Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

[bizzybob]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

Be very very careful, JBW will look around your home area, to seek out your car.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

Time to swap the number plates? :whistle:

[bluebottle]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

That is really no more than common sense, a facility which those buggers plainly lack. How can they claim to have levied on goods that might not be found in the house?

An absence of any cerebral cortex wouldn't surprise me either. It is not just a matter of commonsense that a document is completed on the material date and at the material time. Any document completed in advance or subsequently can be deemed to be a forgery and can also be seen to be an article made for use in connection with fraud.

[nomoremrniceguy]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

Update: I received this email today and a call from a manager.... they are saying that a "an extremely rarecomputer glitch" is the reason that none of the dates on the documents match up with the dates they claim to have sent bailiffs to the address? Sounded like they were on the back foot but im sure when the response arrives they will have tried to cover themselves!


I am currently investigating your Mother’s account and the points you have raised.

I have placed the account on hold until Wednesday 20^th March to allow me time to provide you with a full response to the points we have discussed.

I have kept your telephone number live on your Mother’s account until this dispute is resolved so that I have the means to contact you if I should need to discuss anything with you.

Once the dispute has been resolved I will remove your number immediately.

I hope to have a full response to you no later than Wednesday 20^th March but should I need further time I shall notify you of this and extend the hold on the account.

Kind regards

[bluebottle]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

Update: I received this email today and a call from a manager.... they are saying that a "an extremely rarecomputer glitch" is the reason that none of the dates on the documents match up with the dates they claim to have sent bailiffs to the address? Sounded like they were on the back foot but im sure when the response arrives they will have tried to cover themselves!


I am currently investigating your Mother’s account and the points you have raised.

I have placed the account on hold until Wednesday 20^th March to allow me time to provide you with a full response to the points we have discussed.

I have kept your telephone number live on your Mother’s account until this dispute is resolved so that I have the means to contact you if I should need to discuss anything with you.

Once the dispute has been resolved I will remove your number immediately.

I hope to have a full response to you no later than Wednesday 20^th March but should I need further time I shall notify you of this and extend the hold on the account.

Kind regards

In the words of Jim Royle, "An extremely rare computer glitch, my arse." It sounds very much to me that JBW have realised you are not going to swallow the bovine excrement they are spouting and neither are you going to cave in to their demands or bullying. Keep up the pressure on them and, if necessary, ramp up the pressure a few notches. Not only will it give them a taste of their own medicine, you never know, they might slip-up and drop themselves and their client council in the proverbial well and truly. The council will like that not.

[nomoremrniceguy]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

does anyone know the procedure for reporting this case to TFL and if so can i claim back any overcharges made by the bailiffs from them?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

Unless JBW can prove their fees are legitimate and lawful, all they will be receiving from you until they do is zilch. Any enforcement action they attempt, whilst the fees are being queried may be unlawful. See if JBW can prove their fees first or decide to behave like idiots. Then you report the matter to TfL.

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

There is no warrant of execution in this case. TfL doesn't print them because it doesn't know that it should.

Interesting comment about JBW printing their own warrants. The did claim that back in 2011, but now they claim that TfL issues them and then passes them on to JBW 'electronically'. (Source - court statement from Christine Eva JBW's court representative). When this seismic change took place is probably buried firmly in the back of Ms Eva's mind.

I have absolutely no doubt that JBW does print 'warrants' for TfL but only when challenged to produce one. It is only then that the commercial software that JBW bought and which contains 'warrant' templates is used. Thus the use of the words 'fraud' and 'forgery' in this thread are quite legitimate and there is no statute that allows for bailiffs to print warrants.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

A warrant should only originate from a court signed with wet ink by a magistrate, judge etc, this should be codified and enforced rigidly by Statute, anything else is the wild west, with cowboys agogo like JBW marstons and others concocting warrants and variations of them that may well not be enforcible.

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

Sorry Bizzybob - as well meaning as your thoughts are on warrants, which of course any fair minded person would agree with - you are wrong. Parking and other decriminalised traffic enforcement does not comply with normal court proceedure, which is why it has its own court - the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). This is an administrative court and not a judicial one. It has no judges, solicitors, barristers, hearings, rights of access or right of audience.

The Civil Procedure Rules committee drew up CPR 75 in order to give the TEC limited authrority. CPR 75 only applies to the TEC and CPR 75 (7) (3) is relevant part. This states 'Within 7 days of the sealing of the request the authority must prepare the warrant in the appropriate form'. Thus warrants should be prepared by local authorities and not by any court.

Anybody who needs more information along with detailed explanations of the role of the TEC is invited to visit

www.fair-parking.co.uk

[bizzybob]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

Sorry Bizzybob - as well meaning as your thoughts are on warrants, which of course any fair minded person would agree with - you are wrong. Parking and other decriminalised traffic enforcement does not comply with normal court proceedure, which is why it has its own court - the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). This is an administrative court and not a judicial one. It has no judges, solicitors, barristers, hearings, rights of access or right of audience.

The Civil Procedure Rules committee drew up CPR 75 in order to give the TEC limited authrority. CPR 75 only applies to the TEC and CPR 75 (7) (3) is relevant part. This states 'Within 7 days of the sealing of the request the authority must prepare the warrant in the appropriate form'. Thus warrants should be prepared by local authorities and not by any court.

Anybody who needs more information along with detailed explanations of the role of the TEC is invited to visit

www.fair-parking.co.uk

You missed my point, I was saying that Statute should be passed so all warrants SHOULD be as I described, and not a marsupial busted ass virtually automated procedure like TEC that denies due process.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

Parking and other decriminalised traffic enforcement does not comply with normal court proceedure, which is why it has its own court - the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). This is an administrative court and not a judicial one. It has no judges, solicitors, barristers, hearings, rights of access or right of audience.

The Civil Procedure Rules committee drew up CPR 75 in order to give the TEC limited authrority. CPR 75 only applies to the TEC and CPR 75 (7) (3) is relevant part. This states 'Within 7 days of the sealing of the request the authority must prepare the warrant in the appropriate form'. Thus warrants should be prepared by local authorities and not by any court.

Thanks, Ron.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

You missed my point, I was saying that Statute should be passed so all warrants SHOULD be as I described, and not a marsupial busted ass virtually automated procedure like TEC that denies due process.

I suspect you also missed Ron's point which seems to have been to advertise his site. (link)

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

Err No. Do not confuse commercialism with detailed information which cannot be gained from any other source. We pensioners have long passed caring about 'making a buck'. Nobody is being ask to pay to read.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help please! JBW Bailiffs Congestion Charge, Notice of attendance

I suspect you also missed Ron's point which seems to have been to advertise his site. (link)

It;s OK I know who FP is, and about their site, but as you eloquently indicate others may not. :-)