Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A full-scale strike at the firm could have an impact on the global supply chains of electronics.View the full article
    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Bailiff enforcement: A Simple Guide to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3158 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

In April 2014, significant changes were made to the way in which bailiffs can enforce debts. Most importantly, the fees that can be charged are fixed and transparent. The following page is an overview of the new regulations.

 

Terminology

 

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 modernise terminology. The terms levy, distress or distrain are now known as the process of ‘taking control of goods’. A walking possession agreement is now called a Controlled Goods Agreement and bailiffs are now known as enforcement agents (although they can still be referred to as bailiffs).

 

Warrants of execution (in particular for road traffic debts) and warrants of distress (for Magistrate Court fines) have been renamed warrants of control. With debts enforced via the High Court, the centuries old term of a writ of fieri facias (writ of fi fa) has been renamed a writ of control.

 

 

Enforcement Agent Fees

 

The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 also came into effect in April 2014 and with the exception of ‘writs of control’ (enforced via the High Court), the following fees apply to all debt types (council tax and non domestic rate arrears, local authority issued penalty charge notices, magistrate court fines, child support agency arrears and rent arrears).

 

Compliance Stage Fee: £75

 

Upon receipt of an instruction from the client, the enforcement company must send a Notice of Enforcement to the debtor. The notice must provide the date of the notice and the date and time by which full payment or a payment arrangement must be set up. This strict period of time is referred to as the ‘compliance stage' and must by law provide a minimum period of seven ‘clear days’ before an enforcement agent may visit the property. The compliance fee of £75 is payable for each Liability Order or Warrant of Control.

 

Enforcement Stage fee: £235.00
(plus 7.5% of the value of the debt that exceeds £1,500.00).

 

If full payment or a payment arrangement is not made during the Compliance Stage (or a previous payment arrangement is broken), the case will progress to the ‘enforcement stage’ and an individual enforcement agent/bailiff will attend the property for the purpose of ‘taking control' of goods. This fee becomes payable at the time of attendance.

 

If the enforcement agent is enforcing more than one Liability Order or Warrant of Control against the same person, he may only charge one enforcement fee (of £235). He cannot apply ‘multiple’ charges.

 

Sale stage Fee: £110.00
(plus 7.5% of the value of the debt that exceeds £1,500.00).

 

This fee shall be charged when an Enforcement Agent attends the premises to remove goods and makes preparations for the sale of goods. It is important to note that additional charges may also be applied relating to the removal. These include storage and locksmith’s fees.

 

 

Forms and Documentation

 

The new regulations provide a series of statutory forms that must be used by the enforcement agent. Full details of all forms and the information that must be provided on them can be viewed here.

 

 

Making a payment proposal

 

The legislation provides a strict period in which to make payment or to negotiate a payment arrangement without the need for a bailiff attendance. This is referred to as the ‘Compliance Stage’ and begins with receipt of the Notice of Enforcement. If full payment cannot be made within the strict time period outlined in the notice, (a minimum of seven ‘clear days’) then it is vitally important to contact the enforcement company to make a payment arrangement. Most companies will readily agree to accept an arrangement over a period of 3 months (and possibly even 6 months) depending on the individual circumstances.

 

Providing the enforcement company with a simple Income and Expenditure calculation at this stage may be of assistance.

 

Failure to make payment (or to agree a payment arrangement) during the compliance stage will lead to a bailiff making a personal visit to ‘take control’ of goods. This visit will incur an enforcement fee of £235 as outlined above.

 

 

Vulnerable debtors

 

Far better protection is given to vulnerable debtors under the regulations. One example being that a vehicle displaying a disabled badge is now exempt from being taken by a bailiff.

 

Secondly, and most importantly, Regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 makes provision to protect vulnerable debtors who may have been unable in the early stages to seek advice (from the local authority, magistrates court, debt counsellor/debt charity etc) about the debt. If a bailiff makes a personal visit (which incurs an enforcement fee of £235) and identifies a debtor as ‘vulnerable’, then Regulation 12 provides that he should give the person a chance to seek advice prior to removal of goods. If he fails to do so, the enforcement fee of £235 is not recoverable.

 

An enforcement agent will not know in advance whether a person is ‘vulnerable’. It is therefore vitally important to make the enforcement company aware of any ‘vulnerability’ at the earliest possible stage (during the compliance stage) and where possible, to provide some form of documentary evidence.

