Marstons and PCN

[scoobyra]

Re: Marstons and PCN

In my view the Bailiffs have so far done little wrong. You cannot give an address & then complain about them visiting.

My issue is, the bailiff having NOTHING to levy on, and, the fact that the council knew it was only a care of address! And, the bailiff being a rude and obnoxious man. I'll quite happily pay the original PCN + either £28 OR £28%

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons and PCN

Bailiffs are only entitled to charge for work they have actually carried out and can prove they have carried out and which the law permits. A bailiff or civil enforcement company that attempts to press for fees they cannot substantiate is skating on thin ice in the legal sense.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Marstons and PCN

My issue is, the bailiff having NOTHING to levy on, and, the fact that the council knew it was only a care of address! And, the bailiff being a rude and obnoxious man. I'll quite happily pay the original PCN + either £28 OR £28%

If the contract between the Council and the bailiff allows them to charge and Attendance To Remove on the first visit then the bailiff has done nothing wrong.

The bailiff does not know if there is something to levy or not when they knock on the door of the address provided on the Warrant of Execution.

[wales01man]

Re: Marstons and PCN

The more posts I read on Bailiffs the more believe that this Victorian system needs to change,
When people cannot or wlll not pay and attachment to earnings or benefit should be made .this takes the rogue element of the Bailiff industry out of the equation.
All enforcement of fines and liability orders should be carried out by public Employess not those of a company intent only on profit at any cost .

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Marstons and PCN

The more posts I read on Bailiffs the more believe that this Victorian system needs to change,
When people cannot or wlll not pay and attachment to earnings or benefit should be made .this takes the rogue element of the Bailiff industry out of the equation.
All enforcement of fines and liability orders should be carried out by public Employess not those of a company intent only on profit at any cost .

Totally agree, and it used to be the case, before some numpty decided that money were to be saved and to privatise some aspects of the recovery of unpaid fines.

[wales01man]

Re: Marstons and PCN

Thanks Sir Vere we just need the authorities to agree.
We are in the 21st century and must move on from Victorian rules to a newer clearer system with controls in place to enable the Debt to be collected .

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons and PCN

Totally agree, and it used to be the case, before some numpty decided that money were to be saved and to privatise some aspects of the recovery of unpaid fines.

Trouble is, Sir Vere, the whole privatisation malarkey is beginning to be shown for the smoke and mirrors it is. Only recently, Avon & Somerset Police were told to put their custody service out to tender and found that to do so would cost £600,000 a year more than if they kept it in-house. Not surprisingly, they are keeping it in-house.

Also, when privatisation first raised its ugly head, Plymouth City Council discovered that, even after factoring redundancy costs into contracts, it was far cheaper to keep services in-house.

There is one major flaw with privatisation and that is accountability. The private sector contractors follow the corporate line of "shareholders first". Accountability to the public comes a lot further down the list.

What private sector contractors ignore and hope the public don't know is that they are subject to human rights legislation when they are working for public authorities, and are, themselves, deemed to be public authorities by virtue of Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998. Anything they do which is incompatible with a person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (enshrined within Schedule 1, Human Rights Act 1998) is unlawful. Human rights law penetrates and has a more far-reaching effect on other legislation than many realise. Private sector companies contracting to local authorities and government agencies and departments need to be aware of this or risk having a judgement made against them that could affect not just them, but an entire industry. The other issue is that much of what certificated bailiffs enforce falls under secondary legislation, which is vulnerable to strike-down by the courts.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons and PCN

Might be painful for bailiffs when ECHR and HRA is used when a third party lose their car and job due to a random seize and sell for a third party debt, and they cannot afford the interpleader, can't get to work so have to claim JSA

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons and PCN

Might be painful for bailiffs when ECHR and HRA is used when a third party lose their car and job due to a random seize and sell for a third party debt, and they cannot afford the interpleader, can't get to work so have to claim JSA

Not just the hapless bailiff, BB, but the civil enforcement company that employs them and the public authority that has contracted them as well. Also, any police officer or PCSO stupid enough to help them break the law.

The new regulations are secondary legislation and, under human rights law, is vulnerable to strike-down by the courts, as is the legislation relating to Council Tax and PCNs. For those not familiar with the term "strike-down", in legal terms, this means that the legislation is brought to an end or any provision contained therein. This would also apply to Social Security regulations.

In theory and in practice, a judge could cause major problems for local authorities, the courts or IDS if they decided to strike down any or part of the new bailiff regulations or the secondary legislation mentioned above.

[wales01man]

Re: Marstons and PCN

We can only hope that these new laws/rules are tested before a Court with the result that they are thrown out and someone in authority has the sense to look at the whole Bailiff debt collection industry and come up with something that is up to the job turning a £100 fine or CT debt into Hundreds more to satisfy the shareholders of a Company is not the right way to carry on.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons and PCN

If the contract between the Council and the bailiff allows them to charge and Attendance To Remove on the first visit then the bailiff has done nothing wrong.

The bailiff does not know if there is something to levy or not when they knock on the door of the address provided on the Warrant of Execution.

A commercial contract between a local authority and a civil enforcement company cannot supersede legislation, nor can a local authority form a contract that attempts to supersede or subvert legislation. Any contract allowing a civil enforcement company to charge ATR fees on a first visit would, IMHO, be open to legal challenge as to its validity and enforceability in law.

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Marstons and PCN

In reply to post 27 from Monkey Drunk. The notion that a council cannot pass private data between separate departments in the same authority but then regularly pass on the same data to third party baliffs is an interesting if somewhat warped interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998 and clearly one that makes no sense at all.

As for the 'well known case in Manchester' a few years back, the most infamous one which local authorities still foolishly trumpet today - not knowing that it was discredited by DJ Thomas in Bromley County Court on 13th January 2013 - was HHJ Holman's.

Nor was it about ATR it was about the local authority's failure to prepare a warrant. Further HHJ Holman admitted in his judgment that he was 'wholly unfamiliar with parking enforcement regulations'. Hardly the best person to decide a parking enforcement
issue.

It wasn't appealed because unlike the council who used public money, the unemployed claimant did not have the funds to take it any further.

Fortunately the judge retired two days after delivering his wholly incorrect verdict

[scoobyra]

Re: Marstons and PCN

Just to make it completely clear to everyone reading this post - I have no issue in paying the PCN (even though I tried to challenge the original PCN and due to incorrect correspondence and understanding, lost). The issue I have is the arrogant and rude Bailiff trying to tell me that the CAB and the Legal Profession didn't know what they were talking about, and secondly, trying to charge an ATR fee when he had nothing to levy on or remove!

[ploddertom]

Re: Marstons and PCN

Just to make it completely clear to everyone reading this post - I have no issue in paying the PCN (even though I tried to challenge the original PCN and due to incorrect correspondence and understanding, lost). The issue I have is the arrogant and rude Bailiff trying to tell me that the CAB and the Legal Profession didn't know what they were talking about, and secondly, trying to charge an ATR fee when he had nothing to levy on or remove!

If the issue over the Bailiff is all you want to sort then there are 3 ways of approaching this.

1 - File a Form 4 Complaint about him but the issues are not serious enough and it will more than likely come back & bite you - not a recommended course of action.

2 - Write a letter to the Bailiffs Certificating Court outlining your complaint and ask it is taken into consideration on the renewal of his Certificate - worth doing.

3 - bite the bullet and move on.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons and PCN

I would go for option 2 It may send some karma back to the bailiff in the fullness of time.