Reclaiming charges from newlyn

[paul floorlayer]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

I am a subcontract floor layer so use my van daily to transport my tools and materials to jobs usually in and around london the van I was stopped in was unwritten but my new van is sign wrote, in regards to the insurance I have standard van insurance and public liability is that what you meant?

[labman]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

I assume that doing your job using public transport would be aboslutely impossible in your case due to the size and weight of materials you carry, and the tools necessary. Sorry to ask, but many think their vehicle essential when it isn't - I suspect yours is.

Another one to add to BBottle's list then, by the sounds of it.

[bluebottle]

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.

Hi Labman and thank you for looking in.

An employee of any employer has personal responsibility for their actions as well as the employer having vicarious liability for what an employee does during the course of their employment. I have made mention, in the second paragraph of the draft letter to LB of Harrow, that the council employee can be held liable for their own actions. Many employees are blissfully unaware of this and I have no doubt if employees did know, they would not do or say many of the things their employers tell them to do or say. Sadly, the reality is that many employees find out when it is too late.

The OP has tried reasoning with both Newlyns and LB of Harrow and has now reached the stage where upping the pressure on them is the next step. I agree that an N1 claim is the last resort. The whole idea of the Civil Procedures Rules is to avoid going into court rather than using the courts as a first line of attack. If LB of Harrow and Newlyns won't engage, then they shouldn't be surprised if the matter does result in an N1 claim being found in the OP's favour because the court has made a decision of its own initiative and without a hearing.

If the OP's van is signwritten and/or has Class 1 Business Insurance , then I agree with you entirely that the bailiff who did the "pretend policeman" routine at the roadside and Newlyns are in the proverbial as regards their actions and the whole foundation of LB of Harrow's arguments would be shaken or, at the very least, be very unsafe indeed.

When I have told telephone drones of their lawbreaking and their personal liability, I have often been accused of harassment. However, once I ask to speak to a manager and recommend they speak to their company legal department or let me speak to their company legal department, you would be surprised at how quickly their attitude changes. It is almost as if they have had some sort of awakening from a dream and found out that the reality is not what they thought it was. What I did find upsetting, when a CID officer, was when I had to investigate bent business owners and then interview their employees and tell them they had been breaking the law. You can imagine what their reaction was like when they realised they had been used. There was more than one occasion when a bent business owner had to be taken into custody for their own protection although, in some cases, the temptation to let the employees deal with their employer as they saw fit was very hard to resist.

Once again, many thanks for looking in, Labman

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

I am a subcontract floor layer so use my van daily to transport my tools and materials to jobs usually in and around london the van I was stopped in was unwritten but my new van is sign wrote, in regards to the insurance I have standard van insurance and public liability is that what you meant?

Your insurance is the most telling factor. Did Newlyns know this or bother to enquire? No, don't tell me, they "thought" it was for personal use. They all think that and when it proves otherwise, that's when they bellow like bull elephants that they didn't know.

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

I assume that doing your job using public transport would be aboslutely impossible in your case due to the size and weight of materials you carry, and the tools necessary. Sorry to ask, but many think their vehicle essential when it isn't - I suspect yours is.

Another one to add to BBottle's list then, by the sounds of it.

I'm quite happy for the draft letter to be adapted for use as a template, if necessary, Labman. If it helps others to get justice when all else has failed, then I'm happy with that.

[bizzybob]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Yes good template BBThe council CEO has personal liability as does any employee who supports any unlawful act by an employee or agent of the council. In certain circumstances I'm sure the liability can fall on the leader elected members if they nod through an unlawful policy, or a SLA with bailiffs.

[paul floorlayer]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Hi posting from my mobile the short reply I got back from harrow council from bluebottles excellent letter

Dear Sirs,

The Council will respond to any legal proceedings. Until we receive such notification, no further correspondence will be entered into in respect of this PCN. I recommend you seek competent legal advice prior to starting proceedings.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr H Adamji
Senior Enforcement Officer


seems like I'm getting near the end of the line for anything other than legal action of some description I guess.

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Hi posting from my mobile the short reply I got back from harrow council from bluebottles excellent letter

Dear Sirs,

The Council will respond to any legal proceedings. Until we receive such notification, no further correspondence will be entered into in respect of this PCN. I recommend you seek competent legal advice prior to starting proceedings.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr H Adamji
Senior Enforcement Officer


seems like I'm getting near the end of the line for anything other than legal action of some description I guess.

Hi Paul,

It looks to me that this council employee has realised that he has said the wrong thing. I would impress upon him that it is a legal requirement, under the Civil Procedures Rules 1998, to resolve the matter without going to court and that if London Borough of Harrow fails and/or refuses to comply or engage this is likely to be looked on unfavourably by the court if the matter does get to that point.

