Jump to content


Harrow Council PCN', Newlyn, kickback bailiff tender, registration plate cloning


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2960 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have not posted in a few years.

Since then I have had to retire due to ill health after suffering further bouts of severe acute clinical depression

and being diagnosed with pretty severe bipolar affective disorder.

 

Counselling and medication have helped to a large extent as has the love and support of my family who suffered from my illness as well.

I will post on that in another thread.

 

The hassle caused by both Harrow and Newlyn has severely impacted on my health with further refeerals to cpn, etc and changes to medication.

 

This relates to a catalogue of errors and breaches of best practice, guidance, maladministration and breaches of legislation in respect of PCN's, bailiff's.

It has led to me investigating the current profit share contract which Harrow Borough Council has with it's 2 firms of bailiffs :-x

and correspondence with Eric Pickles, together with my local MP.

 

It has led to Formal complaints,

unanswered formal complaints,

FOI requests and

DPA or more accurately, Subject Access Requests.

(I had great experience of them on here when helping folk with bank/ credit card charges etc) :wink:

 

This is quite a long, but entirely true story and contains many issues which I am pursuing or intend to pursue.

 

I hope it may help others.

 

I intend that Harrow and Newlyn take notice and I will take action using powers available to me to redress the situation

I have faced/ am facing so that it does not happen to another innocent person.

Or, if it does, there remains a record of what happened to me and what action I took, the obstacles I encountered,

the lies I was told, the issues raised,

the mis-use of local authority powers and

the mis-use of bailiff powers (no surprise there).

 

Fortunately, some new guidance has recently been issued by the OFT in respect of bailiffs and PCN's

and change is underway in respect of CCTV in respect of PCN's.

 

Hopefully, the days of motorists being cash cows for local authorities and others is not too far away.

 

Back to basics.

 

I bought a high specification BMW 730 at auction, paying cash.

I had experience of buying second hand vehicles before and the auction house was reputable.

I was the proud owner of a car that was several years old and I had purchased it at a bargain price.

I had a full service history and the car was gleaming.

I went home to quickly arrange motor insurance and made arrangements to register the car in my own name.

I had undertaken a check on the car, prior to bidding, ensuring that there was no credit outstanding on the car

and confirming the vehicles history which matched the MOT's, service history, etc, etc.

 

Everything was fine for 5/6 months.

The car was mechanically fine and we were really enjoying driving it, but

 

over the course of 10-12 weeks I received about 14-16 PCN's from

Harrow Borough Council,

Brent Council,

Tesco at Brent and

London Transport.

 

Checking this site, the PCN notices were compliant and had been updated to redress recent issues such as appealing under different conditions, etc.

 

I had not been to London and neither had the vehicle.

We live just about as far as it is possible to get from London within the UK.

It was evident that someone had cloned my registration/ number plates to avoid London Congestion Charge and Parking fees.

Some even related to spending 10/11 hours at Brent Tesco whilst the person traveled by tube into London itself.

I had not been to London in 6/8 years and even then it was by plane.

 

The PCN's supplied showed images of the incidents recorded by camera or CCTV,

including driving down bus lanes, in congestion charge areas, double yellow lines etc.

I saw the evidence myself when I entered the details onto the various web sites when investigating the matter .

 

In some cases, the vehicle was entirely different ie a red Vauxhall Astra van,

in others , it showed a different colour and model of BMW with different distinguishing features.

 

In one case, in respect of Harrow Borough Council, the charge related to a different coloured BMW, 300 series, but with continental plates.

 

Firstly, I checked what to do.

The advice, particularly from the DVLA & the web was to report the matter to the police.

I took every ticket to the local police station and parked my car outside.

The PC was excellent, came outside to check the car, confirming the VIN against registration documents

and against the details provided on each PCN.

He even congratulated me on my purchase saying that he might be tempted to do something similar.

 

Anyway he decided that a crime had been committed against me and the DVLA and provided me with a crime reference number

and documentation to state that I had reported every PCN detail as a crime which was being investigated by the Police.

Due to the distance from London, Police Scotland would forward a crime report to the Metropolitan Police and London Transport Police

who were the respsonsible police authorities .

 

In respect of each PCN a copy of crime reference report, various pictures of my car detailing distinguishing features, etc and a copy of the reg document V5?

 

Most of this had to be done on line and I encountered serious problems in trying to communicate with an actual person,

particularly as regards Harrow Borough Council.

They really have some horrendous customer service practices and must rate as one of the worst and most uncaring local authorities going.

A google search will confirm this as will searches on previous FOI requests, their performance figures, bench marking etc, etc.

 

I received what I thought was reassurance that all action would be cancelled and I have proof of that in respect of every ticket.

 

However, lurking in the background, Harrow had not cancelled the PCN and instead, had escalated the charge from £65 to £130.

Note that Harrow had now made 3 fundamental errors.

 

These were:

 

a) processing a foreign registration plate on their system which happened to match my UK plate, in the first place

 

b) not matching the information they received from the DVLA which showed that the vehicle details were entirely different from mine- model and colour etc

 

c) not cancelled the PCN as agreed when I had submitted the required evidence and they had agreed to ditch the PCN.

They had also admitted to an error in processing the PCN in the first place due to the continental style numbering of the plate,

although the numbers and letters matched, which was a chance in many millions. I had error confirmed by them in in writing.

 

We were now engaged on a collision course and they had encountered someone who would not back down

and who would investigate every avenue to seek retribution to ensure their mistakes did not occur again.

 

I also became aware of their tender services issue in 2012, details of the contract documents were available on their web site.

I read press articles from a Fern Silverio who wanted his Council to get a share of the bailiffs profit's.

I read various press articles and I thought this contract was unfair and would only encourage more PCN's to be issued against innocent victims

and that the contract encouraged bailiffs to seek ways of upping their costs to cover the cost of the kickback to Harrow Borough Council.

 

Harrow then went to it's local court, which is in England, seeking the powers to recover the "supposed" debt from me.

It compounded it's earlier mistakes.

There was no debt outstanding by me, they had confirmed this in writing yet, I now had a court judgement against me in an English Court

when I lived in Scotland under the jurisdiction of Scottish Courts.

 

Fast forward and I receive a Notice of Seizure from Newlyn PLC, amounting to over £200.

I phone Newlyn and email them giving them all the evidence.

I play by the rule book. But, why oh why, did I do that?

Of course, they don't listen and neither do Harrow who I also contact.

Newlyn claim they, as bailiffs can come in at any time with a removal van to seize and disdain my personal goods and sell at auction.

 

Now, I point out that I have severe mental health illness- no impact.

 

I point out that bailiffs have no powers in Scotland and that the contents of their letter are distressing, damaging, etc, etc, etc.

