PCN Baiiffs Whyte & Co - whats the next step to nail them

[adrian--7]

PCN Baiiffs - whats the next step to nail them

 

Hi

 

I've copied and pasted the emails (see below), did the OTT, appealed against the decicsion, made my complaint to the Bailliff company and to lambeth counci (heard not a peep from them).

Can anyone advice me what to do now - I'm not letting them get away with it? mY COMPLAINT IS AGAINST THE BAILIFF COMPANY, not the original PCN.

Thanks - sorry its a lot to read!

Ade

 

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Subject: RE: URGENT - LH37825633

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:10:10 +0100

 

Dear Julie

 

I do not accept this:

 

Firsly you may find the following comments in this link http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofive...hp/t38945.html of interest to you regarding Mr Kenny, as I believe it is further proof of his unlawfull actions and dishonesty:

 

Here are some comments regarding your Bailiff, Mr Kenny who was involved in the illegal removal of my vehicle:

 

BAILIFFCHASER

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 - 20:24

Freind didnt take pic of mr kenny himslef due to dpa and so on. However he described him as a bloke in his middle ages with attitude who wouldnt talk to him. The pcn was £105 and when kenny came to collect he wanted near enough £700 which included a clamping fee as well. Also he was trying to lift a business vehicle which was clearly signed all 3 sides.

 

 

BAILIFFCHASER

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 - 12:10

Anybody see this around ? I know they are active in medway this week as have seen several cars clamped and they are charging release fees of £600 up to £900 and also threatning people that their cars will be lifted despite them being signed etc. I think our freind mr kenny is really now taking the mick.

 

Furthermore I re-iterate the following points:

 

1: I did not receive any copies of a warrantf, or a notice of seizure - all I recevied was a pink bill with my old address on it. I have witnesses to verify this, as they insisted they had been sent and your bailiffs told me the letter may have been held up due the postal strike. However I then pointed out to them that this could not be the case as the bill they gave me had my old address on it. The car was parked in front of 41 Wavertree Road, and not Amesbury Avenue.

 

2: Because I had already informed the council of my new address regarding the original PCN and they had written back to me at my new address PATAS ENFORCEMENT GUIDE clearly states that Lambeth Council should have used my new address for any future correspondence.

 

3: Again I had quite a fight with the Bailliffs when they arrived to tow away the car regarding my tools being in there, and they were made very aware of the fact that these were the tools of my trade which I use in my job as a self-employed carpenter, and they refused to let me get all my tools. Again I have witnesses to confirm this. We were not aware at the time that I could prevent you from taking the car due to the tools. However your Bailliffs should have aware of this had they been properly trained in accordance with the law.

 

4: The original bill was for £600 - the bailliffs company told me i must pay this straight away or the car would be towed. I was given no chance or time to find this money despite informing you i was unable to pay it. Furthermore you did not give any chance to make a payment arrangement while I submitted the OTT Aplication Form. The Bailliffs came and they then demanded £876, an extra £276 was to pay for the tow truck. I am afraid that you are obliged to give a person a chance to make a payment arrangement if you are informed before the arrangement of a tow truck that they are hard up and need more time to find the money. You are also obliged to give a person reasonalble time to obtain such money, which was not also given.

 

5: I was standing there at the car when they came - and I was prevented bodily from gettining into the car so that you could not take it away, as I required more time to submit the OTT Application form and try to get a loan from someone.

 

i intend to challange your decision in the courts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Subject: RE: URGENT - LH37825633

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:40:07 +0100

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

 

 

 

Dear Mr Timmons,

I respond to your email dated 30/7/2010 as follows:

 

 

 

We do not accept this. Our records indicate that you were given a copy of the warrant, a Notice of seizure and a notice of Removal Expenses.

 

 

We do not accept that you made any claims in relation to the vehicle being a tool of trade. The bailiff states that no claim was made at the time in relation to the vehicle being a tool of trade. As a matter of policy we always allow people to remove possessions from their vehicle. It is to our advantage that this is done before any removal takes place as, if afterwards, we have to make a special trip to the vehicle pound in order to retrieve items (for security reasons we do not reveal the location the vehicle is stored at).

 

 

I note that there were several phone calls made to this office subsequent to the removal of the vehicle and prior to payment being made. These calls were from yourself and someone called Sarah who you said was your girlfriend and who you authorised us to speak to on your behalf. All telephone conversations are recorded and during the course of these calls the validity of our actions was challenged on a number of points but at no time was anything said regarding the vehicle being a tool of trade.

 

 

 

3/4. The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 allow a charge to be made for sending a letter requesting payment. They do not require that a letter be sent. We always do send a letter but, since we are not obliged to, it is of little relevance that you did not receive it.

