Car clamped by newlyn,

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Frustrating for you though it may be Michael, this is how many bailiff companies operate. It shouldn't be going on, but it is.

I guess you could ask the same question about loads of different things.

[bluebottle]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Frustrating for you though it may be Michael, this is how many bailiff companies operate. It shouldn't be going on, but it is.

I guess you could ask the same question about loads of different things.

I suspect it is as Michael suggests, senior police officers not knowing the law. I came across this in the police. Some senior police officers are a liability and on a number of occasions I heard colleagues say to them, "With all due respect, sir/ma'am, up yours." Currently serving officers need to be guided by their consciences and tell senior officers who give them such orders to politely take a hike.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

But dealing with the PCN charges apparently condoned by Harrow Borough Council, as detailed in Bravo 1 Newlyn.pdf:

There is no provision in any of the Regulations for storage of removed vehicles.

There is no provision in any of the Regulations for a "bounced cheque administration fee".

There is no provision in any of the Regulations for a card payment fee.

There is no provision in any of the Regulations for making the debtor pay for an HPI check.

All of the above fees or charges are therefore unlawful.

The Regulations (link) as amended (link) do not specify a "van fee" of £235. All that is allowed are "reasonable costs and charges" with the further proviso that they may be subjected to detailed assessment under Rule 11 of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 (link).

There is no provision in any of the Regulations for towing away vehicles other than the above "reasonable costs and charges" with the further proviso that they may be subjected to detailed assessment under Rule 11 of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 (link). One might doubt that they'd get away with a charge of £180.

The above two fixed charges are therefore a bit dodgy.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Considering the nature of the fees and charges apparently condoned by Harrow Borough Council, it may be worthwhile to look at Regulation 4 of the The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 (link):

4. Rule 10 shall have effect as if for the reference to Appendix 1 there were substituted a reference to Schedule 1 to these Regulations.

This refers to the Distress for Rent Rules 1988, Rule 10 (link) of which plainly states:

10. No person shall be entitled to charge, or recover from, a tenant any fees, charges or expenses for levying a distress, or for doing any act or thing in relation thereto, other than those authorised by the tables in Appendix 1 to these Rules.

I will leave it to others more learned than I in matters of criminal law to comment on what offence(s) may have been committed.

[ploddertom]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Just refer them to Day v Davies 1938 1 All ER 686 where it was held they cannot charge for for items not within the Regulations.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Just refer them to Day v Davies 1938 1 All ER 686 where it was held they cannot charge for for items not within the Regulations.

link (Apologies for the site!)

But what should happen to a bailiff who repeatedly charges for items not in the Regulations or to a client who seemingly condones or even encourages such charges to be made?

[bluebottle]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

link (Apologies for the site!)

But what should happen to a bailiff who repeatedly charges for items not in the Regulations or to a client who seemingly condones or even encourages such charges to be made?

I'll look into this, Cloggy, as you've asked for an opinion as to culpability under the Criminal Law, and get back onto this thread. However, looking back through this thread, there are a number of branches of the Criminal Law that may come into the equation.

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Rather than put it here, how about doing a sticky about possible criminal offences for bailiff acts to which we can refer? It would be interesting to see the criminal routes available, we could simply link to it in future cases and it would save me posting endless flying pigs and pies in the sky! lol

If you want to email it to me in Word format, I'll happily add it to the existing stickies.

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

link (Apologies for the site!)

But what should happen to a bailiff who repeatedly charges for items not in the Regulations or to a client who seemingly condones or even encourages such charges to be made?

I've highlighted the critical word. We return to the old argument of theory versus reality. What should happen and what does happen are two entirely different things.

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Just refer them to Day v Davies 1938 1 All ER 686 where it was held they cannot charge for for items not within the Regulations.

.

Below you will see a link to the Draft Tender Document that was on published on the Harrow website last year.

As you will see in the final paragraph all interested parties are advised of the following before considering whether to submit a bid:

Please be aware that this contract will be subject to a service charge for the transfer of PCN warrant data to the Contractor in relation to Council Tax & Business Rates, subject to negotiation on the fees and charges collected on behalf of the local authority that the Contractor can retain.


The level of fee share payable to the local authority will be negotiated prior to the award of the contract.



http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/docume...nd%20paper.pdf


Awful...simply dreadful......

[bluebottle]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Rather than put it here, how about doing a sticky about possible criminal offences for bailiff acts to which we can refer? It would be interesting to see the criminal routes available, we could simply link to it in future cases and it would save me posting endless flying pigs and pies in the sky! lol

If you want to email it to me in Word format, I'll happily add it to the existing stickies.

I think I've already divulged the reason why so few bailiffs get hauled before a magistrates court, LM, so put the flying pigs back in their sty before I shoot the buggers! :grin:

The article I wrote about 18 months ago does need updating so I will update this and email to you as suggested.

However, I would add that this case is somewhat complex and Newlyns have been rather "silly".

[bluebottle]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

.

Below you will see a link to the Draft Tender Document that was on published on the Harrow website last year.

As you will see in the final paragraph all interested parties are advised of the following before considering whether to submit a bid:

Please be aware that this contract will be subject to a service charge for the transfer of PCN warrant data to the Contractor in relation to Council Tax & Business Rates, subject to negotiation on the fees and charges collected on behalf of the local authority that the Contractor can retain.


The level of fee share payable to the local authority will be negotiated prior to the award of the contract.



http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/docume...nd%20paper.pdf


Awful...simply dreadful......

What was it that Eric Pickles said about this sort of thing...?

[labman]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

More than silly - the behaviour here is utterly appalling. The question is, and perhaps we should seek advice from Milo here, what is the best way to move it forward now?

[bluebottle]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

More than silly - the behaviour here is utterly appalling. The question is, and perhaps we should seek advice from Milo here, what is the best way to move it forward now?

Do you want me to put this on an open forum or PM you?

[Milo]

Re: Car clamped by newlyn,

Sorry, I should have mentioned something else:

The Harrow Cabinet Report dated Spetember 2012 confirms that a Corporate Bailiff Contract had been awarded to Newlyn AND Chandlers Ltd but not surprinsingly.......NO OTHER ENFORCEMENT COMPANIES BIDDED FOR THE CONTRACT !!!!