Reclaiming charges from newlyn

[labman]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

It is rather bizarre the Head of Revenues is suggesting a Form 4 complaint - that's a new one on me.

You are right in that normally, after the H of R has condoned the bailiff fees, you write to the CEO pointing out the vicarious liability of the council with their appointed enforcement agents, and then point out the H of R, as one of his staff, is laying the council wide open to litigation by condoning their fees.

IMO this is worse, as he seems to think Form 4 complaints are to be used for challenging fee issues. The main purpose of a Form 4 (not the sole purpose) is to question the bailiff's fitness to hold a certificate which is a different beast altogether.

I would still go to the CEO with a letter based on the one to the CEO, but interweaving the above about the Head of Revenues who appears not only to misunderstand the regulations regarding bailiff fees, but also the procedure for complaining appropriately about the bailiff fees.

It would be interesting to hear a few others' comments about this to see if they concur with me.

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

sat nav played up so pulled over to sort it out at which point I saw a white van pull up behind me and a bloke in what looked like police uniform at half glance ask me to come over to their van, at first I thought it was a policeman telling me one of my brake lights was out or something similar.

Totally illegal actions on the part of the bailiff. They have no power to ask you to go over to their van and if his demeanour or dress gave you the impression or belief that he was a police officer, that may well be a further offence. You would have been better off asking him to produce identification or go off and perform a physically-impossible sex act upon himself.

Just out of interest, did the van have any marking which might give the impression it was a police vehicle?

[bizzybob]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

That letter is bizzare, obviously the council s infested with muppets at all levels. If a person dressed as that bailiff was approached me from a plain van especially a Berlingo, i would tell him to foxtrot oscar, and drive off having taken the reg number of the van, then phone it in as a bogus official when it was safe to pull over and do so.

I concur with bluebottle regarding the baiiffs illegal stop and approach, ads also concur with Labman, the parking department and by the look of it the council do not understand the regulations surrounding bailiffs nor their own liabilities for any illegal action on the part of their appointed bailiffs Newlyn; as to inviting a person to submit a Form 4 for a fee dispute? What planet are they on? A Form 4 is defo not the way forward here.

[labman]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Glad you agree Bizzybob

[paul floorlayer]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Thanks for the responses, I agree after reading milos posts on form 4 complaints that it is an avenue only to go down if the bailiff is grossly abusing his limited powers and that used solely to claim back over charged fees is more than likely to land you with a hefty costs bill from the bailiff solicitors.

The bailiffs van was a white swb transit with anpr, like I said I was mucking around with the sat nav when he knocked on my window and asked me to come to the van to have a word, he had started to walk back to his van so id only caught a short glimpse of him and just saw a van parked about 20foot behind with hazards on, both were wearing vests very similar to the ones below minus the police tag.

[bizzybob]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Thanks for the responses, I agree after reading milos posts on form 4 complaints that it is an avenue only to go down if the bailiff is grossly abusing his limited powers and that used solely to claim back over charged fees is more than likely to land you with a hefty costs bill from the bailiff solicitors.

The bailiffs van was a white swb transit with anpr, like I said I was mucking around with the sat nav when he knocked on my window and asked me to come to the van to have a word, he had started to walk back to his van so id only caught a short glimpse of him and just saw a van parked about 20foot behind with hazards on, both were wearing vests very similar to the ones below minus the police tag.

Yep flak jacket, was his general attire "very similar" to police issue also? About time these bailiffs had their legs cut from under them, if they are trying to give the impression they are above the police, and actually Judge Dredd.

[labman]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

The way I look at this Paul is that by going the council route you may achieve your aim without exposing yourself to cost. If they politely tell you where to go, then you still have the samll claims court available to you, so you keep your options open, and your costs down.

If you want someone to look over the letter before you send it to the CEO, you could either post it up here, or pm it to whoever you feel happiest to look at it. Just check that's OK with Amethyst and the person in question first if you go that route, just to abide by protocol fully.

[paul floorlayer]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

ok cheers will send the next letter to the ceo and see where I get with that then evaluate my options again, thanks for all the replies.

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Thanks for the responses, I agree after reading milos posts on form 4 complaints that it is an avenue only to go down if the bailiff is grossly abusing his limited powers and that used solely to claim back over charged fees is more than likely to land you with a hefty costs bill from the bailiff solicitors.

