Clamped Car And Bailiffs Fees

[maddam78]

hello

had my car clamped this morning and i had to pay to the bailifs £517.46 for pcn,

pcn was about 2 years ago since then i have moved to another address where car was clamped,

pcn was £150 court fee £5, bailiffs cost £362.46

my question is that the bailiffs fees are correctT?

first visit

thanks in advance

[Bazooka Boo]

Debt Basics - Bailiff Guide - know your rights

 

There are other sites that will tell you about how much a Bailiff can charge for it's fees..

[tomtubby]

hello

had my car clamped this morning and i had to pay to the bailifs £517.46 for pcn,

pcn was about 2 years ago since then i have moved to another address where car was clamped,

pcn was £150 court fee £5, bailiffs cost £362.46

my question is that the bailiffs fees are correctT?

first visit

thanks in advance

 

Fees would appear to be excessive.

 

If you had not received all statutory notices then you shouold consider filing an Out of Time Declaration. If revoked this will enable you to claim for the return of your money.

[Bartok]

pcn was £150 court fee £5, bailiffs cost £362.46

my question is that the bailiffs fees are correctT?

first visit

 

The bailiffs fee is 28% of the fine and court fee so the correct bailiffs fee is £43.40.

 

There is nothing in the regulations about charging a fee to clamp a car.

 

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

[hallowitch]

baillifs cant charge a clamping fee

 

In the Central London county court - Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). Before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008

 

Mr Culligan challenged the bailiffs fees & charges imposed by Mr Simkin and Marstons when levying distress and seeking to remove Mr Culigans car for non-payment of a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Camden.

 

The Judgment goes a long way to clarify exactly what a Bailiff can charge for levying distress. Bailiffs have always sought to charge for fixing an immobilisation device by clamping a vehicle, and an attendance to remove. These charges in Anthony Culligan's case were £200 (£100 for the clamp and £100 for attendance to remove). The Bailiffs have argued that the Fee Regulations permit them to make a charge for levying distress (that is 28% on the first £200 demanded, and for removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods are removed, reasonable costs and charges). Bailiffs have claimed that the costs of putting on a clamp, etc. are costs to be included in attending to remove where no goods are removed, if payment is made before the vehicle concerned is removed.

 

 

 

 

DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:-

 

1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods.

 

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

 

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:-

 

"Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so I cannot see that Form 7 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7".

 

The District Judge went on to find that the application of the clamp falls within the act of levying distress and does not form part of the removal process, whatever the Bailiff's Contract with Camden says.

 

The Bailiff also charged Anthony Culligan £100 for the " reasonable costs " of removing the vehicle (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at Anthony Culligan's home. Because the Bailiff produced no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived at he was unable to show that it was reasonable.

 

The District Judge in his conclusion says:

 

"I am also conscious that my findings in this case ... may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress. To do otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful... I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgment now continued to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be unlawful....".

 

What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed.

 

You should know however that Marstons obtained permission to appeal from the District Judge. His reasons for granting the permission were :

 

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

My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking.

 

Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard"

 

Finally, Camden now as a matter of urgency, need to revise their Contract with Bailiffs such as Marston, to take account of the District Judge's Judgment generally, and in particular to remove the authority to charge a fee for an immobilisation device over and above that provided for in the Statutory Fee Regulations.

__________________

[maddam78]

Thanks Everyone For Your Help

[bladeboy]

OK Madam

 

Thing to do now is write for a breakdown of the fees. The Enforcement Agents Code of Conduct says that they have to do this. Which firm is it?

 

The fees that bailiffs can charge for collection activity of parking PCN's is goverened by the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts order which is a Statutory Instrument. You'll ind a link to the fees and charges here or via google.

 

What you should have been charged is the penalty notice amount, plus a letter fee which is £11.20 and then a levy fee which should be no more than £28.00 or so. All that has taken place here is a 'levy'.

 

After the fee breakdown comes back from the bailiff firm look at it and then take it apart by comparing it to the statue. Work out how much you have been over charged and invite them to refund. Might also be useful to indicate that you're minded to report them to the issuing Council.

 

Chances are they will either ignore you, or fob you off.

 

Next thing to do is a fomal 'letter before action' which must outline your case for claiming the overcharging.

 

Best also to invest in the book by Patricia Pearl (link above) re the workings of the small claims court - this book is like the bible for the small claims court user. There's a section on pre-action conduct and if they ignore your letter before action it can be take to be 'unreasonable conduct' and lay them open to costs even though there is a presumption for 'no costs' in the small claims court.

