PCN & Confero Bailiffs were taking car - paid up, he ignored TEC appeal TE7 & TE9 - want money back - help!!

[Alchemy6]

Hello everyone, I'm new here so bear with me, but I really do need some sound advice.

 

1. I got a PCN in October 2011 for parking in a residents parking bay, even though I am a resident and my permit was clearly displayed.

 

2. I submitted a 'formal representation' immediately that same day and enclosed photographs of my vehicle, it was opportune that the police were there that day and I had a timed photograph...

 

3. I heard nothing from the local authority (LA) , or anyone else, until March 2012 when I got a letter from Confero Collections Ltd. demading £97

 

4. I called the local authority and they feigned ignorance of my letter and advised me to contact Northampton County Court (TEC) to complete a TE7 & TE9 'out of time' statement

 

5. I submitted my forms and heard nothing again until 16th May 2012 when a man arrived claiming to be

a bailiff (with no identification) and clamped my car. He told me if I didn't pay him £507.55 he would take my car and sell it to recoup his costs.

 

6. I called the Police but they said it was a domestic dispute so refused to intervene...

 

7. I called the TEC and they said it was on hold but obviously the LA had not communicated this to Confero, the LA refused to acknowledge that my TE7 & TE9 were submitted and authorised the 'bailiff to proceed with removing my car

 

8. I showed him the letters and forms I submitted to the TEC, the LA and his office, but as far as he was concerned the LA specifically told him to get the money or the car

 

9. There was no tow truck or lifter, but the bailiff told me I had 1 hour to get him his money or I would lose the car and be charged for it's removal...

 

Now the situation is this;

I'm unemployed, I get no benefit whatsoever because I have a running dispute with my former employer,

 

my mother's an 85 year old pensioner and we're both surviving on what she gets as a pension and what I saved for my pension.

 

She had a hospital appointment that day and thankfully a kind neighbour saw my predicament and gave the man the money on my behalf

 

- so how do I get the money back for her?

[tomtubby]

As many people on here know, we have a commercial business providing advice to anyone with regards to a bailiff visit. Your question is not common at all as all local authorities know that when an Out of Time Application has been submitted that ALL ENFORECEMENT MUST CEASE unti, such time as the application has been DETERMINED.

 

Whenever a situation like this has happendes then TEC will send an email to the local authority to stop enforcment.

 

As a matter of urgency you need to speak with TEC on Monday and ask them to confirm the following:

 

Did they receive your TE7 & TE9

 

What date was it received?

 

What date did they send notification to the LA?

 

Have they had a response from the LA

 

If so, what date.

 

Please post back in the morning after you have spoken with them.

[Alchemy6]

Thank you for responding so quickly, I didn't know the depth of information required initially but here's the answers to you questions -

 

1. When I called the TEC on the 16/05/12 they said they were dealing with a backlog of forms, so they could not confirm that mine had been processed. They suggested I fax a copy to them immediately and inform the LA that it MUST be put on hold until close of business that day; the LA refused and instructed the 'bailiff' to proceed with either taking the car or the money...

 

2. I submitted the TE7 & TE9 on 11/04/12, 16/05/12 and 22/05/12 but the LA refused to accept that these forms had been submitted or that the matter should be put on hold

 

3. A final response from LA was that the matter was resolved, so TEC sent me notification of this !!!

 

Please let me know if you need more info

Edited July 8, 2012 by Alchemy6

[Jamberson]

This is extraordinary. TEC can't wait 7 weeks to tell the LA that you've challenged the warrant!!

 

Can you try and impress on TEC that this is urgent - tell them what happened. TEC should instruct the LA to put everything on hold - and the LA should instruct the bailiffs to return your car.

[Alchemy6]

TEC said that because of the backlog they couldn't say they had the TE7 & TE9 so thats why they wanted a fax copy ASAP and for me to notify the Local Authority that it would be processed by close of business that day (16/05/12).

The Local Authority refused to accept that TEC would either take that long to clear a backlog or that they would fastrack the forms so quickly, so they informed the bailiff to either get the money or take the car.

No tow truck/lifter was at my mothers house, and because a neighbour saw what was happening, paid the money on my behalf.

My car in any event was not taken but the alloy wheel was damaged when the bailiff attached/removed the wheelclamp.

