Clamped car & excessive bailiff costs

[DTProp]

Hi

I am new to this forum so not too sure if this is posted in the correct place or not?

 

This morning just about to take the kids to school when I noticed a big yellow clamp on my husbands van which was parked on our driveway. Sign in the window gave us a telephone number to contact which we did. The bailiffs said it was for an unpaid PCN issued to us more that 12 months ago. We were not aware of this PCN nor have we received any of the 5 letters they said we had been sent.

 

The bailiffs returned within 5 minutes to issue us with the paperwork.

We asked why they had not knocked on the door and they stated that it was at 6am when they attended and they dont like to ring doorbells at that time of the morning! Rubbish cause all our lights were on in the house clearly for them to see at 6am. They were only 5 minutes away from us and were able to return very quickly when we telephoned them which was at 8:45am a good 2 hours and 45 minutes later so surley they would have hot further than 5 minutes away?!

 

Anyway, they get the paperwork out and will not show us the warrant until we have paid the costs for release. We are then handed the itemised breakdown:-

 

PCN Amount £82.00

Letter: £11.20

Levy fee: £28.00

Attendance to remove goods / vehicle: £130.00

VAN: £120.00 (handwritten onto the receipt whereas the other costs are printed)

VAT on enforcement costs: £57.84

Total due today:£429.04

I can not get this to add up for the life of me so some help would be appreciated on this.

 

When I asked about the 'van' costs they said it was their costs for clamping, I said that I thought that was the attendance to remove goods/ vehicle and they said no it covers the cost of our van being here - how do you think we got here by flying? - Sarcastic co**!

 

I was of the impression that a bailiff would attempt to contact in person upto 3 times and charge a fee for attendance prior to coming and clamping the vehicle?

These fees seem very excessive for a charge of £82?

I am requesting a copy of the original ticket and photographic evidence of a contravention. This is not my main beef though it is the charges which these thugs have added to the costs.

Myself & my husband are not intimidated by big bullies but I imagine that many others are which is why they send out these stereotypical bailiffs with shaved heads and fat! We had to pay to be released as my husband needed to get to work in his van.

Is it too late to attempt to recover any of this money?

 

The name of 'enforcement officer' listed on the original sticker on the vehicle is not a certificated bailiff - i have checked the register. The chap that was with him was though can this get us anywhere?

 

What is a levy fee?

I know there are a lot of questions but it is something I have never come across before and dont know where to start so any advice please???

 

Many thanks

 

Deborah

[Conniff]

They aren't just bald headed and fat, their armpits smell as well.

 

Welcome to the forum. You will get some answers soon.

[ploddertom]

Have you been given the PCN number?

[DTProp]

Yes we have been given the PCN number and warrant number.

[ploddertom]

If you have no knowledge of the ticket and have had nothing sent to you you should contact the Traffic Enforcement Centre first thing on Monday - http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/traffic-enforcement-centre/frequently-asked-questions . Have you seen the Warrant & if so have you checked what the actual address is on it.

[tomtubby]

What you need to do is to call the Traffic Enforcement Centre on Monday on 08457 045 007 and provide them with the PCN number and ask them to confirm the precise address on the warrant.

 

Have you moved address recently?

 

Which bailiff company and which local authority?

 

I am assuming from your post that you paid. How was payment made?

[old bill]

They aren't just bald headed and fat, their armpits smell as well.

 

Welcome to the forum. You will get some answers soon.

 

I think the term you're looking for, Conniff, is Malodorous Morons. Another is Corpulent Cretins.

[brassnecked]

Two van fees, one of them allegedly for the clamp? If you follow tontubby's advice the charges are removed, and any Pn reset to its original status, allowing you to challenge, or pay the original sum. the council will have to refund all the fees, as they are 100% liable for the actions of their agent the bailiff. The bailiffs will be reluctant to refund, so demand the refund from the organ grinder, their employer the council.

 

What bailiff company, and which council is this? A complaint to OFT regarding the bailiff companies Credit Fitness would also be a good ides.

