Tweet
Hi,
Can anyone help me with this
We were visited by a bailiff a couple of weeks ago demanding £317.10 for an unpaid PCN. He stated he was in attandance for an unpaid parking fine and we had to pay £317 or he was going to come in and remove goods. When I told him he didn't have the right I was told as it was a police parking ticket and he had a warrent of distress he could and would unless we paid in full (something we just couldn't do)
I was told he would sit in his van and wait to see if I could borrow some money to pay him. After numerous calls I managed to raise £200 which he said was no good and he had been told as he had waited for an hour his supervisor had ordered a locksmith. Eventually I am informed the locksmith was at the house and as I didn't want the missus and my child even more scared i told her to open the door. At this point he decided that £200 was enough and left saying he would be back the next day for the remainder. He didn't return.
In the meantime I discovered it wasn't a police ticket at all rather a Cardiff council one. Doing some internet research I discovered the bailiff shouldn't be charging so much and sent the following email:-
Sirs,
These fees are unjustifiable according to the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which provides for an £11.20 letter fee and a visit fee of 28% of the original PCN.
Please recalculate these fees and advise by return of email
---------------------------------------
In response to this I have had this :-
Thank you for your e-mail regarding fees.
We cannot agree that the fees applied to [CASE NUMBER] are unjustifiable as
they have been applied in accordance with The Enforcement of Road Traffic
Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 (as amended by The
Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) (Amendment)
Regulations 2003).
Unlike other forms of distress and execution, the calculation for each fee
is based not on the sum due on the warrant but on the sum "demanded and due"
at the time the calculation is made. This means that a first visit fee, for
example, is calculated on the sum of the warrant value plus the letter fee
(excluding VAT) then rounded up to the nearest pound for calculation.
In this instance, we sent you a letter on 11th April 2013 and applied a fee
of £13.44 (£11.20 plus VAT). With the warrant sum of £112.00 the total due
at this time was £125.44.
You failed to respond within the stipulated 7 days and so our bailiff
attended on 25th April 2013. No levy took place but we are entitled to our
reasonable costs for attending to levy where a levy does not take place.
This fee must not exceed the fee which would have been charged had a levy
taken place.
The warrant value was £112.00 and the letter fee (exclusive of VAT) was
£11.20. The total due (ex VAT) under the warrant was £123.20. This is
rounded up for the purpose of calculation to £124.00. The calculation is 28%
of the sum due (£124) which is £34.72 + VAT = £41.66.
In addition, we are entitled to add a fee for attending to remove goods
where a removal does not take place. The fee, commonly known as the ATR Fee
(Attending to remove fee) is permitted in the Regulations under Head 6 of
Schedule 1 (For removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods
are removed, reasonable costs and charges.)
There is no requirement in the Regulations for a levy to have taken place
before this fee can be added and, as our intention was to remove goods if
payment was not proffered, we are entitled to make the charge. This has been
the industry position since road traffic debts were first enforced in 1995
and has been confirmed as the intention of the individuals at the then Lord
Chancellor's Department who drafted the legislation (Messrs. Christopher Tye
and Philip Evans). There is also leading Counsel's Opinion to support this
view.
The fee we charged per warrant was £125.00 plus VAT at 20% making the ATR
fee £150.00.
You were also charged a fee of 0.83p + VAT (£1.00) in respect of making a
payment by debit card.
In conclusion, we have applied fees strictly in accordance with the
statutory fee scale and will not be re-calculating them. The outstanding
balance is now £117.10 and further costs will become payable should the
warrant not be paid forthwith.
---------------------------
I have found this "without a valid levy over the goods there are no goods to remove. Paragraph 62 of complaint numbers 95A01890 and 95A04826 against London Borough of Ealing."
Can someone help with my response please, also can someone help with my best course of action with regard to a complaint about the bailiffs lies
Thanks
Can anyone help me with this
We were visited by a bailiff a couple of weeks ago demanding £317.10 for an unpaid PCN. He stated he was in attandance for an unpaid parking fine and we had to pay £317 or he was going to come in and remove goods. When I told him he didn't have the right I was told as it was a police parking ticket and he had a warrent of distress he could and would unless we paid in full (something we just couldn't do)
I was told he would sit in his van and wait to see if I could borrow some money to pay him. After numerous calls I managed to raise £200 which he said was no good and he had been told as he had waited for an hour his supervisor had ordered a locksmith. Eventually I am informed the locksmith was at the house and as I didn't want the missus and my child even more scared i told her to open the door. At this point he decided that £200 was enough and left saying he would be back the next day for the remainder. He didn't return.
In the meantime I discovered it wasn't a police ticket at all rather a Cardiff council one. Doing some internet research I discovered the bailiff shouldn't be charging so much and sent the following email:-
Sirs,
These fees are unjustifiable according to the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which provides for an £11.20 letter fee and a visit fee of 28% of the original PCN.
Please recalculate these fees and advise by return of email
---------------------------------------
In response to this I have had this :-
Thank you for your e-mail regarding fees.
We cannot agree that the fees applied to [CASE NUMBER] are unjustifiable as
they have been applied in accordance with The Enforcement of Road Traffic
Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 (as amended by The
Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) (Amendment)
Regulations 2003).
Unlike other forms of distress and execution, the calculation for each fee
is based not on the sum due on the warrant but on the sum "demanded and due"
at the time the calculation is made. This means that a first visit fee, for
example, is calculated on the sum of the warrant value plus the letter fee
(excluding VAT) then rounded up to the nearest pound for calculation.
In this instance, we sent you a letter on 11th April 2013 and applied a fee
of £13.44 (£11.20 plus VAT). With the warrant sum of £112.00 the total due
at this time was £125.44.
You failed to respond within the stipulated 7 days and so our bailiff
attended on 25th April 2013. No levy took place but we are entitled to our
reasonable costs for attending to levy where a levy does not take place.
This fee must not exceed the fee which would have been charged had a levy
taken place.
The warrant value was £112.00 and the letter fee (exclusive of VAT) was
£11.20. The total due (ex VAT) under the warrant was £123.20. This is
rounded up for the purpose of calculation to £124.00. The calculation is 28%
of the sum due (£124) which is £34.72 + VAT = £41.66.
In addition, we are entitled to add a fee for attending to remove goods
where a removal does not take place. The fee, commonly known as the ATR Fee
(Attending to remove fee) is permitted in the Regulations under Head 6 of
Schedule 1 (For removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods
are removed, reasonable costs and charges.)
There is no requirement in the Regulations for a levy to have taken place
before this fee can be added and, as our intention was to remove goods if
payment was not proffered, we are entitled to make the charge. This has been
the industry position since road traffic debts were first enforced in 1995
and has been confirmed as the intention of the individuals at the then Lord
Chancellor's Department who drafted the legislation (Messrs. Christopher Tye
and Philip Evans). There is also leading Counsel's Opinion to support this
view.
The fee we charged per warrant was £125.00 plus VAT at 20% making the ATR
fee £150.00.
You were also charged a fee of 0.83p + VAT (£1.00) in respect of making a
payment by debit card.
In conclusion, we have applied fees strictly in accordance with the
statutory fee scale and will not be re-calculating them. The outstanding
balance is now £117.10 and further costs will become payable should the
warrant not be paid forthwith.
---------------------------
I have found this "without a valid levy over the goods there are no goods to remove. Paragraph 62 of complaint numbers 95A01890 and 95A04826 against London Borough of Ealing."
Can someone help with my response please, also can someone help with my best course of action with regard to a complaint about the bailiffs lies
Thanks