I've had other replies since posting here, and the main concensus is that I use the case of Culligan v Marston to sue the local authority and the bailiff for the return of the money and for damages.

My question is how do I complete the N1 form to do this, what would be my argument, that the local authority were negligent in pursute of this PCN or that the bailiff were fraudulent in the charges they accrued - the PCN was £97 the Costs/Fees of the bailiff was £410.55...

[old bill]

TEC said that because of the backlog they couldn't say they had the TE7 & TE9 so thats why they wanted a fax copy ASAP and for me to notify the Local Authority that it would be processed by close of business that day (16/05/12).

The Local Authority refused to accept that TEC would either take that long to clear a backlog or that they would fastrack the forms so quickly, so they informed the bailiff to either get the money or take the car.

No tow truck/lifter was at my mothers house, and because a neighbour saw what was happening, paid the money on my behalf.

My car in any event was not taken but the alloy wheel was damaged when the bailiff attached/removed the wheelclamp.

I've had other replies since posting here, and the main concensus is that I use the case of Culligan v Marston to sue the local authority and the bailiff for the return of the money and for damages.

My question is how do I complete the N1 form to do this, what would be my argument, that the local authority were negligent in pursute of this PCN or that the bailiff were fraudulent in the charges they accrued - the PCN was £97 the Costs/Fees of the bailiff was £410.55...

 

Ask the ****** bailiffs for a breakdown of fees. You do this by serving a Breakdown of Fees Request on them, in writing, and reminding them that they are legally-obliged to provide you with this. Also, remind them that it isn't an SAR under the Data Protection Act and, therefore, does not attract a fee and they have 14 days in which to provide you with the breakdown of fees. £410.55 fees seems abnormally high.

[Alchemy6]

Thanks for the replies, I have done as you've said (I think this is the format of the letter you're talking about) and got a reply back this morning, though it was sent 3wks ago and the bailiff chose not to answer the question/s I asked...

 

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Bailiff Costs to Date/Fees.

 

 

I write following a visit by your enforcement officer, when looking at the document he presented me

with, and after seeking further legal advice, there appears to be an irregularity with the breakdown

of your fees. I now ask you to provide the following information within seven (7) days of this notice:

1) Written confirmation of your fees

2) Written confirmation of the original debt

3) The name and address of the organisation that instructed you to proceed with this seizure

4) If you have charged non-statutory fees prescribed in law, a breakdown of your costs to show

they are reasonable and not charged for the purpose of

making a gain for yourself or another

5) Truthfully confirm in writing that a) your fees are lawful and comply with legislation

or b) refund

me the unlawful fees plus reasonable compensation for being cheated by your bailiff with his

fees by midday

the seventh day from the date of this letter

6) Show me in where in legislation, or the court order, it stipulates I have to pay any of your fees

 

A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be

committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 2 of the Act specifically describes a

person who dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation,

to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of

loss. If no satisfactory refund is made to me by 12.00 midday seven (7) days from the date of this

letter I will automatically make a criminal complaint to Police under the 2006 Fraud Act and the

Proceeds of Crime Act. If you have charged VAT on unlawful fees then you may be reported for

VAT fraud and your documents will be given in evidence.

This is a letter before action and is not a request to access any personal data about me in the

meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998. This document is a notice of intended proceedings and is

delivered by the Royal Mail, and I therefore deem it to have been served upon you by the ordinary

course of post in the meaning of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It now is your

responsibility and in your best interests that this letter is handed to the relevant person within your

organisation.

 

The bailiff has replied -

Letter fee - £13.44

Visit Fee - £37.20

Attendance Fee - £180

Tow Truck Fee - £180

 

Obviously, he's charged for a letter, which I got and replied to in March when I requested the TE7 & TE9, the Visit Fee is wrong because it was his first and only visit, what's the Attendance Fee? And why charge a Tow Truck when there was no Tow Truck?? The whole thing looks overinflated and the bailiff says that if I think he's wrong (!) then I can request the court to check it via a 'Taxing' request which is chargeable and may incurr me further charges if my allegations are found to be malicious...

 

So what's my next step?

Edited July 10, 2012 by Alchemy6

[old bill]

Thanks for the replies, I have done as you've said (I think this is the format of the letter you're talking about) and got a reply back this morning, though it was sent 3wks ago and the bailiff chose not to answer the question/s I asked...