[tomtubby]

The fees charged are completely wrong!!!

[TB Law]

It would be helpful for DTProp to say why the fees charged are completely wrong.

[tomtubby]

TB Law

 

Instead of spending valuable time typing up details regarding the incorrect fee it is far better to establsih whether there was an INITIAL problem with this PCN. That is why I have asked further questions in my post number 6.

[TB Law]

Actually you are right, this thread should have given DTProp the answer she needed in the first place.

 

Her post says she saw her husbands car clamped one morning and there is no mention in her post about a pre-existing levy being made on it. In fact she questioned what the levy fee actually is.

 

This is a case of clamping without a pre-exisitng levy and the remedy is very straight forward.

 

I dont think its helpful to ask DTProp what company or council is involved because there is no regional variation on what makes a valid levy and the fee regulations apply to the whole of England and Wales.

 

If the PCN was unknown to DTProp on discovering the clamp on her husbands car then good advice would be getting the PCN number from the clamper (his number is on a sign in the window) then completing a Form TE7 and TE9 to make a late appeal is the only way to go.

 

That stops enforcment and removes the clamp and the forms can be obtained from the TEC on their number in your post #6

 

DTProp's husband is at liberty to make a civil claim from the Council under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 for the unlawful deprivation of the use of his car while it was clamped.

Edited November 12, 2012 by TB Law

[old bill]

Actually you are right, this thread should have given DTProp the answer she needed in the first place.

 

Her post says she saw her husbands car clamped one morning and there is no mention in her post about a pre-existing levy being made on it. In fact she questioned what the levy fee actually is.

 

This is a case of clamping without a pre-exisitng levy and the remedy is very straight forward.

 

I dont think its helpful to ask DTProp what company or council is involved because there is no regional variation on what makes a valid levy and the fee regulations apply to the whole of England and Wales.

 

If the PCN was unknown to DTProp on discovering the clamp on her husbands car then good advice would be getting the PCN number from the clamper (his number is on a sign in the window) then completing a Form TE7 and TE9 to make a late appeal is the only way to go.

 

That stops enforcment and removes the clamp and the forms can be obtained from the TEC on their number in your post #6

 

DTProp's husband is at liberty to make a civil claim from the Council under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 for the unlawful deprivation of the use of his car while it was clamped.

 

You can, in certain circumstances, use the Criminal Attempts Act 1985 to deal with certificated bailiffs attaching clamps to cars or attempting to remove a car without lawful authority. The relevant offence is Interfering With A Motor Vehicle.

[tomtubby]

TB Law,

 

It is not a simple matter at all to file an Out of Time Application as TEC's argument will be that payment has been made and therefore the matter is closed.

Believe me.....I am arguing this with TEC right now !!!!

[TB Law]

Im not sure why you would need to be "arguing" with the TEC, it is just a bulk processing centre.

 

If DTProp can show a payment has been made in respect of the PCN then the council is where a complaint should be made.

 

old bill that is an interesting position you have but I have never seen a bailiff being charged under the Criminal Attempts Act. The burden of proof is the bailiff is mens rea when he clamped a vehicle not belonging to him. A difficult proof so I dont think it would be beneficial yet for DTProp to burn energy pursuing a criminal line of enquiry. This would be best when the civil matters of the clamping and the PCN are concluded.

Edited November 12, 2012 by TB Law

[tomtubby]

TEC is indeed a "Bulk Processing" Centre but it has been granted "court status". It is not attched to Northampton County Court.

 

If you wish to seek permission tp file a statutory declaration LATE, there there is NO other way in which this can be made. The statutory regulations ONLY allow for such a request to to be to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

[old bill]

Im not sure why you would need to be "arguing" with the TEC, it is just a bulk processing centre.

 

If DTProp can show a payment has been made in respect of the PCN then the council is where a complaint should be made.

