Bailiffs letter, parking fine

[buckju]

Hi Can anybody please help. Over 5 years ago, yes thats right over 5 years ago, I received a parking ticket from liverpool council. I clearly remember receiving it. It was coming up to christmas and the car park charged an hourly rate or a daily rate. As it was only £5 for the daily rate I paid this up front. (pay and display). Right, daily to me means 24hours or up to. well on return to my car which was at around 19.40pm there was a parking ticket. I remember ringing the council about this and they told me their day rate expires at 7pm. Whilst I did not know this at the time, the next time I visited the car park I read all the small print on the signs. Since receiving the parking fine I have heard absolutely nothing what so ever until last week when I got a letter from a bailiff. I have not yet been in contact with them as I wanted some help from here. What can I do about this if anything. Surely before a baliff is engaged a court order needs to be obtained which if it is was I have never received anything.

[brassnecked]

Have you moved house in the meantime?

[buckju]

No, been here over 25 years

[buckju]

I dont have the car anymore though, sold that 3 years ago

[Jamberson]

First thing to do would be to phone the council and ask them when the warrant was issued - they are only valid for 12 months. (However they can apply for another one after the first expires - but it is rare.)

 

The warrant is the bailiff's legal authorisation to chase the debt. If the warrant is out of date, they should not be chasing you so ask the council to call the bailiffs off or you will take matters further.

 

If the warrant is in date, then you can tell them that you did not receive any correspondence previously and ask them to drop the case, as it is pretty well established that you can't defend a 5-year-old PCN due to lack of recollection and evidence.

 

If they still won't budge, then you will have to file an Out of Time witness statement. I have just written out instructions on another thread next to yours - the one called "In over my head with parking fines..." - see post number 32 on there for how to proceed.

 

Try and be as polite as you can and hopefully they will see sense and drop the case.

[seanamarts]

5 Years!! I am surprised a bailiff has even touched this!

[buckju]

Ok, I rang council yestersay, the say I contacted them in Feb 2007 after I recieved what they called the Charging Order, they also said the have on file a bailiff tried to contact me in 2008. Well obviously do not recall any of this. Where do I stand here. Any help is appreciated. Thank you

[buckju]

they also told me they are now passing all PCN from 2006 onwards to baliffs. God know how many they have. So anybody out there who has any with liverpool city council be on your guard

[Jamberson]

The question to ask them was when the warrant was issued - Do you know the answer?

[buckju]

I asked and the answer I got was the baliffs tried to collect in 2008 so I assume sometime between 07 & 08. I have got to call back today to speak to the team leader

[Jamberson]

You need a definite answer. It's irrelevant when they tried to collect. They have to have a valid warrant now, and since a warrant is only valid for 12 months, it is likely they don't have one and are chancing it.

 

They know that without a valid warrant their bailiff should not be chasing this.

[buckju]

I have just rang the council again and they told me the the bailiffs have been asked to collect outstanding debt where the warrant has expired. No new warrant has been issued. The original was issued on 26/09/07 and expired on 26/09/08. I was told the original debt of £95.00 is still outstanding and the only way the account will be brought back from the bailiffs is if I pay the £95.00. What is my next course of action please? I have told the council I have taken legal advise on this and to be honest and fair to the person I spoke to she was reading from an email that has been sent to all staff which is like a Q & A. Thank you for your help.

[brassnecked]

No valid warrant, and the bailiff is in the doo doo imho, they cannot enforce diddly squat without a valid warrant. they can merely knock on the door as if they were debt collectors, and if they exaggerate their powers at that stage they act without lawful authority.

[buckju]

do I still have to pay the outstanding fine and if so can I ask the council for time to pay without having to pay the bailiffs. I dont want to be paying additional bailiffs fees

[brassnecked]

do I still have to pay the outstanding fine and if so can I ask the council for time to pay without having to pay the bailiffs. I dont want to be paying additional bailiffs fees

 

The fine is so far back that all the data is possibly lost, councils are notorious for not giving up, if you can afford it I would pay them off, but insist as there is no warrant in force, that they accept the payment and close the matter. Unless there is a warrant, the bailiff is a debt collector only, and would be in trouble if they used threats etc. Others will know more

[Jamberson]

Formal complaint to the council and the local government ombudsman. They are knowingly instructing a bailiff to act without a warrant. I would guess that the bailiff would not dare clamp you - as brassnecked says, they would only be acting as a debt collector.

 

You should definitely not pay any bailiff fees - if the council agree that you can settle at £95, that's your choice. I wouldn't. I would just complain instead.

