OHs unpaid Parking Ticket Fine and Swift Bailiffs Fees

[westgarth]

EX345 - HMCS clearly states this below

 

Fees charged by Bailiffs/Enforcement Officers

 

Civilian enforcement officers (CEO’S) Magistrates’ Courts — are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined. However, additional costs for removing and selling goods may be added to the amount you owe.

 

BUT IT ALSO STATES THIS

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.

 

I assume the fee's referred to in the above statement are for the removal and selling of goods, not the visit, seizure or letters ?

 

Have you spoke to the court and found out the agreed scale of fee's the baliff can charge, if there is not an agreed fee for seizure then they cant charge, if there is an agreed fee for seizing goods then they can charge. How come they charged you £50 for a letter when it is not on their fee advice sheet they gave you ? You need to check and see if the court agree's that £50 can be charged for a letter as well....

[RaeUK]

iirc £50 was the old letter fee, which would seem correct for the time of correspondence. I believe it's now gone up to £75. The reason I comment is simply that I fail to see how anyone can justify fifty quid for writing a letter let alone the increase!

Best wishes

Rae.

[gramtrad2]

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

Thanks for your comments and information.

 

The Jaguar - yes the details were correct. I blanked out the registration number.

 

With regard to seating, there are four of us in the family : myself, my wife and two children aged 22 and 20. The 22 year old was staying with us at the time; the 20 year old is at a local Univercity and tends to drop back in at weekends and occassionally in the week (as well as staying with us outside term time).

 

In addition to the room where the bailiff levied on furniture, we also have a small sitting room (which the bailiff did not see or enter). It has a 2 seater sofa and two small chairs. We rarely use this room and cannot comfortably sit there as a family. It tends to be used by our 2 children when they have friends visiting them.

 

As for the microwave. yes we do have alternative cooking facilities.

 

With regard to the fees - yes I did pay them. After the bailiff tricked his way in, he then said that he could not take payment later. Since we had no cash or access to quick cash, we were forced to call an elderly relative and ask him to pay using his card.

Edited April 4, 2010 by gramtrad2
missed something

[gramtrad2]

EX345 - HMCS clearly states this below

 

Fees charged by Bailiffs/Enforcement Officers

 

Civilian enforcement officers (CEO’S) Magistrates’ Courts — are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined. However, additional costs for removing and selling goods may be added to the amount you owe.

 

BUT IT ALSO STATES THIS

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.

 

I assume the fee's referred to in the above statement are for the removal and selling of goods, not the visit, seizure or letters ?

 

Have you spoke to the court and found out the agreed scale of fee's the baliff can charge, if there is not an agreed fee for seizure then they cant charge, if there is an agreed fee for seizing goods then they can charge. How come they charged you £50 for a letter when it is not on their fee advice sheet they gave you ? You need to check and see if the court agree's that £50 can be charged for a letter as well....

 

Thanks, this is an angle that I missed. I will call them on Tuesday and post the details here.

[gramtrad2]

iirc £50 was the old letter fee, which would seem correct for the time of correspondence. I believe it's now gone up to £75. The reason I comment is simply that I fail to see how anyone can justify fifty quid for writing a letter let alone the increase!

Best wishes

Rae.

Agreed. It is outrageous.

 

Since the time of the incident, Swift now quote £85 admin fee! I guess that this is easier for them to justify than a fee for sending a letter!

 

I am taking a closer look at fees as a result of advice in another post. I will be telephoning the court on Tuesday in an attempt to clarify what fees Swift can charge and in what exact circumstances. In my case, they made a charge for seizure but did not remove any goods.

[gramtrad2]

Thanks for that information.

[gramtrad2]

Agreed. It is outrageous.

 

Since the time of the incident, Swift now quote £85 admin fee! I guess that this is easier for them to justify than a fee for sending a letter!

 

I am taking a closer look at fees as a result of advice in another post. I will be telephoning the court on Tuesday in an attempt to clarify what fees Swift can charge and in what exact circumstances. In my case, they made a charge for seizure but did not remove any goods.

 

 

Quick update : Have asked Courts for a breakdown of agreed charges. They came back to me today and said that they would seek them out and supply the same on Monday afternoon.

 

I will up date this thread just as soon as I have that information.

[gramtrad2]

EX345 - HMCS clearly states this below

 

Fees charged by Bailiffs/Enforcement Officers

 

Civilian enforcement officers (CEO’S) Magistrates’ Courts — are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined. However, additional costs for removing and selling goods may be added to the amount you owe.