The bailiffs van was a white swb transit with anpr, like I said I was mucking around with the sat nav when he knocked on my window and asked me to come to the van to have a word, he had started to walk back to his van so id only caught a short glimpse of him and just saw a van parked about 20foot behind with hazards on, both were wearing vests very similar to the ones below minus the police tag.

Hi Paul,

What you have posted up is one of the Home Office-approved stab vests used by UK police forces. Unfortunately, bailiff companies can obtain them from the same firms who supply police forces and some security companies. There are no legal restrictions on their supply, at present.

Security companies issue stab vests to their field officers where there is a real risk of them being subject to physical attack, e.g. where they are patrolling bus stations, hospital A & E departments. That is acceptable as many security companies have a retro-reflective patch on their stab vests clearly marked "SECURITY" or with their company logo.

What is not acceptable is anyone, including certificated bailiffs, acquiring a Home Office-approved stab vest and dressing and behaving in a manner that conveys the impression or would lead any reasonable person to believe the person they were dealing with was a police officer.

It would appear this is what happened in your case. I would certainly report this to your local police force as a bogus official, as suggested by Bizzybob. I would also question the legality of the fees, due to the circumstances under which the bailiff obtained them.

There is a pressing need to impose statutory restrictions on the supply and use of ANPR. And if there are howls of protest from predictable enough quarters, tough. The reality is that the civil enforcement industry has abused ANPR and the public has a right to be protected from such abuses by corporate organisations.

[paul floorlayer]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Ok so had a reply from my harrow ceo letter, not a direct response from him but from someone as directed by him.

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your email addressed to Michael Lockwood, Chief Executive regarding the above PCN. I have been asked by the Chief Executive to respond to your complaint and we respond as follows after having looked into the matter.

Your concerns that the fees charged by Newlyn plc are unlawful due to the fees being excessive. I can confirm there is a statutory process in place to allow a motorist to challenge the fees imposed by a bailiff. Should you wish to formally dispute the fees imposed by Newlyn plc, you must make an application to be taxed by the registrar of the county court of the district where the distress is levied, and he may make such an order as he sees fit as to the costs of the taxation. Should the registrar of the court in which the taxation is conducted believe that there has been an overcharging of such magnitude as to call into question the fitness of a bailiff to hold his certificate, the proper office will send to the court in which the bailiff was granted his certificate, a copy of the taxed bill with a note of the registrar’s opinion and action to be taken. This is as per the Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 2050 (L.25) The distress for Rent Rules 1988, part 11 (1) and part 11 (2).

I understand Mrs Patel has already advised you of this in her letter of 22^nd October 2013 and the position for challenging the legality of the bailiff fees therefore remains unchanged. Should you wish to make the necessary application for newlyn’s fees to be taxed by the registrar of the county court, I recommend that you seek independent legal advice. Newlyn plc will take reasonable steps to recover their costs in the event of a claim being brought against you. Rest assured, this is not in any way to cause intimidation but to ensure that you do seek suitable legal advice prior to bring proceedings against Newlyn plc and or London Borough of Harrow.

I can confirm there is not outstanding balance for penalty charge HR4255603. Payment of £798.64 has been accepted by Newlyn plc as full and final settlement of this matter and closing the case file.


Yours Sincerely,
Mr H Adamji
Senior Enforcement Officer

So from what I can tell from my limited knowledge is that the green light for a small claims court action? by my calculations Ive been overcharged £511.20 in fees and associated vat, I've emailed back with a short reply to this which was below and have received the response below.

Thank you for your reply, just for clarification are you also suggesting that I make a form 4 complaint in regards to obtaining a refund of the overcharged fees by newlyn plc? And seeing as the fees that should be charged by bailiffs for the collection of road traffic debts is clearly covered by law, what is the councils view when their appointed agents charge contrary to this? As at the moment it is coming across as you are condoning illegal bailiff fees.


