Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

[bluebottle]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

Let's see how Jacobs respond to the request to prove their pillock of an employee acted lawfully. That is going to be difficult. Saying you have acted lawfully is one thing, proving it is something completely different.

[starukkiwi]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

Let's see how Jacobs respond to the request to prove their pillock of an employee acted lawfully. That is going to be difficult. Saying you have acted lawfully is one thing, proving it is something completely different.

yes and I am awaiting their reply - funnily enough; the first time I e-mailed them I had a response within the day!

[starukkiwi]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

Update: I have had a response from the Cheif Executive of TMBC - Theresa Grant: dated 8 January
Thank you for your letter dated 28th December 2012
I have forwarded your letter to theh relevant department foor further investigation and have requested that a written response be forwarded to you when complete.
You should receive a written response by 05 February 2013.
If, in the meantime you have any further queries regarding htis matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office on the above number.

So some backpeddling and a WTF moment I hope - this was the first one, I did send the letter with the very good sentence that Bluebottle kindly provided above - I await "The written response" however, it has just occurred to me - this is going to take them THREE neaarly FOUR weeks to investigate! Oh I think another letter quoting "I require that you provide evidence of case and statute law that you had a right in law to attach a wheelclamp to my car, vehicle registration mark [VRM], between [date] and [date] as a means of obtaining money from me, which you have admitted, that the demand for money was lawful and that using the wheelclamp as a means of doing so was a proper and lawful means of enforcing the demand you made." and saying this does not need three/four weeks to answer. (Is Four weeks in fast track disciplinary process though?) Still not had a response from Jacobs though

[starukkiwi]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

REceived replies - I haven't a scanner, so will have to get them scanned - as expected pages of waffle and didn't answer the question. The bailiffs did include two notices of seizures - one dated the 6th September, for a vehicle we have never heard of and one dated the 22nd November for ours (bailiff has signed them although of course we haven'tbecause we have never seen them) - I am going to reply to both and ask the question again. However, it would be useful to get advice on next steps

[ploddertom]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

Have they rescinded the fees for the 1st levy on the vehicle you don't own?

[starukkiwi]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

No, and we didn't know abolut the seizure notices until we got the letter - the bailiffs also say there is nothing specific in the Regulations to allow or not allow clamping. However, they did answer my question in a roundabout way: to quote their letter:
"the process of immobilisation is part of our removals process to secure the seized vehicle whilst pre-removal negotiations take place. You should note that the use of immobilisation devices by Certified bailiffs on seized vehicles is authorised by Regulation 54(4) of the Protection of freedoms Act 2012 "A person who is entitled to remove a vehhicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle""

[CleverClogs]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

Makes you wonder whether they have been reading this?

I sincerely hope they are, partly because the OP has a written statement from those ba:censored:rd bailiffs to the effect that they would charge 2% to pay by credit card.

Such a fee is not permitted under the regulations.

Whoops!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

However, they did answer my question in a roundabout way: to quote their letter:
"the process of immobilisation is part of our removals process to secure the seized vehicle whilst pre-removal negotiations take place. You should note that the use of immobilisation devices by Certified bailiffs on seized vehicles is authorised by Regulation 54(4) of the Protection of freedoms Act 2012 "A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle""

Which is obviously flim-flam, not least of which because 54(4) - link - is a section and sub-section of a statute rather than a regulation.

As they have the keys to the jalopy, can you not remove all possessions from it and then, by means of a trolley jack or two, move it so that it blocks a road?

Jacobs can then be called upon to shift it.

[starukkiwi]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

Which is obviously flim-flam, not least of which because 54(4) - link - is a section and sub-section of a statute rather than a regulation.

As they have the keys to the jalopy, can you not remove all possessions from it and then, by means of a trolley jack or two, move it so that it blocks a road?

Jacobs can then be called upon to shift it.

Ah that's interesting - no; the vehicle was UN-clamped on the 28th November and the key Finally returned on the 30th November - so we were without the vehicle for 7 days - my question is if this is a statute can we still get them on illegal clamping of a vehicle for non-payment of council tax?

[erathaf]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

Hi

There are so many people being taken to court for late instalment payment of Council Tax. I have started an e-petition to get the Government to look at this unfair practice. For example, my local authority, Basildon Council raised £402,705 just this financial year and it is not even over yet. Here is their response to the question I asked from Freedom of Information (FOI) regarding extra revenue raised from summonses:

How much extra revenue has been raised as a result of summonses being issued for non-payment of Council Tax?
How much extra revenue has been raised as a result of summonses for late payment of Council Tax?