 

BUT IT ALSO STATES THIS

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.

 

I assume the fee's referred to in the above statement are for the removal and selling of goods, not the visit, seizure or letters ?

 

Have you spoke to the court and found out the agreed scale of fee's the baliff can charge, if there is not an agreed fee for seizure then they cant charge, if there is an agreed fee for seizing goods then they can charge. How come they charged you £50 for a letter when it is not on their fee advice sheet they gave you ? You need to check and see if the court agree's that £50 can be charged for a letter as well....

 

I asked the court to supply a copy of the agreed fees and have uploaded the same.

 

It states that there is a fee of £210 for seizure and also a letter fee of £50, which is exactly what I am disputing.

 

Since, technically they did seize the goods, my guess is that I may now be blown out on this one.

 

The only possibility, from recent comments, is an incorrect seizure, which I have commented on in an earlier post, and that looks a bit tenuous.

 

Is my case now dead? I am thinking so, but an expert opinion would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks.

scan of bailiff charges supplied by the court.pdf

[gramtrad2]

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.

 

Thanks for that information.

[hallowitch]

in my opinion it looks like an excessive levy

 

do you know the approximate value of the jag

 

I don't understand why the bailiff would need to levy goods (some of which are exempt) in the home when he has levied on a vehicle

surly the jag would have covered all bailiff fees and the fine

also there is the question of removal if the goods were removed would they (are they allowed to ) charge for 2 different types of transport

you cant remove a car in a van and you cant remove furniture in a low loader

[gramtrad2]

in my opinion it looks like an excessive levy

 

do you know the approximate value of the jag

 

I don't understand why the bailiff would need to levy goods (some of which are exempt) in the home when he has levied on a vehicle

surly the jag would have covered all bailiff fees and the fine

also there is the question of removal if the goods were removed would they (are they allowed to ) charge for 2 different types of transport

you cant remove a car in a van and you cant remove furniture in a low loader

 

Thanks, Hallowitch.

 

The Jag was worth some £35k, however, it was on finance which would have consumed that cost. However, the bailiff did not know that and I did not tell him.

 

It does look like an excessive levy in the circumstances and clearly they levied on some exempt goods also!

 

The charges for seizure are clear - £210 and that is what I was charged. If it went to removal of vehicle they could have hit me for £75 clamping charge and a £100 removal fee (according to the agreed costs sent to me my the court).

 

Removal of "non vehicle" items, to use their terminology would have cost £150 an hour!

 

All, in all, I guess the only thing that I may be able to go back on is the possibility that the levy was illegal since they levied on some exempt items.

[tomtubby]

Have you contacted Happy Contrails for further advice on the way forward? If not, then you really ought to.

 

He provided the advise in the first instance and he will know the format for the writ and will also be able to advise you as to whether other cases using the same argument have been sucessful.

 

Sorry,

 

I know that this scale of fees has been provided by the Court but it is WRONG.

 

The fees charges have been agreed by a Contract between HMCS and Swift and the new fee scale took effect on 1st December 2009.

 

The admin fee is now £95 and an attendance fee which covers all visits made and "actions taken" is £195.

[gramtrad2]

Have you contacted Happy Contrails for further advice on the way forward? If not, then you really ought to.

 

He provided the advise in the first instance and he will know the format for the writ and will also be able to advise you as to whether other cases using the same argument have been sucessful.

 

Thanks.

 

Yes he did advise me in the first place and I was going along with his line. However, he dropped out of the thread and the argument seemed to move towards faulting them on the legality of the levy. I will try and PM him.

[gramtrad2]

Sorry,

 

I know that this scale of fees has been provided by the Court but it is WRONG.

 

The fees charges have been agreed by a Contract between HMCS and Swift and the new fee scale took effect on 1st December 2009.

 

The admin fee is now £95 and an attendance fee which covers all visits made and "actions taken" is £195.

 

Fees relate to Oct 2009, so they are correct, I believe.

[gramtrad2]

Have you contacted Happy Contrails for further advice on the way forward? If not, then you really ought to.

 

He provided the advise in the first instance and he will know the format for the writ and will also be able to advise you as to whether other cases using the same argument have been sucessful.

 

Tried Happy Contrails; he did not respond to my PM.