 

If they ignore that, then file a small claim via your local county court. As an 'individual' the case will be transfered to your local court and to initiate the 'action' it will costs no more than about £45.00 or so - you'll be able to claim that back.

 

If you need help with the particulars of claim, post here.

 

Hallowitch has posted some dynamite law here with the case involving the MARSTON GROUP.

 

The Judge in that case has put some very good arguments together that states that clamping of a vehicle is still part of the 'levy' phase and on that basis it is subject to the 'fee cap' laid out in the Statutory Instrument.

 

Be patient, it will all take time.

 

Despite the ruling above bailiff's, from all firms, are still routinely overcharging in the knowledge that debtors will do very little about it 99.9% of the time. Makes it a right little national fraud racket if you ask me. The police don't care and in some cases act unlawfully to assist the bailiff.

 

Stick to your guns and go get them!

[maddam78]

ok, that's the responce from a bailiff company regarding my fees:

Thank you for your email dated 21/6/2010.

 

I would confirm that Mr R M, the Bailiff that enforced the Warrant of Execution on 21/6/210 had his Bailiff certificate issued by Watford County Court.

 

The debt and fees were applied under the 'Scale of Fees Statutory Instrument 2003, No. 1857 (L31)'. I have attached a Statement of Account for your information which gives a breakdown of the fees applied to the Account.

 

The instructing body in this matter was our Client, London Borough of Ealing and we confirm that all fees have been applied under the Statutory Instrument, Schedule of Costs as referred to previously.

 

We would confirm that if any action is taken against our Bailiff through the Courts, it will be defended and if proved to be frivolous or vexatious, costs will be requested for defending the case.

 

 

 

Regards

Administration Team

 

Collect Services Limited

and the attachment:

fees breakdow:

 

 

23/10/2009

23/10/2009

26/10/2009

06/11/2009

10/11/2009

20/11/2009

11/01/2010

23/06/2010

Type

23/10/2009 Costs £5

23/10/2009 debt £150

26/10/2009 Letter fee £12.88

06/11/2009 Visit / Levy Fee1 £54.05

10/11/2009 Attendance to Remove £124.75

20/11/2009 Visit / Levy Fee 2 £72.45

11/01/2010 Visit / Levy Fee 3 £78.73

23/06/2010 HPI check £ 19.60

 

could anyone clarify if that's correct please?

also that was they first visit as since march 2009 i live elswhere

thank you for any advice

 

 

[maddam78]

anyone any ideas about this fees please?

[Bartok]

Read post #4.

 

The letter fee is allowed but only if they show compelling evidence they sent you one to your current address.

 

The other fees can be disegarded - unless you willingly and unanbiguously agree to pay them or the bailiffs shows a costs order made against you that sets the amount of costs you must pay. If the bailiff has a costs order, then complete an N244 and ask for the order to be set-aside because you were not given an opportunity to respond to the application.

 

If you have already paid, they you can try reclaiming them as they are not prescribed, but if the bailiffs says they are 'costs' and no supporting sales invoices are produced, then reclaim them on ther grounds the bailiff is claiming unjust enrichment.

[High Court Enforcer]

If you believe the fees are incorrect, you can have the fees taxed by way of a detailed assessment.

 

Issuing a claim like Bartok suggests may end up costing you dearly as above is the correct way to deal with this.

[Bartok]

 

Issuing a claim like Bartok suggests may end up costing you dearly as above is the correct way to deal with this.

 

How so? the small claims track doesnt provide for claiming costs. Only the court fees £40 and thats only if its awarded. Besides, if the OP wins, the bailiff firm gets a CCJ and it bye-bye consumer credit license.

 

The risk is entirely with the bailiff.

[JH101]

A costs order is not required. These are fees following after a PCN, so their authorisation is based on The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993–(as amended 2003)

 

The bailiff firm Equita has a table up, at

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

 

The "letter fee" should normally be £11.20+VAT = £12.88 if VAT is 15%. I don't know whether or not the above poster is right, when he says that you can claim this back if it hasn't been sent to your current address. (Or, stronger, if they can't prove they have).

 

At that point, the running total you owed they're claiming was £167.88 Rounding that up to £168 and working out 28% gives £47.04 Adding VAT at 15% then brings that up to £54.10

 

That's the maximum they can claim for their first "visit" fee. It looks like they're giving you the benefit of 5p. I don't know if they can still claim it if the place they visited was not your current address -- you may need someone like TomTubby's advice on that.

 

If you tell them you're going to question their bill (in formal-speak, that you're considering taking them to a "taxation"), there are two further things that they and you need to consider.