I point out our different legal and court systems.

I also point out that only Sheriff Officers appointed by a Scottish Court can handle debt matters

and that in any case, one of the first Acts of the devolved Scottish Parliament was a private members Bill by then SMP,

Tommy Sheridan which led in 2001 to the abolition of poinding and warrant sales- the then Scottish equivalent of English laws

relating to Seizure and Removal.

 

I point out that they are guilty of misrepresentation in respect of their powers.

I again inform them of the damage to my health and that I have not received an itemised invoices and what is the invoice made up off?

 

My attempts at education fail. As I knew they would, but now, I am focused on a longer term objective.

 

However, perhaps these guys down sarf, think they can have a laugh on me by sending me a Notice of Removal on Hogmanay

- probably thought my energies would be centered on festivities.

 

This time the invoice is for £450 and it' still not broken down as required.

But a further error is made, as this time they up the anti, by posting it to "the occupier" and not me personally.

This is potentially catastrophic as my mother in law suffers from dementia and I act as her carer.

What would have happened if she had opened the letter, or my wife or children?

 

Newlyn had made a further mistake and you all know what that was, as do I.

It was clearly designed to intimidate and misrepresent their powers.

Emails are sent and phone calls made.And remember, I am innocent.

They are acting in error, compounding their errors and making every mistake going.

 

Formal complaint process has produced nothing from Harrow Borough Council. No action taken by Newlyn PLC.

 

Post 2 will update further. Ready for the roller coaster. Fasten the seat belts. :-)

Edited by kennythecelt
spelling

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There was much discussion in the press about the Harrow Baliff Services tender proposals. Here are a couple of links. Even the bailiff industry had major concerns.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/dec/26/bailiffs-increase-debtors-fees-councils

 

Bailiffs to increase debtors' fees as councils seek cut of profit

Councils under pressure from cuts are considering taking a share of bailiffs' fees, increasing the burden on debtors

 

Harrow council expects to raise £1m by making bailiffs hand over 8% of their fees. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

Increasing numbers of households struggling with debts such as unpaid council tax will face the extra burden of rising fees levied on them by bailiffs after moves by councils to make more money from debt collection companies, according to bailiffs and advocates for vulnerable debtors.

 

The north-west London borough of Harrow expects to make £1m by making bailiffs hand over 8% of their fees. Other councils, under pressure to cope with austerity-driven cutbacks, are understood to be considering similar profit-sharing arrangements.

 

The move has been condemned by bailiff companies and by advocates for debt relief, who claim that it will lead to bailiffs pushing up fees and pursuing vulnerable people even more vociferously in an effort to maintain profits.

 

"It's going to create the level of competition that I don't believe should be created in an industry that has to deal with vulnerable people," said Jamie Waller, a bailiff and the founder of the JBW Group.

 

John Kruse, a leading expert on bailiff law in the UK, who also works for Citizens Advice in east London, agreed that the financial burden would be shouldered by vulnerable debtors. "What some of the more image-aware members of the sector are saying is that if bailiffs are asked to pay money to councils then that has to come from somewhere and the way it is going to be produced will be by bailiffs upping the fees that they are charging or being more aggressive about the way they chase people," he said. "The amounts that they collect at the moment are fees that they are allowed to collect by statute. That's their profit, so if the council is saying, 'We want to cut that profit now,' then it's either a case of the bailiffs making less money, which is unlikely, or they collect more money one way or another."

 

Fern Silverio, the divisional director of collections and housing benefits at Harrow council, told a conference of bailiffs this year: "Councils will be under pressure to find more income streams, and on a big contract covering all debt the bailiff can still make an enormous profit. [Harrow] council will pass debts worth around £10m to our bailiff partners. From that, they should expect to collect between £3m and £4m, which should generate fees of more than £1m."

 

Harrow plans to introduce competition after its debt recovery contract – including parking, council tax and housing benefit overpayment – comes up for re-tender. Two firms will start with 50% of the work, but one's share may increase if it outperforms the other.

 

A spokeswoman for Harrow council said that the evaluation of the last contract was weighted in favour of low fees being charged. "The contract evaluation took points away if the fees that the bailiffs were going to charge debtors for certain recovery actions were higher than their competitors," she added.

 

Kruse said a number of councils in East Anglia were requesting a "return" of 0.5% on revenue collected by the agencies acting for them. Several other local authorities have also been asking for a share of the fees levied on debtors, claim bailiffs. However, the suggestion that bailiffs will have no choice but to raise fees as a result may be controversial, given the significant profits that many of the large firms have enjoyed recently.

 

Five major bailiff companies last year enjoyed combined revenues of more than £60m, according to a Sunday Times report last month.

 

Fees can mount up quickly. In the case of unpaid council tax, debtors can find themselves being hit with fees of around £20 for the first and second visits. The fees can then run into the hundreds when bailiffs arrive to seize goods, with bills being levied for waiting time and vehicle hire.

 

"If it continues to happen I can see grave consequences not just for the debtors but for the industry as a whole because it promotes the wrong sort of activity," said Waller. Larger bailiff companies, and many of their critics, are united in warning of a need for the government to introduce long-promised updated regulations for the industry.

 

Austin Mitchell, a Labour MP who has campaigned on the issue, said it had the makings of a major scandal. "The industry needs an ombudsman, an effective independent regulator. Otherwise malpractice is going to flourish," he said. "Like the constant pattern of phantom visits where they are charging for visiting people and putting notes through a letter box to say they have – but just not doing it. Then there is the scale of the charges, which are ludicrous in many cases. The methods of operation and abuses all require an independent regulator."

 

The business can be very profitable with a handful of firms generating more than £1m in profits annually.

 

The government promised to protect "against aggressive bailiffs and unreasonable charting orders". But plans to begin consultations on new regulations in October were shelved.

 

Many in the industry, as well as other commentators, suggest that ideological opposition to the creation of new quangos or new "red tape" has led to a rethink. The Ministry of Justice said: "The government is clear that aggressive bailiff activity is completely unacceptable and is committed to bringing forward effective proposals which protect the public. We will announce the details of these measures in due course."

 

https://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/parking_review/news/?ID=27827

 

Harrow faces criticism for taking cut of bailiff’s fees

 

With councils under pressure, it makes sense for them to take a share of bailiff fees, argues Harrow’s Fern Silverio. But his outlook has caused disquiet in the civil enforcement sector

 

he August Issue of Parking Review ran a news story on the London Borough of Harrow’s policy of taking a cut of their bailiff partners’ fees. Fern Silverio, the council’s divisional director – collections and housing benefits, defended the policy at the Enforcement Summit, the Parking Review hosted event held at Chelsea FC in July.

