clamped car, cost £800 to release

[babyash]

Hi to everyone and hope you can help.........................

 

My daughter had her car clamped the other morning and had to pay £800 to have it released.

 

Apparently there was an outstanding parking ticket that was issued by cctv that we knew nothing about.

 

From February 09- Aungust 09 she was in staying in temporary accomodation and therefore did not change the details or notify DVL

 

She has paid the outstanding amount and appealed but has now received a witness statement from the council stating that they are within their rights.

 

Can we take this further and appeal again and can I proceed myself even though the car is in her name as I must of been the person who was driving the car at the time of the ticket being issued even though we were all unaware of this ticket?

 

Any advice would be really appreciated as I am claiming DLA and this is such a lot of money to fork out.

 

Thank you

[lamma]

And she was not contactable at the old address I take it. if the reason from the temporary accommodation were adverse circumstances of nature that she would have been been exposed to risk by re-registering (anyone can get RK details from the DVLA via 'reasonable cause') then I think a judge may look kindly on a N244 application is these circumstances.

[babyash]

Hi lamma

 

No she was not contactable at any address as she was staying on peoples sofas so to speak and although the court say none of her mail was sent back, who bothers to write RTS these days, and she did go round in the early stages to collect post but there was none

 

So am sitting here now with letter from Northampton Court not giving me any direction of what the next move is!!!!!!!

 

Plase can you tell me where I go next, get a solicitor or try to deal with it myself?

 

Thank you so much

[lamma]

If the reason from the temporary accommodation were adverse circumstances of nature that she would have been been exposed to risk by re-registering (anyone can get RK details from the DVLA via 'reasonable cause') then I think a judge may look kindly on a N244 application is these circumstances.

[Conniff]

Read post #4 again and then again.

[babyash]

I have read post 4 again and am I to understand that the fact that I was housed into temporary accomodation by Westminster homeless unit and my daughter was also waiting for me to be rehoused with me that this would be enough evidence?

 

If I have not understood what you are telling me please be kind enough to explain.

 

I have looked at the N244 form and it looks very complicated so I will print it and take to CAB for some help.

 

Thank you so much

[babyash]

Sorry just to add that the reason I was put into bed and breakfast was because my flat was broken into by a neighbour and we being my two daughters and myself were living in fear of our lives.

 

If I put all this info down do you think there is a good chance we would win an appeal?

 

Many thanks

[hallowitch]

sorry i cant help you with getting the parking ticket sorted

 

your bailiffs fees are wrong

 

 

send this to the bailiff company(recorded deliver) and copy it to your council

"From:

My Name

My Address

 

To:

Acme bailiff Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account. Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges including Computer Screenshot.

 

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were Certificated at.

e - the date of the Certification.

 

This is not a Subject access request under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Ripped off customer"

[hallowitch]

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.

 

_

[babyash]

Sent the letters registered to both council and bailiffs, received letter from council saying the case is closed, nothing from bailiffs.

 

Also received letter from county court saying I would have to pay 40.00 for it to be reviewed or 75 to have it heard in court. There is something about a 14 day period only to request this which is now about a week overdue as was waiting the 14 days to get the breakdown.

 

Anything I can do?

[lamma]

"There is something about a 14 day period" - well thats as clear as mud. please post up full text. why did you wait for the fees breadown ?

[babyash]

Because the letters crossed in the post and thought I needed to get the breakdown first.

 

What I don't understand is the date on the letter received

Date order made 22nd June

Date order drawn 22nd June

 

This letter didn't arrive until 29th June which means I still have one day to make the application but another 40 or 75 is a lot right now, especially after 800.00

 

I thought by law they had to send me a breakdown which they have not, neither the council or bailiffs

Edited July 13, 2010 by babyash

[babyash]

do I need to see a solicitor with the N244 form? If so will try and go tomorrow, they are just fobbing me off as they do with everyone. I can send you copy of the letter I wrote which they have not taken into account at all.

[babyash]

I only received the letter from Westminster council today saying case is closed, out of time and as pcn had been paid there is nothing more they can do. Not even bothered to give me the breakdown

[lamma]

last time and then I give up - PLEASE POST UP THE FULL TEXT. Also look for Tomtubby's posts on here and in the bailiff forum re this situation and N244s.

[babyash]

Letter received today from Westminster Council

 

Dear Ms P

 

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Penality Charge Notice (PCN)

 

This PCN previously had an out of time witness statement submitted which was refused by the Court and as the PCN is now paid the City Council consider the matter closed.

[babyash]

letter received last week from City of Westminster

 

Before a court officer

Sitting at Northampton County Court

On reading the papers

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. Under Rule 23.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules the Court will deal with the application for leave to file a Statutory Declaration out of time/Witness Statement without a hearing because the Court does not consider a hearing in Northampton would be appropriate

 

2. The application for leave to file the Statutory Declaration out of time/ Witness Statement to be refused

 

 

NOTE A party affested by this order may request a review of the decision by a Disrict Judge at a hearing at the respondent's local court under 75.5 (2) Such a request must be made within 14 days of the date of service.

 

Date order made 22.06.2010

Date order drawn 22.06.2010

[babyash]

there is one more page and will type this if you want....................not fast and will take about an hour but will type it if you want to see it

 

Thank you so much

[lamma]

Thats standard stuff. the council (or more often their bailiff company) refuse the OOT. go to the N244. read Tomtubby's posts about this on here and on the bailiff forum (use the search). it is the quickest and easiest way to assimilate the knowledge. tomtubby is THE expert on this.

[babyash]

ok many thanks..................appreciate it so much

[hallowitch]

babyash i cant help with the PCN

 

but i would send the bailiffs a subject access request to get the fees breakdown it will cost you £10

[lamma]

I believe you are entitled to the breakdown of fees without paying a penny for it. i.e. they must supply it. check out tomtubby's posts.

[tomtubby]

ok many thanks..................appreciate it so much

 

I would strongly suggest paying the £75 to have the matter referred to the District Judge.

 

The 14 days period from TEC is from the date that it WAS SERVED. In any event you merely nees to state on the form why you are sending it a little bit late.

 

You should also ensure that you contact City of Westminster and ask them to provide you with a copy of the Statement of Truth that they had sent to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and which TEC relied upon to REFUSE the Out of Time Application.

[babyash]

Dear tomtubby

 

I have just paid £10 and sent all my documentation to your website, if you can please take a look and advise me further I would be most grateful.