1 PCN, 2 visit fees at £200+VAT each

[Submarine Washer]

On their breakdown for the same PCN (I paid cash) it says:

 

Debt £125.00

Admin fee £11.20

1st visit fee £200+VAT

2nd vist fee £200 +VAT

 

They did actually post notices through the door, so I'm not questioning if the visits happened.

 

I'm basically wondering where to find prescriptive legislation showing two lots of £200+VAT is allowed.

[hallowitch]

you will have to find out if parking has been decriminalised in your area because these fees look like magistrate court

I'm not sure if the can charge you for 2 visits if this is the case

 

your admin fee should be a letter fee that must be sent to you prior to a visit

[Submarine Washer]

It's a Westminster PCN. WM with 8 digits after it.

 

I read some legislation, but it doesn't ban 2x £200+VAT.

 

Can I reclaim the second fee?

[hallowitch]

read this thread it explains how bailiff fees for pcn should be worked out

 

pay particular attention to posts by tomtubby

 

bailiffs enforcing a pnc must be certificated to the company he is employed with the list is not always 100% if you cant find him/her or they a certificated to a different company phone the Ministry of Justice Public Register of Bailiffs on 020 3334 6355 to confirm

 

 

Certificated Bailiff

 

 

 

 

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

[fork-it]

Its 28% of the PCN per visit max three visits.

 

Schedule 1 of the 2003 revision of Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993

[fluffy_bunny]

On their breakdown for the same PCN (I paid cash) it says:

 

Debt £125.00

Admin fee £11.20

1st visit fee £200+VAT

2nd vist fee £200 +VAT

 

They did actually post notices through the door, so I'm not questioning if the visits happened.

 

I'm basically wondering where to find prescriptive legislation showing two lots of £200+VAT is allowed.

 

There is no prescriptive legislation showing two lots of £200+VAT is allowed and the bailiffs (Philips I presume) and Westminster know this.

 

Highly illegal practices going on between these 2 with these charges.

 

I'd get your MP involved pronto!

 

Tomtubby may also be of help to you on this

[JH101]

If anybody else gets "Dan from Doncaster" telling them that (I quote) "1993 was a long time ago. The law must have changed", the following may be useful:

 

* JBW vs Westminster Council (High Court, November 2009)

JBW Group Ltd v Westminster City Council [2009] EWHC 2697 (QB) (03 November 2009)

 

This was a case brought against Westminster Council by Philips' predecessors on the Westminster parking bailiff services contract.

 

 

At paragraph 2, the High Court judge (Mr. Justice Jack) sets out the framework of current law, showing how the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certified Bailiffs) Regulations fit in.

 

He also quotes in full Regulation 10 of the Distress for Rent Rules, which provides that "No person shall be entitled to charge, or recover from, a tenant any fees, charges or expenses for levying a distress, or for doing any act or thing in relation thereto, other than those authorised by the tables in Appendix 1 to these Rules."

 

(The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts re-use Regulation 10, substituting "debtor" for "tenant", and "Schedule 1" for "Appendix 1"

 

At paragraph 9 the judge explicitly considers the effect of Westminster's contract, summarising that: "The effect is that the fees chargeable by JBW shall be as set by the Council but that they shall not exceed the rates set by the Regulations".

 

This is similarly the case now, with JBW replaced by Philips.

 

 

A table of the rates prescribed by the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certified Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 (as amended 2003), currently in force, can be found provided by the bailiff firm Equita:

 

http://www.equita.co.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=r0du9hZ12t0%3d&tabid=202

 

See the link further up-thread for some sample calculations.

 

 

On a typical ticket from Westminster, that has reached £180, the court charges £5 for a warrant, taking the underlying debt to £185, and Philips can charge for a first warning letter the sum of £11.20+VAT = £13.16 if VAT is 17.5%. This takes the total then owing to £198.16

 

Using the formulas in the Regulations, Philips' fee for their first "visit" cannot exceed £55.72 + £9.75 VAT. However, note that this is not an entitlement but a maximum. To charge you the full amount, Philips need to be able to make out that their fee is "reasonable" -- it must reflect their actual and necessary costs, no more. Given that they boast to councils that their people on average do 40 of these visits a day (ie they only spend 12 minutes on each one), they may find that a challenge.

http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/newcs...eaflet%20b.pdf

If challenged, Philips also need to be able to substantiate that the visit happened at all -- courts are well aware of the phenonomenon of "phantom visits" that never in fact ever took place.

 

 

Second "visit" fees work out at a maximum of £59.20 + £10.36 VAT.

 

Westminster's contract with Philips caps the number of visit fees allowed at two, so that there is still a "levy" fee that can be charged if they manage to trick their way into your house or clamp your car.

 

 

If they do manage to successfully "levy" you, after two unsuccessful attempts (eg by clamping you), the most they can then charge for that (assuming that at that stage you pay up) is £62.70 + £10.97 VAT

 

Putting those three fees together, the maximum they can be asking for themselves for these three fees (even if they've clamped you) is £177.62 + £31.08 VAT -- and even that can be challenged as not reflecting their actual and necessary costs.

Edited June 27, 2010 by JH101
+ some bolding, for readability

[Submarine Washer]

Thanks. I'll put togther an N1 based on that.

 

Much appreciated.

