Collect Services - Threat to Remove Blue Badge (Disabled OAP's) car for PCN

[dettydoo]

I am writing on behalf of an elderly 80-year-old,

seen your Forums in the past, and hoping you might be able to give me some advice on his behalf.

 

Mr B was given a PCN by Kingston Council for driving in a bus lane.

He has had several periods in hospital, and therefore the matter has now been processed to bailiffs, Collect Services,

who have now called twice at his property (despite being advised he is a vulnerable person).

 

A complaint was made to Collect and a copy of their complaints procedure requested.

 

 

No response has been received from that, and

 

 

a complaint has been lodged with CIVEA, but he has today received the letter below, which has caused him great distress

 

 

"Dear XXXX XXXX

 

Due to your failure to settle this unpaid Penalty Charge Notice(s) your vehicle has now been included on our outstanding pcn ANPR database.

 

In the event we LOCATE your vehicle it will be REMOVED and taken to auction without any further warning.

 

Additional costs of £xxx.xx will be incurred plus auctioneers costs."

 

The car is his sole means of getting around (he can barely walk a few yards) and displays a blue badge registered in his name.

 

I had always believed (and indeed have seen on the Citizens Advice Website)

that a car displaying a blue badge and for the use of a disabled person cannot be taken by bailiffs.

 

Is this correct.

 

 

If so what steps should now be taken.

 

 

The car is in his driveway (he has no garaging facilities or anywhere else he can leave the car)

and he is quite upset that these people (who have already been very aggressive with a carer who answered the door for him).

 

 

Can they take this car with the blue badge?

 

 

Should we write to them?

 

 

Is there legislation we need to quote?

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

 

He cannot afford the amount they are requesting (now over or near£600),

 

 

and these bailiffs seem to think they can just walk roughshod over whatever regulations are in place to help vulnerable people like him.

[dettydoo]

I have one upset old gentleman here so am really trying to help him as much as I can

 

 

- but am not sure of exactly what I need to do.

Edited November 5, 2014 by dettydoo

[wonkeydonkey]

I am writing on behalf of an elderly 80-year-old,

seen your Forums in the past, and hoping you might be able to give me some advice on his behalf.

 

Mr B was given a PCN by Kingston Council for driving in a bus lane.

He has had several periods in hospital, and therefore the matter has now been processed to bailiffs, Collect Services,

who have now called twice at his property (despite being advised he is a vulnerable person).

 

A complaint was made to Collect and a copy of their complaints procedure requested.

 

 

No response has been received from that, and

 

 

a complaint has been lodged with CIVEA, but he has today received the letter below, which has caused him great distress

 

 

"Dear XXXX XXXX

 

Due to your failure to settle this unpaid Penalty Charge Notice(s) your vehicle has now been included on our outstanding pcn ANPR database.

 

In the event we LOCATE your vehicle it will be REMOVED and taken to auction without any further warning.

 

Additional costs of £xxx.xx will be incurred plus auctioneers costs."

 

The car is his sole means of getting around (he can barely walk a few yards) and displays a blue badge registered in his name.

 

I had always believed (and indeed have seen on the Citizens Advice Website)

that a car displaying a blue badge and for the use of a disabled person cannot be taken by bailiffs.

 

Is this correct.

 

 

If so what steps should now be taken.

 

 

The car is in his driveway (he has no garaging facilities or anywhere else he can leave the car)

and he is quite upset that these people (who have already been very aggressive with a carer who answered the door for him).

 

 

Can they take this car with the blue badge?

 

 

Should we write to them?

 

 

Is there legislation we need to quote?

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

 

He cannot afford the amount they are requesting (now over or near£600),

 

 

and these bailiffs seem to think they can just walk roughshod over whatever regulations are in place to help vulnerable people like him.

 

Is the car provided to the gentleman through the motability scheme or is it a case he owns the car and the blue badge was granted to him on application?

[dettydoo]

It is his own car, owned outright, and the blue badge has been granted by his local council a few years back (after medical reports, etc.) due to his inability to walk more than a few yards, circulation and heart problems.