Costs of £45 are charged for each summons that is issued. However, so far this financial year we have withdrawn 996 cases prior to the court hearing. These 996 cases will not be charged the £45 costs. Therefore the net costs raised are £402,705. However, not all of those costs will be recovered.

That is a huge amount of money, costing further financial hardship to many families.

When asked:
How many summonses have been issued this financial year for non-payment of council tax?


How many summonses have been issued this financial year for late payment of council tax?


The regulations do not distinguish between customers who have paid some of their Council Tax and those that have paid none. We have issued 9945 summonses in total since 1 April 2012.


Please click on the link below and sign the e-petition to stop this unfair practice.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43663

Many thanks and lets hope we can make a change.

Erathaf

[CleverClogs]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

One should also ask how much "commission" the ba:censored:rd bailiffs pay the council. See the attached file.

[starukkiwi]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

next steps - Formal complaint to the CEO with a threat to go to the Local Government Onbudsman

[CleverClogs]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

next steps - Formal complaint to the CEO with a threat to go to the Local Government Onbudsman

I believe that the usual course of events is to write to the Head of Revenues who may wish, unknowingly, to drop himself in the ordure - then escalate it to the CEO and finally the LGO.

I expect that someone may be along presently who has done this.

[starukkiwi]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

I believe that the usual course of events is to write to the Head of Revenues who may wish, unknowingly, to drop himself in the ordure - then escalate it to the CEO and finally the LGO.

I expect that someone may be along presently who has done this.

and that is the point we are at - we complained to the Head of Revenues who said that the Bailiff had acted lawfully, so we wrote to the CEO then and have had two replied, which drops them further in it - so next step Formal Complaint

[starukkiwi]

Re: Jacobs Bailiffs - clamped vehicle but will not take possesion of it

Hi Everyone - nexxt stage of said saga
I wrote my letter of fromal complaint and got the normal - you will recive a reply by the 5th March. They had put two attachment of earnings on my wage totalling 25% of salary and so i phoned them on TUesday to ask them that our financial ituation had changed but they said they had not recieved it and therefore as I was on annual leave, I would call in with amended Income & Expenditure form. They said the only letter they haad was the formal complaint but that the reply had been sent out on the 20th February - it being the 26th I said I would collect a copy that day.
I did do so, collecting the letter written by the Head of Revenues on the 20th February. I then spoke on the phone at the front desk to the Court Officer for The Council (to the amusement of the 2 ladies working on the desk). I left the conversation saying I was extremely worried and concerned that he didn't understand the Regulations, did not understand what "Enforcement Offcers" can and cannot do and had no knowledge of any case law relating to the regulation.
Anyway, you can imagine my surprise when a letter dated 26th February landed on the doormat today from the Chief Executive in reply to my official complaint = word for word from the letter dated the 20th February (A copy and paste job).

I will add the full letter tomorrow when I can get the letter scanned but salient points are below

They say because they took the liability back and that Jacobs cancelled their fees there is no reason to complain anymore and this is where they do not UNDERSTAND - I told the OFficer that all ihad ever wanted was for them to admit what had happened was wrong and the steps put in place to prevent it happening again to someone far more vulnerable then us. They seem to believe that by withdrawing the bailiff in question and that Jacobs "they did answer your question regarding the legality of clamping your vehicle along with a full explanantion of why the fees were applied" So not answered my question.

"The seizure notices are completed and signed by the bailiff when he seizes goods. They do not need to be signed by you. At the time of the seizure there is an optional walking possession agreement the bailiff may offer you if he decides to leave goods on the premises. JAcobs did not offer you a walking possession agreement on the seizures so there was no need for it to be signed" (THe vehicle in question is one we have never heard of)

"As you are aware Jacobs have now returned your case to the Council so taht receovery can be made via attachment on Mrs XXXXX earnings. They have confirmed no further action will be taken by them to to recover any outstanding costs and they consider the metter closed"

Now I am interested to know how the Chief Executive investigated this when she has copied and pasted the letter from the Head of Revenues and if there is any point in a second formal complaint, bearing in mind the lack of understanding re the regs etc or whether I just go straight to the LGO, via my local councillor (who also happend to be the leader of the council)?
Thoughts and advice welcome