Notice of enforcement

[Leakie]

If the EA company is charging £75 just for sending a letter,

why can they not sent the notice registered post,

and have proof when this was received, rather than assuming, the debtor has received it ?

[ploddertom]

There are quite a number of folks who won't accept any form of signed for delivery. Better just to have a proof of postage, even for bulk postings this is possible where they are all entered & the Post Office will stamp the document as being received.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

They are not charging £75 "just" to send a letter.

There is a lot of admin work along with the cost of the servers, storage, overheads etc that need to be paid too.

And like ploddertom has quite rightly said, most debtors would refuse to sign for the letter so causes more of an issue.

[Leakie]

Thanks for the replies.

It just made sense to me, if this was done then there could be no dispute,

 

It just seems to be a bit one sided against the debtor when mistakes are made,

As a lot of posters know there as some companies do not follow the rules ,

and seem to get away with it !

Grumpy I do understand there is a lot of work done beforehand

just seems to be a bit one sided.

[Bailiff Advice]

If the EA company is charging £75 just for sending a letter, why can they not sent the notice registered post,

and have proof when this was received, rather than assuming, the debtor has received it ?

 

Firstly there is a significant cost element. The postal rate is very expensive and there is a significant administrative cost as well.

 

However, that aside, the major stumbling block is that with members of the public who are employed, they will usually have left home before the postal delivery and accordingly, the item of registered mail will be left at the local post office for collection. In most cases, the individual will be unable to make a personal visit until the weekend and will no doubt discover that the 'compliance stage' had expired.

[Leakie]

Thanks once again BA

 

My problem with this is, if it was not sent, or sent to the wrong address,

and we know this can happen,

the debtor would not have been able to seek an agreement.(which I thought was the idea behind the regs)

then is hit with another charge(£235)

The debtor can not prove that they had not received the original correspondence.

I agree it could have complications, (Registered post) but at least it could be used to take in to account,

of when the debtor knew about enforcement.

[Peterbard]

As far as the law is concerned the bailiff only have to show that a letter has been sent, it is assumed that it will be delivered to the correct address unless the debtor can prove to the contrary, on the bop.

[Bailiff Advice]

Thanks once again BA

 

My problem with this is, if it was not sent, or sent to the wrong address, and we know this can happen, the debtor would not have been able to seek an agreement.(which I thought was the idea behind the regs) then is hit with another charge(£235)

 

The debtor can not prove that they had not received the original correspondence.

 

I agree it could have complications, (Registered post) but at least it could be used to take in to account, of when the debtor knew about enforcement.

 

The regulations are as they are, and are not likely to be changed anytime soon but, that is not to say that I do not share your concerns about wrongly delivered correspondence, because I do.

 

However, debtors must also take a proportion of the blame and in particular, with parking related debts and speedings offences. The importance of updating DVLA records in a timely manner cannot be underestimated.

[Leakie]

Thanks BA

This is what I am trying to bring to light.

 

You can not prove some thing that has not happened.

it should be down too the EA company too prove it was sent.

It may cut there profit. but at the moment they just add the extra £235.

so have not lost, unless they do not enforce.

 

DB

 

I do not care if this is the law,

some times the people who make the law have an agenda,

I did respect your opinion, but your attitude stinks,

Sorry to be so blunt , but may be the reason not so many OP's is because of attitudes like yours

 

Chill pill DB

[mikeymack2002]

The EA's office should really send the letter RD as proof is then there for all to see, as previously stated it is possible a wrong address may be written/typed or the postman delivers it wrong which could be often as in my mail...

[Bailiff Advice]

Leakie,

 

Even though this is a discussion thread, can we please stop this silly bickering.

[Peterbard]

Seems to have his knickers in a wist about something. The law is important in as much as it described how the bailiff can behave i would have thought ?

Anyway, I am perfectly chilled.

[Leakie]

No Problem

It is not me who is being condescending, to posters

 

I am open to opinion others are not

 

May be you should have directed your comment to the other poster not just to my self!!!!!

[Peterbard]

The EA's office should really send the letter RD as proof is then there for all to see, as previously stated it is possible a wrong address may be written/typed or the postman delivers it wrong which could be often as in my mail...

 

Thing is MM that as per the legislation and the court case which i cant remember the name of. The bailiff does not have to prove the letter was dlivered , it is for the debtor to show that it was not.

