Form 4 Complaint against a Newlyn Bailiff

[Mercedes5]

Hi, everyone! I'm new on here......and not sure if this is the correct place to post this question but here goes.

I wanted to know if anyone knows if there is a time limit on complaining against a certificated bailiff with a Form 4? And if there is it is it possible to sue the bailiff directly? Through county court?

[Jamberson]

This isn't the right part of the forum - there is a separate section for bailiffs.

 

Maybe the mods can move it over?

[renegadeimp]

Can you give more info? A form 4 is a very serious thing, and if youve been advised by other forums to do it... dont. It could end up being very very VERY costly for you. To the tune of thousands of pounds, if not tens.

[Mercedes5]

Hi, thanks for your help.

Before i give you the details, and thre is a lot...... should i ask for the post to be moved to the correct bailiff section?

[citizenB]

I will do it for you...

 

Ok, moved to bailiff (Enforcement officers) forum. YOu dont have to do anything, it is purely an administrative move.

[Mercedes5]

Thanks

[brassnecked]

Isn't Form 4 obsolete under the new Regulations..

[tomtubby]

There are a lot of changes in place and indeed the term 'Form 4' is obsolete. I will explain more later.

 

MercedesS:

 

Can you provide a brief outline of your complaint but please try not to mention the name of the bailiff.

[Mercedes5]

Can you give more info? A form 4 is a very serious thing, and if youve been advised by other forums to do it... dont. It could end up being very very VERY costly for you. To the tune of thousands of pounds, if not tens.

 

Ok,...3rd April 2012 my Mercedes 60 plate with a value of of £19000 approx, which was subject to a hire purchase agreement,and was a car solely for my business, as i owned car hire business at the time, was unlawfully levied on, clamped and subsequently taken away for a few outstanding pcn's. At the scene, i showed the hire agreement to the bailiff, he stated that he could still take the car and had had authorisation from Harrow council. He demanded i pay £6315.90 in total of vat/pcn, but mostly bailiff fees. I asked him for a breakdown of everything, and told him there was no way i can pay that amount of money, especially as i had made representations to the council/ TEC.

 

 

After nearly 6 hours, i got fed up and called the police, who attending, but favoured the bailiff, and said i would face getting arrested if i did not had over the keys.

 

 

The car was taken away to their storage. The next day i called Newlyn,told them that the car was on HP, and faxed them a copy of the agrrement. I was told to liase with the bailiff, which i did, but got continually messed around. He said that the minimum he would accept to release the car was £4500.

 

 

However due to a death in the family i had to fly abroad 3 days after the car had been taken.

 

 

At this point all the payments on the finance were up to date. On my return, one month later, i got in touch with Newlyn again, only to be reverted back to the bailiff. He was now demanding £3000.

 

 

To cut a long story a bit shorter, the car was held illegallly for 7 and half months, whilst i had to travel, and due to my business not doing too well, i could only afford a further 3 payments on the finance, up until July 2012. Eventually, in November 2012, i got in touch with the council, and faxed them the hp agreement, and the follwing day, i got a call from Newlyn, saying they want to return the car, but still want a payment of £500, for the removal of the car and a few days storage, and also to stop the finance company not repossessing it! I told the guy on the phone i had lost a lot of business, and could not afford to pay, and besides thay had taken illegally and should return it. Ultimately, they got intouch with the finance company and requested a payment of £4500 for storage.

 

Fianance company apprarently threatened them with legal action if they did not return the car to them as i was now 3 months behind on the payments, and they had defaulted the agreement. In the end, finance company paid £300 and recovered the car. At the time the car was taken i had paid £10000 off the finance, and was left with a debt of £9700 after the finance company sold the car in Decemeber 2012.

Hope this clarifies things a bit better?

Edited June 6, 2014 by citizenB
spacing

[Mercedes5]

Hi, was thinking if the term form 4 is obsolete, then there still must be a way of complaining about an enforcement officer. Does anyone no the way and also time limits to raise the complaint?

Any help would be appriciated. Thanks

[tomtubby]

I have a few queries.

 

You say that the bailiff demanded over £6,000 and it would seem that this figures was then reduced significantly. Have you paid any of the PCN's or are they still subject to outstanding warrants?

 

 

You have stated that 3 days after the car was taken you had to go abroad and that you were away for a month and that on your return you contacted Newlyn and the amount required had been reduced by about 50%. Were you given any indication as to WHY the figure had changed so much?

 

 

You have said that the car was then held "illegally" for over 7 months but you have not explained WHY there was such long period. You have however said that you were away on business a lot and that your business was struggling. I am trying to understanding whether Newlyn or the bailiff were at fault for the vehicle being kept for such a long period.

 

You faxed Harrow Council a copy of the HP Agreement in November and the following day (no doubt after being satisfied that the documentation did prove that the vehicle was subject to Hire Purchase) the council authorised the release of the vehicle. Had you contacted Harrow Council at any time during the previous 7 month period?

