The car that i use has been clamped again by JBW

[lamma]

Sch 4 Para 3 (1) "executinga warrant of distress issued under section 76 of this" if its not a warrant issued under S.76 of the dvcv then the power of entry given by the dvcv does not apply.

[old bill]

Sch 4 Para 3 (1) "executinga warrant of distress issued under section 76 of this" if its not a warrant issued under S.76 of the dvcv then the power of entry given by the dvcv does not apply.

 

I am correcting in thinking that what you're saying, Lamma, is that a scrote bailiff cannot force entry under the provision you quote?

[brassnecked]

So that rules out forcible entry, on other warrants not issued under S76 DVCA, so if they claim they are allowed to force entry under this head, but warrant is non DVCA, they are in the doo doo then, hopefully.

[lamma]

I agree. And a warrant issued under S.76 of the DVCV to boot. It is the authority not the who that is of primary importance. S125A arguments are spurious and irrelevant unless the warrant is issued under S.76. Only IF that condition is satisfied does any argument on who may do it come in. Schedule 4 is very clear and written in plain language. Fraud, acting with false authority of a court etc etc. And I suggest this for reading http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/125D

Edited August 4, 2012 by lamma

[old bill]

The provision you have provided a link for, Lamma, is pretty clear in what it says. And we know which scrote bailiff company/companies are the worst offenders for non-compliance.

[Goatan]

Im currently in the porcess of writting up a copmlaint about JBW but i didn't want to send it off until i recived a breakdown of fees. they have now sent it anjd i have attached it. I was hopping for some advice as the breakdown looks highly suspiciou such as charging for a letter that was never sent and for attendance to levy when no attempt to levy was made and an attendance to levy and remvoe on the same day when they clearley had no intention of removing the vehicle they clamped as they had not tow vehicle. Please let me know what you think about it so i can invlude it in my complaint.

[old bill]

Im currently in the porcess of writting up a copmlaint about JBW but i didn't want to send it off until i recived a breakdown of fees. they have now sent it anjd i have attached it. I was hopping for some advice as the breakdown looks highly suspiciou such as charging for a letter that was never sent and for attendance to levy when no attempt to levy was made and an attendance to levy and remvoe on the same day when they clearley had no intention of removing the vehicle they clamped as they had not tow vehicle. Please let me know what you think about it so i can invlude it in my complaint.[ATTACH=CONFIG]37352[/ATTACH]

 

Firstly, what is the debt for, please, as this will determine what fees they can legitimately charge. Also, who are you considering making a complaint to about JBW Group?

[Goatan]

The debt was for a congestion charge. I looking to complain to OFT trading standards as well as a formal complaint to tfl as the "bailiff" they used is uncertified and no actual attempt was made to levy (witnessed by my family and a neighbour over the road.).

[hallowitch]

It doesn't matter if its congestion charge the bailiff cant charge for 2 visits on the same day

 

he cant levy goods and charge a removal fee on the same day to levy goods he must leave you a notice of distress listing the goods levied and he must be certificated

[Goatan]

hallowitch that is pretty much what i thought the "breakdown" is an attempt to justify there disproportinate charges and hope i will go away, big mistake this has got me more angry than ever.

[old bill]

The debt was for a congestion charge. I looking to complain to OFT trading standards as well as a formal complaint to tfl as the "bailiff" they used is uncertified and no actual attempt was made to levy (witnessed by my family and a neighbour over the road.).

 

OFT Credit Fitness Team and Trading Standards, definitely. TfL, definitely. Ministry of Justice Bailiff Department, definitely. Their email address is [email protected]. Put PERSON ACTING AS BAILIFF WHEN NOT CERTIFICATED in the subject box. Police, definitely. It is an indictable offence to act as a bailiff without being properly certificated (Section 135, County Courts Act 1984 - Falsely Claiming to be Acting Under the Authority of A Court) and carries a maximum penalty of up to seven years' imprisonment. It may also amount to an offence of Fraud by False Misrepresentation (Section 2, Fraud Act 2006) and Attempted Blackmail (Section 21, Theft Act 1968). As far the breakdown of fees goes, I would treat this as a potential offence of False Accounting (Section 17, Theft Act 1968).

 

I'm attaching a copy of the County Courts Act 1984 to this post. Print off the relevant section and take it with you when you report the uncertificated bailiff to the police. If they can see the law in the raw, they are less likely to try the "It's a civil matter" nonsense.

County Courts Act 1984.pdf

Edited August 8, 2012 by old bill

[hallowitch]

In the 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

 

Mr Culligan challenged the bailiffs fees & charges imposed by Mr Simkin and Marstons when levying distress and seeking to remove Mr Culigans car for non-payment of a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Camden.

 

The Judgment goes a long way to clarify exactly what a Bailiff can charge for levying distress. bailiffs have always sought to charge for fixing an immobilisation device by clamping a vehicle, and an attendance to remove. These charges in Anthony Culligan's case were £200 (£100 for the clamp and £100 for attendance to remove). The bailiffs have argued that the Fee Regulations permit them to make a charge for levying distress (that is 28% on the first £200 demanded, and for removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods are removed, reasonable costs and charges). Bailiffs have claimed that the costs of putting on a clamp, etc. are costs to be included in attending to remove where no goods are removed, if payment is made before the vehicle concerned is removed.