 

 

Times of day when a Bailiff/ Enforcement Agent may visit

 

The enforcement agent/bailiff is allowed to visit the property seven days a week (including Sunday) between 6.00 a.m. and 9.00 p.m. He is not allowed to visit on Bank Holidays and Christmas Day

 

 

Items that are exempt from being taken by a bailiff

 

As outlined above, if full payment or a payment arrangement is not set up during the ‘compliance stage’, the account will progress to the ‘enforcement stage’ and a personal visit will be made to ‘take control’ of goods (hence the name of the regulations). In reality, the enforcement agent will be seeking full payment of the debt. If this is not possible, then he may ‘take control’ of none exempt goods. The regulations provide a list of exempt items that cannot be taken into control by the bailiff. The following are the most important:

 

Items or equipment (for example, tools, books, telephones, computer equipment and vehicles) which are necessary for use personally by the debtor in the debtor’s employment, business, trade, profession, study or education, except that in any case the aggregate value of the items or equipment to which this exemption is applied shall not exceed £1,350;

 

Clothes, beds, bedding, furniture, household equipment, items and provisions as are reasonably required to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the debtor and every member of the debtor’s household.

 

Cooker or microwave, fridge, washing machine, dining table and dining chairs to seat the debtor and every member of the debtor’s household.

 

Land line telephone, or a mobile phone.

 

Domestic pets and guide dogs.

 

A full list of items that are exempt from being taken into control by a bailiff can be viewed here.

 

NOTE:

 

Motor vehicles are the most common item to be taken by bailiffs. A separate post is provided below on this subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a Bailiff take my car?

 

A motor vehicle has always been a most attractive item for a bailiff/enforcement agent to seize and in particular; because of its value and the fact that in many cases, the vehicle in located on the debtors driveway thereby easing the removal process.

 

In 2014 significant changes were made to bailiff enforcement under the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 but unfortunately with motor vehicles, the regulations may result in reduced protection for many people and in particular, business debtors.

 

 

What do the regulations say about a vehicle being exempt?

 

Regulation 4(1)(a) of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 provide that the following 'goods of the debtor' are considered to be 'exempt':

 

 

Items or equipment (for example, tools, books, telephones, computer equipment.....and vehicles.....which
are necessary
.....for
use personally
by the debtor.....
in the debtor’s employment
, business, trade, profession, study or education,.....except that in any case the aggregate value of the items or equipment to which this exemption is applied shall
not exceed £1,350
;

 

 

 

What is meant by ‘necessary’ (for use personally by the debtor)?

 

The starting point will be whether the debtor’s trade (or employment) could continue without the particular vehicle that has been taken into control. In other words; is the future of the business (or employment) vital to that particular vehicle or could the business (or employment) continue to trade with a cheaper model? No two cases are alike.

 

 

What is meant by ‘for use personally’ (by the debtor)?

 

For example, if at any time during the course of business, an employee, or anyone else can be shown to have the use of the vehicle then the vehicle will not be ‘exempt’ from being taken. In most cases it is common to hear of bailiff companies requesting a copy of the insurance policy. The reason for this is usually to see whether any ‘additional’ drivers are included under the policy.

 

 

How is the value of £1,350 calculated?

 

The financial ‘cap’ of £1,350 is considered very low indeed and whilst this low figure may provide a level of security for students (ie, for ‘study and education’) the same cannot be said for sole traders and companies whose vehicles are likely to be worth much more than £1,350.

 

It is generally considered that the amount of £1,350 is likely to be calculated as being ‘auction’ value which should not be confused with ‘second hand value’. However, this point has not been made clear in the regulations.

 

 

I need my car to get to work. Is it ‘exempt’?

 

Most unlikely. The wording of the regulations provide that a vehicle under the value of £1,350 will be considered exempt if it is used by the debtor 'in the course of his employment'. This does not mean that a vehicle used for the purpose of getting to and from work will be considered exempt.

 

 

Can I sell or transfer my car to avoid it being taken by a bailiff?

 

If the vehicle is sold or transferred around the time of the Notice of Enforcement, then the vehicle is likely to be the subject of legal challenge given that goods belonging to the debtor become 'bound' under the warrant. The new purchaser would be required to make an application under Part 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules and provide evidence that the sale had been in 'good faith' and for 'valuable consideration' (i.e: had paid the proper market price for the car).

 

 

My car should not have been taken by a bailiff. What can I do?

 

A significant change that has been made to the regulations is the right to ‘appeal’ (object) if goods ( in particular motor vehicles) have been taken by the bailiff which are considered by the debtor to be ‘exempt’. This simple, speedy and most importantly, free procedure is outlined under Section 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Legal action should be avoided.

 

NOTE:

 

If viewers are concerned that a vehicle may be at risk of being taken or has already been taken by a bailiff, then please ask a question on the forum. We are all here to provide help and assistance.

 

 

A Simple Guide to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations.pdf

 

Before Printing the PDF TIP

 

If you DO NOT wish to print Page 1 (Cover Page) of the PDF, please ensure to do the following:

 

Ensure you go to your Printer Settings and set it to 'Print from Page 2' (this way Page 1 (Cover Page) should not print out).

 

Note: This will save you Ink & Paper

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3158 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...