Really need your advice re: JBW

[mlc]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

Hi, i submitted an OOT as i never received the original fine, and still to this day i havent a clue, what OR where it happened, because the council sent it to the bailiffs and i was totally unaware until they turned up on my door i wanted the appeal to revert it back to original fine and fee as never received,but as you can see it got REFUSED!! :-(

[ploddertom]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

One thing of note that I have heard of before and that is some Councils have allowed JBW to deal with OOT's. Was he able to furnish you with the warrant when he came or where you could see it, again there is history about how Warrants are produced.

In the meantime you may have touched a raw nerve at the Council and might be best to see what if anything they come up with. It's really extraordinary how many "administrative errors" come up these days.

[bluebottle]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

It sounds like someone at Waltham Forest Council is playing silly buggers in a way that is, sooner or later, going to land the council with litigation if they don't identify who it is and show them the door and the location of the nearest Jobcentre Plus office. The threats made by JBW Group in your particular circumstances are totally unwarranted and, in my considered judgement, border on criminal behaviour. You would be well-advised, once this is sorted, to make a formal complaint against JBW Group to your local Trading Standards Department and OFT Credit Fitness Team. JBW Group hold a Category F Debt Collection Licence and the loss of this would be disastrous for them. They would be unable to collect any public debt - Most contracts for public debt enforcement require the contractor to hold a Category F Licence - and any consumer debt they collect in addition to public debt. They would go out of business. Whilst it may sound vindictive to report a bailiff company to OFT and TS, please remember that what JBW Group has done is contrary to the law of the land and that they could do this to someone else who may not be as savvy as yourself.

[mlc]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

@ PLODDERTOM........ He showed me a warrant, not that i could make heads of tail of it, on he's phone as a PDF, I askd to see the hard copy and he said they dont have them and that the warrant on he's phone is all he needed, it was at this point i told him to sod off!!!

@BLUEBOTTLE...... At what part in your considered judgement is it bordering criminal behaviour from JBW???

Its so concerning the way these people conduct themselves out there and makes me wonder how many people have paid up and shouldt of :-( I know how much it has dragged me down and effecting my health buti can sleep tonight knowing my car at least will still be there in the morning

I really do appreciate all your advice, THANK YOU X

[ploddertom]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

@ PLODDERTOM........ He showed me a warrant, not that i could make heads of tail of it, on he's phone as a PDF, I askd to see the hard copy and he said they dont have them and that the warrant on he's phone is all he needed, it was at this point i told him to sod off!!!

Now as far as I am aware he does have to show this in hard copy & as far as I know it must have been produced by the Council and not sent via PDF file for them to use.

Remember Rule No 1 when dealing with Bailiffs

They Lie

[k10]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

There was a ruling by District Judge Holman in June 2011 in the Bolton County Court concerning whether or not a warrant has to be shown by the bailiff to the debtor on demand, and the answer is no. You don't mention how old the fine is. If it's over 12 months old the warrant becomes void and it has to go back to the council to be re-issued.

So far as fees are concerned, the bailiff is within his rights to charge a £40 trace fee should you have moved from the address on the warrant and have failed to notify the council that you have moved. Council Tax and Electoral Role are NOT allowed to disclose your whereabouts for PCN purposes. The civil enforcement agency has therefore got to trace you to execute the warrant. The bailiff will then visit the registered owner's address of the vehicle.

So far as his breakdown of fees are concerned all bailiff fees associated with the execution of PCN warrants can be found in The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 [SI 1993/2007] AND the Distress for Rent Rules will be followed when levying distress for PCNS. As you weren't given walking possession he can't charge you a walker of 45p a day. The removal fee of £200+ falls within the 'reasonable fees' header.

[Guest]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

The Bolton case about paper warrants and production on demand case is not High Court.

What regulation allows £40 to be charged for a trace fee?

Local Authorities use Experian Citizen View to get a debtors current address and it is a subscription service.

I doubt the £200 removal fee will pass the 'reasonable' test ina Form 4 complaint hearing, because the car wasn't moved and in any event, its his mums car.

[k10]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

PCNs are dealt with through Northampton County Court. I did not mention High Court. The majority of Bailiffs don't use Experian to trace. The £200 'van call fee' is classed as 'reasonable' for the sake of removing a vehicle and if challenged, will in all likelihood stand. Most Civil Enforcement Agencies charge anywhere from £150-250 for one removal and these are considered justified and reasonable when you take into account the cost involved in removing goods whether we are talking about attending with a view to removing inside a property or vehicles on a driveway. It still involves manpower, paperwork, time and vehicles to remove those goods. In the case of vehicles it is common for recovery vehicles to be employed to remove them.

So far as the vehicle belonging to the respondent's mother, for the purposes of defining registered keeper/legal owner, the expression is defined by the Traffic Management Act 2004, Section 92 states "Owner" in relation to a vehicle which means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c.22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.

[Guest]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

You are not a lawyer then

There was a ruling by District Judge Holman in June 2011 in the Bolton County Court

There was a ruling by District Judge Holman in June 2011 in the Bolton County Court

The "ruling" you mentioned is county court, and judge's ruling are made in a Hgh Court. If you are using the Bolton case in legal argument, it can only be quoted as a judges opinion.