Can I suggest you send this council employee something along the following lines -

"Dear Muppet,

Re.: Newlyn PLC

I am in receipt of your email/letter dated [date] in response to my email/letter dated [date].

Whilst you may be acting on the instructions of a line manager, I must impress upon you that not only is your response unhelpful, by your answering my email/letter in the terms you have done so, it has placed London Borough of Harrow in breach of the Civil Procedures Rules 1998. The Rules are a statutory provision, not guidelines or advice. All parties to civil disputes are required to comply with them. Local authorities are not exempt.

Would you, therefore, please indicate, by return, that London Borough of Harrow does not intend to comply with the Civil Procedures Rules 1998 and attempt to resolve this matter without progressing the matter to the courts.

Should I not hear from yourself or a responsible officer of London Borough of Harrow within 24 hours of your receipt of this email/letter, then I shall pass copies of all correspondence in this matter to my MP and ask that they refer the matter to the Right Honourable Eric Pickles, MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with a view to Mr Pickles intervening.

Yours sincerely,"

From what this council employee has said up to now, it looks like they are working from a pre-rehearsed script. Obviously, their response as to whether they intend to comply with CPR is going to be interesting. Whatever, have your MP on standby if it becomes necessary to ask them to pursue the matter with Eric Pickles. Sometimes, but not always, the threat of a government minister being asked to intervene can be sufficient to make a local authority see sense. Best of luck.

[paul floorlayer]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Brilliant thank you so much for all the help so far, would be lost otherwise as this has started to go over my head in all honesty, will send email when I get in from work and will keep you informed as to their reply, will be making a monetary contribution to legal beagles once this is concluded as a gesture of my gratitude for all the help an advice.

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Brilliant thank you so much for all the help so far, would be lost otherwise as this has started to go over my head in all honesty, will send email when I get in from work and will keep you informed as to their reply, will be making a monetary contribution to legal beagles once this is concluded as a gesture of my gratitude for all the help an advice.

Just remember not to start the email or letter with "Dear Muppet". Lol!

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

With regard to the OP's problem, it it appears that several issues have been rolled into one.

1) The apparant detainment by persons dressed to appear as the police
2) The issue of whether the vehicle was being used commercially and thus exempt from any prospect of seizure
3) Whether the payment was legally obtained
4) The council's response

There isn't one answer to all these and before I go any further I should declare that I do run a commercial site that helps people who encounter such problems and the OP is welcome to visit it without any obligation.

With regard to 1) It is difficult to imagine that the OP would not have driven off before paying £700+ if he had believed that bailiffs were not entitled to detain him - and that draws a very foggy line between acting as bailiffs and pretending to be the police. That may well be reason for a form 4 complaint, but I do not recommend them. Bluebottle is best person to advise on any action that should be taken with the local police.

2) If the vehicle was insured under a commercial vehicle policy then makes it a business vehicle thus is a tool of the trade with full business. Newlyn bailiffs have no motor insurance training to be in any position to detemine the nature of policy conditions which they would not have any access to in any event. Class 1 policies are valid for cars being used for limited business purposes

3) No warrant no enforcement.

4) The council letter of 26th October is alarming both for what it says and for what it does NOT say. The history of the PCN in the first three paragraphs is irrelevant, it matters not whether it was valid - it was the nature of the enforcement by two pseudo policemen which was unlawful.

Para 4 already starts to let the side down. The PCN was NOT registered at Northampton County Court as a 'debt'. However it subsequent charge certificate was registered as a charge with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. No debts in decriminalises parking, only allegations.

'A warrant was granted to bailiffs' Indeed? By whom?

This is an unwitting admittance that Harrow did NOT prepare a warrant as it is required to do under CPR 75 (7) (3). The letter is clearly writtern in the third party here and thinks that some other party did. The truth is NO warrant was ever prepared and thus the ANPR bailiffs could not have had one with them. As a warrant was not prepared by LB Harrow then everything that happened afterwards was unlawful, thus there is no point in arguing about the size of the baliff fees. The whole enforcement was unlawful. The rest of the letter is diatribe encasing a red herring.

It is quite right to state that LB Harrow is responsible for actions of its agents and that is the party to chase. Do not include Newlyn and the bailiff as second and third parties as there is no gain and it just invites more solicitors and barristers to oppose any action. Nor should anybody believe that actions in the small claims court avoids large costs which if crowded with excess legal representatives, it may well do.

The best course of action is to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman for restitution as that avoids all fees and costs.

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

With regard to the OP's problem, it it appears that several issues have been rolled into one.

1) The apparant detainment by persons dressed to appear as the police
2) The issue of whether the vehicle was being used commercially and thus exempt from any prospect of seizure
3) Whether the payment was legally obtained
4) The council's response

There isn't one answer to all these and before I go any further I should declare that I do run a commercial site that helps people who encounter such problems and the OP is welcome to visit it without any obligation.

