Marston's web site PCN levy & attendance to remove fee being charged on same visit

[hallowitch]

Friend of a Friend asked me the other day if a bailiff can charge a levy and attendance to remove fee on the same visit for a PCN so I said not up on fees for PCNs but they cant for council tax and from what I've read I believe they cant for PCNs either because until they have a levy on goods their are no goods to remove

 

I told them to have a Google (did point them here as you do ) and that most fees were set by legislation and England and wales were the same told them their was also detailed assessment against Marston's bailiffs that explains it and Google should pick it up

 

anyway my friend sent me a link to Marston's web site are we reading this wrong it looks to me as if they do charge both fees on same day (first visit )

 

Am I reading it wrong because I'm not getting this the judge in the Anthony culligan case says no you cant and I understand this is not legislation but he does say as a matter of Law

 

can someone explain what if anything legislation states about this ATR fee being charged the same day as levy fee

 

Its a bit confusing when going by what's on Marston's web site it can be charged

 

 

Fees and charges

 

Schedule of TMA fees and charges

 

Traffic Management Act 2004

 

 

The process

 

On receiving a warrant, we send a letter to the debtor explaining that the debt has been passed to Marston for collection and inviting payment with seven days. The fee for sending this letter (£11.20 + VAT) is added to the debt outstanding to be paid by the debtor.

If no payment is received or contact made, the case is assigned to an enforcement agent (bailiff) who, in order to execute the warrant, will Attend the property to Remove Goods (Attendance to Remove – ATR) to the value of the debt and outstanding fees and charges. This action will incur a levy(visit) fee and ATR charge - whether goods are removed or not

 

 

 

Central London County Court - Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants

 

 

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".

[lamma]

Unsurprisingly the DJ is correct. There must be many posts on here that cover this.

 

Is this http://www.marstongroup.co.uk/fees-and-charges/ the page to which you refer ?

[hallowitch]

Unsurprisingly the DJ is correct. There must be many posts on here that cover this.

 

Is this http://www.marstongroup.co.uk/fees-and-charges/ the page to which you refer ?

 

yes lamma that's it

 

I know there are many posts on here and else where that cover it and I knew the judge was correct what I cant understand and just don't get is how Marston's can claim on their web site that by law they can charge this when they cant

[tomtubby]

Whether bailiff companies like it or not I am convinced that ALL bailiff companies are mis-interpreting the statutory fees scale like never before for the purpose only of gaining a financial advantage for their company.

 

Only a few months ago a senior Judge in his summing up made the most critical comments about the draughtsman and the way in which the regulations are written but the fact remains,.....when the fee scale was introduced 20 years ago in 1993 did government INTEND for the bailiff to visit the property at each occasion and charge an "attending to remove fee" as well as an "attending to levy" fee and the answer is NO !!!

 

There is currently greed on an almost unbelievable scale with bailiff fees and it is clear that many are "lining their war chest" before the new fee scale is introduced next April.

 

The charging of an "attending to remove fee" by bailiffs when enforcing an unpaid PCN is in almost all cases unknown to the local authority and "behind the scenes" there are a lot of very worried councils at present as complaints about this precise practice are being made to VERY high authorities !!! Local authorities...beware.

 

When I am able to I will provide news on this !!!

[lamma]

Thank you tt. Informative and intriguing - I like that.

LAs and Bailiffs squabbling over money - and I expect they will squabble quite loudly if the Law of Agency is applied properly to this matter. At first glance and without the intriguing detail it appears to me that the Bailiff companies need to beware as well.

The LAs inescapable public duties should give them cause for concern - for a change !

[ploddertom]

To me it appears the enforcement co's have an eye on the prospective fee scales to come into effect next year and seem intent on ramping up fees before then.

[tomtubby]

"Lining their war chest"...

[lamma]

That does sound much better than wholesale systemic fraud. If it was agreed between them up front it would lend a conspiratorial air to it.

[Fulhamboy]

So is it ,

A) The LAs are concerned for the welfare of it resdents, too many complaints of bailiffs heavy handed bully boy tactics ?

B ) The LAs are concerned that the bailiffs are extracting the urine and want a bigger wedge from them.

PS, If an La is not happy with the bailiff co it employs, do not award them the contract, that dosen 't

require too many brain cells from our beloved LAs

[brassnecked]

It's fraud plain and simple.

[lamma]

LAs more likely to be bleating that they are not getting their cut under their profit sharing schemes. If they do that publicly they risk much so that will private bleatings.

[tomtubby]

Any local authority finding themselves with complaints have a say a big "THANK YOU" to Harrow Council as it was this particular local authority who publicly announced that they insist that their bailiff provider (Newlyn Plc) pay to the council a "kick back" of approx 10% of the amount of bailiff fees collected !!!

 

PS: Admittedly, Harrow Council did say that this is a "profit share" agreement but in the House of Commons George Young (Leader of the House of Commons ) stated that it was a "kick-back"....

And it is.....

[ploddertom]

Going back some years, did a certain Mr Poulson not get imprisoned for bribery - which is what this is under a different name.

[brassnecked]

Going back some years, did a certain Mr Poulson not get imprisoned for bribery - which is what this is under a different name.

 

They would rather forget that one PT, and carry on regardless, make it up as they go along and blame the bailiff when it all goes belly up, forgetting niceties like vicarious, and joint and several liabilities for their bailiffs deeds and misdeeds.