 

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Bailiff Costs to Date/Fees.

 

I write following a visit by your enforcement officer, when looking at the document he presented me

with, and after seeking further legal advice, there appears to be an irregularity with the breakdown

of your fees. I now ask you to provide the following information within seven (7) days of this notice:

1) Written confirmation of your fees

2) Written confirmation of the original debt

3) The name and address of the organisation that instructed you to proceed with this seizure

4) If you have charged non-statutory fees prescribed in law, a breakdown of your costs to show

they are reasonable and not charged for the purpose of

making a gain for yourself or another

5) Truthfully confirm in writing that a) your fees are lawful and comply with legislation

or b) refund

me the unlawful fees plus reasonable compensation for being cheated by your bailiff with his

fees by midday

the seventh day from the date of this letter

6) Show me in where in legislation, or the court order, it stipulates I have to pay any of your fees

 

A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be

committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 2 of the Act specifically describes a

person who dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation,

to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of

loss. If no satisfactory refund is made to me by 12.00 midday seven (7) days from the date of this

letter I will automatically make a criminal complaint to Police under the 2006 Fraud Act and the

Proceeds of Crime Act. If you have charged VAT on unlawful fees then you may be reported for

VAT fraud and your documents will be given in evidence.

This is a letter before action and is not a request to access any personal data about me in the

meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998. This document is a notice of intended proceedings and is

delivered by the Royal Mail, and I therefore deem it to have been served upon you by the ordinary

course of post in the meaning of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It now is your

responsibility and in your best interests that this letter is handed to the relevant person within your

organisation.

 

The bailiff has replied -

Letter fee - £13.44

Visit Fee - £37.20

Attendance Fee - £180

Tow Truck Fee - £180

 

Obviously, he's charged for a letter, which I got and replied to in March when I requested the TE7 & TE9, the Visit Fee is wrong because it was his first and only visit, what's the Attendance Fee? And why charge a Tow Truck when there was no Tow Truck?? The whole thing looks overinflated and the bailiff says that if I think he's wrong (!) then I can request the court to check it via a 'Taxing' request which is chargeable and may incurr me further charges if my allegations are found to be malicious...

 

So what's my next step?

 

The fees are both inflated and certainly fraudulent. I'm attaching electronic copies of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993-2003 which regulates the fees bailiffs may charge when enforcing PCNs. The current fees are in the 2003 amendment. Work out how much you have been overcharged, then come back onto the thread.

Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regs 1993.pdf

Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regs 2003.pdf

national-standards-enforcement-agents.pdf

[Alchemy6]

Thanks for your help 'old bill' and the attachments - they were very useful.

 

From what I've managed to glean from the information in the 'attachments' it seems that -

 

1. the letter cost seems about right, he charged £11.20 + VAT @ 20% = £13.44

 

2. the first visit fee of £28.00 + VAT @ 20% = £33.60 does look wrong as he's qouted £37.20

 

3. the attendance fee of £180.00 looks wrong, as the qouted rate should be no more than £28.00 as the debt to collect was less than £100 (PCN=£90)

 

4. the Tow Truck fee of £180.00 is definitely an overcharge as how can he make a charge for something that was not done!?

 

So what's the next step 'old bill' ?

 

I've an appointment with the CAB later because I think the only way forward is a N1 via the small claims court, I'm just having problems filling that out at the moment - the particulars of claim is easy enough and what I'm suing for is an 'overchage of bailiff costs/fees' its just that prevailing evidence seems to indicate I'd be better off suing the Local Aurthority as 1st defendant, then the bailiff and his staff as 2nd & 3rd defendants.

 

Obviously I'm going to try and sue for the entire cost of £507.55 because if the Local Authority had followed the MoJ guidelines they would have kept me notified of the outstanding debt and the PCN would have been cancelled by PTAS.

 

Also, is it worth doing a Form 4 - bailiff complaint or should I just stick with the N1 claim !? I've already used a stencil letter provided elsewhere on the forum to make the complaint with police for their failure to attend.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Alchemy6

[old bill]

Under no circumstances pursue a Form 4 complaint. There is a risk of costs being awarded against you as bailiffs tend to pervert Form 4 hearings into litigation. The risk of a Costs Order is highlighted in MoJ Leaflet EX345.