 

 

 

You have stated in earlier e-mails sent to the Council that you vacated your previous address some considerable time before. However, a search made by us with the DVLA on 3 September 2009 showed that the vehicle was still registered at your previous address. It would therefore appear that you failed to properly ensure that your registration details were amended and that this is reason why you may not have received our letter.

 

 

 

5/6. The bailiff states that he told you precisely why your car was being seized and we are not in any way obliged to allow you further time in which to pay or to investigate the matter and make applications. The warrant authorises us to collect immediate full payment or to seize goods.

 

 

 

All action taken was correct an in accordance with the regulations and therefore a refund is not appropriate. The position has been made clear and we consider the matter closed.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Julie Murphy

 

 

 

Whyte & Company

 

7 Whyte Oak Square

 

Swanley

 

Kent

 

BR8 7AG

 

0845 458 9429

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: adrian timmons [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 02 August 2010 16:04

To: Julie Murphy; Info_email

Subject: FW: URGENT - LH37825633

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: URGENT - LH37825633

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:53:15 +0100

 

Hi Juilie

 

As previously stated the costs below were chargrd unlawfully.

 

1: No distrress warrant or notice of removal was received or shown by the Baillifs.

 

2: The vehicle is nescessary to my work as a self-employed carpenter and contained the tools of my trade at the time of removal. I made your Bailliff aware of this fact. Under Section 54 of the Magistrate Courts Rules it expressly prohibits bailiffs from removing a vehicle used in the course of employment. This also applies if you are self employed and the car is necessary for "your use only" in the course of your employment or business. My tools for work were in my vehicle at the time of clamping and the clampers would not let me take them out of the car. I have proof of my business and the use of my car being essential to this business, and being used only by myself to carry out my work.

 

3: No application letter (Road Traffic) was received - it may have been issued. But if you check your records you would have posted it to 33 Amesbury Avenue, my previous adddress. The vehicle is registered with the DVLA at 41 Wavertreee Road where I have resided since November 2008.

 

4: I showed your Bailliff evidence of my new address (Council Tax book, Tenancy Agreement etc) and that I could not have received any letters sent.

 

5: I contest all of these fees on the basis that your Bailliff did not tell me why my car was being clamped and demanded a sum of £856 on the spot. I was given no time to find this money, which i DID NOT HAVE. Nor did you give me reasonable time to investigate what the charges were for or make to make an OTT application to Northamton Court, before seizing the vehicle with my tools of trade still in it.

 

6: I was not given any time to negotiate any payments demanded.

 

I await your response ASAP and demand a full refund minus the cost of the original PCN, which was £60 and any costs relating to Lambeth recovering this amount. (Instruction Amount + Adjustments: £155.00) In addition I lost 2 days work that week as my car was in your pound and I was unable to pay for its removal due to not having the funds to do so. The fee itself was paid by a client I was working for at the time on a loan basis, whereby I carried out work for him in return for the loan/payment. I have bank statments to prove I did not have the money to pay your fines demanded on the spot my your Bailliff. The amount I wish to be refunded to me is therefore £857.56 + 2 days flat rate for lost earnings @ £300 = £1157.56

 

Regards

 

Adrian Timmons

07590755471

 

 

 

Account Number: LH37825633

Summons Number:

Instruction Date: 01/09/2009

Instruction Amount + Adjustments: £155.00

 

Case Notes:

 

02/09/2009 First Application Letter (Road Traffic) issued

03/09/2009 DVLA: Positive

09/09/2009 VEHICLE CLAMPED - Wavertree Road, SW2

09/09/2009 HPI CHECK COMPLETE - Vehicle is NOT on finance

09/09/2009 09/09/2009 - Steven Kenny - Removal Made

09/09/2009 Sale Letter issued

 

 

Payments:

 

14/09/2009 £1,012.56 Cash Banked

 

Case Fees:

 

09/09/2009 £120.00 auction Room - Storage

09/09/2009 £200.00 Tow Truck

09/09/2009 £15.00 HPI

09/09/2009 £50.00 Waiting Time

09/09/2009 £190.00 Vehicle Seizure

09/09/2009 £47.00 Levy

09/09/2009 £110.00 Attendance to remove

02/09/2009 £2.50 DVLA

01/09/2009 £11.20 First Application

£111.86 VAT on all above charges

 

 

 

Balance Outstanding: £0.00

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Subject: Email received today

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:17:23 +0100

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

 

>

Account Breakdown as requested.

Kind Regards

Whyte & Company

[lamma]

Contact tomtubby on the bailiff forum. better yet post the entire text there