents.

 

I have now asked the magistrates to comment on the charges and have their reply.

 

I am uploading a copy of my fax to them and their letter in reply.

 

Looks like the green light to after these Swift guys.

 

Any views please?

My Fax to the Courts and their reply 24 Feb 10.pdf

[gramtrad2]

I have now asked the magistrates to comment on the charges and have their reply.

 

I am uploading a copy of my fax to them and their letter in reply.

 

Looks like the green light to after these Swift guys.

 

Any views please?

 

Hi All,

 

I am now looking to proceed to action on this one, against Swift.

 

Just sat down to try to formulate the correct wording to put on my court form, but struggling a bit!! Can anyone help please?

[gramtrad2]

Hi All,

 

I am now looking to proceed to action on this one, against Swift.

 

Just sat down to try to formulate the correct wording to put on my court form, but struggling a bit!! Can anyone help please?

Bump!

 

I want to get this absolutely right. I am ready to go to court and should be grateful for assistance with the wording for my action.

 

Much appeciated.

[gramtrad2]

Bump!

 

I want to get this absolutely right. I am ready to go to court and should be grateful for assistance with the wording for my action.

 

Much appeciated.

 

Bump Bump

Can anyone help me with the wording of my writ against Swift please.

 

I am at the point where I want to put in court papers but I dont want to let Swift off the hook by cocking it up.

 

Assistance would be much appreciated.

 

After the case, I will of course post the result, so at least we will know one way or the other on this controversial subject.

 

Many thanks.

[gramtrad2]

Bump Bump

Can anyone help me with the wording of my writ against Swift please.

 

I am at the point where I want to put in court papers but I dont want to let Swift off the hook by cocking it up.

 

Assistance would be much appreciated.

 

After the case, I will of course post the result, so at least we will know one way or the other on this controversial subject.

 

Many thanks.

 

Bump Bump. Sorry to keep bumping this, but no one appears to be helping.

 

I really do want to take this matter to court and it is important that I have the wording exactly right. This will be an important test case and will finally prove who is right on this issue - were Swift entitled to charge me or not.

 

The weight of argument in my view is on the side of them not being able to legally charge me. I want to nail them if possible and am prepared to throw some money at it.

 

I will, of course, publish the outcome on this site so that it will help others., That is what this forum is all about.

 

Can someone please take a couple of minutes to assist me with the wording.

 

Much appreciated.

[ploddertom]

Having had a read back through this post I think you may be on sticky ground trying to do what you are up to. You base the fact you were tricked into letting the Bailiff into your home where he did a Levy on your goods. Oldest trick in the books unfortunately.

 

However that doesn't mean to say all is gloom and doom. Having listed the items seized Hallowitch gave some advice about its validity and it is this you can chase them for. Have you actually asked them for a breakdown of the charges they have applied - if no do so ASAP and take it from there.

 

PT

[gramtrad2]

Having had a read back through this post I think you may be on sticky ground trying to do what you are up to. You base the fact you were tricked into letting the Bailiff into your home where he did a Levy on your goods. Oldest trick in the books unfortunately.

 

However that doesn't mean to say all is gloom and doom. Having listed the items seized Hallowitch gave some advice about its validity and it is this you can chase them for. Have you actually asked them for a breakdown of the charges they have applied - if no do so ASAP and take it from there.

 

PT

Hi Ploddertom,

Thanks for your reply.

 

I followed the advice of Happy Contrails from this forum and I wrote to Swift asking them for a breakdown of their fees and confirmation that their fees were legal. I uploaded their reply earlier, but have again uploaded it and appended it to this message; it sets out their charges.

 

The thrust of the advice from Happy Contrails was that the bailiff had no legal right to charge to charge me the fees and that only the fine should be paid. I pursued matters along those lines and as part of the process, I gave the Court Service a chance to pay me the fees. I am now at the stage where the only option would appear to be the instigation of legal action against Swift.

 

That said, reading back through the advice given in this thread, you will see that there is conflicting advice from %Ostrich%.

 

%Ostrich% says "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 have so far leaned towards the advice of Happy Contrails; the letters seem plausible and he appears to be 100% confident. However, as the saga continues to unfold, I am having second thoughts; the research that I have done recently, on this and other forums, throws up no positive indication that the line suggested by Happy Contrials has worked or will work!

 

If it is feasible to successfully sue Swift, I would dearly like to do that, in view of the embarrassment and inconvenience that they caused me. Plus the fact that they tricked me and I fell for it! If possible I would like to make them pay!