 

Firstly, did the "visit" ever actually happen at all. Bailiff firms are notorious for billing "phantom visits", and courts know this. Also the visit can only legally be made by a certificated bailiff. So, before paying, it is entirely appropriate for you to ask them:

 

* What was the name of the bailiff ?

* At which court was the bailiff certificated, and can they provide evidence that the certificate was current ?

* What can they show you to prove that the bailiff was ever actually there? Eg relevant page from their daily work diary, and/or day's timesheet, plus a corroborating GPS trace.

 

Secondly, note that (like MP's expenses), the 28% is a maximum, not an entitlement. They need to be able to show their costs are "reasonable", where reasonable encompasses both necessary and actual.

 

So, how is it that they propose to establish that their actual and necessary costs in the bailiffs attending were at least £47.04 ? (And does that mean they are therefore in the habit of running their business at a loss?) Relevant factors here might include the actual amount they paid the delivering bailiff an hour, and the amount of time (from the bailiff's timesheet) the bailiff actually spent on your case.

 

If the bailiff was Philips it may be easier, because they admit that their letter deliverers on average only spend 12 minutes per case. (Or at least that's what I calculate. Philips say 40 cases a day: http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/newcsu/Partners_in_Parking_Board/2009%20Meetings/7%20December%202009/Item%2010%20PiPLeaflet%20b.pdf )

 

The next element in the bill is the most odd -- they claim to have "attended to remove". But by law, they can only remove a reasonable time after they have levied.

 

Or, in English, first they have to get into your house, make a list of the goods that they propose to take, and tell you that they have "seized" those goods (i.e. formally taken charge of them), so you know not to sell them or give them away.

 

The odd thing is, they haven't billed you for a levy. Nor, in all likelihood, would they be able to produce a copy of any such levy. (Given that they've never been to your address).

 

Indeed it is quite strange that they then claim (and have billed you for it) to have visited you twice more attempting to levy. If they already had levied you, that would hardly be a necessary cost, would it?

 

So this one is very fishy.

 

As for the two remaining "visits", same as before.

 

Oh, and they can't bill you for the HPI check, as you have no contractual relationship with them, and this is not a fee that is prescribed under the Regulations.

Edited June 26, 2010 by JH101
fix careless mistake: visits, not levies

[maddam78]

thank you guys

what should i do now?

please anyone to advice me step by step what best to do

thank you

[Bartok]

1. Ask for a refund from the bailiffs within 14 days.

 

2. File the claim on a Form N1.

 

3. Follow the courts directions until you either get Judgement or the bailiff settles.

[tomtubby]

A costs order is not required. These are fees following after a PCN, so their authorisation is based on The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993–(as amended 2003)

 

The bailiff firm Equita has a table up, at

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

 

The "letter fee" should normally be £11.20+VAT = £12.88 if VAT is 15%. I don't know whether or not the above poster is right, when he says that you can claim this back if it hasn't been sent to your current address. (Or, stronger, if they can't prove they have).

 

At that point, the running total you owed they're claiming was £167.88 Rounding that up to £168 and working out 28% gives £47.04 Adding VAT at 15% then brings that up to £54.10

 

That's the maximum they can claim for their first "visit" fee. It looks like they're giving you the benefit of 5p. I don't know if they can still claim it if the place they visited was not your current address -- you may need someone like TomTubby's advice on that.

 

If you tell them you're going to question their bill (in formal-speak, that you're considering taking them to a "taxation"), there are two further things that they and you need to consider.

 

Firstly, did the "visit" ever actually happen at all. Bailiff firms are notorious for billing "phantom visits", and courts know this. Also the visit can only legally be made by a certificated bailiff. So, before paying, it is entirely appropriate for you to ask them:

 

* What was the name of the bailiff ?

* At which court was the bailiff certificated, and can they provide evidence that the certificate was current ?

* What can they show you to prove that the bailiff was ever actually there? Eg relevant page from their daily work diary, and/or day's timesheet, plus a corroborating GPS trace.

 

Secondly, note that (like MP's expenses), the 28% is a maximum, not an entitlement. They need to be able to show their costs are "reasonable", where reasonable encompasses both necessary and actual.

 

So, how is it that they propose to establish that their actual and necessary costs in the bailiffs attending were at least £47.04 ? (And does that mean they are therefore in the habit of running their business at a loss?) Relevant factors here might include the actual amount they paid the delivering bailiff an hour, and the amount of time (from the bailiff's timesheet) the bailiff actually spent on your case.