 

The bailiff has committed an offence of Rendering A False Account. This is an offence under Section 17, Theft Act 1968 (False Accounting). It is also an offence under Section 2, Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by False Misrepresentation).

 

The amounts involved fall under the ambit of the Small Claims Court, which is less risky than a Form 4 hearing, which is heard before a Circuit Judge. Small Claims Court hearings are normally heard by a Registrar, who is a junior judge. Serving a certificated bailiff and their employers with a Small Claims Court summons is likely to have the desired result, unless they're totally stupid, but they do tend to leave it right to the last minute to settle. Neither a bailiff or bailiff company can afford to have a CCJ against their name. A bailiff risks forfeiting their certificate and bond as they are not permitted to be a bailiff with a CCJ against them. A bailiff company cannot operate with a CCJ against the company and would be closed down.

 

There is another strategy which I am helping to develop for another consumer forum which involves MoJ Bailiff Department, OFT Credit Fitness Team and Trading Standards.

 

Bailiff companies collecting public debt (CSA, CT, HMCTS, NNDR, PCNs) will normally be required to hold a current OFT Category F Debt Collection Licence as a condition of tender and contract. Confero specialise in collecting public debt.

 

The bailiff should be reported to the MoJ's Bailiff Department by email to cbregister@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk. Make sure the words CERTIFICATED BAILIFF COMPLAINT are in the subject box. Include the name, certificating court, certificate effective dates (valid from/to) and name of employer in the body of the complaint. Give a clear and concise resume of your complaint.

 

The bailiff company should be reported to the OFT's Credit Fitness Team by email to enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk. Make sure the words CREDIT FITNESS are in the subject box. Include the name of the bailiff company and the OFT Licence Number (if known) or Company Registration Number (CRN) in the body of the complaint. Give a clear and concise resume of your complaint.

 

You should also report the matter to your local Trading Standards Department, advising them you have reported the matter to OFT Credit Fitness Team as well.

 

The OFT Credit Fitness can revoke or refuse to renew a Category F Licence. This would, effectively, put Confero out of business as their business is dependent on public debt which requires a Category F Licence as a condition of tender/contract.

 

Confero's registered name is Confero Collections Limited and their CRN is 07045498.

 

As this is a PCN matter, it would be wise to bring the matter to the attention of the Permanent Secretary and Secretary of State at the Department for Communities & Local Government.

 

The postal address is -

 

Department for Communities & Local Government

Eland House

Bressenden Place

London

SW1E 5DU

 

The Permanent Secretary is Sir Bob Kerslake. The Secretary of State is the Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles MP. The Minister for Housing & Local Government is the Rt. Hon. Grant Shapps MP.

 

It may also be wise to alert the Permanent Secretary and Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice as Confero enforce court fines.

 

The postal address is -

 

Ministry of Justice

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9AJ

 

The Permanent Secretary is Sir Suma Chakrabarti KCB. The Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice is the Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke QC, MP. The Minister with responsibility for H.M. Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is the Rt. Hon. Jonathan Djanogly MP

 

By letting these people know what is going on, they cannot turn round and plead ignorance or deny there is a problem with bailiff companies collecting debts for local authorities and HMCTS.

Edited July 11, 2012 by old bill

[brassnecked]

Done some digging; Company number at Companies House for Confero : 0704549. I can't find a Consumer credit Number at the OFT, so I woulsd follow old bill's method, it is the "Ways and Means Act" in operation

 

Result of OFT Consumer Credit Licence for Confero Collections Limited:

CCA Home Page :: CCA Search :: CCA Search Results

 

Search Results

 

 

No Results Found

 

That's not to infer they aren't licenced they may be under a group license with CIVEA or another bailiff/DCA umbrella licence.

Edited July 11, 2012 by brassnecked

[old bill]

Done some digging; Company number at Companies House for Confero : 0704549. I can't find a Consumer credit Number at the OFT, so I woulsd follow old bill's method, it is the "Ways and Means Act" in operation

 

Result of OFT Consumer Credit Licence for Confero Collections Limited:

CCA Home Page :: CCA Search :: CCA Search Results

 

Search Results

 

 

No Results Found

 

That's not to infer they aren't licenced they may be under a group license with CIVEA or another bailiff/DCA umbrella licence.

