The car that i use has been clamped again by JBW

[Goatan]

on Monday this week I received hand delivered letter from JBW relating to a tfl congestion charge. There was no tfl reference on the letter. I contacted tfl as i had not had a congestion charge and they told me it was in February which is odd as i haven't been into London by car this year. anyway i went to do a PE2 and PE3 from the TEC as the bailiff had come late on Monday i would not be able to get to the County Court for a witness signature until Wednesday. On Wednesday morning they clamped the car that was supposedly involved. I am the registered keeper of this vehicle but not its owner. I got the forms signed, witnessed and sent on the Wednesday. I then turn my attention the bailiff himself on the first letter the signature was just two upside down Vs the second letter was had a name that looked like Mr. ***** or *****. I sent the following e-mail to JBW as I couldn't identify the bailiffs name and to inform them that they have clamped a car I don't own. Also thee balance has gone from £268 in the first letter to £550 in the second.

 

This is to inform you that despite your not allowing reasonable time between visits letter was hand delivered on Monday and a car was clamped on Wednesday i have submitted an out of time application PE3 and PE2 forms to TEC as your bailiffs visit on Monday was the first contact made about this alleged charge. In addition the supposed fee of 550.84 for a unknown fine off £200 is wholly disproportionate to the original charge and according to law the maximum i could be for the two visits is £296 i request a complete breakdown of costs as to what exactly you believe you are charging for, i have included the relevant law below and the calculation of costs as worked out to the letter of the law.

1For preparing and sending a letter advising the debtor that a warrant is with the bailiff and requesting the total sum due£10.00 Note:The fee under paragraph 1 can only be recovered if the letter is sent before a first visit is made to the debtor’s premises.

2For levying distress—

(i)

Where the sum demanded and due does not exceed £100

£20.00

(ii)

Where the sum demanded and exceeds £100

20% on the first £200; due 5% on any additional sum over £200

For attending to levy distress but where the levy is not made, the reasonable costs and charges for attending to levy.The costs and charges are not to exceed the fees and charges which would have been due under paragraph 2 above if the distress had been levied.The costs and charges are subject to taxation under rule 11.

20% of £200 is £40 x2 visits = £280 20% VAT is £16 Grand total of £296 Why have you £254 more than the law says you can.

I am also informing you that Whilst i am the registered keeper and main user the Ford Mondeo registration ****** i am not its owner therefore any attempt to tow it would not be legal.

Finally the names of the bailiffs on both letters are unreadable please supply the name of the Bailiff/s dealing with this as i wish to check they are registered.

This morning he left a message that confirmed it was ******. I have checked online and there is nobody with this surname certificated. Unfortunately the MOJ must be at the Olympics as their telephone keeps going through to answer machine. I sent a text to the mobile number asking him to supply what court he was certificated at and when. they only reply i got is who is this. I'm dubious about revealing who has asked this I don't want him to harass me via my mobile. Anyway that is where I am at the moment any advice as to what to do next would be much appreciated.

I have stared out the names as i though it might contravene forum rules to reveal them if it doesnt i will hapily put them back in.

[brassnecked]

Do you live in London or near? Has any other driver of the car been to London? If not the ANPR could have messed up and misread a numberplate, or a typo as in a data entry clerk input a wrong character. Is the vehicle on finance or owned by a company or relative?

 

Others who know more about JBW and their shenanigans will no doubt be along soon

[Goatan]

Im the only one who drives the car i live about 40 miles away. Im well aware of the potential for mistakes that tfl can make with congestion charging as one of my dads customers got a letter from them with someone else car on it. the car is owned my by mum, i wrote my last car off and she brought it as a runner i could us whilst the insurance was sorted im currently using it to save up more money for something better when im done with it later this year she will give it to my dad as a run around for his business.

[Goatan]

these are the letters they sent i have edited out all identifiying info.

[tomtubby]

Is the car still clamped?

 

Have you submitted the completed the Out of Time Witness Statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and was this done by email?

 

Have you received confirmation of receipt?

 

The TfL reference will either be "TL" "TF" or "GT".

 

I would suggest that you call TfL on 0845 900 1234 and ask them to CONFIRM the precise address that all statutory notices had been sent to.

 

I have sent you a PM to ask another question.