 

He receives Attendance Allowance.

 

I found the blue badge advice on a Citizens Advice Bureau page (can't link so will cut and paste)

 

Can bailiffs take a vehicle?

 

Bailiffs are allowed to take your vehicle when collecting a debt. There are some exceptions to this, which are:

 

a vehicle which is necessary for your work, study or business, and where there is no alternative public transport you could use instead, as long as it is not worth more than £1350 - this rule does not apply if your debts are for business rates or taxes

 

a vehicle which you're paying for on a hire puchase or conditional sale agreement

 

a vehicle which is displaying a disabled blue badge and is used for transporting a disabled person

 

Much appreciated!

[wonkeydonkey]

I have sent a message to our resident bailiff expert asking her to look in on this. I am registered disabled and a blue badge holder with my car being 'leased' to me through the motability scheme, bailiffs cannot touch it but as to a private vehicle being exempt I am not so sure.

[dettydoo]

Funnily enough, Mr B (not his real name) did apply for Motability but did not qualify because he did not receive any disability benefits until after the age 0f 65, and therefore receives Attendance Allowance and not the required DLA.

 

These bailiffs have constantly ignored and refused to accept that he is a vulnerable household - he is in his eighties, suffering from cancer and heart disease, and was recently attacked in his own home so becomes extremely nervous at the presence of strangers. If he isn't vulnerable, I don't know who is!!

 

We are currently compiling a full complaint to CIVEA, but in view of this letter today think we need some urgent advice as to what they can or cannot do. Seriously worried that if anyone calls to take his car while he is on his own at home, he could suffer a heart attack or something.

 

Once again your help is much appreciated.

[green_and_mean]

I have one upset old gentleman here so am really trying to help him as much as I can

 

 

- but am not sure of exactly what I need to do.

 

 

 

Why don't you lend him the money? Regardless of any complaint he is liable for the debt and it will not go away.

[Sparks_]

Why don't you lend him the money? Regardless of any complaint he is liable for the debt and it will not go away.

 

Is that really called for greenand mean? Maybe the OP cannot afford to lend him the money and is just trying to be a good neighbor and help the old gentleman!

[dettydoo]

Thank you, Sparks, that is exactly what I am trying to do.

 

Regardless of whether or not I could afford to lend Mr B the money, £400 worth of the sum claimed owed was added AFTER the Bailiffs had chosen to breach their Code of Conduct and visit a person they knew to be classified as 'Vulnerable'.

 

Perhaps I am somewhat naive in this matter, but I do believe these people should be held accountable for simply believing they have no obligation to adhere to the regulations set up for their industry.

[ploddertom]

I've moved all of this to the Bailiff Forum where I am positive we can sort this out.

[ploddertom]

In the meantime you need to ensure both Blue Badge & Timeclock are left on display on the vehicle dashboard. Does he get a free Road Fund Licence - I appreciate that tax discs are no longer issued but if this still has time to run and shows the taxation class as Disabled then this is another pointer. If he doesn't get a free tax disc then I would be inclined to remove the present one from view - he is not committing any offence now.

 

What Collect have come out with so far will be all bluff & bluster to try and force the issue. Have the Council been informed about all this? Do you know if there were any mitigating circumstances surrounding the original ticket?

[dettydoo]

No, he doesn't have a Free Road Fund Licence, just the blue badge in his name because of his inability to walk. The blue badge is clearly displayed in his window.

 

Yes, the Council involved have been fully informed and have received a formal complaint as to the behaviour of their bailiffs in disregarding his vulnerability status.

 

The only mitigating circumstances surrounding the ticket were that he was too ill to attend to it when it was received (at one point it appeared he was not going to survive) and by the time had recovered enough to ask for help with his affairs the Bailiffs had become involved. It was at this point I composed a letter advising both Collect and the Council of his vulnerability status and that they should cease their intention to call at the property and deal with collection by other means. Collect ignored this and called twice. Once I answered the door and the person was extremely aggressive, demanding to discuss the matter with me (which I believe is also against their regulations).

