Car clamped by newlyn,

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Last week, Labman copied and pasted in the sticky section extracts of a thread that I had started on the Consumer Action Group forum regarding the fees charged by bailiffs when enforcing Magistrate Court FINES. In that thread it was necessary to go back many years to establish the REASON WHY the fees are chargeable.

This particular thread started by Michael concerns HARROW and NEWLYN and in order to understand WHY the fees are so high it is helpful to also go back a few years to provide some interesting "background" information. Here goes........

It will first be necessary to read the questions raised in the House of Commons by the Harrow East MP; Mr Bob Blackman:


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=bailiff&pid=24945


Bob spoke at Business Questions to draw attention to the fact that Harrow Council have now issued a tender document for the procurement of bailiff services that require the successful tenderer to pay back to the council 10% of the fee they obtain from the person with the debt. Bob pointed out that this would be a direct incentive for both bailiffs and Harrow Council to hike the fees. Bob called for an urgent debate on the use of bailiffs, the services provided and the fees allowed, so that this House can express its view on such unfair practices


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...for_council_25

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

This is the next one:

http://www.bobblackmanmp.com/index.p...id=4&Itemid=40

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

So.......what led to Bob Blackman asking these questions in the House of Commons:

This all arose after the Harrow Parking Manager; Mr Fern Silverio made a speech approx 2 years ago at a Parking Summit where he had stated that in the contract with their bailiff provider, Harrow Council receives a "kickback" of approx 10% of the bailiff fees collected by the bailiffs.

This speech caused mayhem and led to a series of questions being raised in the House of Commons by Bob Blackman and a further question was also raised last year by the MP; Austin Mitchell. The links above provide details of the questions raised in the House.

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

THE OUTCOME:

I cannot find a copy of the written response to Bob Blackman's question in the House of Commons but the response was to say that the government pledged to looked into the matter.

Everyone in the advice sector, enforcement sector and (believe it or not) local authorities was stunned to discover in June that the Minister; Eric Pickles had released a Guidance to Councils regarding the practice of ""kickbacks" . I posted details on the Consumer Action Group forum regarding the release and there are some further interesting matters discussed as well:

PS: On CAG I post under the name of Tomtubby:



http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ncil-Tax/page2

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Following the release by Eric Pickles of the new Guidance; Bob Blackman MP issued a scathing attack on Harrow Council in an article featured on June 27th in the Harrow Observer. The following is a copy of the article:



Harrow Council labelled an 'exploitative regime' by Tory MP

Jun 27 2013 by John Shammas, Harrow Observer

AN MP has labelled Harrow Council an ‘exploitative regime’ in the way it collects debts.


Conservative MP for Harrow East, Bob Blackman, made the claims following new guidelines published last week by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which indicate it is inappropriate for councils to receive extra payment or profit-sharing from the use of bailiffs and the charging of fees.


The council confirmed that bailiffs collect a total of £1million in fees on behalf of the authority over the course of a year, of which they receive a small share, with last year’s amount £47,000.


Mr Blackman said: “The reality is that Harrow Council is operating an increasingly exploitative regime in terms of its debt collection.”

The Tory MP argues that in receiving a percentage of the bailiff fees charge, the council has an incentive to see them reach a level that is as high as possible.

“This is clearly wrong and not what residents expect from a council that is supposed to serve them and represent their interests,” he added.


The Independent Labour leader of Harrow Council and portfolio holder for finance, councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, said: “Some of the debts collected are many years old and without using bailiffs this money would never be collected. The government also charges hefty penalties when the taxpayers are late with tax payments and uses bailiffs to collect the unpaid tax.


“The money that the council receives is used to pay for scrutinising the activities of bailiffs and looking at fees that have been charged, as well as occasional payments to the voluntary sector such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, which offers vital debt advice to residents.”


The council leader and its contracted bailiffs recently agreed a number of measures designed to help those hit by recent benefit changes introduced by the government. These include sending out text messages and early reminder letters to people who have fallen into debt as a result of these changes

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Lastly........

The problem with the Guidance is that is concerns bailiff fees for the collection of unpaid COUNCIL TAX and there is a good reason for this.