[mikeymack2002]

I have read that too, But if the EA's spend just a few pennies on proper postage then this matter would dry up overnight. In that case it was decided that the poster had to prove the correct name and all details were correct in the 1st place. I too read this and is in my legal files somewhere on my system. If I can find it I will post a link or the hand down once/if found

[Peterbard]

Yes that's the one , but that is easily proven just by showing the procedure which is used and with a few witness statements. It does not have to be proof positive of course. I have the case.

[mikeymack2002]

Another argument is can the poster of the letter provide definite proof as to the contents of the said envelope? This is another area that can be contested.... Unless the poster of the letter has an authorised Notary witness and sign to that effect that the contents were actually what is claimed to have been sent.. Also that the said letter was handed to the postman? Then after that there is the issue of where the said letter goes and handled by whom! (chain of evidence so to speak) but it is given that the poster is honest and of good character and would not deceive the recipient)).

 

 

Once sight of the letter is lost there can not be a guarantee the letter did not end up at someone else's address due to negligence of the postman as this often happens.

 

 

Further case law is available on this topic and of interest...

 

 

Finally I have as well as others that have had correctly addressed letters go to the wrong address as BN has also stated...

 

 

My argument is in the details and not assumptions that something has been done correctly at ALL stages.. A mere observation....

[ploddertom]

As said all the way back in Post 2 - they only need a Certificate of Posting. Much easier dealt with & free.

 

https://business.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/826

[Leakie]

Thank you MM2002

you have put my point in a more knowledgeable way.

It should not be down to the Debtor to prove something that can always be proved

[Leakie]

Good point PT

[mikeymack2002]

Suffice to say a TV program called 'Roadwars' where in this episode Police Officers on a s23 Warrant used the big red key to gain entry to a flat only to find that they were one whole block of flats out. The residents were shocked and the Police embarrassed because THEY got it wrong as all these blocks were identical.

 

 

Just adding comments here and factually of course. Mistakes happen and therefore miss-delivered mail is a constant issue is it not. See here for here for the embarrassing issues regarding the Royal Mail and incorrectly delivered mail. Including their response to this complaint... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008073/Royal-Mail-sends-post-wrong-address-six-months.html

 

 

'Customer 'trying to see the funny side' after Royal Mail sends his post to the wrong address for six months – including their own letters of apology

 

• Philip Ewington, 62, said his post had been regularly sent to wrong home
  
• He said packages and letters were sent to another flat on the same road
  
• Problem continued for six months and he complained to Royal Mail
  
• But Royal Mail then sent their own letters of apology to wrong address'
  

[Bailiff Advice]

Thing is MM that as per the legislation and the court case which i cant remember the name of. The bailiff does not have to prove the letter was dlivered , it is for the debtor to show that it was not.

 

in fact, earlier today I starting drafting a new thread on this very important subject (which I should be able to get posted in the morning). The appeal case has made significant changes to the the 'interpretation' of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act.

[mikeymack2002]

As said all the way back in Post 2 - they only need a Certificate of Posting. Much easier dealt with & free.

 

https://business.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/826

 

 

This is true, but, sorry for the but, its down to the person that finally delivers the letter if they have it to deliver. Proof of postage means it was accepted by the Royal Mail but does not mean it has been delivered. Please see my other argument on this matter...

[mikeymack2002]

An argument to s7 is if the letter was sent recorded it is only held at the sorting office for a period of time before being redirected to the sender. Once again this opens a new can of worms does it not? The person due to receive the letter could be away on business or out of the country during the holding time, the letter is then returned and could still get lost.

 

 

Secondly not all postal delivery workers complete the signed for card correctly and or do not complete it at all. They could just post the letter regardless. I've even had this myself.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

The defining point is that if you carry out an audit on the EA's company, you will find a process in place to record the sending of letters, and also, upon delving into cases, you will see numerous responses to noe's thus proving they are actually sent. The companies not sending them will, and indeed are, being uncovered and dealt with quickly.

Recorded will never work as debtors will not sign for it.

All you will do by pushing this subject harder, will be to force the EA's to hand deliver this notice to the address which will undoubtedly double the current compliance stage fee. Government, cab, other charities and the bailiff companies themselves have agreed during consultation that the mere sending, via standard mail, is sufficient.