 

 

 

 

DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:-

 

1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods.

 

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

 

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:-

 

"Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so I cannot see that Form 7 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7".

 

The District Judge went on to find that the application of the clamp falls within the act of levying distress and does not form part of the removal process, whatever the Bailiff's Contract with Camden says.

 

The Bailiff also charged Anthony Culligan £100 for the " reasonable costs " of removing the vehicle (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at Anthony Culligan's home. Because the Bailiff produced no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived at he was unable to show that it was reasonable.

 

The District Judge in his conclusion says:

 

"I am also conscious that my findings in this case ... may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress. To do otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful... I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgment now continued to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be unlawful....".

 

What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed.

 

You should know however that Marstons obtained permission to appeal from the District Judge. His reasons for granting the permission were :

 

"The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheelclamping before.

My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking.

 

Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard"

 

Finally, Camden now as a matter of urgency, need to revise their Contract with Bailiffs such as Marston, to take account of the District Judge's Judgment generally, and in particular to remove the authority to charge a fee for an immobilisation device over and above that provided for in the Statutory Fee Regulations.

 

London Motorists Action Group

[Goatan]

After having a run in with JBW a while back and i submitted an out of time application I thought all was fine until now someone for JBW has just put a clamp on the car I use, but don't own JBW have been told that I don't own this car so it is quite clear that they are doing this to harass. Aparently my appeal was turned down but this is the first i have heard of it. Were do we go from here as the car cant be towed as it is not mine.

 

This has been done by a Mr steptow/e who is not a registered Bailiff at least not for JBW.

[TB Law]

Unless the bailiff has a valid levy over it then the vehicle owner can remove the clamp with bolt cutters, they arent liable for criminal damage act because there is 'lawful reason'.

[lamma]

Agreed. Owner can cut it off (not you).

[Goatan]

im not 1005 sure wouldn;t that still be criminal damage?

[labrat]

pick the lock...

 

edit: locksmiths can do it, so can other people hint hint

Edited November 7, 2012 by labrat

[zydeco]

If I came out of my house and found a clamp on my car with no notice as to why it had been clamped, I would open the boot and take out my trusty bolt cutters (which I carry as part of my tools of the trade) and remove the article which had been attached unlawfully.

 

I've done this before when wheel clampers were rampant in Manchester, they don't like it but what can they do?

It's not criminal damage, they committed the crime by attempting to kidnap the vehicle, all you do is rescue the vehicle without calling in the sas.

[tomtubby]

Firstly,

 

You need to call the Traffic Enforcement Centre to enquire when your OTT was rejected. You have a right to seek a "review" and all enforcement must then cease. You need to complete an N244. Please post back if you require further details.

 

It is simply beyond belief the way in which bailiffs companies fail to provide a legally required Form 7 Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory. Frankly, without this legal document there must surely be serious doubt that a legal levy has occured.

 

Only yesterday I was sent a copy of the outcome of a recent complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman which related to London Borough of Redbridge and where their bailiff provider had failed to provide a Notice of Seizure. The LGO found against London Borough of Redbridge and in their final decision confirmed that this failure to leave a Form 7 Notice of Seizure led to an "injustice" and awarded compensation.

[ploddertom]

 

It is simply beyond belief the way in which bailiffs companies fail to provide a legally required Form 7 Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory. Frankly, without this legal document there must surely be serious doubt that a legal levy has occured.

 

 

Sounds like a lot of ANPR operations do this.

[tomtubby]

Ploddertom.

 

You are of course correct and this is why I am once again writing to the Information Commissioners Office.

[TB Law]

Dont hold your breath on that. ICO arent concerned with ANPR clamping or distrain without levy.

[wonkeydonkey]

Dont hold your breath on that. ICO arent concerned with ANPR clamping or distrain without levy.

 

and the evidence to this is????

[TB Law]

The ICO is the Information Commissions Office the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

 

ANPR clamping and distrain without levy does not seem to fall under the ICOs remit. Unless, but of course, you may know different and can elighten.

 

The DVLA can sell to anyone with an appropriate subscription account information about vehicles and keepers.

[Goatan]

Firstly,

 

You need to call the Traffic Enforcement Centre to enquire when your OTT was rejected. You have a right to seek a "review" and all enforcement must then cease. You need to complete an N244. Please post back if you require further details.

 

It is simply beyond belief the way in which bailiffs companies fail to provide a legally required Form 7 Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory. Frankly, without this legal document there must surely be serious doubt that a legal levy has occured.

 

Only yesterday I was sent a copy of the outcome of a recent complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman which related to London Borough of Redbridge and where their bailiff provider had failed to provide a Notice of Seizure. The LGO found against London Borough of Redbridge and in their final decision confirmed that this failure to leave a Form 7 Notice of Seizure led to an "injustice" and awarded compensation.

 

Thanks for the advice TT. I do not belive this man is actually a bailiff also there is no form 7 i wont be able to contact TEC until Tomorrow afternoon anoyingly. If you could point me to a guide about how to fill in an N244 I can get that done also how do i seek a review or is the N244 the process of seeking a review..