I will take advice on my next move

Regards Paul



---------------------------------------

Dear Paul,

Please refer to Mrs Patel letter. Her letter explains that regarding a bailiff’s conduct, a form 4 complaint at your local county court applies. However, to challenge the fees, you must make an application to be taxed by the registrar of the county court of the district where the distress is levied, and he may make such an order as he sees fit as to the costs of the taxation. Should the registrar of the court in which the taxation is conducted believe that there has been an overcharging of such magnitude as to call into question the fitness of a bailiff to hold his certificate, the proper office will send to the court in which the bailiff was granted his certificate, a copy of the taxed bill with a note of the registrar’s opinion and action to be taken. This is as per the Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 2050 (L.25) The distress for Rent Rules 1988, part 11 (1) and part 11 (2).

The question of the legality of the bailiff fees rests with the County Court to examine should you wish to take that route. Any such application must be made against Newlyn plc only.

Yours Sincerely,
Mr H Adamji
Senior Enforcement Officer

So what would my next move be? id assume apply for a ccj against newlyn.

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

If it were me, this is what I would send them -

"Dear **************************,

Re.: Newlyn PLC

I am in receipt of your letter/email dated [date],

It is noted that whilst you have quoted from a number of different statutory provisions and enactments, you have also displayed an alarming lack of knowledge and understanding of the law, generally. If you do not understand how the law works, then, really and truly, you should ask London Borough of Harrow's Legal Department to deal with the matter. It is not for you to make statements which you may not be qualified or authorised to make in a legal context. For your information, London Borough of Harrow, as your employer, is vicariously-liable for any statements you make during the course of your employment with them, but you, too, are personally liable for any statements you make during the course of your employment with London Borough of Harrow. Perhaps, you were not aware of this, but, then, under English Law, ignorance is neither a defence or an excuse.

The provision you refer to under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 is applicable in cases where a bailiff has carried out work and is entitled to charge, but has charged more than the law permits them to charge. It would be neither applicable or appropriate in cases where a bailiff is charging for work they have not carried out, or for work for which they are not entitled to make a charge or where the law does not permit a charge to be made. As far as Form 4 complaints go, these are only applicable and appropriate in cases where a certificated bailiff has committed an act that it so serious, it brings into question their fitness to act as a bailiff. Examples of this would be Acting Without Lawful Authority, Endangering the Health, Life or Safety of a Debtor or a Third Party, Forcing Entry Without Lawful Authority. Other examples would be where a certificated bailiff had been convicted by a court of a criminal offence, e.g. Fraud, Assault, Battery, Burglary, Threats to Cause Criminal Damage, Causing Criminal Damage, Forgery. Nothwithstanding, a County Court has the power, under the Civil Procedures Rules 1998, to revoke a bailiff's certificate without a Form 4 complaint and without a hearing.

Whilst you make repeated references to the effect that I should pursue Newlyn PLC and their bailiff through the County Court, I would remind you that they were acting as agents of London Borough of Harrow at the time of the matter at reference and, therefore, under the legal instrument of agency, London Borough of Harrow is vicariously-liable for their actions, that is, London Borough of Harrow is vicariously-liable for the actions of its employees, servants and agents. Your statement that I should pursue only Newlyn PLC through the County Court is, therefore, mistaken or legally-inaccurate. Due to the legal instrument of agency, the only proceedings in the County Court that are likely to be appropriate and applicable in this matter are via the Small Claims Track citing London Borough of Harrow as First Defendant, Newlyn PLC as Second Defendant and Mr ***** (bailiff) as Third Defendant.

The onus that the charges made by Newlyn PLC whilst acting for London Borough of Harrow were true, complete and accurate lies upon London Borough of Harrow, in the first instance, Newlyn PLC, in the second instance, and Mr ****** (bailiff), in the third instance. Under the Civil Procedures Rules 1998, failure on the part of London Borough of Harrow, Newlyn PLC and Mr ***** (bailiff) to provide such evidence at the pre-action stage may result in the court making a decision of its own initiative, if proceedings were then issued as a result of non-compliance on the part of London Borough of Harrow, Newlyn PLC and Mr ****** (bailiff), and without a hearing, against London Borough of Harrow, Newlyn PLC and/or Mr ******* (bailiff).

May I, therefore, respectfully, implore London Borough of Harrow to refund the fees Newlyn PLC has charged that are not in accordance with legislation and, thereby, avoid litigation that may result in an adverse decision against London Borough of Harrow and its agents.

