Bailiffs Fee's I have been ripped off what can I do?

[brassnecked]

Thanks hallow, the pertinent parts of Culligan that may apply to OP's case are:

 

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

and:

 

"an attendance to remove. These charges in Anthony Culligan's case were £200 (£100 for the clamp and £100 for attendance to remove)"

 

These fees could be compared to the Attendance to Remove Goods/Vehicle £175.00 Aborted Removal £195.00 in the Op's case by applying Culligan to it, in both cases these fees are unlawful under the circumstances imho.

 

The Aborted Removal fee coming out of the bailiffs Brothers Grimm Fairytale Charges Handbook , rather than the actual Regulations.

[TB Law]

I would be inclined to follow the Adjudicators recommendation in paragraph 62 of complaint numbers 95A01890 and 95A04826 against London Borough of Ealing.

 

 

Post #19 advised the MBeaumont he is to pay £128.96 but he does not have to pay it because there is no levy on his goods, but the regs do provide for reasonable costs for "attending in a van with a view to remove goods" but this fee is also disqualified by the LB Ealing, so in actual fact the OP only owes the £11.20 letter fee and that is provided it is proven the letter was sent.

Edited November 11, 2012 by TB Law

[Surfer01]

Get the staff member to do a claim back on the card they used as they have a very valid reason as they felt intimidated and the debt was not theirs.

[tomtubby]

TB Law. In order to access the case from PATAS there is the requirment to provide a TEN digit case ref or date of decesion or the name of the respondent. The rer number that you have provided is on 8 digits.

[TB Law]

PATAS is the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London but they dont deal with complaints.

 

The complaints numbered 95A01890 and 95A04826 were adjudicated by the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

If anyone wants a copy of the complaint adjudication text please let me know and Ill post it up (long text).

[lamma]

An ombudsman does not adjudicate. And any recommendation they issue does not trump the courts in any way whatsoever..

[TB Law]

Nobody has said the ombudsman trumps the courts.

 

In fact the ombudsman forces Councils to follow legislation: http://www.lgo.org.uk/complaint-outcomes/local-taxation/local-taxation-selected-older-cases/london-borough-ealing-95a01890/

[lamma]

The link show no court involvement whatsoever. And an ombudsman does not adjudicate - which you clearly did say they do.

[TB Law]

Nobody has said anything about court involvement.

 

Yes you are right "ajudicate" is not the right word, it should have been "decision" into the complaint.

 

Here is the link this time to the document iteslf. http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAxADMANQAyAHwAfABUAHIAdQBlAHwAfAAwAHwA0

 

Paragraph 62.

[lamma]

the ombudsman does not decide anything, they can only report. nor can it force anyone to do anything.

[tomtubby]

TB Law,

 

I do apologise.....I thought that you had been referring to a ruling from the Adjudicator.

 

The Ealing LGO report is one that I refer to often and, even though it dates back to 1997 it is still valid. As much as I like LGO PUBLIC REPORTS they are of course not legally binding and sadly, some local authorities continue to refuse to abide by them. The "Ealing" report is of course most persuasive with regards to the charging of an "attending to remove (ATR) fee (even though it relates to the enforcement of a Liability Order.

 

However, the CULLIGAN v MARSTON Judgment is much more powerful indeed and refers to the enforcement of an unpaid parking charge notice.

 

For example, if an N1 claim were to be made to the County Court seeking repayment of fees, it is always the case that a copy of the Culligan v Marston Group judgment should be referred to. This judgment although one from a "lower court" is very powerful indeed. It should be noted that the full judgment was not released to any of the parties for a few weeks after the hearing and it is very clear indeed that District Judge Avent had very carefully considered and researched the matter before the judgment was released.

[tomtubby]

In July the LGO released a highly critical report against Blaby District Council in relation to the fees charged by their agents; Rossendales Ltd. This particular report is vitally important as it related to the matter of bailiffs "levying" upon a car that does not belong to the debtor, charging "multiple fees" for enforcing more than one Liability Order and the charging by a bailiff of a "Head H ( Redemption of Goods) fee".

 

Personally, I found it most distasteful to read an article in a trade magazine in September from the bailiff industries trade association OPENLY critisising the LGO Investigator; Dr Jane Norman for her report against Blaby District Council. The article made very uncomfortable reading.

[brassnecked]

In July the LGO released a highly critical report against Blaby District Council in relation to the fees charged by their agents; Rossendales Ltd. This particular report is vitally important as it related to the matter of bailiffs "levying" upon a car that does not belong to the debtor, charging "multiple fees" for enforcing more than one Liability Order and the charging by a bailiff of a "Head H ( Redemption of Goods) fee".

 

Personally, I found it most distasteful to read an article in a trade magazine in September from the bailiff industries trade association OPENLY critisising the LGO Investigator; Dr Jane Norman for her report against Blaby District Council. The article made very uncomfortable reading.

 

the enforcement industry is out of control, it is like the Wild West, they obviously regard themselves as above the law, and as to criticising the LGO, well they must adhere to the "end justifies the means" mantra, and regard themselves as untouchable, especially Marstons, with an increasing track record of assaulting debtors then doing a cry wolf to deflect the victimhood so the debtor gets arrested and charged for assaulting them; and Rossers.with blatant overcharging, and people like Mr Boast who was in their employ

Edited November 11, 2012 by brassnecked

[TB Law]

The Blaby case was a council tax case which challenged multiple fees at the same visit for multiple liability orders. A good read but its not really suitable for MBeaumont to challenging parking enforcement fees.

 

It does prove mens rea on the part of the bailiff companies when they make the van charge knowing there is no levy.