 

He told delegates that even if bailiffs paid 8% of their fees to councils this was still “a win-win situation for all...

 

 

Here are the tender documents approved by Harrow Borough Council for Bailiff services on 13 September 2012. The contract states that the bailiff companies must adhere to all relevant legislation, industry best practice, any new guidance issued by OFT, Ministry of Justice, etc during the course of the contract. It also states that the contract will be the subject of bimonthly monitoring and that Harrow Borough Council have full access to both bailiff companies data base of records regarding clients, inc payments made, arrangements, visits, colours of doors,complaints, breakdown of charges etc, etc. In other words, Harrow has full access to every bit of information held by the respective bailiff companies ie Newlyn and Cha.ndlers. Harrow is responsible for the actions of any contractor acting on its behalf, including bailiffs. So, any complaints are best made to the Council concerned. Bailiff complaining is a waste of time, energy and money and they just intimidate and bully the innocent and financially burdened. They ride roughshod over any legislation or guidance.

 

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/ieIssueDetails.aspx?IId=74823&Opt=3

 

Of interest is the profit share clauses, whereby Harrow will receive 8-10% of any profits made by bailiffs in respect of debt owed to Harrow including Housing Benefit over claims, unpaid Council Tax debt, sundry income and unpaid traffic violation charges or PCN's.

 

Due to concerns over the contract, debate in the press and the sensitivity of the issue only 2 firms of bailiffs submitted completed tender returns and were subsequently awarded the contract for bailiff service provision within Harrow Borough Council. (I never even knew Harrow existed until their errors started) :lol: Hardly value for money when only 2 companies express an interest.

 

Reading the above documentation, it is clear that it makes no reference for the requirement of the appointed bailiff company to hold a consumer credit licence. Now, this is important, as although Newlyn PLC are properly registered in respect of VAT, they do make a service charge of 2.5% on top of any amount paid by credit card as an admin fee. In respect of debit card payments, the charge is £1. There are strict legal requirements regarding the law in this area. But it appears that Harrow Borough are condoning the actions of Newlyn PLC by not making it a contract condition that the Bailiff company holds a consumer credit licence.

 

Now I know that one arm of the Newlyn branch of companies allowed it's consumer credit licence to lapse, but I'm checking the group structure to see what arrangements apply.

 

Now this is important, because the last thing any bailiff company wants is a CCJ against it in court. If they get that, they cannot operate and need to be "reborn". The last thing a bailiff company wants is a CCJ raised against it. That effectively puts them out of business.

 

Here is a link to an earlier thread on CAG regarding a whistleblower case well documented in The Times and discussed on here at the time:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?293141-Newlyn-Plc....An-ex-employee-spilling-the-beans....MUST-READ-!!!!

 

The following article contains comments in which a judge branded a director of Newlyn PLC, "a liar", in court.

 

http://fylde-bootnecks.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/newlyn-bailiffs-boss-liar-judge-says.html

 

and

 

http://notareargunner.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/newlyn-bailiffs-boss-a-liar-judge-says/

 

TIMES ARTICLE – 27 AUGUST 2011

The police have been accused of acting beyond their authority by helping bailiffs to collect disputed parking fines

The police have been accused of acting beyond their authority by helping bailiffs to collect disputed parking fines.

An investigation by The Times has discovered that forces across the UK, including the Metropolitan and Kent Police, have been regularly assisting bailiffs to seize the cars of motorists with outstanding penalties, even though campaigners say they do not have the legal authority because parking enforcement in most parts of the UK is a civil, not criminal matter.

In one case, the police helped Newlyn, a bailiff company that has been accused of adding extra costs to debts, cutting corners and aggressively chasing people for money that they say they do not owe. The Times hasobtained video evidence of how the police confiscated the car keys of one driver and handed them to Newlyn even though the bailiff provided documentation of disputed authenticity and the driver denied that he owed any money.

In 2009 a district judge branded a director of Newlyn a liar in a hearing about the renewal of a bailiff’s licence. The driver who had his car confiscated has since taken his case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The law states that the police should assist bailiffs only if there is likely to be a breach of the peace, but officers appear to be routinely going on joint operations to stop motorists.

Ron Clark, of Fairparking.com, a website that champions the cause of motorists, said: “The permission to engage in such activity was removed by the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order of 1993. Police should no more be assisting bailiffs to chase up parking contraventions than they should be assisting utility companies in securing payment of their energy bills.”

Barrie Segal, of Appealnow.com, which helps people fight unfair parking penalties, said: “Shouldn’t the police be concentrating on chasing people who break the criminal law? I’m all for police stopping motorists where they suspect a crime has occurred. I just don’t think they should team up with bailiffs because it misleads the public into thinking that bailiffs have greater powers than they do.”

Legal experts consulted by The Times said the police could be acting beyond their authority. District Judge Stephen Gerlis, of Barnet County Court, said: “I am not aware of any protocol or authority that provides for the police to be involved in the enforcement of civil debts,unless there is a suggestion that a criminal offence may be committed.”

The joint operations came to light after The Times obtaineda transcript of a court hearing about a bailiff’s licence renewal. In this hearing, Leonard Brailey, an employee of Marston’s, a leading bailiff company,admitted that the police had for the past seven years been assisting his company with roadside stopping operations in Kent and other areas on the outskirts of London. In the past six months, he had taken part in six to ten operations, he said.

He explained that police would flag down oncoming cars for a roadside check. Then, after completing the check, they would say to the motorist: “Here is a bailiff. He is going to carry out checks as well.” Mr Brailey agreed that the impression given was that this was some lawful stopping to which the motorist had no right to object.

Kent Police confirmed it had conducted roadside police operations with bailiffs. The Metropolitan Police said it also carried out roadside stop operations with bailiffs “on rare occasions”. Both forces said they were satisfied that their operations were legal.

According to Mr Brailey, after being introduced by the police, the bailiff phones his office to check whether there are any outstanding warrants for unpaid fines relating to the vehicle. But Mr Clark said: “The bailiff’s vanis equipped with Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology and a data base of vehicles on which there are outstanding parking contraventions. These are the vehicles the police stop.”

Malcolm Hurlston, of Credit Action, the national financial education charity, said: “The proposals for regulating bailiffs are already months overdue. The whole area of bailiff activity is confusing and complicated and urgently needs regulation.”

The Ministry of Justice said: “The majority of bailiffs are responsible,but too many are not and this cannot continue. We will publish our consultation as soon as we have exhausted our exploration of all the issues.”

Newlyn refused to comment but has previously denied any wrongdoing and has said that its director’s incorrect statement in court was “merely an administrative error”.