 

I guess he may be away for some reason; let me see if he comes back in the next few days.

[tomtubby]

Thanks.

 

Yes he did advise me in the first place and I was going along with his line. However, he dropped out of the thread and the argument seemed to move towards faulting them on the legality of the levy. I will try and PM him.

 

HC was posting on CAG just a week ago. Have you sent a PM?

[Guest Happy Contrails]

I have received your PM, I have been busy lately and unable to comment thus far.

 

I dont record specific results, but from the numerous replies I received from persons using the above template, they always recover the bailiffs fees on court fines without further ado and without needing to go to court. I cant see any reason why litigation should fail because a Judge would otherwise have to contradict official HMCS advice and would work against his service record by having his judgment appealed. In any event, the "contractual charges" are only binding on those who contractually agree to pay them.

 

You PM says your dispute about an invalid levy. If the goods are jointly owned then the co-owner can disregard the levy because he is not liable for the fine. In any event there is nothing contractually or legislated AFAIK that sets the fee or obligates the debtor to pay it unless the Bailiff has a court order requiring you to pay his fee invoice. See Section 40(c/d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

I discontinued my input due to this thread being trolled with the following comments

 

Happy Contrails' claptrap.

 

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

 

Looks like these two guys have locked horns

 

In view of these comments I now suggest you go with their advice, drop your case against the bailiffs, cut your losses and chalk it down to experience.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Hello,

 

After an long break from CAG (enforced by Windows Vista - AAAAARRRGGHHH!!! NEVER use it!!!!)

 

I must (while my ***** of a computer allows me) add my pennies worth to this situation.

 

Time and time again i have noticed heated argument break out on the forum where one contributor (HC in this case ) quotes the law, and another effectively calls it 'claptrap'.

 

The reality is that both of you are probably right, the reason being that the law says one thing but the courts couldn't care less!

 

Example: In my case, where a semi literate 10 year old armed with google could correctly advise that charging £350+ to attend and remove on the FIRST visit (everyone agrees we were not in at the time) was unlawful.

 

However his 'Honor' Judge 'genius' decided that it was OK!

 

In short, its luck of the draw. If the judge has a prejudice against debtors you will lose, if he or she is sympathetic you might win.

 

Generally, people complaining as an aggrieved debtor cannot afford to bump these things up to the high court, and the judge knows it.

 

The more i learn about the law it seems to have more in common with the workings of a casino than the rigid 'machine' we expect it to behave like.

 

Conclusion - Slap on the wrist for both of you!

 

Ostritch - Some people get offended when accused of 'claptrap', OK, NOT the harshest put down I've ever heard, but HC is here to help. You could just say 'not true in my experience' or something.

 

HC - Why let a flippent comment from someone (who is not the OP) harm your resolve to help Gramtrad2 ?

 

If we are so easily divided we will be less effective.

 

Solidarity and heated debate will progress our cause. Squabbling will bring a smile to the face of any bailiff watching.

 

Sorry if i sound condracending but I watched 'fairandbalanced' a knowledgeable 'insider' leave the forum in a situation like this.

 

I hope you ALL continue to post.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

HC - Why let a flippent comment from someone (who is not the OP) harm your resolve to help Gramtrad2 ?

 

There is no harm caused to the OP, my original posts are still there for all to see. My absence from this forum is nothing to do with this comment, its one of many made by the same posters and appear to be orchestrated.

 

Following a complaint from my nephew who was also active on this forum, that a moderator is interfering with his posts, it was decided our support for this forum be discontinued. I am still active in helping the vulnerable, but my efforts are now donated to a charitable trust, whereas this forum is the property of somebody’s commercial enterprise established for private gain.

[tomtubby]

I have received your PM, I have been busy lately and unable to comment thus far.

 

I dont record specific results, but from the numerous replies I received from persons using the above template, they always recover the bailiffs fees on court fines without further ado and without needing to go to court. I cant see any reason why litigation should fail because a Judge would otherwise have to contradict official HMCS advice and would work against his service record by having his judgment appealed. In any event, the "contractual charges" are only binding on those who contractually agree to pay them.

 

You PM says your dispute about an invalid levy. If the goods are jointly owned then the co-owner can disregard the levy because he is not liable for the fine. In any event there is nothing contractually or legislated AFAIK that sets the fee or obligates the debtor to pay it unless the Bailiff has a court order requiring you to pay his fee invoice. See Section 40(c/d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

I discontinued my input due to this thread being trolled with the following comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In view of these comments I now suggest you go with their advice, drop your case against the bailiffs, cut your losses and chalk it down to experience.

