Task Enforcement bailiff forced £413 out of my pensioner parents for a £60 bus lane PCN!!

[old bill]

Ok.

 

I hope you have all had an enjoyable last few days!

 

On to less joyous matters - As I expected the police have rejected the investigation saying that it must be pursued civilly. I have reveiced the documentation from Barclays which needs supporting evidence of an invoice in order to prove overcharging - this seems to be an avenue of reimbursement that wont hold up with my case so I intend to call Barclays in attempt to speak to the same manager I spoke to previously.

 

I have received a response from Task enforcement after sending a letter requesting a breakdown, bailiff details etc.

 

This is the info I got back

 

Expenses

 

Case Received - £202

Pre enforcement letter - £11.20 Should be £13.44 including VAT @ 20%

Bailiff 1st Visit - £28.00 Should be £68.00 including VAT @ 20%

Attendance - £130.00 Cannot charge Attendance to Levy and Attendance to Remove on the same visit. Therefore, unlawful.

Van - £120.00 As above.

 

With VAT added to all but the original warrant they total costs @ £549.04. At present, all they are LEGALLY entitled to is £283.44.

 

As I said before this was their first visit so I imagine they're stating that the 'attendance' is the labour fees for the two bailiffs. As well as speaking to Barclays, what do I do now with the Bailiff? Shake him warmly by the throat? No, only joking. Write him a Signed For letter, making it very clear the fees are not in accordance with the applicable legislation. Quote the figure I have quoted and if he disagrees, ask him to provide a signed statement that the account he is tendering is true and complete in every respect and is not misleading, false or deceptive in any material particular. Expect a pretty nasty response including accusations of blackmail and threats. If he does, send him a further Signed For Letter making it clear that a letter will be send to the District Judge at the court that issued his bailiff certificate, seeking direction as to whether the DJ requires you to submit a Form 4 complaint and tendering his account and letter as evidence. Warn him that a court can discharge (cancel) a bailiff's certificate without a hearing. This happened to a Ross & Roberts bailiff earlier this year.

 

Responses in red text.

Edited December 27, 2012 by old bill

[ScottLondon]

Ah. I didn't see there was a second page on this thread. Apologies to have not responded until now.

 

I think I'll wait out on the possibility of private prosecution until I've exhausted all other avenues.

 

brassnecked - I'll speak to my mum. I think she's keen to see the back of the entire ordeal (not to mention that I still rue the fact that I dragged her into this) but I'm sure she'd want to know if there was some way she could help to impede the wrongful actions of bailiffs and the companies they work for so I will speak with her about it.

 

old bill - thanks for that, will get onto them in the AM. I've read on other sites that they can charge for 'reasonable costs' even if they don't remove goods when they visit. Could/would they use this to justify some of the portion of the van/admin costs.

 

Where/what are/is the official rules or laws that detail exactly what bailiffs can charge or is it all just sourced from precedent?

[old bill]

Ah. I didn't see there was a second page on this thread. Apologies to have not responded until now.

 

I think I'll wait out on the possibility of private prosecution until I've exhausted all other avenues.

 

brassnecked - I'll speak to my mum. I think she's keen to see the back of the entire ordeal (not to mention that I still rue the fact that I dragged her into this) but I'm sure she'd want to know if there was some way she could help to impede the wrongful actions of bailiffs and the companies they work for so I will speak with her about it.

 

old bill - thanks for that, will get onto them in the AM. I've read on other sites that they can charge for 'reasonable costs' even if they don't remove goods when they visit. Could/would they use this to justify some of the portion of the van/admin costs.

 

Where/what are/is the official rules or laws that detail exactly what bailiffs can charge or is it all just sourced from precedent?

 

As the bailiff was on their first visit, unless they have a valid and lawful levy, they cannot remove any goods. If they haven't gained entry to your home or levied on a vehicle owned by you, no levy, no removal permitted. In any case, where a bailiff has a lawful levy, they MUST give the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay, usually 5-7 days, before removing goods. The bailiff should be put on notice to prove their fees are lawful.

 

As for extorting money from your parents, who are not the debtor, that is illegal and they are entitled to sue the bailiff, bailiff company and local authority for trespass, fraud and making an unwarranted demand with menaces. That is under Civil Law. Under Criminal Law, the charges would be Fraud by False Misrepresentation and Blackmail. In your case, it would be Fraud by False Misrepresentation and Rendering A False Account. Either way, the bailiff, bailiff company and local authority are in the sewage effluent up to their necks.

 

The relevant legislation for PCNs is the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993-2003, which I have attached.

 

I have also attached a court form called an Information. You will need this to commence criminal proceedings against the bailiff. However, as a retired policeman, I would strongly advise you to engage with the CPS before initiating proceedings and engage the services of a legal professional to assist you. English Criminal Law is a legal minefield and it is very easy for those unfamiliar with its peculiarities to get their legs blown off, in the figurative sense.

crim-pr-form-2010-part7-starting-a-prosecution-information-provided-by-prosecutor.pdf

Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regs 1993.pdf

Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regs 2003.pdf

[ScottLondon]

Thanks old bill for that information. Really helped to read through the legislation, I feel a lot more solid about pursuing legal action which it seems is now the only course of action remaining.

 

I sent another letter to the bailiff company after receiving a cost breakdown complaining about both the bailiffs behaviour against my parents as well as the level of charges. In the interest of resolving the matter as soon as possible I was trying to avoid a court process and foolishly expected them to reimburse the excessive fees in an attempt to prevent legal action but they have responded with zero positivity.

 

They apologise blah blah but say that 'the fees applied to your account are defined under the Distress for Rent Rules which also covers reasonable costs. Our reasonable costs are also in accordance with that which is set by the Ministry of Justice and London Bourough of Lambeth ... Additional information can be sourced under the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts."

 

Later they say "Should you still be unsatisfied that the fees applied are within legislation I suggest that you seek professional advice."

 

So as far as I can see they are either taking the proverbial urine and bluffing hoping that I back down or they do not understand the law. Unless of course I'm wrong in thinking that the Distress for Rent Rules take a back seat to the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts legislation.

 

So the next step is the Small Claims court? I haven't filed a form 4 or made a formal complaint to the council of yet so I wanted to check with the experience you guys have on her before my next move.

 

Thankfully I have two friends who are barristers and with the reality that will probably have to go to court I have that on my side.

 

Cheers,

 

Scott

[seanamarts]

Have you placed a complaint to the council?

[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 Culligans 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