• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Notice of Intended Removal

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Notice of Intended Removal

    Originally posted by suffering View Post
    The warrant only confers an enforcement power to recover the sum adjudged.
    Bailiffs cannot enforce unpaid fees because they are not the sum adjudged
    I take that to mean Bailiffs work for nothing unless debtor kindly pays them ?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Notice of Intended Removal

      The enforcement agent (as they are now Known ) only get commission if the debtor or defaulter pays them, that's why some of them bend the rules

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Notice of Intended Removal

        Originally posted by suffering View Post
        Just something to throw into the mire, costs are enforcible, fees are not. what they dont like you doing is paying the fine on line without the fees the bailiffs add on to pay their commission. Cost's and fees are two very different things. this is also why the do not like you to see a breakdown.
        Paying the council direct (minus fees) is not likely to work. Please carefully read this very recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsman's:


        Re: London Borough of Haringey.


        The complaint

        1.
        The complainant, who I shall call Ms A, complains the Council allowed her to make payment towards an outstanding Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) although it had passed the matter to its enforcement agents (bailiffs), incurring additional costs.



        What I found

        4
        The Council issued Ms A a PCN for a parking contravention on 29 September 2015. Ms A did not pay or make formal representations against the PCN so the Council pursued the debt against her. It issued a warrant of execution and passed the debt to its bailiffs to enforce on 16 June 2016.

        5.
        Ms A made a payment of £97 for the PCN using the Council’s online system on 23 June 2016. However by this point the Council had already passed the case to its bailiffs, incurring further costs. Ms A says she paid the fine so bailiff action should cease. However, the Council says she is still liable for the bailiff fees.

        Ms A says the Council should not have allowed her to make a payment online when the case was with its bailiffs. The Council confirmed it passed the debt onto the enforcement agency on 13 June because it had not received payment and sent a Notice of Enforcement on 16 June.

        6.
        Ms A complained to the Council that she had not received the statutory notices the Council says it sent. The Council confirmed it sent the notices to the registered keepers address. These included the Notice to Owner, the Charge Certificate and the Order of Recovery. Each notice summarised the amount due at each stage. The Council said Royal Mail did not return the letters as undelivered so considered them served. The Council included copies of the notices it sent to Ms A in its response to her complaint.

        7.
        A motorist may make part-payment towards a PCN debt and there was no reason for the Council to refuse Ms A’s payment made on 23 June 2016.

        Ms A sought to challenge the Council’s action but was unsuccessful, and the Council is therefore entitled to pursue the debt against her, including by passing the case to its bailiffs. Ms A made payment only after the case had been referred to bailiffs and the Ombudsman cannot therefore say she is not liable for the bailiff’s fees. The Council’s acceptance of Ms A’s payment has also not caused Ms A an injustice as it has been put towards the cost of the PCN and bailiff’s fees incurred to pursue it.


        http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/tran...ies/16-008-073

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Notice of Intended Removal

          This would have killed their argument dead Taken from schedule 12 regulation 7 of the Tribunals courts and enforcement act 2007 key points (1) & (3) the notice must be given not posted and the enforcement agent must be able to prove it showing a record of the time it was GIVEN this is the law this is what they hope you do not know and understand. So when you pay on-line you paid at a time the warrant was defective / the warrant had not been in-forced at the time of payment

          Notice of enforcement 7
          (1)
          An enforcement agent may not take control of goods unless the debtor has been givennotice.
          (2)
          Regulations must state—
          (a)
          the minimum period of notice;
          (b)
          the form of the notice;
          (c)
          what it must contain;
          (d)
          how it must be given;
          (e)
          who must give it.
          (3)
          The enforcement agent must keep a record of the time when the notice is given.
          (4)
          If regulations authorise it, the court may order in prescribed circumstances that thenotice given may be less than the minimum period.
          (5)
          The order may be subject to conditions.

          Comment

          View our Terms and Conditions

          LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

          If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


          If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
          Working...
          X