The car that i use has been clamped again by JBW

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[tomtubby]

Ploddertom.

 

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