The £200 'van call fee' is classed as 'reasonable' for the sake of removing a vehicle and if challenged

If you read the original post, any reasonable fee for moving a vehicle in this case would not survive the challenge because the vehicle did not belong to the debtor.

is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered

Sorry, but that is not right.

You might be thinking of Obverver Ltd vs. Gordon 1983 where it is the debtors responsibility to prove ownership of goods being levied.

That rule does not apply to motor vehicles. The Local Government Ombudsman on 10 July 2012 in a report into complaint no 11 007 684 against Blaby District Council, in paragraph 8 of the introduction said it "considers it reasonable for the BAILIFF to check ownership with the DVLA"

Here is the LGO report: http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?...lAHwAfAAwAHwA0

In any event, it would be foolish for a bailiff to levy on another persons vehicle. Yhe bailiff and the authority he acts for, becomes jointly liable to replace the car for the owner on a like for like basis, or a new car if a like for like is not immediately available, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

[mlc]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

Hi,,,,,

The car is registered to me not my mum, i use my car mainly to travel to and from her home and appts for her care as she is disabled, i haven't moved so no trace fee was needed, and the fine is 6 months old, But i'm expected to pay a fine i still have no knowledge of where it was and exactly when or photographic evidence.

What i would like to know is, if it goes back to the bailiff what is the worst they can do if they cant find my car and cant gain access into my house as i leave no windows open and i dont open the door????

KR
Michelle

[Guest]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

The straight answer is nothing.

The bailiff will eventually return the case back to Council unpaid no goods. Sometimes called Nulla Bona.

[mlc]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

Ok thank you and what will the council do then??

[Guest]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

Nothing.

The regulations do not provide for any further enforcement measures to be taken.

[Guest]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

You are not a lawyer then





The "ruling" you mentioned is county court, and judge's ruling are made in a Hgh Court. If you are using the Bolton case in legal argument, it can only be quoted as a judges opinion.



I have challenged countless 'reasonable' fees and I win every time when drafting claims on .

If you read the original post, any reasonable fee for moving a vehicle in this case would not survive the challenge because the vehicle did not belong to the debtor.



Sorry, but that is not right.

You might be thinking of Obverver Ltd vs. Gordon 1983 where it is the debtors responsibility to prove ownership of goods being levied.

That rule does not apply to motor vehicles. The Local Government Ombudsman on 10 July 2012 in a report into complaint no 11 007 684 against Blaby District Council, in paragraph 8 of the introduction said it "considers it reasonable for the BAILIFF to check ownership with the DVLA"

Here is the LGO report: http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?...lAHwAfAAwAHwA0

In any event, it would be foolish for a bailiff to levy on another persons vehicle. Yhe bailiff and the authority he acts for, becomes jointly liable to replace the car for the owner on a like for like basis, or a new car if a like for like is not immediately available, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

I think it would be a judgment wouldn't it, although not precedent setting, nevertheless persuasive.

Regarding the vehicle, you quote case law which states that the burden is on the debtor to prove ownership, the you counter it by quoting guidelines that offers an opinion that bailiffs should check ownership, do you see the problem there.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: Really need your advice re: JBW

@ PLODDERTOM........ He showed me a warrant, not that i could make heads of tail of it, on he's phone as a PDF, I askd to see the hard copy and he said they dont have them and that the warrant on he's phone is all he needed, it was at this point i told him to sod off!!!

@BLUEBOTTLE...... At what part in your considered judgement is it bordering criminal behaviour from JBW???

Its so concerning the way these people conduct themselves out there and makes me wonder how many people have paid up and shouldt of :-( I know how much it has dragged me down and effecting my health buti can sleep tonight knowing my car at least will still be there in the morning

I really do appreciate all your advice, THANK YOU X

Happy to answer that question, mlc.

When collecting or enforcing a debt, the person or persons involved in the collection or enforcement of the debt may use threats, PROVIDED they have a right in law to make such threats AND that the use of the threats is a proper means of enforcing the debt.

In your case, there are doubts as to the legality of the debt and the fees JBW Group are trying to charge do not comply with the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993-2003. Under these circumstances, I have serious doubts as to whether the use of threats is lawful as the onus is on JBW Group to prove they have a right in law to use threats as a means of attempting to enforce a debt of questionable legality. Also, I have serious doubts as to whether JBW Group can prove the use of threats is a proper means of enforcing a debt that is looking increasingly unsafe in its legality.

What Ploddertom and Happy Contrails have said about the PDF warrant on the bailiff's mobile phone is correct. It has to be in hard copy form and I know of no legislation that allows a warrant to be carried around in electronic form. Even the police have to print off hard copies of arrest and search warrants emailed to them by court Warrant Offices. In the case of search warrants, a copy has to be handed to the person whose property is to be searched and in the case of an arrest warrant, in certain circumstances, the warrant has to be read out to the person named on the warrant at the time of their arrest.