Jump to content


JBW Bailiffs at door 7.15am. Re Old Box Junction offence


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3251 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

I have an outstanding fine for a box junction offence, which i challenged at the time, and the local authority said they would take further.(Islington BC)

I cant recollect any correspondence on this matter for 6 months. This morning JBW turned up with van, and wanted to serve a levy.

I had no vehicle outside house, and did not let them have access, but they were demanding £785.44.

They could produce no paperwork, but he only had details on a smart phone.

I told them that i had no money, (unemployed) and that i had not received any recent letters, for their visit. They told me that a colleague had called two weeks ago and posted a letter.

I insisted that they should produce paperwork, and breakdown of fees etc. and should leave me details of their company so i could take it up with them. They left me a clamp form with a phone number and reference number on it, for me to contact their head office.

All the time he was saying that an electronic warrent is all he needs, and he can return with a locksmith to levy goods.

 

Sorry this is long winded and i am sure that there are some more questions that i can answer. What should my next move be? can i make some sort of offer to them? I am on pension credit, with small part time income.

 

Any help or comments will be appreciated

 

regards

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Locksmith is a no no at this stage, if he hasn't had peaceful entry or found a car to levy, at this stage he is powerless unless he finds your motor with ANPR, which he will likely clamp when he does find it.

 

This is not criminal, so he cannot threaten arrest imprisonment breaking into the house to seize goods at this stage.

 

Others who will know the ropes on PCN will no doubt be along soon, but welcome to CAG you will get help here

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all,

 

since my posting re Bailiff attendance, a letter has arrived from their office NOTICE OF REMOVAL amount outstanding £501.04

so i imagine that the Bailiff's bill for £785.44 extra amount is for their visit.

there is a section in their letter that says "we would prefer you to be at home , this will enable us to leave you with the notices, removal forms, and details of how to pay'

However the Bailiff could not produce any forms. He did take an e-mail address and mobile number.

 

Would i be wise to contact them now i have a letter (e-mail them) any help on this matter,

 

regards

 

dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to put a complaint to Islington BC that you have not been informed of the situation with regard to the outcome of your dispute over the box junction charge.

Had the Council kept you up to date you could have avoided bailiffs turning up at your door today plus all the hassle involved with querying his unsubstantiated charges.

 

Ask them why you were not informed of the outcome and why you were sent no further correspondence about the outstanding fine or that bailiffs were being involved.

Ask them when the bailiffs became involved.

 

Did the bailiff give you a breakdown of their charges to date and their breakdown. I suspect that they are wrong since as he turned up with a van he would probably have

charged extra for that when this was the visit where he could only expect to levy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brassnecked, and Lookingforinfo

thank you for your replies and i will follow up

 

Of course all i'm worried about is a return visit from these scallywags , so i think i will e-mail JBW for all the instruction details, and breakdown of charges.

 

thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim by the bailiff that an electronic warrant is all he needs is total BS. He MUST have a hard copy of the warrant in his possession. One thing you will need to realise is... BAILIFFS LIE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

 

If you had made "representation" to the council and had not received a response, then you are able to file a simple TE7 & TE9 form with the Traffic Enforcement Centre in the morning. These forms are referred to an an Out of Time Statutory Declaration/Witness Statement.

 

The forms will need to be sent by EMAIL in the morning to TEC and within a few hours all enforcement by the bailiff MUST CEASE until the application has been determined.

 

If you had not received any further documents form the LA after sending your appeal, you should ask ensure that you call TEC in the morning on 08457 045 007 (or landline: 01604 619450). Press button 6 to speak with an operator. You will need the PCN number and you should ask TEC to confirm the precise address on the warrant.

 

Having a supposed copy of a warrant on a mobile phone is not sufficient as far as i am concerned. Being able to see a copy of the warrant is VITAL. The warrant is valid for 12 months.....without seeing a copy you have no idea of the date of issue.

 

Without seeing a warrant you cannot see whether it is correctly addressed.

 

The fees are astonishingly high..in particular as your car had NOT been clamped.

 

As your car had not been outside of your home a levy was not made upon it and neither was it clamped.

 

The bailiff will know the vehicle reg from the information on his warrant. I would suggest that the car is not around for the next 24 hours until you have emailed an Out of Time Application to to TEC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest JBWCustomerCare

Dear Dave,

 

I have reviewed this thread and would welcome the opportunity to investigate your case personally and assist you with any additional information you may require in order for your complaint to be fully resolved.