 

PS: In the papers today it is saying that many companies are allowing their staff to "work from home" instead of going into London to avoid traffic problems during the Olympics and that this includes 800 staff at the Ministry of Justice. This could explain why you cannot get a response to your query regarding the bailiff certification.

[Goatan]

The car is still clamped the out of time witness statment was sent by e-mail to the TEC and confirmed as recived by them yesterday at 14:15. I will try and get hold of tfl as well to confirm the adress they sent there letters to.

[tomtubby]

Thank you for answering the PM. I have also checked the bailiff register and the surname is not showing as a bailifff certificated to work for JBW Group. There is a bailiff with a slight change of spelling with the first name of Christopher as being certificated to work for Marston Group.

 

Have you called TfL as well to ask them what address they were sending statutory notices to. The reason for this is because it is possible that an application may have been made to amend the address at TEc. Can you post back once you have called TfL.

 

It is VERY unusual indeed for the clamp to remain on the car once an Out of Time Stat Dec has been submitted.

[Goatan]

I just spoke to tfl and and the adress is correct also the person i spoke to said that once its clamped it cant be removed without payment to the bailiff regardless of the out of time decleration.

Me and my dad took a look at how the clamp was secured it woudl take less than 15 minutes to remove the clamp without damaging it. Im wondering what the implications would be for this and could we charge storage if they don't collect it.

 

Also thank you tomtubby you have been and absolute star.

[lamma]

also the person i spoke to said that once its clamped it cant be removed without payment to the bailiff regardless of the out of time decleration.

What ? ? ?I think TT and others may wade in on this.

[brassnecked]

What ? ? ?I think TT and others may wade in on this.

 

Once OOT is accepted all bailiff action must cease, and the clamp must be removed, and i think any money overpaid has to be refunded also. TT and the others will confirm

[Goatan]

Lama and brassed that is pretty much what i thought but i only spoek to a script reader so thats probably a standard fob off.

[lamma]

If that is part of an issued standard script then I would argue its Fraud under Section 2 of the 2006 Act. Their only defence to such outright misstatements of the truth is an error by the individual. Why do you think they never give their names.

[old bill]

Who you like the details of JBW's OFT Licence, Lamma, so you can report them to the OFT? Okay. Here's goes.

 

Send an email to [email protected] and insert CREDIT FITNESS in the subject box. Give a clear and concise resume of your complaint. You will need to quote the following in your complaint -

 

Company Name: JBW Group Limited

Credit Licence No.: 629360

 

Don't forget to make a complaint to your local Trading Standards Department as well as OFT Credit Fitness Team.

[old bill]

If that is part of an issued standard script then I would argue its Fraud under Section 2 of the 2006 Act. Their only defence to such outright misstatements of the truth is an error by the individual. Why do you think they never give their names.

 

Under Section 2, Fraud Act 2006, a misleading statement can be deliberate or reckless. They're snookered either way.

[brassnecked]

OP should follow the accepted procedure with OOT, to ensure they are doing everything by the book, then as tfl have made it up as they go along again, complain to OFT, along with a complaint to police, and MP quoting the offence they are committing as part of their daily operations, and their custom and practice under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Mention in the complaint that the offence is complete even if the intent was one of recklesness, rather than deliberate under Section 2.

 

Meanwhile , chase up OOT and ask TEC if the clamp is allowed to remain, try to get email confirmation it isn't then use it in any complaint. You could also write to Boris Johnson the Mayor who is Chairman of the Board of tfl with a complaint highlighting the potential and actual illegalities perpatrated by tfl.

[old bill]

OP should follow the accepted procedure with OOT, to ensure they are doing everything by the book, then as tfl have made it up as they go along again, complain to OFT, along with a complaint to police, and MP quoting the offence they are committing as part of their daily operations, and their custom and practice under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Mention in the complaint that the offence is complete even if the intent was one of recklesness, rather than deliberate under Section 2.

 

Meanwhile , chase up OOT and ask TEC if the clamp is allowed to remain, try to get email confirmation it isn't then use it in any complaint. You could also write to Boris Johnson the Mayor who is Chairman of the Board of tfl with a complaint highlighting the potential and actual illegalities perpatrated by tfl.

 

In addition to BN's excellent advice, make sure you bring this to the attention of the Department for Transport who have overall responsibility for transport. Their contact details are -

 

Department for Transport

Great Minster House

33 Horseferry Road

London

SW1P 4DR

 

The person you need to write to is Justine Greening, MP, Secretary of State for Transport. Also, get your MP involved.