 

This is a couple of the documents returned by Newlyn PLC in respect of the Bailiff contract with Harrow Borough Council obtained under a FOI request on the useful What do They Know web site (also covered are the details relating to the other bailiff contractor for Harrow- Chandlers (I am pursuing further FOI requests from Harrow in respect of bailiffs, etc):

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/152878/response/401090/attach/html/2/Bravo%202%20Newlyn.pdf.PDF%20name%20Bravo%202%20Newlyn.pdf.pdf.html

 

The following link is important as it details the charges for debtors, as agreed with Harrow, in approving the tender received from Newlyn. (NB 2.5% transaction fees for processing credit card payments and £1 for debit card payments.)

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/152878/response/401090/attach/html/5/Bravo%201%20Newlyn.pdf.PDF%20name%20Bravo%201%20Newlyn.pdf.pdf.html

 

The above documents also details the agreed scale of fees to be incurred during the contract.

 

Note how profitable the bailiff business has been, at the expense of debt laden people for this particular Newlyn Director:

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4753377/Ex-model-bailiff-who-rakes-in-millions-from-hard-up-families.html

 

THIS is the former model who rakes in a fortune from debt-hit families as Britain’s bailiff industry booms.

Julie Green-Jones, 50, has pocketed more than £2.7million in the past three years alone.

 

Here is one example of how Newlyn operate, courtesy of youtube- there are plenty of others.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k5h_rfdVgc

 

Now, this is them taking action against clearly distressed person who has just had a close family bereavement with a burial the following day. Note, breaches of guidance and legislation. Guidance stipulates that the bailiff should have left and notified the client of the situation. Note their ignorance of the law and best practice.:-x

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now remember that I reported the crime of cloned number plates to Police Scotland and received a crime reference and report for my records. I heard nothing about whether there had been a successful prosecution because, all of sudden, the parking tickets, parking violations, PCN's ceased arriving.

 

I wanted to know if someone had been prosecuted as I might need to change my number plates. I had a personalised number plate on a SORN vehicle that I was considering switching.

 

I made a formal enquiry of Police Scotland to find out what progress had been made. They gave me a reference number from both The Metropolitan Police and Transport London Police and both of them had refused to accept me as the victim of a crime. Both of them informed Police Scotland that they considered the London Council's and London Transport to be victims s they had not received income from traffic violations.:jaw: What a strange country we live in!

 

In any case, a formal complaint has now been made to both of them as required after discussion with DVLA re being a victim of cloning and wanting to transfer number plates.

 

I suspect that the real reason the traffic tickets/ PCN'S stopped was because I received 2 tickets from Brent Tesco and the chap or chapess was over staying their welcome there by using the tube close by to travel into London.

 

Tesco have a good customer service process and I was able to talk directly to the management of that park. I gave them my details, crime reference number and we agreed that they would watch out for when the car next arrived and they could then sort it out with the details I had supplied, including the crime reference number and pictures of my car/ registration document, etc. I can only imagine that this is what happened, given the lack of attention by the Police in London and their attitude.

 

I will be interested to hear what the reply from London is, but I will not hold my breath on that one, as there are bigger fish to fry.

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you first got the PCNs, did you appeal against them through the formal route? You could make a representation to the council on the basis that you are not the owner of the vehicle. Did you do that? What response did you get?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even one of Harrow's MP's, Tory Bob Blackman criticised the new Harrow bailiff tender contract:

 

http://www.iharrow.com/bobsays/bob-says-harrow-council-must-end-exploitative-bailiff-contracts/

 

Bob Says: Harrow Council Must End “Exploitative” Bailiff Contracts

bob_blackman3Local MP calls on Harrow Council to end “exploitative” bailiff contract

Harrow East MP, Bob Blackman, has today called on Harrow Council to bring an end to its “exploitative” bailiff contracts. His call comes following new guidelines published this week by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The new guidelines make it clear that it is inappropriate for councils to receive extra payment or profit-sharing from the use of bailiffs and the charging of fees. Contracts should not involve rewards or penalties which incentivise the use of bailiffs where it would not otherwise be justified. Harrow Council has currently signed contracts with bailiff companies which entitle the council to receive 8% of the total amount of fees charged.

In a letter to Harrow Council’s Chief Executive, Bob Blackman has requested that the existing contracts be cancelled and renegotiated to comply with the new guidelines. Mr Blackman has indicated that he will be obliged to take the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman if Harrow Council is unwilling to engage.

Bob Blackman Said: “The reality is that Harrow Council is operating an increasingly exploitative regime in terms of its debt collection. In receiving 8% of the bailiff fees charge, Harrow Council has an incentive to see them reach a level that is as high as possible. This is clearly wrong and not what residents expect from a Council that is supposed to serve them and represent their interests”

“As the bailiff companies lose 8% of their revenue, there is a greater pressure for them to press harder and charge higher fees to maintain profits. The picture becomes even murkier when one considers that Harrow Council employs multiple bailiff companies to compete against one another”.

Figures suggest that the five biggest bailiff companies in the UK earn a combined revenue in excess of £60 million. Harrow Council has previously stated that it would instruct bailiff companies to recover debts in the region of £10 million, of which it would expect to see £3 to £4 million to be collected. It is estimated that this would generate nearly £1 million in bailiff fees – 8% of which would go to Harrow Council as part of its current contractual arrangements.

 

I am in the process of checking if Bob Blackman has indeed referred the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman. His office did at least have the courtesy to phone me after I wrote to them. However, after explaining my medical problems the member of staff suggested that one way of resolving it was simply to pay up. Why does that not surprise me.:madgrin:

 

In the interim, new guidance and consultation has been issued by both the Office of Fair Trading and The Ministry of Justice. Eric Pickles Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is it seems busy working away, although the impact of his proposals require careful consideration. He has been fully informed of my situation which he is investigating.

 

In the interim, the following has been issued, but rarely adhered to, as many cases attest, including my own:

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/bailiffs-enforcement-officers/national-standards-enforcement-agents.pdf

 

The Local Government Ombudsman published this:

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2012/nov/lgo-highlights-problems-bailiff-action-behalf-councils/

 

LGO highlights problems in bailiff action on behalf of councils

 

Archived press release

Date Published: 28/11/12

Councils have to take responsibility for their bailiffs’ actions, and ensure complaints are handled properly, according to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) has today (28 November 2012) published a report outlining issues arising from complaints about bailiff action on behalf of councils. The report focuses on cases that have resulted in injustice to the individuals concerned, showing what can go wrong and just how serious the injustice can be. The report suggests how councils and their agents can avoid others suffering in a similar way.

The report highlights cases where inappropriate or unreasonable fees and charges have been made. Some examples are:

Bailiffs making multiple charges without explaining what they are for. In one case, a debtor was charged three fees amounting to £405 without any explanation. When the LGO got an explanation of the charges from the council involved, they found the debtor had been overcharged by £300 plus VAT.

