bailiff took keys and v5 out of car and will be back tmrw - HELP ASAP please

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Hallowitch,

pleased you looked in on this any help or info

will be much appreciated.

Have you any experience of carlos999 please.

[brassnecked]

How am i trying to be cleaver, i was told to put this up here, i want to pay the fine i just want to stay within the law granted i took the clamp of but i have a verry ill child and need to get to hospital at the drop of a hat and panicked if i could not use the car to do it, nobody has to help on here and im soooo appreciative of any help.

 

I suffer with dislexia and a form of adhd, my organisational skills are almost none excistant and i have a support worker for this.

 

if everyone has this opinyon that i dont deserve help then please tell me and i will leave.

 

No you are not stupid and as others have posted you WILL get help, You have Hallowich, the Brigadier, tomtubby has looked in, and others are batting for you, so don't worry.

 

now you MUST pursue your vulnerability as shown in Hallows post, with the ISSUING COUNCIL and do the out of time at the TEC. All is not lost, so hang in there. carlos999 is not representative of Caggers as a whole

 

Try not to worry

 

BN

[djwillyk]

i will do everything you have suggested and all been so good already, i was starting to think humanity was dead but not now, thanks all so far

 

costs as on first nos

 

penalty/or court fees.......................................£82

 

Bail,iff fees inc vat...........................................£600-24.

 

Toatal outstanding...........................................£682.24 Inc tow truck

 

on second

 

 

penalty/or court fees.......................................£82.00

 

Bail,iff fees inc vat...........................................£684-24.

 

Toatal outstanding...........................................£766.24 Inc cut clamp fee

 

hand written next to this is Toatal inc all links £891.68

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, That looks totally outrageous!!!

If this ''bailiff'' shows up again you

need to ask which court he was

certificated by, and then report

his conduct to the court manager

this information will be put before

a judge for consideration.

[brassnecked]

It does look steep, the bailiff pinched the keys so wouldn't need a truck, Brigadier I think any Formal Complaint should include the fact the bailiff took the keys and V5 from the vehicle, presumably he still has them, and would imho be regarded as having stolen them, if an OOT is succesful. But convincing the police, is another matter

 

djwillyk, if he turns up again film him making threats even with a mobile phone, as it would be useful evidence to show he acted way outside accepted behaviour, and he cannot stop you filming him in public or on your property such as in the garden or on your path OR the street ouside, he cannot have you locked up for filming him, demand deletion of footage, if he snatches your phone it is theft, if he then deleted footage it is criminal damage. Even a police officer is guilty of a criminal offence if he deletes film or footage from a camera or other device.(The Metropolitan Police have had to pay compensation to photographers and videographers they hassled filming in public places)

[hallowitch]

you may want to read this thread tomtubby explains hows the fees are calculated

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?197308

 

the penalty/or court fees £82 doesn't sit right with me surly if the PCN was £80 this should be £85 to include the £5 tec fee

i do believe the tec fee went up to £7 (Ive noticed in posts recently ) so could that be £75 and £7 ( i wonder if/when the tec fee increased does any one know)

 

I'm no expert on PCN fees but

1) it looks like there are 2 PCN (ask TEC when you phone them )

2) they cant charge for a tow truck unless they have previous levied on goods

2) the bailiffs fees £600-24.including vat and the Bail,iff fees inc vat £684-24. should be broken to confirm the date each fee was charge (these fees would be one letter fee £11.20 + vat for each PCN visit fees should be 28% + vat for each visit up to a maximum of 3 visits (however they cant charge multiple visit fee when collecting more than 1 PCN )

4) they cant charge a clamping fee this was conformed in

 

 

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 Culligans 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.

Edited January 28, 2012 by hallowitch

[tomtubby]

Hi Hallowitch,

pleased you looked in on this any help or info

will be much appreciated.

Have you any experience of carlos999 please.

