Car clamped on public road by JBW for old pcn **WON**

[brassnecked]

The law states you have 28 days from moving into your new home address in which to inform DVLA of your change of address. As long as you have sent the necessary paperwork off to DVLA within that timescale, fine.

There is also NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT to contact DVLA after 4 weeks to check if the change has gone through, they have been spanked in court when some people defended DVLA action against them, for failure to notify a change, The burden of proof is satisfied by merely posting it off.

[old bill]

It's about time that oaf who masquerades as the CEO of DVLA was given the sack. How many times have the courts slapped down DVLA at God knows what expense to the taxpayer?

[brassnecked]

It's about time that oaf who masquerades as the CEO of DVLA was given the sack. How many times have the courts slapped down DVLA at God knows what expense to the taxpayer?

He has been called out on Watchdog I believe, and further DVLA is as skanky and dodgy as any bailiff, they make it up as they go along just like a bailiff.

[Tim Deegan]

In all cases, Tim, civil or criminal, if you claim you have acted lawfully, you have to prove this. It's not a case of sitting in a court building, looking smug, expecting the other side to do the proving, because a judge will wipe the smug look off your face in an instant. I've seen in happen in magistrates and crown courts. The truth is, the bailiffs, in this case, still have to prove they have acted lawfully, no matter how much they bitch and howl.

 

I think you are missing my point.

 

The OP's argument is with the council rather than the bailiffs. If the warrant wasn't legal in the first place, then it is the council that they would need to claim the money back from. I shouldn't think the bailiff would lose out, as they were just carrying out work contracted to them by the council, on information supplied to them, that they had every reason to assume was correct.

[Tim Deegan]

The law states you have 28 days from moving into your new home address in which to inform DVLA of your change of address. As long as you have sent the necessary paperwork off to DVLA within that timescale, fine.

 

I think the OP said they hadn't informed the DVLA. This is why I asked right near the start of this thread if this could count against the OP.

[old bill]

I'll deal with your two posts together, Tim. Bailiffs are required to act within the law at all times - without exception. The reality is that certificated bailiffs do not comply with the law and they frequently misrepresent their authority and lie. If every certificated bailiff in the UK was forced to undergo an Enhanced CRB check tomorrow, only 1% would remain. They are the ones who operate within the law, do things "by the book" and make a good living as a result. Of the other 99%, convictions for dishonesty and violence are not uncommon.

 

You have made a statement that if the warrant wasn't legal in the first place, the bailiffs shouldn't lose out. If the warrant wasn't legal, Tim, the bailiffs had no power to act and their actions were, as a result, unlawful, if not, illegal. I'm afraid the reality is, if you break the law, you will be called to account for your actions, whoever and whatever you are, without exception. Bailiffs do not have a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. If they break the law, the full might and weight of the law will come down on them. Judges are not at all tolerant of sloppy paperwork or those who think they can behave in a lawless manner or abuse their office.

 

With regard to your second post, when you move homes, you are required to notify your local authority of your new address, whether it be in the same local authority area or in another local authority area, for Council Tax purposes. The local authority in this case was the OP's former local authority. It sounds very much to me that someone in a local authority was too damned lazy to do their job properly.

 

Nevertheless, the onus that the bailiffs acted lawfully lies entirely on the bailiffs, not the OP.

[Bluewednesday]

I have got the reply from the bailiffs regarding the breakdown of the fees. I would really appreciate if some expert on bailiff fees could comment. Considering that we don't live at the address they hold for us, could they visit twice, and on the same day charge attendance to remove and attendance to levy fee? Obviously they didn't include the amount in their response but on the notice to seizure the charges were: letter £16.20, levy/attendance to levy £183, other £350, VAT £109.84.

Todays reply from them as follows:

The time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee and the reason for the fee:

· Our bailiff ..........attended on May 2 2012 at 10.59, the fees that were applied at this time were an Attendance to Remove and Attendance to Levy fee.

· Our bailiff ........attended on May 8 2012 at 15.33, the fees that were applied at this time were an Attendance to Levy fee.

· Our bailiff .........attended on May 17 2012 at 14.48, the fees that were applied at this time were a Levy Fee and an Attendance to Remove fee.