 

old bill that is an interesting position you have but I have never seen a bailiff being charged under the Criminal Attempts Act. The burden of proof is the bailiff is mens rea when he clamped a vehicle not belonging to him. A difficult proof so I dont think it would be beneficial yet for DTProp to burn energy pursuing a criminal line of enquiry. This would be best when the civil matters of the clamping and the PCN are concluded.

 

TB Law,

 

Few, if any, certificated bailiffs are ever charged due to the fact police officers, these days, receive little, if any, training in bailiff law. Also, certificated bailiffs know this and exploit it, often blatantly lying to police officers as to their status - claiming they are court bailiffs and the police must help them is a common one - claiming they can seize any vehicle is another, misleading police officers that PDF images of warrants on their iphones are valid, claiming they can break in without a court order is yet another ploy they use. I am a retired police officer and have studied law since retiring. I dealt with these scumbags while serving. In a lot of cases, we would kick their backsides off a debtor's property. The only time I can say that a bailiff was arrested was for violence.

 

I mentioned the Criminal Attempts Act 1985 to illustrate the lawlessness of certificated bailiffs. Other offences I can identify and which are commonly committed by certificated bailiffs are -

 

Fraud by False Misrepresentation (Section 2, Fraud Act 2006) [Fee Irregularities, Claiming They Can Seize Third-Party Property When Not Permissible];

False Accounting (Section 17, Theft Act 1968) [Fee Irregularities];

Burglary (Sections 9(1)(a) & 9(1)(b), Theft Act 1968) [Forcing Entry When Not Authorised to Do So, Entering Property When Debtor Not Present and Not Authorised to Enter];

Causing Intentional Alarm, Distress or Harassment (Section 4/4A/5, Public Order Act 1986) [Making Threats or Using Intimidation When Not Justified or Unlawful to Do So];

Theft (Section 1, Theft Act 1968) [Taking Goods Not Entitled to Take or Taking Third-Party Goods, especially when warned that it is third-party or exempt from seizure];

 

There are other offences I could add to this list.

 

Until the police are trained in bailiff law, this unacceptable situation will continue. However, as people become more savvy as to what certificated bailiffs can and cannot do and the police are forced to listen, either because they realise they have cocked-up or are faced with litigation for aiding, abetting or assisting a certificated bailiff to break the law, the situation will swing around in favour of the debtor.

[TB Law]

Im not sure what you mean by "bailiff law" but the police should be educated in legislation mentioned in your post. (interesting list BTW)

 

If they are not, then its grounds for a complaint of professional incompentence against the police officer and a recommendation the officer undergoes retraining and re-examination on his knowledge on applicable law.

[old bill]

Im not sure what you mean by "bailiff law" but the police should be educated in legislation mentioned in your post. (interesting list BTW)

 

If they are not, then its grounds for a complaint of professional incompentence against the police officer and a recommendation the officer undergoes retraining and re-examination on his knowledge on applicable law.

 

The term "Bailiff Law" is used as an umbrella term to describe the legal provisions applicable to the activities of certificated bailiffs, i.e. what they can and cannot do and what requirements they must satisfy to be certificated as a bailiff.

 

At the moment, the police seem in no hurry to train officers in Bailiff Law and the politicians seem reluctant to allow this to happen.

 

As to a complaint of professional incompetence against any police officer assisting a certificated bailiff to break the law, I doubt very much whether that could be proven as the police officer would have had no training in Bailiff Law and could, therefore, rightly claim this in his defence. I have no doubt that as police forces are forced to train their frontline officers in Bailiff Law, what you say will take on more relevance. As to the law exams the police take during their training, the questions in the law exam papers I took during my training were drawn from the previous year's Bar Exams and marked by barristers. Although the pass mark is 60%, there is a fairly high standard to meet, although I have come across serving officers, these days, who seem to make up the law as they go along. The look on their faces when I say, "I was in the Job for just short of nine years. How long have you been in?" is a picture. I understand there is a problem with younger officers in inner-city areas and the exodus of older, more experienced officers as a result of cuts.