Clamped Car And Bailiffs Fees

[bladeboy]

Also, you MUST buy the book by Patricia Pearl advertsied at the top of this site Small Claims Procedure - a guide.

 

It's a very good book and will prove to be an excellent reference for the whole process.

 

I love it.

[couresportivo]

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.

 

Question for JH1 if he is around.

 

you refer above to simkin v marston.

 

my son last week was pinged by a bailiff driving a van, i am almost certain it contained ANPR. My son did not receive the summons, nor any other document. i know this as a fact, because his house was repossessed around the time of the northampton claim was issued..

 

The bailif clamped his car and then issued a notice of seizure.

 

i am very happy to deal with all the items in the seizure notice, but require clarification in the simkins v marston judgement.

The bailiff charged £28.00

in the seizure notiice there was a charge for attendance to remove/romoval costs. £120.00

to prevent removal i paid it on behalf of my son within 5minutes of receiving the seizure notice.

 

My reading of simkins v marston is that it is unlawful for them to charge for the removal, without giving the debtor a reasonable time to pay. No removal van attended..

it is my view that these parasites prey on people being ignorant of the law.

 

The bailiff said he was expert on the law he has been a bailiff 7 years.

 

In my view, the bailiff wilfully misrepresented the legal position to secure a profit by that misrepresentation. Marstons being aware of the judgent of DJ Advent will also know this.

 

Sorry the post is long

 

.If he did misrepresent the legal position. than he is guilty of misrepresentation under the Fraud Act. Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another , or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

 

your comments would be welcomed

[brassnecked]

The problem is making the police take action against fraudulent activity by bailiffs, they are under the mistaken impression that they are mainly on the same side.

[couresportivo]

cheers for reply.

I am using it to reinforce a small claim, for the overpayment they demanded my son pays.

i will just issue proceedings, its a simple matter , there has already been a decision at DJ level. i only want the overpayment back.

[ploddertom]

In my view it was not an overpayment. As he received no documentation at the time you should be able to get it all back, have the ticket taken back to just as it was issued. Have you read this thread from earlier today http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?314317-Tickets-issued-for-Parking-in-a-Loading-Bay-from-Lambeth-Council-Bailiff-Action%281-Viewing%29-nbsp

 

PT

[couresportivo]

Cheers PT

have read the thread now. Asked the delightful Hallowitch for some precedents.

 

ty

c

[tomtubby]

If you require a copy of the Culligan/ Simpkin v Marston Judgment, please send me a PM and I can email a copy to you.

 

The same applies to anyone else....