 

Culligan is a good example on 'reasonable costs' for using a wheel clamp but the Ealing Ombudsman case defines bailiffs cannot make a van charge when no distress had been levied. This is 15 years old report but bailiff companies continue to charge a van fee without a levy.

 

I dont think this thread has mentioned about being charged costs because these only apply to taking control of goods as per Sch.12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which gives very clear rules on distress which leads me to believe the Culligan case might not be useful for Mbeaumont's complaint about fees.

 

If Mbeaumont wants to challenge the fees, then he can write a formal complaint quoting Ealing as the principle rule to compel the council to follow correct fee regulations, and Culligan for any 'costs' that have been charged when the bailiff is unable to prove his expenses.

 

The LGO has made a very good leaflet explaining how to make a complaint about bailiffs and their fees via the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

For those who have not seen the leaflet, its here: (link to file is on the right) http://www.lgo.org.uk/complaints-about-bailiffs/

Edited November 11, 2012 by TB Law

[brassnecked]

The Blaby case was a council tax case which challenged multiple fees at the same visit for multiple liability orders. A good read but its not really a case for challenging parking enforcment fees.

 

Culligan is a good example on 'reasonable costs' for using a wheel clamp but the Ealing Ombudsman case defines bailiffs cannot make a van charge when no distress had been levied. This is 15 years old report but bailiff companies continue to charge a van fee without a levy.

 

It proves mens rea on the part of the bailiff companies when they make the van charge knowing there is no levy.

The mens rea to ground fraud, or misrepresentation is there but the police and the authorities will turn a blind eye, well the bailiff is more or less on the same side they will opine, quite wrongly.

 

the other issue is that a bailiff can often blag a cluelesss copper into conspiring with them to commit further criminal acts, such as forcing a debtor to let them in or the copper will arrest them etc etc, by misrepresenting themselves as "Court Bailiffs", when they are merely a certificated grunt working for dossers or Crapquita.

[TB Law]

There are reasons why police will not charge a mens rea bailiff for making a charge for a levy he has not made, its not individual police officers that choose to take this stand.

 

Debating this will take this disciussion away from what MBeaumont wants to achieve and I dont think a criminal investigation is a route for him at this time.

[brassnecked]

There are reasons why police will not charge a mens rea bailiff for making a charge for a levy he has not made, its not individual police officers that choose to take this stand.

 

Debating this will take this disciussion away from what MBeaumont wants to achieve and I dont think a criminal investigation is a route for him at this time.

No it isn't of any use to OP at this stage, what is needed is a viable challenge using all the cases highlighted into a coherent rebuttal of the bailiffs fees.

[TB Law]

Very easy to do, he needs to make a written complaint to the council disputing the fees and say why they are wrong. The trump card he has is there is no levy because he was on holiday and he can use the Ealing example where the ombudsman said the council was wrong to make a charge for a levy he did not make.

 

He can reference the fee regulations which are the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 which say in schedule 1 "Where the sum demanded and due".

 

That should take care of Mbeaumont's complaint.

 

The fee demand fails because the sum demanded in respect of making a levy is not due.

 

Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/2072/schedule/1/made

Edited November 11, 2012 by TB Law

[tomtubby]

I dont think this thread has mentioned about being charged costs because these only apply to taking control of goods as per Sch.12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which gives very clear rules on distress which leads me to believe the Culligan case might not be useful for Mbeaumont's complaint about fees.

 

 

TB Law,

 

Schedule 12 ( of Part 3) of the TCEA 2007 has NOT yet been implemented.

[TB Law]

It was enacted on 19 July 2007.

 

Im not familiar with the "not implemented" bit. Can you point to an authorative source?

[wonkeydonkey]

The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) came into force in 2007, although not all parts of the Act have been implemented. A main aim of the Act is to address concerns about the current regulation and practices of bailiffs and to significantly change the practice of debt collection and debt enforcement. Specifically, the purpose of Part 3 of the Act is to create a new system of ‘taking control of goods’ in order to enforce judgments. Part 3 has yet to be implemented.

 

Implemented = to put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure.

[tomtubby]

Good answer WD.

 

On 17th February the MOJ issued a Consultation Paper on reforming the bailiff industry. The Consultation was in relation to Part 3 of the TCEA 2007 and MOJ have "indicated" that "in the autumn" they will be announcing the outcome of the Consultation and hopefully, we will hear when it will be planned that Part 3 will be implemented.

 

I submitted a very lengthy response and in doing so, took into consideration replies that had been received here on the forum.

 

It is possible that there will be a further delay in a response from the MOJ to the Consultation because, in September under the governments "reshuffle" the Justice Minister; Mr Jonathan Djanogly was replaced by Helen Grant MP and Jeremy Wright.

 

 

 

this particular part will ONLY be implemented ( and on the statute books)

[TB Law]

As per my post #45, can you point to the source of your facts you have quoted.

 

Im sure others reading this thread are in the same boat as me, but I am unfamiliar with an Act of Parliament being "implemented" even though it has been enacted.

 

Enacted = To make into law.

[brassnecked]

As per my post #45, can you point to the source of your facts you have quoted.

 

Im sure others reading this thread are in the same boat as me, but I am unfamiliar with an Act of Parliament being "implemented" even though it has been enacted.

 

Enacted = To make into law.

 

Some recently passed legislation has had a phased implementation, and the sections not implemented lie fallow until they are activated, as explained by WD

[Surfer01]

As per my post #45, can you point to the source of your facts you have quoted.

 

Im sure others reading this thread are in the same boat as me, but I am unfamiliar with an Act of Parliament being "implemented" even though it has been enacted.

 

Enacted = To make into law.

 

I think you are now being pedantic as you are twisting things to suit your own agenda whatever that is!