 

If the bailiff was Philips it may be easier, because they admit that their letter deliverers on average only spend 12 minutes per case. (Or at least that's what I calculate. Philips say 40 cases a day: http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/newcsu/Partners_in_Parking_Board/2009%20Meetings/7%20December%202009/Item%2010%20PiPLeaflet%20b.pdf )

 

The next element in the bill is the most odd -- they claim to have "attended to remove". But by law, they can only remove a reasonable time after they have levied.

 

Or, in English, first they have to get into your house, make a list of the goods that they propose to take, and tell you that they have "seized" those goods (i.e. formally taken charge of them), so you know not to sell them or give them away.

 

The odd thing is, they haven't billed you for a levy. Nor, in all likelihood, would they be able to produce a copy of any such levy. (Given that they've never been to your address).

 

Indeed it is quite strange that they then claim (and have billed you for it) to have visited you twice more attempting to levy. If they already had levied you, that would hardly be a necessary cost, would it?

 

So this one is very fishy.

 

As for the two remaining "visits", same as before.

 

Oh, and they can't bill you for the HPI check, as you have no contractual relationship with them, and this is not a fee that is prescribed under the Regulations.

.

EXCELLENT response JH.!!

 

The fees are completely WRONG.

 

Bailiff companies are depending entirely on the debtors ignorance of the statutory fee scale and are taking serious advantage of this.

 

In the appeal court case of Evans v South Ribble District Council, His Honour Justice Simone Brown made the point VERY CLEAR indeed that there are 3 STAGES in the enforcement process:

 

The entry (into the premises.

 

The levying of the goods.

 

The removal of goods.

 

In other words, UNLESS a bailiff has PREVIOUSLY levied upon goods, he cannot charge an "attending to remove fee". Many companies (Equita in particular) will list their "attending to remove" fee as an "enforcement fee".

[maddam78]

thank's Bartok you are very helpfull i think i'll ask a company to refund my money before going to the court,

to Tomtubby: thank you for taking a part in my case:), what do you think is there any chance that i'll get my money back?

[maddam78]

can anyone help me to word that e mail please?

i'm a bit confussed now and don't know what to start with

thanks

[Bartok]

Use this as a base:

 

Consumer Direct - Template letter No.10 - Use this letter before action to send to a trader who has failed to respond to your previous letters asking for resolution.

 

Then work out how much want them to pay you: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/264601-clamped-car-bailiffs-fees.html#post2995099

 

Yours Faithfully (do not sign)

 

Mark the the top of the letter BY POST AND BY EMAIL

 

 

Theres other templates on these forums.

[maddam78]

hello all

that's the responce for my email. i've used JH101's post as a template

what do you think?

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I have noted the content however I would first of all refer you to the Appeal case of Evans v South Ribble District Council which related to Council Tax Regulations and legislation.

 

The Warrant we are acting under was in respect of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and as such the fees were applied under the Scale of Fees - Statutory Instrument 2003, NO. 1857 (L.31) for each part of the enforcement process.

 

We note that as a result of the Local Authority's DVLA check circa 21 days after the offence date (2/5/09), your vehicle was registered to 25 Buckingham Avenue.

 

Further DVLA checks were made by us on 28/10/09 and 16/3/10 and the latest one 4/6/2010. All of these showed the same address despite the Toad Tax being renewed 3 times for 6 months at a time.

 

We would point out it is an office to fail to notify the DVLA of your change of address and you may well be liable for a Fine of up to ÂŁ2000.

 

Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 there is also a reference in the practice notes 10.73 which states 'Other means of recovering the sum owed cannot be used simply because the motorist has ceased to occupy the premises stated in the Warrant of Execution. The certificated Bailiff has authority to levy against the respondents goods irrespective of address and the bailiff can therefore amend the details of the address on the warrant and seek to enforce the warrant at the motorists new address'.

 

In addition the HPI charge has been covered under 'reasonable costs and charges' of the aforementioned Statutory Instrument.

 

We would therefore advise you that any claim for repayment through the Courts will be defended and in the event that the Judge decided in our favour, costs would be applied for.

[JH101]

Is that the best they can do? Not impressed.

 

In particular, they have failed to make any answer to the key point you have put to them, that there cannot be an "attendance to remove" fee unless there has first been a "levy". Evans v South Ribble District Council addresses this quite directly: it's why Evans won and South Ribble lost. In Evans the judge made quite clear that there had not been a proper levy, so South Ribble and their agents could not claim attendance to remove.

 

Secondly, the HPI fee. While it is entirely true that Schedule 1 of the SI contains a number of mentions of "reasonable costs and charges" (for text, see the Equita link above), it is not entirely clear which mention your bailiffs are proposing to rely on here.