Bailiffs are entitled to charge a ‘van fee’ when they attend a property with a vehicle with a view to removing goods. However, the LGO highlights where a bailiff charged a ‘van fee’ when they had not entered a property or removed any goods.

Bailiffs are also entitled to take ‘walking possession’ of goods – where the goods are left on the debtor’s premises after the debtor agrees to make payments on the outstanding debt or while a query is resolved – and add costs for this. However, the LGO shows where this can be unreasonable in a case where a bailiff took walking possession of a doormat and charged costs of £230.

The report also focuses on action taken against vulnerable debtors, and it sets out some questions councils should ensure bailiffs consider when dealing with potentially vulnerable debtors.

Dr Jane Martin, Ombudsman and Chair of the LGO says: “Sometimes a bailiff may be the first person acting on behalf of the council to meet the debtor. The bailiff may be the first person to realise the debtor is vulnerable. It is essential that bailiffs are alert to possible vulnerability and that they report any concerns back to the council.”

The Ombudsman is tending to find fault in a higher proportion of complaints that involve bailiff action than in other complaints about local taxation or parking enforcement. The most recent figures show that 31% of complaints involving bailiffs had a remedy proposed compared with only 23% of other complaints about local taxation and parking enforcement.

In the report’s conclusions, the Local Government Ombudsman recommends that councils should ensure that bailiffs:

only charge costs and fees in the schedules to the regulations, giving details of costs and fees referring to the specific headings in the relevant schedule, or make clear why an alternative sum has been charged

agree with councils in advance any areas of possible dispute over interpretation of the cost and fee

make proper checks when levying on vehicles, especially when enforcing costs and fees, and

exercise caution when dealing with potentially vulnerable debtors and consider whether recovery action is appropriate.

Councils also need to ensure they take final responsibility for their bailiffs’ actions and that any complaints are handled appropriately, including considering complaints themselves when necessary and not simply referring the complainants back to the bailiffs.

Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said:

“Clearly, councils have an obligation to their local residents to collect council tax, as every penny of uncollected council tax effectively increases the tax burden on the law-abiding local residents who do pay their bills on time. Yet councils equally need to show compassion towards the vulnerable and recognise individual cases of hardship.

"The use of bailiffs should also be a last resort, they should not be commissioned disproportionately and councils should take direct responsibility for them.

"The Government is taking action to rein in aggressive bailiffs, and we intend to issue further guidance to councils in due course to stop the sort of unacceptable behaviour that the Ombudsman has identified.”

 

and this earlier guidance leaflet from the OFT in 2011:

 

http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer_leaflets/credit/oft1299.pdf

 

Eric Pickles MP was quoted on local authority parking strategies as saying, from this article in The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10337749/Councils-using-CCTV-cameras-to-fine-motorists-to-be-made-illegal-within-months.html

 

"We want to rein in these over-zealous and unfair rules on parking enforcement, so it focuses on supporting high streets and motorists, not raising money. “Parking spy cameras are just one example of this and a step too far. Public confidence is strengthened in CCTV if it is used to tackle crime, not to raise money for council officers.”

 

and here,

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/clampdown-on-councils-using-heavy-handed-bailiffs

 

News story

Clampdown on councils using heavy-handed bailiffs

Organisation: Department for Communities and Local Government

Page history: Updated 17 June 2013, see all updates

17 June 2013 12:15am, First published. 17 June 2013 12:15am

 

Policy:Making local councils more transparent and accountable to local people Topic:Local government Minister:The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP

 

Eric Pickles today set out plans to tackle the use of heavy-handed bailiffs by councils to protect people from unfair treatment.

 

New guidelines for councils set out that they should no longer be collecting ‘contractual kickbacks’ from bailiffs or employing those seeking to exploit residents through ‘phantom visits’ or excessive fees. Figures suggest the five biggest bailiff companies earn a combined revenue in excess of £60 million.

 

The steps taken today fulfil a coalition government pledge to provide more protection for the public against aggressive bailiffs and unreasonable charges.

 

The Citizens Advice recently found there had been a 38% increase in complaints about private bailiffs over the last five years. Almost nine in ten bailiff problems the charity deals with relate to private bailiffs, who collect debts such as council tax and parking penalties.

 

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said:

 

It is unacceptable for councils to employ burly bailiffs with heavy-handed tactics like kicking down doors, making phantom visits or charging excessive fees – it is unfair and damages a council’s standing in the community.

 

Today our new guidance is crystal clear: it is time to stop the dodgy practices where town halls collect contractual kickbacks from bailiffs that will do almost anything to make money.

 

Citizens Advice Chief Executive Gillian Guy said:

 

A third of the bailiff problems we help with each year are for council tax debt. We see cases where bailiffs overstate their powers, act aggressively and bump up debts by levying excessive fees and charges. Local authorities must protect people from bailiffs who flout the law by helping people early on who are struggling to pay their council tax. We urge councils to sign up to our protocol for dealing with council tax debt.

 

Ending ‘phantom visits’

The guidance will put a stop to the worrying practice where some bailiffs undertake ‘phantom visits’ – charging inflated fees for putting a letter through a door - while not actually making any realistic attempt to speak to people or negotiate payment plans. Any such practices should be grounds for termination of a contract with fraudulent activity reported to the police as a criminal offence.

 

Ceasing council kickbacks

Further protections make it clear that it is inappropriate for councils to receive extra payment or profit-sharing from the use of bailiffs and the charging of fees. Contracts should not involve rewards or penalties which incentivise the use of bailiffs where it would not otherwise be justified.

 

Further protections

bailiffs providing the debtor with a contact number should they wish to speak to the billing authority;

local councils remaining responsible for the action of bailiffs they have contracted;

in-house bailiffs having to explicitly state that they are part of the local authority;

councils publishing their standard scale of fees on their website, to allow public scrutiny and highlight unreasonable practices; and

actively encouraging councils to sign up to that good practice protocol

Futher information

This guidance replaces the previous Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Guidance, ODPM Council Tax Collection Good Practice, published in 2005.

 

View the full document, Guidance to Local Authorities on good practice in the collection of council tax arrears.

 

50 ways to save

 

Citizens Advice online guide to bailiffs.

 

Media enquiries

Email

[email protected]

News desk

0303 444 1201

 

It is amazing, but not surprising, for it was ever thus, that many motorists and people with money and debt issue re Council tax or other debt face tougher financial sanctions than criminal offences/ charges.

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I challenged through the formal route, within 14 days period, with proof of postage and proof of tracking, documentation sent, etc. That is why all of the PCN's were "supposed" to be cancelled. I have documentation of that, that I will use to good effect.