Eric Pickles has responsibility for this area and I would assume that another Department would need to be involved regarding parking enforcement by bailiffs.

As far as I am concerned, local authorities should take this Guidance into consideration whether the contract involves council tax or parking enforcement.

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Michael,

Before taking your enquiry to HMRC or any other body you will need to to consider a LOT of further information.

Firstly, before I forget, do you know the name of the bailiff involved in your complaint? Did you request a copy of the SCREEN SHOT of your account. This is the electronic computer record of your case and you really should request this.

In order to keep confusion to a limit I will start a new post in a few moments.

PS: I had also missed the amateur attempt at arithmetic when adding the VAT fee of £18 to the van fee of £90. Well spotted.

I think this is somewhat irrelevant, reason being, they have sent me an invoice charging VAT when they are not on CH and clearly not VAT registered. That's the main point here, not yet, but it was in the itinerary.

It would appear I currently have the evidence I would need for HMRC to carry out their inquiry.

I do not know who is writing the letters, but I know the name of the attended bailiff.

[bluebottle]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Michael,

Before taking your enquiry to HMRC or any other body you will need to to consider a LOT of further information.

Firstly, before I forget, do you know the name of the bailiff involved in your complaint? Did you request a copy of the SCREEN SHOT of your account. This is the electronic computer record of your case and you really should request this.

In order to keep confusion to a limit I will start a new post in a few moments.

PS: I had also missed the amateur attempt at arithmetic when adding the VAT fee of £18 to the van fee of £90. Well spotted.

Could you elaborate a bit more on the point I have highlighted, please, Milo? In my experience, HMRC do not always require reams of evidence before they will act. The same with BIS Investigation Division.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...for_council_25

This is truly astounding!

In both Bravo 1 Newlyn.pdf and Bravo 2 Chandlers.pdf - attached - Harrow Borough Council appears to have agreed that bailiffs working for those companies on behalf of the Council may charge fees not laid out in the respective Regulations.

At what point would this become maladministration?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...for_council_25

Equally noteworthy is Bravo 2 Newlyn.pdf - attached - in which Newlyn plc seems to have been contracted to serve as debt collectors.

Newlyn plc does not hold a current Consumer Credit Act Licence.

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Equally noteworthy is Bravo 2 Newlyn.pdf - attached - in which Newlyn plc seems to have been contracted to serve as debt collectors.

Newlyn plc does not hold a current Consumer Credit Act Licence.

Right - Excuse my ignorance, but, is this significant?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Right - Excuse my ignorance, but, is this significant?

It has little significance in your case other than, perhaps, to suggest that HBC seems not to care about mere matters of legality.

You may, however, wish to raise the matter with your local councillors or MP.

Of immediate significance is the way in which HBC seems to have admitted that they permit bailiffs to charge fees other than those laid down in the Regulations.

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

It has little significance in your case other than, perhaps, to suggest that HBC seems not to care about mere matters of legality.

You may, however, wish to raise the matter with your local councillors or MP.

Of immediate significance is the way in which HBC seems to have admitted that they permit bailiffs to charge fees other than those laid down in the Regulations.

Agreed on the 2nd point there of course, alarming.

[bluebottle]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

This is truly astounding!

In both Bravo 1 Newlyn.pdf and Bravo 2 Chandlers.pdf - attached - Harrow Borough Council appears to have agreed that bailiffs working for those companies on behalf of the Council may charge fees not laid out in the respective Regulations.

At what point would this become maladministration?

You are, in all probability, correct that it is maladministration, Cloggy. However, it may also be something more serious. If the law states that a bailiff may only charge what the law states and a local authority chooses to ignore this and allows the bailiff to charge more than permitted by law or which the law does not permit, then the contract is potentially invalid ab initio, as a contract cannot exist in law which allows the parties to that contract to do anything which is contrary to the law.

[michaelg]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

You are, in all probability, correct that it is maladministration, Cloggy. However, it may also be something more serious. If the law states that a bailiff may only charge what the law states and a local authority chooses to ignore this and allows the bailiff to charge more than permitted by law or which the law does not permit, then the contract is potentially invalid ab initio, as a contract cannot exist in law which allows the parties to that contract to do anything which is contrary to the law.

Very true. SO WHY IS IT GOING ON