 

There have been problems as of late with access to the OFT Public Register via the internet, BN. All the OFT needs to check is Confero's CRN. If Confero are not licensed, which would surprise me greatly, you should pursue a complaint with the MoJ in the same way as a bailiff complaint, instead, putting the words BAILIFF COMPANY COMPLAINT in the subject box of your email.

[Alchemy6]

Strewth guys, thanks a lot for all the info. It seems that Confero used to be a company called DBK or something like that its history is convoluted, seems like its still the same people though - Mr & Mrs Rowland.

 

The guy that turned up with the warrant is registered under a different company at the court, so is it possible that Confero sub-contracted for this guy to do the collection?

 

I saw the CAB today, so they could peruse my N1 claim form, and from the looks of things I just need to edit it a liitle and put the parts in that you've mention like the HMCTS charges and the MoJ guidelines - just to bolster the strength of my argument.

 

They also said it would be good to mention Culligan v Marston and the Baroness Young spiel about bailiffs with ID and fraud etc. I also understand that whilst Culligan set a precedent, because Marston never followed up on the appeal its not set out as legal precedence - true or false?

 

I'm just trying to do an iron clad case to nail these guys and hopefully set something out for future users here - would be helpful if I could find the original case papers for the Culligan case as the arguments and summary by Advent are quite succinct and I really would like to know all the things Confero might throw at me if this goes all the way.

 

Keep it coming guys, I've got a couple of weeks before the N1 needs to go off, so the more ammo the better

 

Cheers

[old bill]

Strewth guys, thanks a lot for all the info. It seems that Confero used to be a company called DBK or something like that its history is convoluted, seems like its still the same people though - Mr & Mrs Rowland.

 

The guy that turned up with the warrant is registered under a different company at the court, so is it possible that Confero sub-contracted for this guy to do the collection?

 

I saw the CAB today, so they could peruse my N1 claim form, and from the looks of things I just need to edit it a liitle and put the parts in that you've mention like the HMCTS charges and the MoJ guidelines - just to bolster the strength of my argument.

 

They also said it would be good to mention Culligan v Marston and the Baroness Young spiel about bailiffs with ID and fraud etc. I also understand that whilst Culligan set a precedent, because Marston never followed up on the appeal its not set out as legal precedence - true or false?

 

I'm just trying to do an iron clad case to nail these guys and hopefully set something out for future users here - would be helpful if I could find the original case papers for the Culligan case as the arguments and summary by Advent are quite succinct and I really would like to know all the things Confero might throw at me if this goes all the way.

 

Keep it coming guys, I've got a couple of weeks before the N1 needs to go off, so the more ammo the better

 

Cheers

 

How useful Culligan -v- Marston Group will be depends on which court made the judgement. If it was a county court, it doesn't set a precedent, but if it was a High Court, Court of Appeal, House of Lords or Supreme Court ruling, then it is legally-binding on the lower courts.

[Alchemy6]

You're right Old Bill the case was heard at the Central London County Court, and the defendant applied to appeal then changed his mind...

[old bill]

I wonder why? Although the judgement in Culligan -v- Marston Group was made by a county court, you can and should bring this to the attention of the court as it is relevant to your case. The better your arguments and the more you can show you have "done your homework", the better will be your chances of securing judgement against the bailiff and Confero Collections Ltd. However, be prepared for Confero to make an 11th hour settlement. Apparently, this practice is rife amongst bailiffs and bailiff companies served with county court summonses.

 

You should also pursue complaints with the OFT's Credit Fitness Team and your local Trading Standards Department, in respect of Confero, and the MoJ's Bailiff Department, in respect of the certificated ******, sorry, bailiff.

[Alchemy6]

From what I have been told by the CAB, Marston chose not to proceed with an appeal because it would have been judged by someone of the next highest level, and so may have been heard in a Magistrates Court; whereby the result may well have set a legal precent in future cases.

 

I've also been told that Confero may well lodge an 11th hour settlement, albeit not for the full amount, so my best way forward is to site the Local Authority as 1st defendant, Confero as 2nd defendant and their employee as 3rd defendant. That way all the money can be claimed back from the Local Authority because they were negligent in allowing the bailiffs to levy 'irregular distress' and ultimately therefore are complicit in the overcharges.

 

Is this true?

 

Also, I've been searching everywhere for the full case papers for Culligan v Marston/Camden

 

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

 

But I've had no luck, so can somone point me in the right direction or send a link to the attachments.