 

I was formally told, in respect of the Harrow case, which is the only one outstanding, that they made a procedural error and wrongly input a continental style registration plates (which happened to have a 1 in many chances of being the same as mine, but different format/ spacing) which through up my details from DVLA. Despite that, they then proceeded to court ignoring my communications to them.

Once you are at that stage, you cannot talk to anyone at Harrow. It's purely automated.

 

I filled in a statutory declaration and provided all the required evidence ie Reg doc, copy of crime reference details and photo's of my car within the 14 day period of the first notification and they said it was cancelled, providing a letter to that effect.

 

I was denied access to appeal to Parking Appeal Tribunal as they proceeded with their course of action, after formally notifying me that they had made an error and withdrawn the charge. But, in practice, they never did.

 

I am now in the position that I received a letter 2 weeks ago again admitting their mistakes, a half hearted apology and a statement that they have asked Newlyn to return all files to them. (This, of course does not satisfy me).

 

Since that letter, I have twice received further demands from Newlyns stating that reduced sums of money are due, both sums are different, which Newlyn again refuse to break down/ itemise. Newlyn are clearly acting against the specific instructions of their client, ie Harrow Council. I have them both by the short and curlie's.

 

All I need to consider now, is the best way forward, but I will not divulge too much as I am aware that bailiffs read these forums.

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is only one outstanding, and that is the one the bailiff is chasing?

 

Right - so you appealed within 14 days. Do you recall - did you get a letter by return, either accepting or rejecting your appeal? If so, do you still have it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is only one outstanding, and that is the one the bailiff is chasing?

 

Right - so you appealed within 14 days. Do you recall - did you get a letter by return, either accepting or rejecting your appeal? If so, do you still have it?

 

Yes. Only 1 outstanding, with Harrow.

 

I have a copy of a letter stating the charge was cancelled as they accepted my evidence and admitted a continental plate should not have been input. However, in reality, and unbeknown to me, they did not actually cancel it.

 

They compounded their catalogue of errors.

 

Despite Harrow writing to me recently, and their letter stated that they had asked for all information ie client file to be returned to them by Newlyn and confirming that they actually had it in their possession, I have received 2 further invoices from Newlyn for different amounts, again not broken down.

 

On phoning Newlyn, which I did again today, they still have computer records of all case files relating to me. You input your client reference number and it is still accepted and when answered by a member of Newlyn staff, they can access every single detail. I did this on purpose, as it will be useful later.

 

Newlyn did confirm they have a consumer credit licence which they claim is 649977/1. I will check that out on the OFT search engine, as that is an important issue. It may relate to a different part of the group structure.

 

Their previous licence NEWLYN PLC

BATCHWORTH HOUSE

BATCHWORTH PLACE

CHURCH STREET

RICKMANSWORTH

HERTFORDSHIRE

WD3 1JE

 

Companies House No: 03770985

 

Consumer Credit Licence 0585311, expired some time ago.

 

 

Just for clarification. This thread is not primarily about me as an individual, although the actions on me are of course important and I shall be seeking redress. I am pursuing this because of the injustice and I want to do something to perhaps make these organisations think again.

 

Because it will happen again, it happens everyday. It's wrong, and I believe I have proof that if I use it in the right manner, I can make a difference.

 

There are countless cases concerning Harrow, who happen to have this kickback contract. That is what I am interested in. There are 000's of cases related to Newlyn's and other bailiffs. That is what I am interested in.

 

I deliberately posted this thread in CAG because I believe in the values and community of CAG. I did not post in other forums because I do not share their values.

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you want advice, or just want to make everyone aware of what's happened. If you are after advice, then we just need the core facts.

 

I asked if you had a reply to your original appeal and you said that "I have a copy of a letter..." - what I am asking is, did they send you a reply to your appeal, at the time, and did you get it, at the time?

 

If you're not asking for advice, fair enough - I just thought you might want some assistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you want advice, or just want to make everyone aware of what's happened. If you are after advice, then we just need the core facts.

 

I asked if you had a reply to your original appeal and you said that "I have a copy of a letter..." - what I am asking is, did they send you a reply to your appeal, at the time, and did you get it, at the time?

 

If you're not asking for advice, fair enough - I just thought you might want some assistance.

 

Jamberson, very sorry. Must be confusion on my part. Please accept my apologies. I blame it on the mogadon.:!:

 

Yes, I got a reply saying the ticket was cancelled, at the time, and I have that letter.

 

The purpose of this thread is

 

I am not important as an individual. The parking ticket issue has been resolved in most aspects as the case has been recalled by Harrow and I have that in writing. Every fact is recorded and can be founded on. Yes, I have suffered damage to health and reputation through negligence, errors and clearly obstructing any industry guidlines or legislation regrding the debt collection industry.

 

Make everyone aware of what happened in this case as there are many aspects of the case that may be used to challenge further the actions of Newlyn and Bailiffs in general. There is consultation underway in this regard.

 

Make Harrow Council aware of it's failings and the failings of it's bailiff's. I am a good example that exhibits many aspects of bad practice. I want Harrow to conduct a full internal investigation and publish those findings and adopt new procedures.

 

I want Harrow to reconsider it's kickback/ profit share arrangement with bailiff companies. That solely drives greed and bad practice by bailiffs. I am not just concerned about PCN's but collection of debt in general against folk that cannot afford to pay.

 

I want to ensure no other Council enters into such an arrangement.

 

Yes, I am seeking some form of redress but there are different options available. Court, Ombudsman, OFT, Eric Pickles, the media, etc. CIVEA. :lol: Each has a different approach and possible outcome however.

 

I have a court decision granted against me falsely and have been harassed by bailiffs who have not adhered to best practice or legislation. They have harmed my health. They are guilty of misrepresentation- bailiffs cannot operate in Scotland, nor can goods be seized, valued, removed, etc.

 

There needs to be discussion on CAG on what will give the bailiffs and Councils the biggest kick up the bahookie we can. What will have the biggest impact?

 

This needs to be done with the collective brainpower and experience on this site. The answers are on this site.

Edited by kennythecelt
2nd para added

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted a link to this thread in the Bailiff Forum.

 

Many thanks.:thumb:

 

If you think this thread is best placed in another part of the forum, please act accordingly.

 

Best wishes KTC

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had a letter stating in black and white that the PCN had been cancelled - and yet they are continuing to enforce it, then clearly that is malpractice.

 

My suggestion would be:

 

1. Letter to the head of parking at the council, together with a photocopy of the cancellation letter, demanding that they cease enforcement.

2. Complaint through the council's own process about their failure to address your previous complaint.

3. Complaint to the local government ombudsman.

4. Letter to your local councillor outlining the case.

 

Any one of them ought to get you somewhere - all four should get this resolved once and for all.