[brassnecked]

You could find out at which court the EA was granted their certificate, and send a letter to the District Judge outlining the behaviour, so that it could be held on file until the Certificate is up for renewal, not a formal procedure but may be worth a go.

 

Not sure if the formal replacement for Form 4 is sorted yet, tomtubby will likely know for sure.

 

 

 

In view of the fact my post crossed with one by TT, you need to answer the questions asked.

[tomtubby]

PS: When making a complaint to the court about the actions of the bailiffs you need to be aware that significant changes were imposed on 6th April. Firstly, the term "Form 4" is no longer applicable. Secondly, the regulations have now made it CLEAR that any complaint made must only address the FITNESS of a bailiff to hold a certificate. Crucially, the new regulations have also made it CLEAR that they may indeed impose a cost order against the COMPLAINANT.

 

Although the new regulations allow for a Judge to consider the complaint without calling both parties to court it is widely expected that for the first year at least Judges will be requiring all parties to attend a court hearing in person.

 

Taking the above into consideration there is now a much greater need to make sure that complaints are not made that could put the complainant at risk of an adverse cost order. It is for this reason that I have asked the above questions.

 

Lastly, it may well be that the complaint should not be made against the bailiff at all and instead....should be directed at Harrow Council given that the bailiff advised you that he had received AUTHORISATION from them to remove the vehicle.

 

I would strongly suggest that you also obtain a copy of the Harrow Council contract to see what provision that have given in the contract regarding vehicles that are subject to Hire Purchase.

[Mercedes5]

Hi,

 

No pcn's were paid, however i made representations to the council/tec, 6 moths prior to the car was taken, and included a copy of hire agreements/copies of driving licences, which covered the periods when the pcn's were got.

 

No valid warrants at the moment. All have now expired. For the one the bailiff marked down on the seizure notice, i have a copy of it still, that actually expired one month after the car was taken.

 

No reason given intially for the reduction in fees by Newlyn, but always told to deal directly with the bailiff, as he is in charge of the case.

 

I was back and forth from abroad due to a death in the family, but everytime i was here i contacted the bailiff, only to be told to pay different amounts. The fact he would not give me a breakdown of the fees and for what pcn's it was for, and the lowest amount he demanded was £3000, i did not trust what he was saying.

I also got a notice in the post from Newlyn, 2 days after the car was taken requesting i pay £1200 which at the time did not make sense, as it also did not give a breakdown of fees.

To be honest, i really believed the bailiff was just trying extortion tactics, and was trying to get any amount out of me.

I was also partly in the wrong for not dealing with the situation more promptly, however my head was not fully there and i didn't have anyone who could deal with the car hire business whilst i was away, not properly anyway.

 

Yes, i also contacted Harrow council during the 7 months, they reverted me back to Newlyn.

But i went through all the outsatnding pcn's with them, only to find out after the car had been taken that the warrants on most of them had expired. I have email confirmation from TEC for this. So they were given me wrong information as well.

 

Thank you

[Mercedes5]

Hi, even with the new provisions in place for complaining against him, the fact that the car was there held for 7 and half months proofs that all parties were aware it was on HP, otherwise the bailiff company would have tried to sell it to recover costs!

 

And the car was worth £19k,(subsequently sold for £14300 in December 2012, at auction, 8 months after car was taken) a far greater than the alleged £6315 the bailiff put on the seizure notice.....surely this is an excessive levy? He should have known better considering all his experience in the business. Does that not put his fitness to hold a cerificate, into question alone?

 

Also it was financed to my trading as business.

 

I am also looking to issue a civil case against Harrow, to replace the car and loss of busness, as they are no doubt ultimately responsible for who they instruct.

 

However the bailiff concerned is still working for Newlyn, and i think should be punished for his actions. I lost my business partly as a direct action of his, and if he thinks he can get away with, maybe he will do it again, or has done.

 

I will obtain a contract from Harrow council reagrding vehicles on HP, but in a recent report by the LGO they have made it perfectly clear that vehicles on HP should not be taken, and the council have agreed that all bailiff companies should do a DVLA and HPI check prior to removing the car.

[Mercedes5]

You could find out at which court the EA was granted their certificate, and send a letter to the District Judge outlining the behaviour, so that it could be held on file until the Certificate is up for renewal, not a formal procedure but may be worth a go.

 

Not sure if the formal replacement for Form 4 is sorted yet, tomtubby will likely know for sure.

 

 

 

In view of the fact my post crossed with one by TT, you need to answer the questions asked.

 

Hi brassnecked, thank you.

I have this information, but his licence is not up for renewal until Nov 2015.

But if all other avenues do not proceed, i will go down that one.

 

Would really like to know if there is a time limit on raising the complaint?

[HCEOs]

surely this is an excessive levy? He should have known better considering all his experience in the business. Does that not put his fitness to hold a cerificate, into question alone?

 

Whilst this whole thing sounds a complete mess if the car was the only asset available at the time it cannot be classed as an excessive levy.

[tomtubby]

.

 

I will obtain a contract from Harrow council reagrding vehicles on HP, but in a recent report by the LGO they have made it perfectly clear that vehicles on HP should not be taken, and the council have agreed that all bailiff companies should do a DVLA and HPI check prior to removing the car.