 

You may contact me at info @ jbw.co.uk . Please mark your subject header "Consumer Action Group Complaint" which will escalate for my direct attention. If you could supply your JBW reference number, PCN Number and/or your full name and address and copy and paste your initial posting this will assist greatly.

 

Kind regards,

 

JBW Customer Care

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see that JBW are taking a direct interest in this. Click here for the email address as they have had to intdroduce spaces to overcome our anti-spam filters.

 

Please do let us know what happens. We aren't normally on the same side as JBW or the other bailiff companies but if they are able to investigate situations where there may be concerns, then that must always be a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

I have sent a letter of complaint off to Islington BC regarding this situation, and lack of communication, to say the least.

 

I have also e-mailed 'Official Company Spokesman' at JBW and await any reply. I did point out that this is the second e-mail i have sent His company. the first has so far had no response, so we will see.

I will keep everyone concerned informed of outcome

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Very interesed to see what happens about the JBW contact

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Very interesed to see what happens about the JBW contact

If it means that JBW keeps a check on and ensures their staff play bay the rules, and address issues and anomalies, then they are welcome imho

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest JBWCustomerCare
Hello all,

I have sent a letter of complaint off to Islington BC regarding this situation, and lack of communication, to say the least.

 

I have also e-mailed 'Official Company Spokesman' at JBW and await any reply. I did point out that this is the second e-mail i have sent His company. the first has so far had no response, so we will see.

I will keep everyone concerned informed of outcome

 

regards

 

I confirm receipt of your email and will respond to you direct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me a cynical ex-policeman if you like, but I cannot help getting the feeling that the recent incident involving JBW bailiffs illegally seizing a cagger's vehicle may have a part in JBW's interest in this thread. If it will lead to JBW keeping their baliffs in line, then I am for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldbill and tomtubby, I agree if they genuinely address issues then I am for it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Here we go re this case,

As yet I have not received a reply from Islington BC.

I did receive a 5 page e-mail from JBW Audit and Complience Director, outlining fully all aspects of the case so far, and with copies of The Warrant of Execution ( unstamped, and unsigned) and JBW's breakdown of fees, including a copy of the Statutory Provisions for fees and charges.

JBW did claim that a previous visit was made which i am contesting as the charge for that apparent visit was £233.00, and I did not receive any hand delivered letter. I have posted a formal complaint to Islington BC on this matter.

The Director also made reference to the visit on 30th Aug (OP) and confirmed that the standards of professionalism were below those required by a JBW bailiff, so all fees applied were removed (even though there was no levy!)

The Director also put the case on hold for 10 days, for replies from Islington BC to be obtained.

I am still maintaining that I did not receive final correspondence from Islington BC, and that letters from JBW dated 14/07/2012

never arrived, the letter sent on 23/08/2012 from JBW arrived the afternoon of the bailiff visit! (30/08/2012) which i find very odd.

 

I can post the letter in full if others are interested.

 

regards

 

dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

From reading the OP's most recent post, it appears there has been unacceptable accounting and enforcement practice on the part of JBW bailiffs. As Tomtubby and I have discovered, a large number of public debt enforcement contracts require certificated bailiff companies to hold a valid OFT Category F Debt Collection Licence. A poster on another site of which I am a member has recently made a complaint against a certificated bailiff company and received an email back from OFT Credit Fitness Team which included the following -

 

"...we are currently dealing with a high volume of complaints against bailiffs and debt collection agencies"

 

This is, in my opinion, a very damning statement of the behaviour of certificated bailiff companies, especially from the regulatory authority that issues Debt Collection Licences. I suspect that Jamie Waller knows, himself, that the loss of JBW's OFT Debt Collection Licence would have an effect on his business.

 

I do know that a large number of complaints have been made to the OFT against certificated bailiff companies over the last few months. The following have attracted the most complaints -

 

Marston Group Ltd

Equita Ltd

Bristow & Sutor Civil Enforcement Ltd

 

It is nothing for the civil enforcement industry to be proud of or for its trade associations to go into denial about rogue elements. As many have witnessed at first-hand and on this and other sites, the reality is that unacceptable behaviour is not an occasional occurrence, but all too often, commonplace. Certificated bailiff companies must get their respective houses in order, because until they do, the consumer and debtor will keep hitting back, through regulatory bodies and the courts, until the message is well and truly hammered home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

re- warrants

 

all the bailliff has to do is inform the debtor of where he can view the original

it will more than likly be at head office of the bailiff company

copys, either paper or electronic are acceptable for the bailiff to carry

Link to post
Share on other sites

re- warrants

 

all the bailliff has to do is inform the debtor of where he can view the original

it will more than likly be at head office of the bailiff company

copys, either paper or electronic are acceptable for the bailiff to carry

 