[Tim Deegan]

I'll deal with your two posts together, Tim. Bailiffs are required to act within the law at all times - without exception. The reality is that certificated bailiffs do not comply with the law and they frequently misrepresent their authority and lie. If every certificated bailiff in the UK was forced to undergo an Enhanced CRB check tomorrow, only 1% would remain. They are the ones who operate within the law, do things "by the book" and make a good living as a result. Of the other 99%, convictions for dishonesty and violence are not uncommon.

 

You have made a statement that if the warrant wasn't legal in the first place, the bailiffs shouldn't lose out. If the warrant wasn't legal, Tim, the bailiffs had no power to act and their actions were, as a result, unlawful, if not, illegal. I'm afraid the reality is, if you break the law, you will be called to account for your actions, whoever and whatever you are, without exception. Bailiffs do not have a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. If they break the law, the full might and weight of the law will come down on them. Judges are not at all tolerant of sloppy paperwork or those who think they can behave in a lawless manner or abuse their office.

 

With regard to your second post, when you move homes, you are required to notify your local authority of your new address, whether it be in the same local authority area or in another local authority area, for Council Tax purposes. The local authority in this case was the OP's former local authority. It sounds very much to me that someone in a local authority was too damned lazy to do their job properly.

 

Nevertheless, the onus that the bailiffs acted lawfully lies entirely on the bailiffs, not the OP.

 

Yet again you have completely missed the point!!

 

I didn't make a statement saying the warrant was illegal. I said that if the warrant was illegal, then that is the avenue that the OP should go down.

 

If the bailiffs acted illegally, then that is a seperate issue, but it isn't clear if they did or not, and so shouldn't be used as the primary course of action.

 

[EDIT]

 

[EDIT]

[Tim Deegan]

I have got the reply from the bailiffs regarding the breakdown of the fees. I would really appreciate if some expert on bailiff fees could comment. Considering that we don't live at the address they hold for us, could they visit twice, and on the same day charge attendance to remove and attendance to levy fee? Obviously they didn't include the amount in their response but on the notice to seizure the charges were: letter £16.20, levy/attendance to levy £183, other £350, VAT £109.84.

Todays reply from them as follows:

The time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee and the reason for the fee:

· Our bailiff ..........attended on May 2 2012 at 10.59, the fees that were applied at this time were an Attendance to Remove and Attendance to Levy fee.

· Our bailiff ........attended on May 8 2012 at 15.33, the fees that were applied at this time were an Attendance to Levy fee.

· Our bailiff .........attended on May 17 2012 at 14.48, the fees that were applied at this time were a Levy Fee and an Attendance to Remove fee.

 

I can understand that you are still looking into the bailiffs actions as a backup. However you need to concentrate on the legallity of the warrant, and therefore it is the council who are your target. If the council issued an illegal warrant, then I should think they will be made to refund you. Then the council will have to pay the bailiff (not you).

[old bill]

Yet again you have completely missed the point!!

 

I didn't make a statement saying the warrant was illegal. I said that if the warrant was illegal, then that is the avenue that the OP should go down.

 

If the bailiffs acted illegally, then that is a seperate issue, but it isn't clear if they did or not, and so shouldn't be used as the primary course of action.

 

[EDIT].

 

Tim, when a set of circumstances are presented to me, I will give a considered judgement based on the evidence before me. If the evidence shows that an offence has been committed, I will say so. When a bailiff is issued with a warrant, that is their authority to act. However, they must act in strict accordance with the conditions stipulated on the warrant. They are not allowed to act as they see fit. You posed a question in Post #205 and I have given you a straight answer, based on my experience and knowledge.

 

The bailiffs have to show they acted lawfully in order to avoid legal action against themselves and their bailiff company. The position of the local authority is slightly different. If the bailiffs and bailiff company committed a civil tort, then the local authority is vicariously liable for civil damages. However, if it transpires that the bailiffs committed a criminal act, then the position of the local authority is that they are involved in the handling of stolen goods. That is a lot more serious.

 

[EDIT]

[seanamarts]

PLEASE, keep this on topic.

 

Thank you

[old bill]

If you got rid of certificated bailiffs and allowed only bailiffs employed directly by H.M. Courts & Tribunal Service (HMCTS) to execute warrants, a lot of the complaints about bailiffs that crop up on consumer forums would not appear because, in my experience and, probably, that of other people, HMCTS bailiffs act in a responsible manner and are bound by strict codes of conduct laid down by the CSC.

 

In all cases - civil and criminal - both sides must prove their arguments, unless the law states otherwise.

