PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

[ploddertom]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

In my view to Attend to Remove means going equipped with the tools to do the job. But to do so they should have a previous levy in place. They appear to be making a "First Visit" and charging this ATR Fee when they don't know what if anything the debtor has that is worth removing or indeed being equipped with a vehicle large enough to do the job.

[bluebottle]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

Also, the debtor has to be given a reasonable opportunity to pay, unless they freely consent to removal on the first visit and the bailiff does not resort to any form of deceit or unlawful/illegal coercion in order to secure removal. I am aware that Trading Standards regard fees charged in advance or for work not done as Upfront Fee Fraud. Certificated bailiffs and their employing companies are not exempt from the attention of or jurisdiction of Trading Standards.

[labman]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

I agree with the above, hence my question to Sir Vere.

This LGO report is old, but has not, as far as I am aware, been superceded. Paras 6 - 9 are the interesting bits here. See attached.

[bizzybob]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

I agree with the above, hence my question to Sir Vere.

This LGO report is old, but has not, as far as I am aware, been superceded. Paras 6 - 9 are the interesting bits here. See attached.

I think this one, along with the Blaby Council findings, and R V Tucker 2013, are indicative that bailiffs are sorely in need of one or more being arrested and prosecuted for their unlawful shenanigans.

[bluebottle]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

I think this one, along with the Blaby Council findings, and R V Tucker 2013, are indicative that bailiffs are sorely in need of one or more being arrested and prosecuted for their unlawful shenanigans.

R v Tucker was 2012, not 2013, BB. My view is that as police officers become more aware of what bailiffs can and cannot do and become more savvy of some of the stunts they will pull, things will start to change. Once the politicians realise exactly what is going on, I imagine some cossetted backsides will be squirming on the green leather benches of the HoC.

[bizzybob]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

R v Tucker was 2012, not 2013, BB. My view is that as police officers become more aware of what bailiffs can and cannot do and become more savvy of some of the stunts they will pull, things will start to change. Once the politicians realise exactly what is going on, I imagine some cossetted backsides will be squirming on the green leather benches of the HoC.

Oops doesn't time fly...... When little is done abut bailiffs carrying on in the same way they did in that landmark case.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

Ok, though I see no mention of it in the legislation. So.... Attendance To Remove suggests a levy (or there is nothing to remove). A levy took place, they have charged for being in Attendance to Remove as a result of that levy, so why did they not remove anything?

I'm trying to establish firstly whether it is lawful, and if so where this is stated; secondly even if it is lawful, whether it should be charged when they attend to remove with a valid levy in place, then don't actually remove anything.

I hope my confusion makes sense. :beagle:

and

I agree with the above, hence my question to Sir Vere.

This LGO report is old, but has not, as far as I am aware, been superceded. Paras 6 - 9 are the interesting bits here. See attached.

As it happens rules, regulations, requirements and fees are all different between warrant of execution liability orders and distress warrants.

{Personal note of what's going on behind the scenes}The more professional of bailiffs would like to see and are pushing for these fees and charges reformed, homogenized and made exactly the same through all processes, to avoid confusion amongst all involved in the business of recovering debts, defaulter, enforcers and all agency with a vested interest.

However, this thread is about a warrant of execution in relation to a traffic related incident, not of a criminal nature and not endorsable.

An attendance to remove can be charged (as I said I would like to see this done no earlier than the second visit) when attending with the intention of removing goods because the defaulter has not paid, after having given them notice that this is what's going to happen.

In reply to bizzybob, ploddertom and bluebottle: Notice had been served onthe defaulter in the guise of the first letter, that gives 7 days to pay and the opportunity to the defaulter to speak to the bailiff before matters escalate...not many (in my experience) do, since they suffer from "Struthio camelusitis"

If I turned up to a defaulter's house on a motorcycle to enforce a Warrant of Execution could I charge for an ATR? Of course I can, because all I need to do if I seize goods is call for a suitable means of transport, because even with the largest imaginable van I could not remove say a 17ton truck, I would need specialist transport which is billed separately.

I do not need to levy to charge an ATR, because if there is nothing to levy upon I still attended with the intention of removing stuff. That's why there are separate charges for removal of goods.

Reality is, many people like to split hairs, try to get away with not paying their dues or trying not to pay the extra costs involved due to an action caused by them for not paying in time.

I am sorry Your Royal Highnesses, My Lords, Ladies, Gentlemen and Commoners, but if someone has a bailiff knocking on their door it's not the bailiff fault.

If the bailiff charges (honestly and within the law and written fees/charges agreed between them and their clients {creditors}) for the work they do, again the bailiff is not responsible for these, but the debtor is, because they have not taken timely action.

I agree that in some cases Courts, Councils, Police, Plumbers and Brain Surgeons make mistakes, and if they do they should make amends.

In my short and lacklustre spell as a Warrant Officer I must have dealt with no less than 30 defaulters per week, and guess what, 99.99% always blamed somebody else.

Of the 20,000 cases plus I had to deal with only about 10 were mistakes made by others, generally TMA with wrong Index numbers, mainly due to "Custard Tarts" jotting down letter in reverse order.

[charitynjw]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

I was under the impression (misapprehension, perhaps) that good practice dictated a short period between the levy & removal, unless the goods were seized then & there with view to immediate removal. (In which case, the bailiff would have to remain on site).

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

I was under the impression (misapprehension, perhaps) that good practice dictated a short period between the levy & removal, unless the goods were seized then & there with view to immediate removal. (In which case, the bailiff would have to remain on site).