 

I am sure that Mr B could pay the amount of the original ticket - perhaps from deductions from his Pension Credit at an acceptable rate, but this has now been multiplied sixfold by bailiff's charges.

 

The most serious aspect, and I don't feel I am exaggerating here, is that any stress on his doorstep could literally kill him, and I simply cannot believe that these people are allowed to behave in this manner when their National Standards quite clearly state otherwise.

[ploddertom]

Has proof of his vulnerability been sent to both Council & Bailiffs? Don't get me wrong but Councils & Bailiffs hear similar stories every day, proof must be provided - for illness usually a letter from a professional medical person & for Benefits usually proof of an Award Notice. I appreciate time is ticking away tonight but hopefully more direct progress can be made in the morning.

 

Do you know if his local Councillor is easily approachable as that is another avenue to use.

[dettydoo]

Medical documentation was sent in the form of a detailed list of all the medication he takes for heart problems, artery blockages. etc. Obviously a doctor would not prescribe medication if it was not required!

 

I also believe, according to what I have read of the Enforcement Agents' Standards, that to be 'elderly' in itself is enough to be considered vulnerable (I assume a man in his eighties would qualify) (paragraph 77), and they have written proof of his age. They also say the use of discretion is a must in any cases where they may be potential for vulnerability (paragraph 70 and 71).

 

I will await to hear more in the morning, and thanks again!

[Bailiff Advice]

Sorry I have not been around all day. I will respond in detail later this evening.

[ploddertom]

The National Standards are only a guide and not law. Each Council & Enforcement Co are signed up to abide by them but when push comes to shove they pick and choose what they want & regularly come up with "they are only guidelines". Complaining to CIVEA I'm afraid will not produce very much as they are a bit of a "boys club" in that they are funded by their membership.

[Jamberson]

The process for contesting this is the filing of an Out of Time Witness Statement. The success or otherwise of such an application will be the strength of the argument as to why this was not dealt with prior to the bailiffs' warrant being granted.

 

You have touched on this, but without solid details. I understand that he has had medical issues and been in hospital - the question is, could you convince an impartial person that these issues prevented him from paying or appealing the charge? If you could, it is worth a try. If you couldn't, his case will be weaker.

 

You will need to bear in mind that despite his 80 years, he is a driver in control of a vehicle, fit and able to drive a car and therefore in theory (though not necessarily in fact) in sufficient control of his affairs to be able to be able to pay a PCN.

 

If you think he can argue that he was unable to do so because of circumstance, then the Out of Time Witness Statement is the way to go.

[dettydoo]

To confirm the situation immediately after the traffic violation occurred. Mr B was admitted to hospital two days after (he was obviously at that time unaware of the bus lane violation), and was seriously ill for a considerable time, at one point not being expected to survive.

 

By the time he had sufficiently recovered to deal with numerous aspects of letters, etc., the Bailiffs had been instructed.

 

Obviously he is now fit to drive, and if he wasn't would not do so. At times when he was unable or medically required not to drive (such as immediately after his heart bypass), he has not done so.

 

However surely his status as a 'Vulnerable Household' is not dependant on his ability to be in charge of a car. I notice 'Vulnerable Status' also might include the pregnant and those may have English language problems, neither of whom it would be considered as unfit to drive. The Council in question have ignored all medical documentation sent to them. The Bailiffs have also ignored a request for a copy of their complaints procedure.

 

However, my main question was not directly concerning the PCN, but a point of principal and legality as to whether his car, displaying a blue badge, can be removed, after having read that it cannot on a Citizens Advice Bureau page. This is, of course, our immediate concern, as without a car it would render him housebound (he lives halfway up a hill and cannot walk up from the bus stop). Would this not therefore be contrary to the rights of disabled person (only thinking..). I am aware the Police cannot remove the car, unless it is causing a dangerous obstruction, so why should greater powers apply to a bailiff, so it is less a question about parking violation and more about disability rights.

 

Once again, many thanks.

