Tweet
JBW Group loses court battle - 18/11/2009
JBW Group has lost a High Court battle with Westminster City Council over fees it claimed it was owed for action on parking fine warrants.
The legal dispute between the two focuses mainly around 9,400 warrants, on which no full recovery had been made, which had been delivered by the council to JBW Group for execution.
But by the time the contract between the two parties ended, fees totalling just over £1.8m were chargeable for action taken by JBW towards the execution of those warrants. The certified bailiff firm therefore launched the legal claim to claw back some of those fees.
When the contract had finished the council asked for the warrants to be handed back, but JBW Group argued that 24 per cent of those fees would have been recovered, a proportion equivalent to £455,044. After the contracts ended, the council gave the warrants to Phillips Collection Services who were instructed to start afresh, ignoring any steps taken by JBW.
Court papers state that nothing was therefore done to collect the fees which JBW would otherwise have been able to collect, had the contract not ended.
The papers also state that this is in the context of JBW receiving 19,881 warrants for execution during the period of the contract, which attracted fees of £5.3m, of which £598,654 was recovered. During court proceedings the judge Mr Justice Jack was told that the average time for JBW to get a payment under a warrant was 156 days.
But the council’s legal representative, Peter Susman QC, argued that the contract provided that when the contract ended, JBW had no further duties or rights in respect of warrants "under which full collection had no been made."
Mr Justice Jack was told that if fees had not been collected,"that was the end of it."
The contract also provided that where direct payment was made to the council, the council took no responsibility for fees owed to JBW.
In summary, Mr Justice Jack said: "Once the contract has come to an end, JBW no longer has a right to collect its fees and the contract provides no express mechanism for them to be provided to JBW in any circumstances."
While Mr Justice Jack acknowledged that if the council did accept fees due to JBW, it would have been accountable, he concluded that the termination of the contract had not resulted in any liability of the council in relation to the warrants delivered back by JBW.
JBW Group has lost a High Court battle with Westminster City Council over fees it claimed it was owed for action on parking fine warrants.
The legal dispute between the two focuses mainly around 9,400 warrants, on which no full recovery had been made, which had been delivered by the council to JBW Group for execution.
But by the time the contract between the two parties ended, fees totalling just over £1.8m were chargeable for action taken by JBW towards the execution of those warrants. The certified bailiff firm therefore launched the legal claim to claw back some of those fees.
When the contract had finished the council asked for the warrants to be handed back, but JBW Group argued that 24 per cent of those fees would have been recovered, a proportion equivalent to £455,044. After the contracts ended, the council gave the warrants to Phillips Collection Services who were instructed to start afresh, ignoring any steps taken by JBW.
Court papers state that nothing was therefore done to collect the fees which JBW would otherwise have been able to collect, had the contract not ended.
The papers also state that this is in the context of JBW receiving 19,881 warrants for execution during the period of the contract, which attracted fees of £5.3m, of which £598,654 was recovered. During court proceedings the judge Mr Justice Jack was told that the average time for JBW to get a payment under a warrant was 156 days.
But the council’s legal representative, Peter Susman QC, argued that the contract provided that when the contract ended, JBW had no further duties or rights in respect of warrants "under which full collection had no been made."
Mr Justice Jack was told that if fees had not been collected,"that was the end of it."
The contract also provided that where direct payment was made to the council, the council took no responsibility for fees owed to JBW.
In summary, Mr Justice Jack said: "Once the contract has come to an end, JBW no longer has a right to collect its fees and the contract provides no express mechanism for them to be provided to JBW in any circumstances."
While Mr Justice Jack acknowledged that if the council did accept fees due to JBW, it would have been accountable, he concluded that the termination of the contract had not resulted in any liability of the council in relation to the warrants delivered back by JBW.