 

 

 

HI HC

 

You have quoted above a comment that I had made many months ago when I said that "I thought that only cats had claws".

 

HOWEVER..... I had NOT made this comment to you at all. I had made it to another poster with the name of Nintendo PU!!!

 

In any event, the comment was merely a simple one because Nintendo Pu had made a "catty remark" to another poster. It was that SIMPLE. How he or she could have seen it as anything other than that is beyond me.

 

Unfortunatly, Nintendo Pu then started the dreadful comments such as "flame wars". I did not even know what this was.

 

I am now confused because I had not made this comment to you at all....and never would do !!!!

 

 

OOPS....HC This post would appear to have crossed with your reply. Sorry....

[Thegreenpimpernel]

I hope you review your decision.

 

I don't care if this site is a front for Kim Jong Ill.

 

It is the first and only place many people who are worried sick can get help.

 

I notice that others on here critisize your posts because they are closer to 'legal theory' than what your critics see play out in reality. This is for the reasons i stated earlier.

 

Your critics do not realize that the 'reality' they despise, will only change if the legal theory is tested and tested until it succeeds.

 

1000 judges could swat your arguments aside, but it only takes one to go our way and it could be the start of something....

 

I hope you reconsider.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

I should add that OP's (gramtrad2) and visitors observing these disagreements may come to the conclusion that no one on this site knows what they are talking about.

 

People should understand that, as i have said, the law is more like a casino than a machine. It's not the case that entering A+B will always produce answer 'c'. More like A+B = ' a probability somewhere between B & D'

 

Contributors have radically different approaches and methods that can all work in their own way.

 

If Joe average tried HC's approach, a bailiff firm would fall over laughing - they know that someone who can't pay £300 council tax cannot hire Mike Mansfield QC to test legal argument at the High Court.

 

Alternatively, if they realized they had crossed swords with someone who had wealthy backers, they would probably back down for fear of detrimental legal precedent.

 

'Horses for courses' as they say!

 

Bailiffs should note: that the poor man they picked on could come back with money and a grudge.....

[Guest Happy Contrails]

HI HC

 

You have quoted above a comment that I had made many months ago when I said that "I thought that only cats had claws".

 

HOWEVER..... I had NOT made this comment to you at all. I had made it to another poster with the name of Nintendo PU!!!

 

In any event, the comment was merely a simple one because Nintendo Pu had made a "catty remark" to another poster. It was that SIMPLE. How he or she could have seen it as anything other than that is beyond me...

 

Im probably losing some marbles in my old age! but this is the actual comment. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/228745-swify-credit-services-have.html#post2539922

 

Nintendo Pu was nowhere near this thread nor seen any catty remarks.

[tomtubby]

Im probably losing some marbles in my old age! but this is the actual comment. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/228745-swify-credit-services-have.html#post2539922

 

Nintendo Pu was nowhere near this thread nor seen any catty remarks.

 

From what I have read, I had made this simple comment to Ostrich and once again this is not directed at you.

 

Still confused as to how this affected you.

[gramtrad2]

I have received your PM, I have been busy lately and unable to comment thus far.

 

I dont record specific results, but from the numerous replies I received from persons using the above template, they always recover the bailiffs fees on court fines without further ado and without needing to go to court. I cant see any reason why litigation should fail because a Judge would otherwise have to contradict official HMCS advice and would work against his service record by having his judgment appealed. In any event, the "contractual charges" are only binding on those who contractually agree to pay them.

 

You PM says your dispute about an invalid levy. If the goods are jointly owned then the co-owner can disregard the levy because he is not liable for the fine. In any event there is nothing contractually or legislated AFAIK that sets the fee or obligates the debtor to pay it unless the Bailiff has a court order requiring you to pay his fee invoice. See Section 40(c/d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

I discontinued my input due to this thread being trolled with the following comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In view of these comments I now suggest you go with their advice, drop your case against the bailiffs, cut your losses and chalk it down to experience.

 

Thanks for your input which is appreciated.

 

I am reluctant to let Swift off the hook, and if possible I would like to come back at them. However, the conflicting opinions in this thread have left me uncertain.

 

I have to see my solicitor about another matter, and will attempt to canvass his views on this matter.