[tomtubby]

If anybody else gets "Dan from Doncaster" telling them that (I quote) "1993 was a long time ago. The law must have changed", the following may be useful:

 

* JBW vs Westminster Council (High Court, November 2009)

JBW Group Ltd v Westminster City Council [2009] EWHC 2697 (QB) (03 November 2009)

 

This was a case brought against Westminster Council by Philips' predecessors on the Westminster parking bailiff services contract.

 

 

At paragraph 2, the High Court judge (Mr. Justice Jack) sets out the framework of current law, showing how the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certified Bailiffs) Regulations fit in.

 

He also quotes in full Regulation 10 of the Distress for Rent Rules, which provides that "No person shall be entitled to charge, or recover from, a tenant any fees, charges or expenses for levying a distress, or for doing any act or thing in relation thereto, other than those authorised by the tables in Appendix 1 to these Rules."

 

(The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts re-use Regulation 10, substituting "debtor" for "tenant", and "Schedule 1" for "Appendix 1"

 

At paragraph 9 the judge explicitly considers the effect of Westminster's contract, summarising that: "The effect is that the fees chargeable by JBW shall be as set by the Council but that they shall not exceed the rates set by the Regulations".

 

This is similarly the case now, with JBW replaced by Philips.

 

 

A table of the rates prescribed by the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certified Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 (as amended 2003), currently in force, can be found provided by the bailiff firm Equita:

 

http://www.equita.co.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=r0du9hZ12t0%3d&tabid=202

 

See the link further up-thread for some sample calculations.

 

 

On a typical ticket from Westminster, that has reached £180, the court charges £5 for a warrant, taking the underlying debt to £185, and Philips can charge for a first warning letter the sum of £11.20+VAT = £13.16 if VAT is 17.5%. This takes the total then owing to £198.16

 

Using the formulas in the Regulations, Philips' fee for their first "visit" cannot exceed £55.72 + £9.75 VAT. However, note that this is not an entitlement but a maximum. To charge you the full amount, Philips need to be able to make out that their fee is "reasonable" -- it must reflect their actual and necessary costs, no more. Given that they boast to councils that their people on average do 40 of these visits a day (ie they only spend 12 minutes on each one), they may find that a challenge.

http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/newcs...eaflet%20b.pdf

If challenged, Philips also need to be able to substantiate that the visit happened at all -- courts are well aware of the phenonomenon of "phantom visits" that never in fact ever took place.

 

 

Second "visit" fees work out at a maximum of £59.20 + £10.36 VAT.

 

Westminster's contract with Philips caps the number of visit fees allowed at two, so that there is still a "levy" fee that can be charged if they manage to trick their way into your house or clamp your car.

 

 

If they do manage to successfully "levy" you, after two unsuccessful attempts (eg by clamping you), the most they can then charge for that (assuming that at that stage you pay up) is £62.70 + £10.97 VAT

 

Putting those three fees together, the maximum they can be asking for themselves for these three fees (even if they've clamped you) is £177.62 + £31.08 VAT -- and even that can be challenged as not reflecting their actual and necessary costs.

 

EXCELLENT response JH!!

 

The CONTRACT between Philips and Westminster "apparently" allows for Philips to charge a maximum of just two visits and that they can be charged at £200 for "each" visit.

 

I mention "apparently" above and there is a reason for this. As many people on here are aware our company is a commercial business advising the public on all matters relating to a bailiff visit and for this reason we have a copy of the Contract from Westminster (under the Freedom of Information request) and MY interpretation on reading it is that the fees are "capped" at £200 !!!. Upon checking with Westminster I am informed that this is PER VISIT!!!

 

As stated in the response from JH above the fees are completely WRONG and I for one and staggered that such a large London authority could authorise the charging by their bailiffs of £200 for EACH VISIT.

 

What needs to be understood is that if there is a dispute regarding fees the debtor can apply for Detailed Assessment . This is where a "Costs Judge" examines the fees and applies statue law and case law to establish the CORRECT fees that should have been charged.

 

Most people would not have a clue how to go about this. There have been quite a few cases in court and in our office I have copies of the "transcript" (72 pages) of one such Detailed Assessment against Marston Group relating to PCN enforcement which by coincidence involves Westminster parking tickets!!

 

The Judge makes some very important remarks as follows:

 

"How am I to be certain that fees are reasonable or whether they are made up".....where is there anything (in these papers) that shows that this is anything other than a figure plucked from the air, which is not good enough where you have the burden of proof"

 

On the matter of a levy fee of £46.54 the Judge commented that:

"The fees state that they must be "reasonable costs and charges" which is all very fine....but you (Marston Group) must justify it by at least showing how it has been calculated".

 

Interestingly he also states this:

 

"(The regulations) say "reasonable costs and charges for attending to levy" so this means that you have to say what your costs and charges are and WHY they are reasonable and these set a MAXIMA. You cant just charge a MAXIMA each time" !!!!

 

This Detailed Assessment Judgement also makes it CLEAR that a bailiff cannot charge "multiple charges" for enforcing more than one PCN and neither can a bailiff charge a credit card transaction fee of 3%.

 

The HPI charge is also NOT allowed and is NOT part of the statutory fee scale. Interestingly, unless the bailiff company has online DVLA access they are normally charged MOST £2 for an HPI !!!