[brassnecked]

At the worst the council officials who instructed the bailiffs may be guilty of Misfeance in Public Office, if they knowingly instructed the bailiffs to enforce the debt "as if" there was a warrant in force, so Jamberson's advice to initiate Formal Complaints, is another option that should be used.

[lamma]

If you know the PCN number then check with the TEC for the date of any/all warrants issued against the PCN. That is much better than trusting anything the council says over the phone. I am amazed that the council admitted there is no warrant in place. There is so much wrong with this that it is an absolute scandal. Besides the obvious aspect of using the Bailiff as a doorstep heavy to gouge money, think of the PCN aspects. it would have to be an 1991 RTA PCN. Does their system still have the dual processing needed ? Do they have sufficient records ? the CEOS notebook ? The CEO ? The relevant Traffic Order and all its applicable amendments ? There are a host of issues with this. Not least how does chasing a PCN for 2006/7/8 assist keeping traffic moving ? Or is the council using its powers under decriminalised parking as a revenue source. Parliament and the High Court do not allow that. Strong words but this sounds to me to be unlawful in many ways. Malfeasance, breach of Trust, Fraud, all spring to mind. Ring the TEC, to get confirmation of the warrant date(s). Get that backed from them in writing, an email from the TEC will do. Once confirmed that the bailiff are taking unwarranted action I would not be be bothered about a defence, I would be on the attack. You can bet that similar visits and letters are going on across the area and that the reaction of many will be as yours, pay rather than face escalating 'fees'. I have to stop writing now as this case is making me very angry indeed.

[tomtubby]

This is dreadful and I fully intend to make a Freedom of Information request concerning this.

 

Would you mind posting details of which bailiff company this is?

 

There are VERY SERIOUS problems with enforcing RETURNED WARRANT cases. Firstly, a bailiff would have already spent ONE YEAR attempting to enforce the parking ticket and FAILED to execute the warrant. The most common reason for this is that there had been ERRORS in the ADDRESS.

 

There is apparently NO warrant and yet....where is the protection for the debtor to ensure that the bailiff does not add fees to the account?

 

Another VERY worrying aspect is the fact on the PCN/Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery will have the registration number of the vehicle that had been owned by the debtor on the date of the contravention and which very likely.....is no longer owned by the debtor. I hope that this council

 

Final thought.....it would seem from this case that the PCN has reverted back to the value of £95. I am intrigued as to how much the bailiff would earn in fees as clearly, he would not work for NOTHING.

 

VERY WORRYING INDEED!!!

 

PS: Which bailiff company?

 

.

.

.

 

PPS. Had not read the post from Lamma before posting my response. Excellent response and valid points.

[lamma]

Thank you tomtubby, I feel honoured. There is a cornucopia of issues, I am sure we could come up with many more. In my view it is a direct result of a decision by the council that can be summed up as - ignore whatever the law may say go put get some cash. This is utterly appalling and should be broadcast locally to all and sundry in order to protect other victims.

[tomtubby]

Thank you Lamma for responding so quickly.

 

There is of course ANOTHER issue !!

 

Lets assume that there were errors on the address field.

 

The bailiff company would have "data cleansed" the warrant and in doing so...correct the address?

 

Without a warrant they cannot apply to TEC under CPR 75.7(7) for permission to amend the address.

 

Instead, they can wait to see whether the debtor responds to the letter and in that way, can select that case for an application to REISSUE the warrant . To be fair...I do not know if there is a time limit for such applications.

 

This is justification if any is needed that the court should NOT allow the VRM (number plate) to appear on the warrant etc.

 

Milking this cash cow until it turns sour is just one comment that comes to mind !!!

[lamma]

I dare say an issue can be found with just about every legal step - as the the law has been ignored wholesale. Form EX322 talks to reissue but as I read it it applies to what I call ";real warrant" i.e. those issued by a real court after a Court Judgement. As we all know there is no CCJ within the CPE regime - 'as if' if you will pardon my pun. As far as CPE goes I have only seen paper on reissue of an Order for Recovery, I am sure you will have seen this as well. For CPE "warrant" reissue to exist it would have to be explicit in CPR part 75 surely ? Doesn't 75.7(10) kill it ? I must admit that I have not trawled part 75 and the Practice Direction looking to resolve this to full effect.

[brassnecked]

Lamma and tomtubby, I will refer you to post# 4 OP sold the car 3 years ago, so it just gets better. If Op could post the amounts the bailiff was asking for in the letter it may be helpful.

 

Whatever, justification the council spouts forth, there seems to be a serious bending of rules here to sat the least.

[tomtubby]

Lamma,

 

The Practice Directions of CPR 75 are most important.

 

I had not realised about EX322. I will have a look.

[seanamarts]

Do we have the Bailiff companies name?