Depending on the issuing Authority there is a minum of 24 huors between notices, Northampton (for example) requires seven calendar days between visits, but after clamping a vehicle/levying on goods, unless the defauter agrees to a walk in possessions, goods can be removed immediately, even if the defaulter is not present, especially when it come to vehicles, where there is a high risk of the vehicle de-clamping itself!

[bizzybob]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

If a bailiff clamped my motor for someone elses debt he would be wearing the clamp as a collar when he returned.

[parkingcompanyshamed]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

mpanyshamed*» 28 Sep 2013 22:37

Hi I had bailliffs visit for council tax. I rang the council and They kept fobbing me off with you have to speak to the bailliffs.

I rang up the council again and asked how much the original liability order was and matched it up against what the bailliffs were asking and found out the bailliffs were asking for a much higher sum. You have to ask the bailliffs for a breakdown of fees. I also found that the bailliffs were charging for phantom visits and levie fees that they could not prove because I didn't sighn any paper work all they could charge was the statutory 24.50 and 18.00 visit fees.I then quoted the actual amount they could charge in an email to the council and attached the breakdown of fees from the bailliffs and told them no paperwork was sighned and the burden of proof lies with the bailliffs to prove otherwise. The council investigated and I got an email from the bailliffs saying that they did make visits but lost the paperwork 'how convenient' and revoked the extra costs. I still wasnt happy so I emailed the council again and stated that the bailliffs werent capable of handling my case anymore and reminded the council they had vicarious liability meaning they are responsible for the bailiff firms they used I also stated that I would not be making anymore payments to the bailliff firm and instead be putting money aside each month until the council took the case back. A couple days later the case was returned to the council*I know it was for council tax but I dont see why the same principles couldnt apply to parking tickets? Hope this helps. Iv now set up a blog about private parking tickets.

[labman]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

mpanyshamed*» 28 Sep 2013 22:37

Hi I had bailliffs visit for council tax. I rang the council and They kept fobbing me off with you have to speak to the bailliffs.

I rang up the council again and asked how much the original liability order was and matched it up against what the bailliffs were asking and found out the bailliffs were asking for a much higher sum. You have to ask the bailliffs for a breakdown of fees. I also found that the bailliffs were charging for phantom visits and levie fees that they could not prove because I didn't sighn any paper work all they could charge was the statutory 24.50 and 18.00 visit fees.I then quoted the actual amount they could charge in an email to the council and attached the breakdown of fees from the bailliffs and told them no paperwork was sighned and the burden of proof lies with the bailliffs to prove otherwise. The council investigated and I got an email from the bailliffs saying that they did make visits but lost the paperwork 'how convenient' and revoked the extra costs. I still wasnt happy so I emailed the council again and stated that the bailliffs werent capable of handling my case anymore and reminded the council they had vicarious liability meaning they are responsible for the bailiff firms they used I also stated that I would not be making anymore payments to the bailliff firm and instead be putting money aside each month until the council took the case back. A couple days later the case was returned to the council*I know it was for council tax but I dont see why the same principles couldnt apply to parking tickets? Hope this helps. Iv now set up a blog about private parking tickets.

Strange you say it was for Council Tax when on another site, you stated:





by parkingcompanyshamed » 28 Sep 2013 23:11
In a recent appeal upheld by POPLA the assessor adjourned the case so the motorist could provide driver details.
POPLA are not allowed to help either party.
I have the motorist's permission to publish the POPLA case below:


xxxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
Secure-A-Space (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxxxxxxx, on 5 April 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx xxx.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

Ordinarily, liability for a parking charge rests with the person driving at the time of the alleged breach. In his initial representations, the Appellant stated “I wasn’t the driver at the time the car was parked”.
The Operator, declining the Appellant’s initial representations, responded:
“Whether you claim to be the driver or not does not change the process we follow with unpaid Parking Charge Notices. We may request the registered keeper details from the DVLA once time to pay has expired. The registered keeper must then either provide details of the driver or accept responsibility for the Parking Charge Notice themselves.”
The Operator outlined its position accurately. Where a parking charge notice is issued to a vehicle, but the driver’s identity and current postal address remain unforthcoming, an operator may recover the parking charge from the vehicle’s registered keeper. To do so, an operator must issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The Appellant appealed to POPLA on various grounds, including the issue that the Operator did not have the driver’s details. The appeal was adjourned on 10 July 2013 until 24 July 2013 for either party to provide the driver’s details or, in the case of the Operator, to show that the registered keeper was liable.
The Appellant responded by declining to provide the driver’s details. The Operator did not respond.
Accordingly, in the absence of the driver’s details, the Operator has not established that the registered keeper is liable for the parking charge as required by the aforementioned act.
I must therefore allow the appeal on this ground.
It therefore does not fall for me to consider any remaining issues.
xxxxxx xxxxxx
Assessor






This was followed by a discussion with the site admin/ To be fair, he was arguing the opposite of what you were asserting.

IMO, having ideas is great, and we need people like you to think 'outside of the box' (I hate that expression!). However, testing the theories when that is all they are is using people as guinea pigs. That's OK as long as they go into it with their eyes wide open, knowing they're testing out your theory. On the whole, I prefer the tried and tested methods used.

[parkingcompanyshamed]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

Im confused but thanks I think.

The first post you quoted is my own story I thought it might help the person out.

the second post you quoted I thought was an interesting story from my blog

[parkingcompanyshamed]

Re: PCN misunderstanding and excessive bailiff fees - urgent due 28th sep 2013

Oh and I think jason missed the point I was making, not about the fee's but the way POPLA acted in the manner they did.