Electronic copies are not acceptable. Hard copy must be produced to any person so requesting to view the warrant. This is a common modus operandi of JBW. So is seriously overcharging debtors. On another site I post on, JBW have overcharged a debtor a potential £558.82 and are now attempting to extract a further £355 they are not entitled to demand. I can see Mr Jamie Waller having to explain his employees' and his company's actions to a court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

copied from bailiff advise online

this is to do with warrants of distress ie a magistrates court fine, i know a pcn is not under magistrates at the moment but its the only

relevent bit of info i can find at the moment regarding warrants

 

It is important to note that the Contract between HMCS and the relevant bailiff companies provides that an Enforcement Officer cannot enforce a Distress Warrant against you if it is more than 180 days old !!

If a bailiff has visited you to enforce a distress warrant for an unpaid Magistrates Court Fine there are legal provisions concerning the bailiff showing you the actual Warrant. We have provided details of the Statutory Legislation concerning this at the end of this section which provides that:

“A person executing a Warrant of Distress must either show the warrant to the person against whom the distress is levied, or state where and how it can be inspected.

• It is not essential that the warrant be in the possession of the person executing it at the time of execution.

 

• He must explain, in ordinary language, the sum for which distress is levied and the reason for the distress.

• He must show documentary proof of his identity.

• A civilian enforcement officer or approved enforcement agency (or employee, partner or director thereof) must provide a written statement of their and their employer’s identities and authority to a person against whom they execute a warrant”

Link to post
Share on other sites

copied from bailiff advise online

this is to do with warrants of distress ie a magistrates court fine, i know a pcn is not under magistrates at the moment but its the only

relevent bit of info i can find at the moment regarding warrants

 

It is important to note that the Contract between HMCS and the relevant bailiff companies provides that an Enforcement Officer cannot enforce a Distress Warrant against you if it is more than 180 days old !!

If a bailiff has visited you to enforce a distress warrant for an unpaid Magistrates Court Fine there are legal provisions concerning the bailiff showing you the actual Warrant. We have provided details of the Statutory Legislation concerning this at the end of this section which provides that:

“A person executing a Warrant of Distress must either show the warrant to the person against whom the distress is levied, or state where and how it can be inspected.

• It is not essential that the warrant be in the possession of the person executing it at the time of execution.

 

• He must explain, in ordinary language, the sum for which distress is levied and the reason for the distress.

• He must show documentary proof of his identity.

• A civilian enforcement officer or approved enforcement agency (or employee, partner or director thereof) must provide a written statement of their and their employer’s identities and authority to a person against whom they execute a warrant”

 

Most arrest warrants issued by Magistrates Courts are valid for six months only, after which they must be returned to the court of issue. The problem with JBW, Sgt Bush, is their repeated non-compliance with applicable legislation and the law, generally. Calling themselves "court bailiffs" is one transgression. That is illegal. Claiming to be from Northampton Court is another one they try. That, too, is illegal and is misrepresentation of their authority. If a warranted police officer does their job properly, they should ask to see any warrant a certificated bailiff claims to be acting under.

 

This was brought sharply into focus when myself and a colleague were called to an incident involving two Equita bailiffs, when in the police. The property involved was an RN Married Quarter. On arrival, we caught the two bailiffs loading furniture into an unmarked van. The police force I was serving with at the time had powers under the Public Stores Act, which meant we had power to search the bailiffs and their van. As most of the furniture belonged to H.M. Government and had "Government Property" stamped on them, the bailiffs were asked to produce proof they had lawful authority to be in possession of the furniture. They were unable to produce any such authority. It turned out they had an LO for Council Tax, but had committed the cardinal sin of forcing entry without a court order and not checked the status of the contents of the Married Quarters. They were both arrested, charged with various offences and convicted. After being weighed-off by the magistrates, they were taken round the corner to the County Court and had their certificates taken off them.

 

There is a legal requirement under the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended) for a bailiff to have a copy of the LO with them when attending a property and levying.

 

I have to say that, in my considered judgement and experience, any certificated bailiff who does not have a hard copy of any warrant, which is their lawful authority to act, in their possession at the time of executing distress is asking for trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...