 

In this particular case, the bailiffs have to prove they acted lawfully. If they can, all well and good. If they can't, that's their lookout. If they have committed a civil tort, then the local authority will be liable for their actions. If the bailiffs have acted contrary to the Criminal Law, then they are responsible for their own actions and, if the car has been sold, the local authority could face action for Handling Stolen Goods.

 

The law is a very complex animal at the best of times, something I have learned over the last 30-odd years. Having said that, there have been times when the law has surprised even experienced legal professionals.

 

Before the OP goes anywhere and does anything, it needs to be established as to whether the bailiffs' actions are in accordance with the law or not. And the onus of proof, in that respect, lies on the bailiffs themselves.

Edited June 2, 2012 by old bill

[Jamberson]

I have got the reply from the bailiffs regarding the breakdown of the fees. I would really appreciate if some expert on bailiff fees could comment. Considering that we don't live at the address they hold for us, could they visit twice, and on the same day charge attendance to remove and attendance to levy fee? Obviously they didn't include the amount in their response but on the notice to seizure the charges were: letter £16.20, levy/attendance to levy £183, other £350, VAT £109.84.

Todays reply from them as follows:

The time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee and the reason for the fee:

· Our bailiff ..........attended on May 2 2012 at 10.59, the fees that were applied at this time were an Attendance to Remove and Attendance to Levy fee.

· Our bailiff ........attended on May 8 2012 at 15.33, the fees that were applied at this time were an Attendance to Levy fee.

· Our bailiff .........attended on May 17 2012 at 14.48, the fees that were applied at this time were a Levy Fee and an Attendance to Remove fee.

 

If they are claiming three attendance fees, then that works out at £61 per visit, which is not out of normal range. I am a little concerned over "other £350" - can you maybe get more detail on what that is for? It could be bogus.

[Tim Deegan]

I have got the reply from the bailiffs regarding the breakdown of the fees. I would really appreciate if some expert on bailiff fees could comment. Considering that we don't live at the address they hold for us, could they visit twice, and on the same day charge attendance to remove and attendance to levy fee? Obviously they didn't include the amount in their response but on the notice to seizure the charges were: letter £16.20, levy/attendance to levy £183, other £350, VAT £109.84.

Todays reply from them as follows:

The time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee and the reason for the fee:

· Our bailiff ..........attended on May 2 2012 at 10.59, the fees that were applied at this time were an Attendance to Remove and Attendance to Levy fee.

· Our bailiff ........attended on May 8 2012 at 15.33, the fees that were applied at this time were an Attendance to Levy fee.

· Our bailiff .........attended on May 17 2012 at 14.48, the fees that were applied at this time were a Levy Fee and an Attendance to Remove fee.

 

If they haven't told you what the 'other' fees are, then they haven't given you a proper breakdown. Ask again for a breakdown of the 'other' charges.

[caledfwlch]

If they are claiming three attendance fees, then that works out at £61 per visit, which is not out of normal range. I am a little concerned over "other £350" - can you maybe get more detail on what that is for? It could be bogus.

 

How do they charge an "attendance to remove fee of £183 on a second visit to a property the OP was not at? This sounds a little like Fraud, Fraud, Fraud.

 

Tim, do you honestly believe if a Warrant is unlawful, then the person named on it should be liable financially for someone elses mistake?

 

Logic and fairness would suggest that either the Creditor refunds the Bailiff their fees, as its the Creditors error, or the Bailiff's themselves swallow the "hit" as their own fault for not checking up on what they are receiving and attempting to enforce.

[Jamberson]

How do they charge an "attendance to remove fee of £183 on a second visit to a property the OP was not at? This sounds a little like Fraud, Fraud, Fraud.

 

Tim, do you honestly believe if a Warrant is unlawful, then the person named on it should be liable financially for someone elses mistake?

 

Logic and fairness would suggest that either the Creditor refunds the Bailiff their fees, as its the Creditors error, or the Bailiff's themselves swallow the "hit" as their own fault for not checking up on what they are receiving and attempting to enforce.

 

Yes. Exactly. That's what we've been talking about. That's why the OP has filed a stat dec and is now going to challenge its refusal - so she can prove her case and get her money back. Unless you have any better ideas?

[Tim Deegan]

How do they charge an "attendance to remove fee of £183 on a second visit to a property the OP was not at? This sounds a little like Fraud, Fraud, Fraud.