[Jamberson]

I think it's correct that the car can't be removed, but that doesn't absolve him of the debt - it just means the bailiff can't take that particular piece of property. On the assumption that he'd rather get the debt cancelled and done with, then you might be able to pursue the vulnerable status angle, as well as the DDA angle, but I wouldn't do that instead of a witness statement - I'd do it as well as.

 

Complaints generally are not an effective way of dealing with these matters. I would strongly advise an Out of Time Witness Statement be filed, with the same info you posted here concerning the timing of the illness, its severity and so on, and any corroborating evidence that he was in hospital. It's a strong case to take forward, but much better in my view to do so through the proper process. That's what they are there for - exactly situations like this one.

[green_and_mean]

Is that really called for greenand mean? Maybe the OP cannot afford to lend him the money and is just trying to be a good neighbor and help the old gentleman!

 

 

 

They are not really helping the matter they are just postponing the collection of the debt. Trying to raise the funds or negotiating a payment plan would be more helpful than complaining about their behaviour or arguing what they can and cannot seize. They may have regulations to adhere to but at the same time the car owner has a legal responsibility to pay the debt regardless of any complaint the debt remains. If he is that vulnerable and unable to look after his own affairs at 80 years old maybe driving is not such a good idea anyway?

[dettydoo]

"If he is that vulnerable and unable to look after his own affairs at 80 years old maybe driving is not such a good idea anyway?"

 

He is passed fit to drive by his doctors and DVLA - the only ones that matter. If you read the criteria of 'Vulnerable People' you will also see that pregnant women, the unemployed or those who have a poor command of English are included. As I think I stated above, are you claiming they shouldn't drive also?

 

I also understand that a man in the War flew a Spitfire with no legs. A certain Douglas Bader. Perhaps he shouldn't have done that? Disability is no indication of an ability or not to be able to drive.

 

"They are not really helping the matter"

 

I came on this forum to try and find the ruling on a point of law, not to be lectured as to what I should or should not be doing when in fact I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever regarding any debt, raising funds or the management thereof.

 

The gentleman in question was attacked in his own home a while back and as far as I am concerned if I am in some small way trying to prevent a disabled War Veteran suffering distress in the last few years or possibly months of his life, regardless of what he does or does not owe, and that those in positions of power are made to adhere to their own quality standards, my conscience is completely clear.

 

My main reason for 'helping' him on this forum is purely because I have access to the internet. He does not, in common with many senior citizens. As for your suggestion that therefore I should 'lend him the money', judging by your past posts on similar issues you quite clearly have a poorly-disguised agenda with your remarks, so don't propose to respond further to trolling, anymore than I would have done had it been on twitter.

Edited November 6, 2014 by dettydoo

[dettydoo]

Many thanks, soapstone, much appreciated.

 

Just one question, again as a point of argument, what would the situation be if the enforcement agents breached these The Taking Control Of Goods Regulations 2013, i.e. came and took the car even with a disabled badge on it?

[brassnecked]

Many thanks, soapstone, much appreciated.

 

Just one question, again as a point of argument, what would the situation be if the enforcement agents breached these The Taking Control Of Goods Regulations 2013, i.e. came and took the car even with a disabled badge on it?

They would be in a bit of bother, and Collect Services could well feature ib the Sun, Daily Heil, Torygraph etc as heartless B'stards.

 

Yes you with Wylie Coyote as avatar, the debt needs to be paid , but there is a more sensitive way of collecting it in these particular circumstances, surely?

[Jamberson]

Do I assume you're not interested in having him file an Out of Time Witness Statement? It's the correct procedure to follow, but if you don't want to, then I won't keep posting back. That's what you need to do though if you want to get the debt cancelled. You seem to be focusing purely on protecting the car, when you could get the whole debt overturned.

[dettydoo]

I can pass that information on to his relations who were dealing with the paperwork of the debt originally.

 

Just to confirm I never at any point have assumed any responsibility for helping him either pay or get out of his penalty charge notice, I just wanted to clarify whether or not a car with a blue badge could be taken, and I am happy we have now established it cannot.

 

But thanks to everyone who offered assistance.