Equita persuing PCN (advice for a friend needed!)

[chris223b]

A friend of mine has recently paid off Equita to the tune of £378 following a doorstep visit giving him 24 hours notice to pay. This is in respect of a parking ticket which he already had a payment arrangement with Equita which he was sticking to but they decided he had defaulted on.

 

My friend had agreed a monthly repayment, made the first and second payments, but then got a knock from the bailiff who claimed his arrangement was not for monthly payments but for 4 weekly ones, and as such his second payment was made 2 days late. Although my friend pointed out that as he is paid monthly he would never have agreed to a 4 weekly payment and also pointed to the fact that he had made 2 payments as evidence that he was paying back his debt, the bailiff demanded full repayment within 24 hours or face removal of goods.

 

No levy appeared to be made on any goods (he opened the door to him but the bailiff did not enter, and he now has a different car to the one at the time of the ticket so no car was levied on) and none is specifically claimed, but I couldn't see how in the absence of a levy the bailiffs fees could have got so high (almost £250 added on top of his repayment arrangement). I told him to request a breakdown, and Equita have replied with this:

 

First Notice £13.44

First Visit Fee £42.00

Attendance Fee £200.40

Card Payment Fee £4.68

Giro Book / Admin Fee £5.82

 

When I questioned the huge 'attendance fee' he told me that the bailiff said this was for 'attending equipped to remove goods'. When my friend paid the fee the next day he request a receipt and a breakdown, at which point the bailiff went off to his van and came back handing him a form 9 for £167 + Vat of £33.40 to get to the £200.40 fee.

 

The form 9 states this is for 'The cost of attending to remove goods on for the purpose of sale is calculated as follows: Number and type of vehicles used for removal - 1, Number of Men Employed - 1'

 

My friend has confirmed that the bailiff turned up on his own in a small white van which presumably was the bailiff's own van and not one hired for the purpose.

 

To me it seems a clear case of the bailiff can't charge any removal fees as he has no levy (the bailiffs don't even seem to claim one on their breakdown of charges) and thus no knowledge of what equipment he may require to 'attend equipped to remove goods'. The form 9 seems a bit inappropriate in this case too.

 

Equita's breakdown does rather smugly state that all the charges are prescribed in 'The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993'. I looked at this quickly on legislation.gov.uk, but this seems to refer to debts under the Road Traffic Act 1991. However, the PCN was issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

 

Any advice on what he can claim back here? My thinking is complaint to the council on the grounds that the bailiff company didn't set the original agreement up correctly (although he'll probably never prove that) but the £200.40 'attendance fee' seems completely contrived, and how strong are any of the others?

[seanamarts]

I suggest you make a complaint to the council, it has obviously done to get more money out of your friend.

 

I would also write a complaint to the bailiff company as well.

 

I would also push it as far as you can with the council, if no joy then I would take it up with the LGO (local government ombudsman)

[ploddertom]

And what about the dates these charges were allegedly made on? Equita have form for loading fees that do not comply with the Regulations.

[brassnecked]

Out and out fee fraud, he might like to report them to Trading Standards, he has charged for work not done, he was not equipped to remove squat if he turned up in a Berlingo size van.

[chris223b]

 

And what about the dates these charges were allegedly made on? equita

have form for loading fees that do not comply with the Regulations.

 

The letter I wrote for him to request the breakdown is the standard one which appears on here, requesting time and date of fees and the bailiff applying them.

 

Equita's response was a 'tick box' thing which lists every fee on their books and then marks off the ones they have charged in this case. No date & time is noted for any of them. They did name the bailiff and confirm when and where he was certificated, but this is just noted at the bottom of the letter, they don't apply a bailiff's name to each fee. Until the bailiff turned up the only fee Equita had charged was the letter fee (he made an arrangement at the first letter through Equita's call centre before it got assigned to a field bailiff).

[ploddertom]

As I said above you need the dates.

[chris223b]

As I said above you need the dates.

I'm going to advise my friend to reply with this, will this do?

 

To whom it may concern.

 

 

 

Thank you for your recent communication dated in response to

my request for a breakdown of the fees charged in respect of the above account.

 

 

 

 

Whilst I appreciate the information provided, your response does not

satisfy my request. My request was for, as a minimum:

 

 

 

* The date & time of any bailiff action that incurred a fee - you have not supplied this

 

 

* The reason for the fee - you have not supplied this

 

* The amount of the fee - supplied

 

* The name(s) of the bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a fee was charged - you have not supplied this

 

* The name(s) of the Court(s) the bailiff(s) was/were certificated at. - you have named a bailiff and supplied his certification details, but have not stated which fees, if any, were applied by him.

 

* The date of the Certification.- as above

 

 

Please respond with the requested information which you are obliged to

supply. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a Subject Access Request

under S7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and as such it does not

incur a fee of £10.

 

 

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

 

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

[chris223b]

My friend now has a further breakdown from Equita, now with dates added on.

 

27.03.13 - Debt - £112.00

27.03.13 - First Notice - £13.44

06.06.13 - First Visit Fee - £42.00

06.06.13 - Attendance Fee - £200.40

Various - Card Payment Fee - £4.68

17.04.13 - Giro Book / Admin Fee - £5.82

 

TOTAL BALANCE - £378.34

 

As advised previously, the 'attendance fee' has been documented previously as a form 9 given as a receipt showing £167 + VAT for the cost of employing '1 man and 1 vehicle' to remove goods. The only man and vehicle involved was the bailiff himself and his own van, there has never been any attempt at a levy. And although it's only for a fiver, the 'giro book / admin fee' applied on 17th April seems a bit random, as this wasn't the date of either of the payments made under the repayment plan which was allegedly defaulted on, nor did my friend have any communication from them at all on that date.

[tomtubby]

This is a serious matter as it is CLEAR that the local authority seem to have agreed in their contract that Equita may charge a REMOVAL fee BEFORE they have even been able to ascertain whether there are any goods which can be removed.

 

This is simply dreadful and once again, indicates the way in which the statutory fees scales is being misinterpreted by the bailiff company with the SOLE INTENTION of ensuring a substantial financial gain for the bailiff provider !!!

 

I would assume that your fiend did not WRITE to the bailiff company when making a payment arrangement and instead, merely relied upon a payment arrangement being made by telephone . If so....this should NEVER be done.

 

In the letter to Equita you need to ensure that you ask for a copy of the electronic Screen Shot of the account as this will record details of the call when the payment arrangement was set up.

[chris223b]

The LA involved is Capita-outsourced so no surprises that they've got a cushy deal set up with Equita. If the removal fee is agreed in the contract, does this make it a 'legitimate' charge then? The arrangement was done by telephone, I've already suggested to my friend that arguing about the arrangement set is likely to be a dead-end as Equita will deny anything other than their version of events, but I was hoping to get the 'attendance fee' refunded.