Newlyns' charges - are these reasonable?

[Oafman]

Hi all, glad to have stumbled across your very helpful forum.

My car was towed yesterday, due to an outstanding PCN which had been passed to Newlyns bailiffs. It was parked outside my house, and towed while I was out at work. This is my first ever experience with bailiffs, and I'm quite shocked by their costs.

I was issued with the PCN by Islington council last summer. I felt it was issued unfairly, so complained online. They emailed me, rejecting my informal complaint, so when I received the Notice to Owner, I made a formal appeal.

I then moved house. I informed Islington of this by email, although admittedly this was in relation to a separate PCN (worth noting that only one PCN has been passed to bailiffs, this other PCN has not got that far yet). Sadly I did not change my address with the DVLA. So the result of my appeal (failed) and subsequent Charge Certificate were sent to my old address, and I didn't receive them. I don't feel I'm on particularly solid ground to complain about this, as I didn't register the change of address with the DVLA, and the new address I gave to Islington Parking was in relation to a separate issue.

So, assuming I'm not in a position to complain about the Council's procedures, having failed to correctly advise them of a change of address, then I have to accept that the debt was passed fairly to the bailiffs.

But here's where I do have some complaints. I asked the bailiff for a precise breakdown of costs, which he gave me verbally. I asked him to confirm this in writing, which he refused to do, saying he "had no headed paper" and it was the responsibility of Newlyns to do this. Their helpdesk had previously told me it was his responsibility. As I was getting nowhere with him, I emailed Newlyns asking for the written breakdown. Does anyone know who has to provide this, the company or the bailiff himself?

The breakdown of the charges is as follows:

Debt (the original PCN) £185.00
1st letter £11.20
HPI £20.00 (bailiff wasn't sure what this is, can anyone help?)
van fee £105.00
clamp fee £120.00
Levy £70.00
Tow fee £180.00
Storage £80.00
VAT £117.24

Grand total £888.44

So, my first question to the bailiff was, why did you clamp it then tow it? Why do both?

His response was that it had been clamped in the morning, and left for 4 hours (to give me chance to call them and pay the debt), then subsequently towed at lunchtime.

But of course, being at work, I had no idea that it had been clamped, so I wasn't able to prevent it from being towed.

Can it be considered reasonable of them to only allow me 4 hours, during the working day, to respond to the clamping, before returning to tow the car away?

They are clearly taking advantage of the system (being able to clamp and then subsequently tow) to pile up the charges. I'm sure they realise that cars clamped in a residential area, in the morning, are unlikely to be seen by their owners within 4 hours, which is why they do it at that time.

Is the law on their side concerning this timeline? Is 4 hours enough clamped time for them to return and tow?

I am now having to take the afternoon off work, to get to the car pound (which closes at 5:30pm!) to pay these charges and get the car back. I don't think I have any option, as the storage costs are £80 per day, but I'm hoping to subsequently make a case that the amount of fees applied were unfair.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks

[Amy]

Re: Newlyns' charges - are these reasonable?

Were you left a Notice of Seizure by the bailiff prior to the car being clamped and removed?

When was the Warrant of Execution issued?

Is your vehicle on finance?

I would send a formal Subject Access Request to Newlyn, since this will give you the charges applied in writing. You can find a link to that here Parking Fine Guide - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[Oafman]

Re: Newlyns' charges - are these reasonable?

Amy, thanks for your reply

I didn't get any notice that this was going to happen (I first thought that the car had been stolen, but the police told me otherwise). As Islington Council and the bailiffs had my old address on record, perhaps they sent a Notice of Seizure there? I assume they can post it?

I don't know when the WoE was issued - I'll find out from the council.

The car is not on finance, I own it. And have just paid the £888 to get it back

I'll send a SAR to Newlyn and get what I can out of them. Many thanks for the advice

[Amy]

Re: Newlyns' charges - are these reasonable?

You're on very strong ground here to get your money back. You will have to fight for it though, they won't give in easily.

From the fees you have posted above, the only correct ones appear to be the actual PCN amount and the letter fee.

If they didn't give you a Form 7 (Notice of Seizure) then the levy is invalid and the removal should never have taken place.

There has been a Detailed Assessment of Marston Bailiffs and DJ Avent comments as follows:-

DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:-

1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods.

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:-

"Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so I cannot see that Form 7 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7".

The District Judge went on to find that the application of the clamp falls within the act of levying distress and does not form part of the removal process, whatever the Bailiff's Contract with Camden says.