 

Cheers

Edited July 16, 2012 by Alchemy6

[old bill]

If a case is heard in one of the lower courts, the court at which an appeal is heard depends on which lower court the original hearing took place. If heard in a county court, an appeal would be heard at either the High Court or Court of Appeal, depending on what area of the law the case falls under.

 

The advice you have been given by CAB seems to be correct. The Local Authority is the principal defendant and Confero and their bailiff are co-defendants through the legal instrument of agency, that is, Confero and their bailiff are agents of the Local Authority.

 

You should pursue a complaint against Confero with the OFT's Credit Fitness Team and against the bailiff with the MoJ's Bailiff Department in addition to any proceedings in the courts. What has happened in your case raises questions as to Confero's fitness to hold a Category F Debt Collection Licence, something that is essential to Confero to collect public debt.

[tomtubby]

Alchemy,

 

I am not sure what you mean when you say the "full case papers" for the Anthony Culligan v Marston Group case??

 

Do you mean a copy of the full Judgment from District Judge Avent?

 

If so, please send me a PM with an email address and I will send a copy to you. For anyone who is interested...I know Anthony Culligan......

 

The correct position is that Marston Group requested permission to appeal. This was granted to them. They then advised the court that they needed further time in which to prepare their defense. This was also provided. On the final date when their appeal had to be submitted, they advised the court that they had decided not to take the matter to appeal.

 

Given the facts outlines in the Judgment, it was assumed that Marston Group had decided not to appeal because, if the appeal had an identical judgment this would set a precedent and accordingly,would "open the floodgates" to many thousands of claims being made for refunds etc. Bailiffs company could have faced financial disaster.

 

The Judgment is a very powerful one indeed and would greatly assist anyone seeking to reclaim bailiff fees.

 

I would strongly suggest that before taking court action that you pursue a formal complaint with the LOCAL AUTHORITY as they are wholly responsible for the bailiff fees.

[Alchemy6]

Sorry tomtubby, but it says I can't PM you because my 'post count' is too low...

 

I've exhausted the complaints procedure with the Local Authority, as they say they only authorised the 'seizure' and they have no responsibility for the actions, conduct or subsequent fees accrued by their bailiff.

 

I read a post elsewhere on here that struck a cord with relevance to my case - the guy that came to 'levy distress' is registered under another company name as self-employed with the court and it seems that not only did the LA contract Confero but they too appear to have sub-contracted this out.

[lamma]

"I've exhausted the complaints procedure with the Local Authority, as they say they only authorised the 'seizure' and they have no responsibility for the actions, conduct or subsequent fees accrued by their bailiff." Did they say this in writing ?

[brassnecked]

If they said that "they only authorised the 'seizure' and they have no responsibility for the actions, conduct or subsequent fees accrued by their bailiff" they are in tyhe doo doo, as they remain 100% vicariously liable both jointly and severally for their bailiffs actions. Heigh ho heigh ho it's off to the LGO you go imho

[old bill]

In the words of my friend the Polite Plumber, "Ballcocks!" A LA is 100% vicariously-liable for the actions of the bailiffs they engage. I cannot comment on the legality of Confero sub-contracting work out to a self-employed certificated bailiff who operates on a "Rent-A-Thug" basis, other than there would be vicarious liability on the part of the LA as well as Confero if the self-employed bailiff fouled-up.

[brassnecked]

Yes OB the liability goes right back to the LA no matter how many self employed subbie scumbags are in the food chain

[Alchemy6]

Thanks for all the information, the Local Authority seem totally ambivalent to this and obviously just think that my case rests with the bailff and his "Rent-A-Thug", so they don't really want to be involved in any contentious litigation. The LGO just seem like a bunch of toothless tigers, with all the information I've supplied them with, they still keep asking the same old questions, so the only way I see moving forward on this is to go the route of the N1 small claims and have them explain themselves in court.

 

tomtubby - I've not heard back from you about the Culligan v Marston papers and I can't PM you my details so I'm unsure how else I can receive a a copy of the full judgement... It would obviously be very useful to pore over Mr. Culligans arguments, especially with regards to the how he tackled the question of costs/fees charged for visit/attendance/towing, so that I best prepare my case on paper for submission.

 

cheers