 

The only reference where the phrase might appear to be even remotely applicable would be that under paragraph 5: "For appraising (valuing) goods, the reasonable charges, fees and expenses of the broker". However, paragraph 5 continues "An appraisal (valuation) of the goods shall take place only on the written request of the debtor" -- which in this case you have not requested. Nor is it clear that HPI, while providing information relevant to a valuation, can be considered a broker. But the first point is in any case decisive: you had not requested a valuation, so paragraph 5 does not apply.

 

Reasonable charges and expenses can also be charged under paragraph 6, for "removing goods or attending to remove goods where no goods are removed". But an HPI inquiry forms no part of "removing goods or attending to remove goods", so cannot be argued under this section either. In any case, per Culligan v Simkin and Marstons, we don't even get to the question of removal until after they have seized your goods, served a notice on you that they have done so, and given you a reasonable interval to pay, which you have not availed yourself of. In this case, you did avail yourself of the chance to pay at that stage, so the question of a charges relating to the removal phase would be moot (even if the HPI charge had been a relevant charge to that stage, which it isn't).

 

In fact, the natural point for an HPI enquiry is at the levy stage: to give a (partial) indication as to whether the goods were or were not in fact leviable. But the regulations do not prescribe "reasonable costs and charges" for the levy stage. Instead, at paragraph 2, they prescribe a fixed schedule of fees for the levy stage.

 

Paragraph 3 must also be noted, which provides (in part) that: "The aggregate costs and charges payable under paragraphs 2 and 3 are not to exceed the costs and charges allowed for three attendances to levy distress".

 

Since, according to the bill of costs they have submitted to you, they are already claiming to be due the maximum sum allowable, on the basis of the visits claimed to have been made on 06/11/2009, 20/11/2009 and 11/01/2010, then per the words of paragraph 3 just quoted, there is no room for any further charge or fee to arise under paragraph 2 or paragraph 3.

 

Of course, one other place that the wording "reasonable costs and charges" does occur is in the first part of paragraph 3 -- for attending (but failing) to levy.

 

Here, you asked them, quite properly, what was the reasonable basis on which they justified their fees -- and you received no answer.

 

You also asked them what evidence they could supply you with, that any certificated bailiff had in fact come anywhere near the said property on the day in question -- and you received no answer on that point either.

 

I should ask them those questions again, if they are making this demand of you.

 

As to the question of court costs, they should be aware that it is extraordinarily unusual for costs to be awarded in the small claims court; but a dim view might well be taken if a company that should have known better relies on evidence that it could well have disclosed months before the case came to court.

 

 

Finally, the question of the DVLA address. This is of course a matter for the DVLA not the bailiffs. But they should be aware that there is no requirement whatsoever, that the address on the V5C be your current personal address; it merely has to be an address where you may be contacted regarding the vehicle. As evidently you successfully received reminders and renewed your "Toad Tax" on two occasions, it would appear that that DVLA was able to successfully contact you using this address, even if - for whatever reason - the bailiffs were not.

Edited June 30, 2010 by JH101

[bladeboy]

If you believe the fees are incorrect, you can have the fees taxed by way of a detailed assessment.

 

Issuing a claim like Bartok suggests may end up costing you dearly as above is the correct way to deal with this.

 

What Baloney! The assessment process can cost you dearly, or more than the small claims track, as there is no pressumption to 'no costs' on the assessment process.

 

The only way you can be stung for costs in the small claims track is if the court/judge deems that you have acted unreasonably and in your case with properly compiled Particulars of Claim that simply won't apply.

 

As High Court Enforcer knows, it's far more profitable to blag and make up fees and exploit debtor's lack of knowledge.

[maddam78]

thanks jh101

so should i contact bailiffs again or make a court claim right away?

[bladeboy]

thanks jh101

so should i contact bailiffs again or make a court claim right away?

 

Have you sent a formal 'letter before action' and actually written letter before action as a header for the letter?

 

This should be a simple, bullet-pointed outline of the facts of the case and how much you should be refunded and how you have calculated that figure.

 

The rules for this 'pre-action conduct' are outlined in ANNEX A of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Point out to them them that they have 14 days to respond to your letter before action and that if they chose to ignore it they are contavening Paragraph 4 of ANNEX A of 'the rules'.

 

What this means is that it gives the court discretion re costs since failure to respond to a letter before action can be deemed to be 'unresonable behaviour'. State that you'll be inviting the court to consider this.

 

Wait 14 days, then bang the claim in.

 

They'll either defend or pay up.

 

You ok putting particulars of claim together?

[maddam78]

thanks Bladeboy

i will appreciate if you could help me put it together thank you