Jacobs Bailiff PCN

[wales01man]

Re: Jacobs Bailiff PCN

Sirvere? What does the courts act say about the illegal clamping of a vehicl one that does not belong to the person named on the bailiffs paperwork?

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Jacobs Bailiff PCN

Sirvere? What does the courts act say about the illegal clamping of a vehicl one that does not belong to the person named on the bailiffs paperwork?

The Court Act does not say anything because it doesn't envisage an illegal action.

In the case of this thread there should be no dispute about the car parked illegally or fees charged improperly.

The issue is with lack of communication between the OP and the Council, a hungover postman that puts the letter in the wrong letterbox, and the failure on the part of the OP to have records amended at DVLA.

I am quite sure, from reading the thread, that when the clamp was applied the vehicle came back from the mandatory DVLA search as still registered to the OP's ex-partner, the bailiff needs to see proof that the legal owner is not the registered keeper, and at the time of applying the clamp that did not happen.

Many a one time, after having clamped a vehicle I received a phone call fom the defendant or someone else telling me that they sold/bought the car yesterday/last week/last month, my reply was always: OK, I'll be around promptly and you will have to show me a receipt/bill of sale/insurance certificate in the new keepers name from the date you say the car was sold.

9 times out of 10 none of the above materialized.

The unfortunate thing is that, in my experience. only 1 in 1,000 such situations actually arise. and I was swift in backing off, the other 999 occasions were defendants trying to get away with it by inventing things.

Yes, many if not most bailiffs are economical with the truth, I have told a few porkies in the past (but never broken the law or guidelines), but most if not all defaulters are wonderful storytellers.

[wales01man]

Re: Jacobs Bailiff PCN

thankyou Sirvere
One thing must be said though when people fet a fine from a court and few would not have had prior warning of a court case the should Pay up even the thickest members of society know that you can defennd yourself in court if you subnit no defence is accepted you are guilty and face a penalty,

The same should apply to baliffs who break the rules they operate under

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Jacobs Bailiff PCN

thankyou Sirvere
One thing must be said though when people fet a fine from a court and few would not have had prior warning of a court case the should Pay up even the thickest members of society know that you can defennd yourself in court if you subnit no defence is accepted you are guilty and face a penalty,

The same should apply to baliffs who break the rules they operate under

Totally agree, and in the first instance it should be the Company employing the bailiff to go down the discipinary procedure, but I know that the rougue bailiffs are the ones that bring in the money for the like of Marston, Newlyn and Rossendale (in alphabetical order not in level of rougueness) so they might be slated publicly but congratulated privately.

[bluebottle]

Re: Jacobs Bailiff PCN

With on-street parking restrictions, the only ways of overturning a parking ticket are -

1. The parking restriction is not correctly or properly constructed; or
2. The parking restriction has not been properly maintained; or
3. The Parking Enforcement Officer acted wrongly or exceeded their jurisdiction; or
4. There is no Traffic Management Order (TMO) or Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in force.

A major part of the problem with certificated bailiffs is that the law of distress is a throwback to the days of the feudal barons and, unfortunately, we still have vestiges of that era alive and kicking in the right wing of the Conservative Party and the more aggressive factions within the banking and commercial sectors who, simply, do not want the situation to change as it gives them control and control is what it is all about.

[bridgel]

Re: Jacobs Bailiff PCN

Again thanks for the responses.

I do not have a bill of sale or receipt for the car as like I say it was bought from a friend of hers and I did not think it was required. I do have an insurance certificate in my name only as she has never driven the vehicle. She probably was the registered keeper at the time they did the DVLA search but I have got her to sign a statement that I own the car and not her.

I am not attempting to avoid paying this as if I owe it then I owe it.

The issue I have is that the fees do not appear correctly applied.

The total demanded is £457.84 this is the amount hand written on the last letter the bailiff left me

The letter he left a couple of days before said the total was £331.84

The letter I got from them when I asked them to clarify stated:

PCN - 112
First letter fee - 13.44
Visit fee 07/11 - 42
Levy Fee 12/11 - 54
ATR Fee 12/11 - 236.40

So the first letter he left on the 07th should have stated £169.44 and not 331.84 so in there own words the bailiff was attempting to overcharge me by £131.40 at the first visit and surely this has to be against the law or at best unjust enrichment?

Secondly I did not think the Levy fee and attendance to remove fee could be charged for the same visit? It would not appear to be lawful according to the regulations?

I am tempted to pay the original to the council and pay any sensible fees to the bailiff but if I pay the council that would mean the value on the writ has been received and the bailiff could not levy goods to cover his fees is this correct?

Like I say this is my fault I do not wish to avoid paying but I do not earn much and I can not afford to be without the car and I do not have £467 if he comes round again.
Thanks again

[bridgel]

Re: Jacobs Bailiff PCN

sorry 161.40 overcharge not 131