 

I would advise that if you do complain, to keep it brief and to the point - just stick to the cancellation letter and their continued enforcement. You don't need to say anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had a letter stating in black and white that the PCN had been cancelled - and yet they are continuing to enforce it, then clearly that is malpractice.

 

My suggestion would be:

 

1. Letter to the head of parking at the council, together with a photocopy of the cancellation letter, demanding that they cease enforcement.

2. Complaint through the council's own process about their failure to address your previous complaint.

3. Complaint to the local government ombudsman.

4. Letter to your local councillor outlining the case.

 

Any one of them ought to get you somewhere - all four should get this resolved once and for all.

 

I would advise that if you do complain, to keep it brief and to the point - just stick to the cancellation letter and their continued enforcement. You don't need to say anything else.

 

Again, many thanks.

 

I intend to dully comply with Harrow's complaints policy. I will not breach that.

 

When I get the time I will copy the FOI requests sent to and acknowledged by them. This is needed for later action, whichever course is chosen.

 

SAR's are free of charge to me, as confirmed by Harrow, given their admission of fault. I need to wait for that.

 

SAR has been issued to Newlyn and paid for. I need to wait for that.

 

My councillor is no use, I live in Scotland.

 

I have however written to Susan Hall, Tory leader of Harrow. There is an election in the offing. I am considering a twitter campaign targetted at opposition councillors- cheap and easy.

 

My MP is pursuing the case.

 

Eric Pickles is pursuing the case.

 

I cannot complain directly to OFT and need to go through CAB, which I intend to do. That can then be escalated.

 

I need to check if anyone has raised this with an ombudsman. That will be checked this week.

 

I have small claims option in Scotland up to £5,000. In England, it is £10,000. I might get a result by default if issued in my local sheriff court as they will not attend.

 

I have formal Form 4 complaint option.

 

I have CIVEA.

 

The media.

 

There are others referring to different statutes.

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is this:

 

I don't see why you need FOI or SAR requests. Both you and the council already have the sequence of events on record. If you want data for later action, then fine, but not instead of trying to get it resolved now.

 

I wouldn't personally try to involve Eric Pickles, but Susan Hall seems an appropriate person to raise it with.

 

My advice is as per my last post. You should raise it with the ombudsman yourself, right now. You have a black and white document proving the council is in the wrong. Go for it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is this:

 

I don't see why you need FOI or SAR requests. Both you and the council already have the sequence of events on record. If you want data for later action, then fine, but not instead of trying to get it resolved now.

 

I wouldn't personally try to involve Eric Pickles, but Susan Hall seems an appropriate person to raise it with.

 

My advice is as per my last post. You should raise it with the ombudsman yourself, right now. You have a black and white document proving the council is in the wrong. Go for it!

 

The ombudsman will not touch it until the complaints process is exhausted. They insist on that.

 

Do a google search on Susan Hall and ascertain her views on immigrants, people on benefits, anyone not of her class and background. Susan Hall is entirely inappropriate but is being kept in the loop so she is aware of what happens at a later stage and why. Susan Hall is a complete waste of space, but, I want this to bounce back on her.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/450561/Council-leader-s-fear-over-crisis-migrant-numbers

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453963/Anger-as-dole-money-goes-on-cigarettes-and-drink

 

She is used for soundbites. She comments on problems in other council areas. She should sort her own mess out when it's shoved under her gob. Have a look at this other mess created by Harrow

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/236983/Disgraced-town-hall-chief-s-new-200-000-job

 

They bring her in on £200,000 pa and sack their Chief Exec who was on £135,000, with a so far undisclosed compensation package. That is the type of people at the head of Harrow. Although in fairness, the bold Julie has since departed for pastures new.

 

Eric Pickles has a role as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, which includes responsibility for debt collection, the actions of bailiffs and PCN's. Much as I disagree with his party politics he is at least consulting on introducing legislation which will have a huge impact. He is going against the mood of the bailiffs on this one.

 

The FOI information and SAR information provides full evidence of not only my own case but others within Harrow, which will hopefully hit the kickback/ profit share contract Harrow has with bailiffs. That Council is responsible for encouraging furtive actions to further burden those with debt and harass and intimidate them. The FOI info requested has been carefully asked so that it aids my arguments at a later stage. That will provide further information/ evidence for the LGO.

Edited by kennythecelt
ADDED LINKS

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All good points.

 

What happens if you phone Harrow's parking team, ask them to confirm that the PCN was cancelled (they will have the letter on record and you can give them the date on it) and then ask them why the case is still live? How do they explain it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is Jamberson, as OP is in Scotland, unless he comes south of the border with the car, the bailiff can do squat, if Newlyn, are stupid enough to and I don't doubt they may be, go up to Scotland, OP can call the police and the bailiff will find himself hopefully in the Barlinnie, as he would be ultra vires and way way out of his jurisdiction, that is why kennythecelt is in a good position to kick them for the unwarranted harassment.

 

He has done everything right, Newlyn and Harrow council are so inept as to be worse than muppets. He has paperwork to show PCN result of cloning but still the greedy muppets try it on.

  • Haha 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenny.

 

The above posts are very interesting indeed and I am very impressed with the way in which you have "turned detective".

 

Firstly, the matter of the Harrow Council "Kickback Contract" with Newlyn is well known with the enforcement industry, local authorities, Members of Parliament and various other government agencies. It is my understanding the the contract is currently being investigated by the District Auditor under the Audit Commission Act. If there has been any "irregularity" this will be identified by the DA. I do not propose to make any further comment at this present time.

 

There is no point in complaining to CIVEA and neither should a Form 4 Complaint be issued.

 

On the matter of a Consumer Credit Licence. Quite a few enforcement companies do not have such a licence and it would seem that they have obtained Counsels opinion that states that they do not require such a licence. Whether this is correct or not I do not know.

 

Where I do have a problem is with the DEBT REGISTRATION by Harrow of this PCN. I have been dealing with the Traffic Enforcement Centre for nearly 7 years and in all that time it is my understanding that the CCBC computer system CANNOT accept a registration with a Scots post code !!! As a matter of urgency I would suggest that you call the Traffic Enforcement Centre in the morning and ask them to CONFIRM the precise address AND POST CODE on the warrant of execution.

 

Could you please post back once you have spoken to TEC as this is VERY important and something does not seem right to me about the debt registration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not too sure that this story is accurate.

 

http://fylde-bootnecks.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/newlyn-bailiffs-boss-liar-judge-says.html

 

My understanding is that a different Judge made the statement referred to.

 

This complaint concerns the awful matter of "Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations" which are sadly a very frequent event in London streets ( one took place last Friday).