[tomtubby]

Brassnecked....Can I just correct a few points made in this post:

 

Once an OOT is accepted all bailiff action must cease, and the clamp must be removed, and i think any money overpaid has to be refunded also. TT and the others will confirm

 

In fact, all enforcement MUST cease once the Out of Time Application has been submitted to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

The clamp does not in fact have to be removed. However, in most cases the clamp is removed but this is at the discretion of the LA or bailiff.

 

If the car is clamped, the effect of the OTT is that the car cannot be removed to the pound. Furthermore, if a car has actually been removed to the poound, then, once an OTT has been submitted, the bailiff company cannot sell the vehicle and neither can any additional fees be charged for storage.

 

The local authority have 19 BUSINESS DAYS ( approx one month) in which to consider whether the vehicle owner has provided a good enough reason why he could not sent a Statutory Declaration at the Order for Recovery stage.

 

If the LA fail to respond within 19 business days then the application is accepted and the warrant revoked.

 

If the LA reject the OTT then it is referred to a court officer for him or her to make an "impartial judical decision" to determine whether the LA were right or wrong in reaching their decision.

 

If the warrant is revoked then it is the case that any money paid to the bailiff in fees should be refunded by the LOCAL AUTHORITY. The LA should also refund the amount paid for the PCN.

 

The LA may then reisssue another Notice to Owner and thereby allowing the vehicle owner the opportunity to either pay the charge at a cheaper rate or to appeal the PCN.

[brassnecked]

"In fact, all enforcement MUST cease once the Out of Time Application has been submitted to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

The clamp does not in fact have to be removed. However, in most cases the clamp is removed but this is at the discretion of the LA or bailiff."

 

Thanks for the clarification TT that clears up the clamp business, but surely a discretion allowing a clamp to remain is a glaring anomoly that still holds the debtor hostage to the bailiffs whim?

[Goatan]

The "bailiff" removed the clamp this morning so that's OK. I think the two things that has really annoyed me is the "bailiff" is not certificated and the obviously inflated fees. I'm wondering what would be the best way to complain about these especially the fact he isn't a real bailiff.

[old bill]

It wasn't a cocky young bloke who was claiming he was a court bailiff from Northampton Court by any chance who flashed something that resembled a genuine HMCTS Court Bailiff's certificate?

[old bill]

Apart from it being illegal to pretend to be acting under the authority of a court, the levy, if this scrote clamped your car and wasn't certificated, is invalid and, quite possibly, illegal. If you have not already done so, report this to OFT Credit Fitness Team and Trading Standards without delay. The necessary details are in Post #13.

[lamma]

getting the consolidated final text together for that Act is not a small task.Original only goes to Section 63 !! Misrepresenting their powers in this way brings to mind all plethora of offences under various other acts. There is no way at all that they can force entry for any warrant other than one issued under section 76 of the DCVC.

[old bill]

I've downloaded the provision you refer to, Lamma. It's in Schedule 4A. As far as I can see - and I am going by gut-feeling - the use of force in order to enter a property in connection with a court fine for the purpose of distress would not be justified UNLESS the debtor was a persistent defaulter, that is, they had no intention of paying the fine. I am currently dealing with a case on another site where a certificated scrote forced their way in, assaulted the OP's daughter and extorted over £600 from her. It was found that the OP had already paid the fine in full and the court are now desperately trying to cover-up the fact they cocked-up and are not making a very good job of it. The scrote bailiff company involved has been reported to the OFT who are taking the matter very seriously and have already contacted the OP twice. A string of complaints, a large number of them involving serious breaches of the OFT Guidelines and the law, in general, against the same scrote bailiff company, have followed. Due to the fact that a number of cases are subject to possible proceedings, that is all I can reveal at present.

Schedule 4A, DCVC.pdf

[brassnecked]

I feel that if challenged, they will use section 125B as their justification, "approved enforcement agencies", i.e. certificated bailiffs employed by contracted companies. Don't know if it would apply to subbie scrotes sent out by the likes of marstons etc

[old bill]

Maybe so, BN, but, at the end of the day, the scrote bailiff and his/her employers have to justify the use of force and prove that it was a proportionate and necessary measure in the circumstances. No-one has a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, and certainly not scrote bailiffs.