Yours sincerely,"

It is entirely up to you whether you use the above, Paul.

[paul floorlayer]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Thank you bluebottle, very strong articulate letter indeed

But just so that I understand the implications of sending the letter, should they still palm me off like they have been doing so far, what is my option after that? would it then be small claims court? the only reason I keep bringing up the small claims route is that from what I have read at legal beagles, that it is the best low cost way of going about getting your money back as 'costs' can't be awarded against you so if I were to lose for example I would of wasted just the court fee and my time, and not be lumbered with a 1-2k solicitors fee from the bailiffs side like I read has happened with form 4 complaints.

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Thank you bluebottle, very strong articulate letter indeed

But just so that I understand the implications of sending the letter, should they still palm me off like they have been doing so far, what is my option after that? would it then be small claims court? the only reason I keep bringing up the small claims route is that from what I have read at legal beagles, that it is the best low cost way of going about getting your money back as 'costs' can't be awarded against you so if I were to lose for example I would of wasted just the court fee and my time, and not be lumbered with a 1-2k solicitors fee from the bailiffs side like I read has happened with form 4 complaints.

Hi Paul,

I feel that London Borough of Harrow would be very unwise to continue their "We schoolgirls stick together" number with Newlyns if there is the possibility of litigation against them in the offing.

The second paragraph of the draft letter should have the council employee's backside playing tunes. Although it is not very nice to be told that what you have done or are doing is or could be against the law, the reality is that where this is the case, it is better to know so that you can avoid making the same error again. If you ignore it and continue, then, that is your lookout.

The third paragraph of the draft letter is likely to have the council employee questioning what they have been told to say and, possibly, wanting to give the person who told them what to say an earful.

The fourth paragraph will, in all probability, have the council employee doubting themselves.

The fifth paragraph may well have them cacking themselves and believing they have, in all probability, dropped London Borough of Harrow in the proverbial and they could get disciplinary action, including the sack, as a result.

The final paragraph is the way out you give them. In a way, it says, "Okay, you stop playing silly buggers with me, we settle this like mature adults and we'll be fine. You don't and you know what's coming to you."

The Small Claims Track of the County Court is, probably, the least expensive route for you to take. As long as you can show the court you have done everything possible to resolve the matter before resorting to the courts to seek resolution, you will have complied with your obligations under the Civil Procedures Rules 1998. If London Borough of Harrow, Newlyns and their bailiff continue to be obstructive and unco-operative, this is unlikely to be looked on favourably by a court. Please be aware, however, that bailiff companies, when faced with County Court claims, will often make 11th Hour settlements rather than risk a CCJ. A bailiff or a bailiff company cannot risk having a CCJ against their name.

I will ask one of the other bailiff specialists to look in and give a second opinion as to the most suitable path in your case.

[paul floorlayer]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Ok thats great blue bottle, nice and simple for me to get my head round, will send the letter and see what comes back in the morning and take it from there.

[labman]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Hi Paul, and thanks BB for asking me to look in.

Paul, re-reading this thread, you were stopped in your van. I assume this van is your own for the use solely of your business which I'm guessing is given away in your username?

If that is the case, then I assume the van is essential - you'd be carrying around rolls of carpet, lino etc.... Is the van signwritten? Does it have Class 1 business insurance? If this is the case, then the van should not have been touched in the first place, as it is a tool of your work. Could you clarify this, as it is another important point as it would rock the very foundations of their argument as the levy would have been invalid.

BBottle - very good letter, I like it. Is there any way we could make the person who responded directly liable? - I know he was acting as an agent for the council in replying, but he got it wrong IMO. If not, can we phrase things so significant pressure is brought to bear on them personally.

I am always the first to confess that court is not what I do; my knowledge in this area is very slight, so I'm very much in others' hands over following appropriate pre-action protocols etc... I assume BBottle knows more about this.

Either way, that letter leaves them with little doubt that you are not going to let this go. I think there may be another avenue to challenge if you do what I've assumed for a living.

I am also of the opinion that a N1 though the county courts, or possibly MCOL claim would be appropriate here, as I believe no charges can be awarded (but I don't do court!).

It will be interesting to see the reply to that letter, and we can take things from there. Please answer the question about levying on your van though - that could be important.

Thanks.