 

In fact this subject is one that I am addressing to the Secretary of State in the Consultation paper that closes shortly. It is assumed that following the Consultation, the government are looking to BAN the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenny.

 

The above posts are very interesting indeed and I am very impressed with the way in which you have "turned detective".

 

Firstly, the matter of the Harrow Council "Kickback Contract" with Newlyn is well known with the enforcement industry, local authorities, Members of Parliament and various other government agencies. It is my understanding the the contract is currently being investigated by the District Auditor under the Audit Commission Act. If there has been any "irregularity" this will be identified by the DA. I do not propose to make any further comment at this present time.

 

There is no point in complaining to CIVEA and neither should a Form 4 Complaint be issued.

 

On the matter of a Consumer Credit Licence. Quite a few enforcement companies do not have such a licence and it would seem that they have obtained Counsels opinion that states that they do not require such a licence. Whether this is correct or not I do not know.

 

Where I do have a problem is with the DEBT REGISTRATION by Harrow of this PCN. I have been dealing with the Traffic Enforcement Centre for nearly 7 years and in all that time it is my understanding that the CCBC computer system CANNOT accept a registration with a Scots post code !!! As a matter of urgency I would suggest that you call the Traffic Enforcement Centre in the morning and ask them to CONFIRM the precise address AND POST CODE on the warrant of execution.

 

Could you please post back once you have spoken to TEC as this is VERY important and something does not seem right to me about the debt registration.

 

Thank you kindly for the information and advice.

 

Do you have a number for the traffic enforcement centre, please? The only number I have is the payment centre at Harrow as their other systems are automated.

 

Edit: is this them- http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/county-court-bulk-centre

 

Contact CPC and CCBC

Share thisShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services

For general enquiries such as procedure, update or query regarding an ongoing case, please contact the relevant helpdesk below:

All calls come through to our switchboard and are answered in strict rotation.

Northampton Bulk Centre (CCBC) 0300 123 1056 / 01604 619400

Money Claim On Line (MCOL) 0300 123 1057/ 01604 619402

Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) 0300 123 1059/ 01604 619450

Centralised Attachment of Earnings Payment System (CAPS) 0300 123 1058/ 01604 619435

A number of Bulk Centre staff speak a second language. Staff members will upon request, attempt to find a clerk (where available) to take your call in a language other than English.

Please note that incoming and outgoing telephone calls may be recorded for training and quality control purposes.

Customer service email addresses

TEC: [email protected]

CAPS: [email protected]

MCOL: [email protected]

CPC: [email protected]

CCBC: [email protected]

Defendants: [email protected]

Claimants: [email protected]

Postal Address

The Bulk Centre

4th Floor

St Katharine's House

21 - 27 St Katharine's Street

Northampton

NN1 2LH

DX 702885 Northampton 7

 

My registration document is obviously to a Scottish address and the sole owner before me was Scottish likewise. Indeed, his post code is still on the front and rear plates. Remember we are talking 14-16 tickets here. Not just the Harrow one but that is the one I am focussing on.

 

I would obviously not use CIVEA and have discounted Form 4 from the information I have researched.

 

Newlyn PLC have started putting "without prejudice" and that they would seek to recover their legal costs on their letters, despite me not indicating that was a route I was considering.

Edited by kennythecelt
SPELL/ PARA

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not too sure that this story is accurate.

 

http://fylde-bootnecks.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/newlyn-bailiffs-boss-liar-judge-says.html

 

My understanding is that a different Judge made the statement referred to.

 

This complaint concerns the awful matter of "Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations" which are sadly a very frequent event in London streets ( one took place last Friday).

 

In fact this subject is one that I am addressing to the Secretary of State in the Consultation paper that closes shortly. It is assumed that following the Consultation, the government are looking to BAN the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.

 

Maybe that blogger got it wrong but I have seen the same comments directed at a director of Newlyn PLC.

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not too sure that this story is accurate.

 

http://fylde-bootnecks.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/newlyn-bailiffs-boss-liar-judge-says.html

 

My understanding is that a different Judge made the statement referred to.

 

This complaint concerns the awful matter of "Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations" which are sadly a very frequent event in London streets ( one took place last Friday).

 

In fact this subject is one that I am addressing to the Secretary of State in the Consultation paper that closes shortly. It is assumed that following the Consultation, the government are looking to BAN the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.

 

Maybe that blogger got it wrong but I have seen the same comments directed at a director of Newlyn PLC.

 

that is why I have contacted Eric Pickles and my own MP is in touch with him. I know my MP personally, it is a very small community so quite useful that way. I have a good access source plus he is SNP and needs something to clobber Westminster with in advance of a possible YES vote for Independence for Scotland. That plays a part in this.

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

kenny, yes that's the place - you want to use 0300 123 1059/ 01604 619450 or the email [email protected] gov.uk

 

They won't be able to access any records without the PCN number though, so make sure you have that to hand.

 

And I am seriously impressed by your fightback against Harrow. Kudos to you.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All good points.

 

What happens if you phone Harrow's parking team, ask them to confirm that the PCN was cancelled (they will have the letter on record and you can give them the date on it) and then ask them why the case is still live? How do they explain it?

 

You cannot phone Harrow, except to make a telephone payment. They do not have a call centre and have developed a service that is remote from the consumer. Hence they do not learn from their mistakes. I worked in local authorities for over 30 years and latterly with responsibility for change management/ policy, quality, etc. You cannot make a complaint by phone, it is an automated complaint system. Residents can visit but I am not resident. I am also 7-800 miles from there.

 

Harrow sent me a letter on 7/1/14 stating they had informed Newlyn PLC to return the file and further, committed themselves in writing to stating that they had received the files back.

 

Since then, Harrow PLC have sent 2 further demands for payment, by email and letter.

 

I phoned them today, basically to confirm the situation and for a bit of amusement. I punch my Newlyn Client Reference number in and then I get through to a member of staff. That member of staff had full access to all my records today. That is against Data Protection. They also denied they had received payment for a SAR despite issuing me with a receipt for it and a letter confirming the same. They are a shambles.

 

Harrow are an even bigger shambles. There is plenty of current FOI information released, relating to Harrow, PCN's and their use of bailiffs and the impact on vulnerable members of society. It is simply a matter of pulling it together. The supplementary FOI requests I have made will help this objective. Harrow have severe finance problems, very severe revenue problems, it is well documented.Mr Fernando Silverio wanted a slice of the action and saw income from bailiff contract profits as part of the solution. He is perhaps an accountant with no concept of service impact or what bailiffs impact on the vulnerable are. He made a huge mistake. Hence why no other local authority went down that road and why questions were raised by The Leader of the House, George Young.

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...