 

I should think...only guessing though, that they called at the address on the warrant because the OP hadn't changed the details with the DVLA. And that nobody was in, so they called back another two times.

 

It doesn't seem right that they can charge to knock at the door, and not get an answer. Maybe someone can tell us if they can.

 

Or it is possible that they just didn't believe the person at that address who told them that the person on the warrant didn't live there.

 

Tim, do you honestly believe if a Warrant is unlawful, then the person named on it should be liable financially for someone elses mistake?

 

Logic and fairness would suggest that either the Creditor refunds the Bailiff their fees, as its the Creditors error, or the Bailiff's themselves swallow the "hit" as their own fault for not checking up on what they are receiving and attempting to enforce.

 

That is actually more or less what I said. I think you may have misunderstood me.

[seanamarts]

It doesn't seem right that they can charge to knock at the door, and not get an answer. Maybe someone can tell us if they can.

 

Depending on why the bailiffs are visiting there are guidelines for them to follow and charge where necessary. It usually comes under 'reasonable cost's' . It would be down to the debtor to argue whether the fee's charged are unreasonable.

 

Regardless whether the OP lives at the address or not the bailiff can still charge for a visit fee. he has attended the address that was on the warrant 'paper work' given to him. As for the amount, it can be put to question whether this is reasonable or not.

[Bluewednesday]

I have now received detailed breakdown of their fees:

2/05/2012 Attendance to levy £57.00 and attendance to remove £175.00

8/05/2012 Attendance to levy £61

17/05/2012 Levy fee £65 and attendance to remove £175.00

 

Please please someone help! Can they charge attendance to levy and attendance to remove fee on the same day. Especially that the visits on 2nd and 8th may are not at my address.

 

On 17th the bailiff clamped my car on the highway. Why are they charging attendance to remove feeas well as levy fee?

[seanamarts]

No they certainly cannot!!

these fee's are totally wrong.

I would write and request how they can justify these fee's.

 

better still I would start making complaints to the council.

[old bill]

No they certainly cannot!!

these fee's are totally wrong.

I would write and request how they can justify these fee's.

 

better still I would start making complaints to the council.

 

I am in total agreement with you. These fees bear no relation to what applicable legislation allows. It would be a good idea for the OP to point out that the fees are potentially fraudulent and this could come back on the LA involved. There may also be grounds to lay an information before a District Judge at the Magistrates Court in respect of the bailiffs involved with a view to them being taken to the local lock-up for a very firm chat with some of my ex-colleagues.

[brassnecked]

Agree with seanamarts and OB, it is time to go for their collective jugular, using the council's joint and several and their ultimate whole liability for the wrongful actions of the JBW drone.

[old bill]

Agree with seanamarts and OB, it is time to go for their collective jugular, using the council's joint and several and their ultimate whole liability for the wrongful actions of the JBW drone.

 

It might also be advisable to investigate sending a warning letter to the bailiff and JBW as to their potential liabilities under the Fraud Act 2006 - Section 2(1) for the bailiff and Section 12 for the company of JBW and its management team. Enclosing the relevant extracts is advisable as it means they can see the legislation "in the flesh", so to speak, and cannot argue that they did not know. I am not saying that it will, but it may be what is needed to jolt JBW and their bailiff into compliance with relevant legislation and claim only those fees the law allows, if they are actually entitled to charge such fees.

[Bluewednesday]

I will write a complaint letter. Who shall I write to, Bailiff or the Council?

Could you please let me know if there are any template letters that I could use?

[old bill]

I will write a complaint letter. Who shall I write to, Bailiff or the Council?

Could you please let me know if there are any template letters that I could use?

 

The first thing you need to do is write to JBW and ask them to justify their fees, as recommended by Seanamarts. If they insist the fees are correct, that is when you send them the warning letters. The purpose of the warning letters is to (a) point out the offence, (b) give them an opportunity to withdraw their demands and resubmit claiming only the fees they are legally-entitled to claim, if any, and © put them on notice as to what action may be taken if they continue to demand any fees they are not legally-entitled to charge.

 

If matters reach the stage of having to lay an information, which should be the very last resort after everything else has failed, please bear in mind that it is a very serious step to take as a court is being asked to deprive a person of their liberty. Try resolving this by other methods first.

 

If you need to send the warning letters, come onto this thread and I will draft something for you.