 

Enough of my ranting! Where do we go from here?

swift scan 13 nov 09.pdf

[gramtrad2]

Hi All,

 

This morning, my wife handed me a letter which she has had for nearly a week! (Doh!).

I have uploaded it.

 

It relates to a parking fine of £45 which she has not paid.

You will see that Swift have now billed her for £130 and threaten to call if that sum is not paid within a week.

 

A list of their charges is appended with the letter and you will see that they appear to be charging an "administration fee of £85 in addition to the fine (interestingly this appears to be a recent change from their usual charge of £60 for a letter!

I wonder if, by calling it an admin fee, they are trying to justify their excessive charges!).

 

the letter indicates that a distress warrant has been issued by Magistrates.

I have not seen one, but there is every chance that my wife has it in her "pending pile" !!

 

I am minded to attempt to pay the £45 for my wife if that is possible over the bank holiday weekend.

However, if I do not, there is every chance that Swift will appear at an unearthly hour on Tuesday or Wednesday next week, given the date of their letter is 29th March. Indeed if I do pay the £45, they may well still turn up and demand the balance.

 

If that happens, we will be on our toes this time!

He will not be allowed in and will be told to go away.

The two cars in our drive are both in my name (and the parking fine relates to a previous car that my wife had!).

So, if they try and pull any funny business with clamping, we will have some fun with them.

 

I would seek to avoid confrontation if possible but am adamant that I do not wish to pay their admin charge.

 

Does anyone have any views as to how this matter should be handled, please?

swift re parking fine.pdf

[Guest wino]

First things first does your wife actually know about the original parking fine? Was it a ticket from a traffic warden, Police or a private company?

[dx100uk]

id blank that barcode

 

dx

[gramtrad2]

First things first does your wife actually know about the original parking fine? Was it a ticket from a traffic warden, Police or a private company?

 

She was aware of this and forgot about it; the fine was issued by a traffic warden.

[ploddertom]

If you go back and read posts 29, 30 & 31 they all relate to the Seizure of your goods - not physically but a levy was done by the Bailiff. It is the contents of this Levy which appear to be at fault and possibly invalid for having listed exempt items. You say you still have the paperwork concerned - is it possible you can scan & post or copy verbatim.

 

If it can be argued successfully that the levy is indeed invalid then the Seizure fee they have applied must also be rescinded.

 

PT

[tomtubby]

The fees being charged by Swift are CORRECT.

 

HMCS agreed new contracts with Swift, Marston Group, Philips and Excel Enforcement that took effect on 1st December and this provided for increased bailiff fees.

 

Clearly, you live in an area of the country where the local authority have not yet applied for decriminalised parking enforcement and getting a parking ticket is still a criminal matter and that is why the Magistrates Court can apply for a Distress Warrant.

 

If your wife had not received the original parking ticket it would have been a VERY SIMPLE MATTER of completing a statutory declaration and this would cancel the ticket and all bailiff fees are automatically removed.

[gramtrad2]

If you go back and read posts 29, 30 & 31 they all relate to the Seizure of your goods - not physically but a levy was done by the Bailiff. It is the contents of this Levy which appear to be at fault and possibly invalid for having listed exempt items. You say you still have the paperwork concerned - is it possible you can scan & post or copy verbatim.

 

If it can be argued successfully that the levy is indeed invalid then the Seizure fee they have applied must also be rescinded.

 

PT

 

Thank you PT. Now we appear to be getting somewhere; this looks like a potentially more solid line to pursue.

 

As requested, I have uploaded a copy of the seizure notice (along with the flip side of the same, which is a Walking Possession agreement - which was, of course, not signed since the bailiff had changed his mind!).

 

Assistance much a appreciated.

Scan of Notice of Seizure.pdf

[ploddertom]

Having had a look at the Seizure Notice I would make the following comments:

 

Under the Items noted I assume 1 is a Jaguar car and line 2 had the details for it - were they correct?

On 5, 6, 8 & 9 it lists various items of furniture - namely seating, I assume if these had been taken you would have been left with nothing to sit on + how many in your household?

10 lists a microwave - did you have any alternative means of cooking?

 

In the main the arguing points will be about your seating, if there is no where left to sit after these items may have been removed then that would render your Seizure invalid and therefore the charges for the seizure would also have to be removed.

 

I may have missed this bit - have you already paid this off? It will probably be a bit of letter tennis but think you have more than a strong case for further action.

 

PT

[westgarth]

The siezure fee looks excessive, have you checked out the correct amount they could charge if it is legal for them to actually make the charge ?