 

Sorry....going slightly off the subject.....to answer you query about Carlos999, please see my response in post number 31 below:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?300394-Marstons-Compliance-Fee-is-it-legal&highlight=carlos999

[djwillyk]

[tomtubby]

[EDIT] Of great concern to me for a very long time has been the matter of members of the public failing to receive statutory notices in relation to parking charge notices ( which by the way are NOT FINES!!!!)

 

Due to the work I do, I now have a much better understanding of WHY documents go astray and many times this is NOT because a person has failed to update their records but due to errors at DVLA and with the software that many councils use. There are errors with address "fields" and personally, I find it a disgrace that bailiff companies are continuing to use "data cleansing" facilities.

 

In simple terms, this means that when the bailiff company receive the warrant they will put this through a "data checking" process where their computer package will "add or amend missing elements" to the "address field". This could be adding or amending a house number, name of the road or postcode. The effect being that the owner did not receive the previous notices because of an error in the "address field" and the bailiff company are "amending the address" when it reaches warrant stage. THIS IS COMMON PLACE and as far as I am concerned, is ENFORCEMENT BY SHEER AND UTTER DECEPTION!!!

 

Furthermore, if the motorist has moved address, the bailiff would also know this from his "data cleansing" software.

 

Being that it is Sunday ( and hopefully a day for resting)......don't even get me on the subject of DVLA...suffice to say...... that each year they receive 40 millions items of post of which approx 22 million items relate to change of address or vehicle ownership.

 

As confirmed by DVLA themselves in a FOI response, their computer system is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!!!!

[brassnecked]

[EDIT] Of great concern to me for a very long time has been the matter of members of the public failing to receive statutory notices in relation to parking charge notices ( which by the way are NOT FINES!!!!)

 

Due to the work I do, I now have a much better understanding of WHY documents go astray and many times this is NOT because a person has failed to update their records but due to errors at DVLA and with the software that many councils use. There are errors with address "fields" and personally, I find it a disgrace that bailiff companies are continuing to use "data cleansing" facilities.

 

In simple terms, this means that when the bailiff company receive the warrant they will put this through a "data checking" process where their computer package will "add or amend missing elements" to the "address field". This could be adding or amending a house number, name of the road or postcode. The effect being that the owner did not receive the previous notices because of an error in the "address field" and the bailiff company are "amending the address" when it reaches warrant stage. THIS IS COMMON PLACE and as far as I am concerned, is ENFORCEMENT BY SHEER AND UTTER DECEPTION!!!

 

Furthermore, if the motorist has moved address, the bailiff would also know this from his "data cleansing" software.

 

Being that it is Sunday ( and hopefully a day for resting)......don't even get me on the subject of DVLA...suffice to say...... that each year they receive 40 millions items of post of which approx 22 million items relate to change of address or vehicle ownership.

 

As confirmed by DVLA themselves in a FOI response, their computer system is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!!!!

 

factor in their continued appearences for messing up on Car Tax fines, change of ownership issues, losing of correct entitlements on driving licences, if HMCS and concils are as slipshod, we can conclude the situation will NOT improve anytime soon

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

factor in their continued appearences for messing up on Car Tax fines, change of ownership issues, losing of correct entitlements on driving licences, if HMCS and concils are as slipshod, we can conclude the situation will NOT improve anytime soon

 

IF EVER:-x

[djwillyk]

once this is al done i WILL find a way to repay all your help and kindness.

 

I will right a full update on the whole situation after ive done all i need to tomorrow.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

once this is al done i WILL find a way to repay all your help and kindness.

 

I will right a full update on the whole situation after ive done all i need to tomorrow.

 

There is in my opinion an ''ethic'' on CAG that seeing a problem solved is repayment enough.

Just keep calm when dealing with this don't let anyone intimidate you.

 

Brig.

[brassnecked]

yes agree with the Brigadier, who should be a Full General, a Five Star one if this was the USA, when you are sorted helping others from time to time on CAG is payment enough, as by sharing knowledge, and experience we can tackle the bullying and unfair charges.