With regard to 1) It is difficult to imagine that the OP would not have driven off before paying £700+ if he had believed that bailiffs were not entitled to detain him - and that draws a very foggy line between acting as bailiffs and pretending to be the police. That may well be reason for a form 4 complaint, but I do not recommend them. Bluebottle is best person to advise on any action that should be taken with the local police.

2) If the vehicle was insured under a commercial vehicle policy then makes it a business vehicle thus is a tool of the trade with full business. Newlyn bailiffs have no motor insurance training to be in any position to detemine the nature of policy conditions which they would not have any access to in any event. Class 1 policies are valid for cars being used for limited business purposes

3) No warrant no enforcement.

4) The council letter of 26th October is alarming both for what it says and for what it does NOT say. The history of the PCN in the first three paragraphs is irrelevant, it matters not whether it was valid - it was the nature of the enforcement by two pseudo policemen which was unlawful.

Para 4 already starts to let the side down. The PCN was NOT registered at Northampton County Court as a 'debt'. However it subsequent charge certificate was registered as a charge with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. No debts in decriminalises parking, only allegations.

'A warrant was granted to bailiffs' Indeed? By whom?

This is an unwitting admittance that Harrow did NOT prepare a warrant as it is required to do under CPR 75 (7) (3). The letter is clearly writtern in the third party here and thinks that some other party did. The truth is NO warrant was ever prepared and thus the ANPR bailiffs could not have had one with them. As a warrant was not prepared by LB Harrow then everything that happened afterwards was unlawful, thus there is no point in arguing about the size of the baliff fees. The whole enforcement was unlawful. The rest of the letter is diatribe encasing a red herring.

It is quite right to state that LB Harrow is responsible for actions of its agents and that is the party to chase. Do not include Newlyn and the bailiff as second and third parties as there is no gain and it just invites more solicitors and barristers to oppose any action. Nor should anybody believe that actions in the small claims court avoids large costs which if crowded with excess legal representatives, it may well do.

The best course of action is to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman for restitution as that avoids all fees and costs.

Thanks for your input, F-P, which is appreciated as well as enlightening. I agree with you entirely about LB of Harrow's attempts to mislead or bamboozle the OP. I'm not sure if the OP has been through LB of Harrow's complaints procedure to enable him to refer the matter to the LGO. It has been suggested that the OP contacts their MP with a view to them referring this matter to Eric Pickles. Whether Mr Pickles will intervene or threaten to sit on them - He is a big chap - is another matter. However, we'll see if the threat of Eric Pickles becoming involved has a purgative effect on LB of Harrow and, failing this, the OP can then initiate the necessary processes to refer the matter to the LGO. Once again, F-P, many thanks for the input.

[wales01man]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Looks like the council are digging a hole for themselves with an arrogant attitude and to think they work for the council tax payers

[bluebottle]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

Looks like the council are digging a bloody great hole for themselves with an arrogant attitude and to think they work for the council tax payers

IFYPFY :grin:

Very true on the first part of your post. Query the end part. Are they actually working for the CT payers? Trouble is, like MPs with civil servants, councillors give local government officers far too much freedom to do what they please with insufficient scrutiny. That has to change.

[paul floorlayer]

Re: Reclaiming charges from newlyn

And another reply to the last letter articulated by bluebottle below

Dear Mr Paul Floorlayer,

Unless we receive formal notification of court proceeding, no further correspondence will be entered into. Please be advised that under the Traffic Management Act 2004, elected members are not permitted to be involved in any disputes relating to penalty charge notices as matters relating to PCNs and bailiffs should only be assessed by suitably trained staff. The onus is on you to prove that the Council has not complied with part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) as we are satisfied that part 75 of CPR has been fulfilled.

Please note that Distress for Rent Rules 1988 is applicable for challenging whether or not a bailiff has carried out certain work and for challenging work for which a motorist believes a bailiff is not entitled to make a charge or where the law does not permit a charge to be made. This has been confirmed by our legal team and I can only therefore re-iterate that you do seek suitable, independent legal advice prior to any court proceedings against the London Borough of Harrow. Similarly, a form 4 complaint against a certificated bailiff allows minor alleged misconduct by the bailiff to be assessed by the County Court as well as more serious allegations of conduct. Please be advised that our legal team also agrees with this view.

Upon receiving formal notification of court proceedings, our legal team will rigorously oppose your application and recover costs from yourself. This is because taking legal proceedings against the Council is the incorrect route to take for challenging bailiff fees. Making an application under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 at a county court is the only correct route to take to challenge the bailiff fees.

Yours Sincerely,
Mr H Adamji
Senior Enforcement Officer