 

 

.

The LGO decision that you refer to is against Blaby District Council and is very well known.

 

It is sadly the case that if legal proceedings (including Complaints against a bailiff) are made which relate to the removal of vehicles subject to finance /HP it is the case that most enforcement companies (and local authorities) defend the action by referring to the very lengthly (18 page) Judgment in the case of Singh v Sandy. It is now the most common court decision that they quote from as Judge Main made clear that he does not consider that a bailiff who does not undertake a DVLA or indeed an HPI search should be subject to a complaint.

 

He even goes further to blame the debtor for the predicament facing him (with his car being clamped) as he states that the debtor "has reaped what he has sown" and should not be evading a legally due debt !!!

 

I have now read the full judgment and to be very honest I am really struggling to agree with the Judge Main's explanation. He even considers that vehicles that are subject to HIRE PURCHASE could have some equity that can be discharged to pay the council tax that was due ?????

 

My personal opinion (and I stress this is my own opinion) is that Judge Main confused the position of vehicles subject to finance (where there may well be some equity) with vehicles that are subject to hire purchase (where there can be on equity). This is despite the fact that Judge Main dedicated two full paragraphs to 'explain' the equity position.

 

An important point that needs to be made here is that since 6th April the decision in the case of Singh v Sandy has diminished significantly and the case cannot any longer be relied upon.

 

PS: Since 6th April the "Blaby" report is in fact even MORE relevant !!!

[HCEOs]

Just something to consider TT.

 

An Enforcement Agent has a duty to the creditor to enforce the warrant/writ. DVLA checks cannot be made in real time and the results often take 24-48 hours to come through. If the EA attends an address and has reasonable belief that the vehicle there belongs to the debtor and that it is in jeopardy, he has a legal obligation to remove it there and then, without a DVLA check. Of course, if his belief turns out to be wrong then he opens himself up to a claim.

 

I would also add that on some occasions EAs have liaised with finance companies to sell a vehicle if there is enough equity to satisfy the outstanding finance and the debt.

[Mercedes5]

Whilst this whole thing sounds a complete mess if the car was the only asset available at the time it cannot be classed as an excessive levy.

 

Yes it is a mess, and i want some closure on it, one way or another.

How much is/how much would you class as an excessive levy?

Thanks

[HCEOs]

If there is only one asset available it doesn't matter what its value is.

 

We have seized private jets for £2000 debts before.

[Mercedes5]

Just something to consider TT.

 

An Enforcement Agent has a duty to the creditor to enforce the warrant/writ. DVLA checks cannot be made in real time and the results often take 24-48 hours to come through. If the EA attends an address and has reasonable belief that the vehicle there belongs to the debtor and that it is in jeopardy, he has a legal obligation to remove it there and then, without a DVLA check. Of course, if his belief turns out to be wrong then he opens himself up to a claim.

 

I would also add that on some occasions EAs have liaised with finance companies to sell a vehicle if there is enough equity to satisfy the outstanding finance and the debt.

 

Whilst you could be right, and it makes sense that checks cannot always be done in real time, i proofed that the car was on HP at the scene, in front of the police who attended.

But,I also read that a fair time to allow for checks to be done, dvla/hpi is 14 days, i think 7 and half months is more than fair!

 

As for EA, liasing with the finance company in order to sell the car to pay off debts, subject to equity, i think that would be a breach of contract on the finance companies part, as it would take away the chance for the debtor to ultimately own the car, after making the final payment.

 

In my case, the bailiff company contacted the finance company, in June, 3 months after the car was taken, and the asked them to pay £3500 for storage and other costs, the finance company told them they are not resposible, and to return the car to me. Just for information.

[Mercedes5]

If there is only one asset available it doesn't matter what its value is.

 

We have seized private jets for £2000 debts before.

 

I'm sure you have.... but surely not for pcn's, for a council?

Private/Commercial debts probably, through High Court i'm guessing.

[HCEOs]

Yes, but the principle remains the same. If it is the only asset available the value is not an issue.

[brassnecked]

Just something to consider TT.

 

An Enforcement Agent has a duty to the creditor to enforce the warrant/writ. DVLA checks cannot be made in real time and the results often take 24-48 hours to come through. If the EA attends an address and has reasonable belief that the vehicle there belongs to the debtor and that it is in jeopardy, he has a legal obligation to remove it there and then, without a DVLA check. Of course, if his belief turns out to be wrong then he opens himself up to a claim.

 

I would also add that on some occasions EAs have liaised with finance companies to sell a vehicle if there is enough equity to satisfy the outstanding finance and the debt.

 

There is a danger for the Finance Company in that they may then breach their contract with the debtor, and be liable to repay the monies paid under the agreement back to the debtor. If HP or a personal lease with balloon the vehicle remains the property of the HP/Finance company until the last payment is made again fraught with issues if they permit the sale. having read Singh v sandy, it is extremely difficult to see where it applies post April 6th with any certainty as alluded to by TT