[brassnecked]

What is dubious imho is what the bailiff has scribbled on the notice, as in he is going to report the vehicle stolen within 24 hours, maybe he has already posted off that V5. Op must make sure DVLA are aware the V5 has been stolen

[TOMMIEBOY]

djwillyk

 

You have been given some sound advice on here and i hope i can add to it via my own dealing with these people.

 

What i would is get your other half to get a Statutory Declaration to the effect that she owns the car and paid for it, then inform the bailiff of this fact and ask what proof he has that you own the car.

 

When he comes back with "You are the registered keeper" tell him while that is true the V5 clearly states " THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP IT SHOWS WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REGISTERING AND TAXING THE VEHICLE" and ask again what proof he has as you have a Statutory Declaration and the DVLA and he has nothing.

 

Then ask for the return of the keys and V5 in a 24hr timescale after which time they will be reported stolen and the car locks will be changed and you will be sending the bill to them.

 

I also note they have charged you a "CLAMP CUTTING CHARGE" that is BULL if you were to cut the clamp off he would need to inform the police and they would have to take action he has no legal right whatsoever to fine you

[djwillyk]

little bit off subject but have been informed by police that thers no proof that this FRIENDS boyfriend damaged the car but (i dont know how this would work) my partner thinks we could hold the council responsible (once everything else is sorted) for this damage due to the fact if all this hadnt happend or hadnt happend in a dodgy way the car would have always be safe on the drive?

 

Lady downstairs from us told me she found the bailiff hunting through her garden looking for the clamp friday afternoon to which she told him to get out and apparently he was all apoligetic.

 

Another thing is i was talking to a friend who was with me when i spoke to bailiff on phone and he said he had our back door key aswell???? the only other key that was in the glove box was an old caravan key from years ago and to top it off we live in an upstairs flat (no back door)

[tomtubby]

According to the Road Traffic Act, Traffic Management Act etc the legal position is that the REGISTERED KEEPER is assumed to be the owner of the vehicle.......UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED.

 

Therefore, the bailiff can quite correctly ASSUME that the vehicle is owned by the registered keeper BUT if a receipt is provided to proves otherwise, then he SHOULD have accepted this.

[TOMMIEBOY]

From the 15 August 2010 all V5C's that are issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) will have a new look. The new V5C will make it clear that the registration certificate is not proof of ownership

 

A bailiff may assume but if informed otherwise they Must stop but we all know you have to know your rights and push them

[brassnecked]

This one seems particularly nasty, so once you have done the TEC business and filed OOT, you can think of Formal Complaints and getting the key and V5 returned, as if OOT accepted, then he cannot hold on to the keys

[djwillyk]

hes here with another one at 8 this morning what sounded like kicking the door, i phoned police and they ask for discription and sorts and as i was talking to them he drove off, they said if he comes back phone 999.

 

TEC have sent me via email the right forms and i am filling out and will get sent back asap, the very helpful man there said they have our house number as A when i told him it has FFF on the door so this could be the reason of mail going astry? We get i called either by differnt places.

 

Letter of complaint to council is being hand deliverd today and i will ask for reciept.

[djwillyk]

oh and theres a nice boot print on the door, hes scaring the @@@@ out of us. I did get a 10 sec filming of his van outside but my battery died on phone.

[tomtubby]

Have TEC sent you the TE7 & TE9?

 

On the TE7 it asks you for the REASON why you could not complete the form "within the given time".

 

I would suggest something like the following:

 

I was unable to complete this form any sooner as it was not until I received a vsiit from a bailiff that I was made aware of the above parking ticket. From enquiries made today with the Traffic Enforcement Centre it would appear that statutory notices may have been incorrectly addressed to house number xxx when the correct house number for my property is xxxx.

[brassnecked]

oh and theres a nice boot print on the door, hes scaring the @@@@ out of us. I did get a 10 sec filming of his van outside but my battery died on phone.

 

take a picture of the bootprint, and fill in the reason for not getting any paperwork as per tomtubby

[lamma]

charge the phone ! and keep it charged. video every visit, especially any attempted forced entry by the Bailiff. this is shocking stuff.