Clamped by NEWLYN forced to pay

[serhat]

Hi to everyone firstly.

 

I woke up on the 14th of July 2010 at around 7am to hear a weird noise from outside,

when i went to have a look i saw a guy clamping my car,

i quickly opened my window to ask the person to stop what he was doing but he did not seem to care what i said.

 

When i went down to confront him regarding the clamp, he told me PCN charge for Islington council,

i remembered immediately,

i had forgotten to get back to the council as the PCN was being sent to my old address.

 

anyways cutting it short i was told i had to pay or car would be taken in half n hour,

well not knowing about clamping i got scared,

i didnt say anything and went inside thinking what to do,

the bailiff came back and said you have till 11.30am to pay or tow truck will tow your car.

 

i made calls to friends to get the money which was £818.57 i managed to find the money,

when the bailiff came back i asked for a breakdown first but was refused

, with the panic and stress of my car being towed away i payed.

 

I came home and onto the net to find many forums with lots of these bailiff charges

 

The breakdown i was given is as follows

 

Debt £185.00

First Letter £11.20

HPI £20.00

Attends and V1 £162.00

Attends and V2 £66.00

Attends and V3 £70.00

Cancel Tow £90.00

Clamp £120.00

VAT £94.37

 

Total £818.57

 

when i saw this i quested about the charges but was told to speak to write in letter.

 

 My Car is on Finance and self employed

  

Is the charges above correct if you could help, what are they allowed to charge me if my car is on finance and used for work as im self employed.

  

thanks from now.

 

[Surfer01]

Not my field of expertsie but I would say that there are a number fo illegal charges. I am sure that someone like TomTubby will be along to address the problem and offer advice.

[crem]

I would suggest you also re-post a copy of this thread in the bailiffs section as tomtubby may see it quicker in there.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Bailiffs-and-Sheriff-Officers

[serhat]

..

 

[Zamzara]

What documents did you receive about the PCN, and what replies did you make?

[serhat]

I did not get no letters from NEWLYN at all but i do have the original parking fine, but apart from that no such letters from NEWLYN.

[pin1onu]

I did not get no letters from NEWLYN at all but i do have the original parking fine, but apart from that no such letters from NEWLYN.

If your car is on finance it cannot be distrained for debt as you don't have clear title to it. You should contact provide the bailiff with a copy of the finance agreement or a letter from the finance company stating that they own the vehicle and the clamp should be removed. Any of their fees for towing and clamping are also rendered invalid.

[Zamzara]

I did not get no letters from NEWLYN at all but i do have the original parking fine, but apart from that no such letters from NEWLYN.

 

What about letters from the council?

[serhat]

Hi,

 

Thanks for the reply, no only the PCM letter I have apart from that I did not get any other letters from the council,

 

Are they allowed the charge levy on my car as it's on finance?

And How can they charge tow if no tow truck came and clamp if it's on finance?

 

Can I go about sending them a letter stating the illegal charges? How do I go about getting a refund?

 

Kind regards

Thanks in advance to your replys.

[hallowitch]

If the bailiff has done a HPI check surly they would already know that the car is on finance and should not have charged Cancel Tow £90.00

Clamp £120.00

read posts by tomtubby

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?197308

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031857.htm

 

 

In the Central London county court - Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). Before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008

 

Mr Culligan challenged the bailiffs fees & charges imposed by Mr Simkin and Marstons when levying distress and seeking to remove Mr Culigans car for non-payment of a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Camden.

 

The Judgment goes a long way to clarify exactly what a Bailiff can charge for levying distress. Bailiffs have always sought to charge for fixing an immobilisation device by clamping a vehicle, and an attendance to remove. These charges in Anthony Culligan's case were £200 (£100 for the clamp and £100 for attendance to remove). The Bailiffs have argued that the Fee Regulations permit them to make a charge for levying distress (that is 28% on the first £200 demanded, and for removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods are removed, reasonable costs and charges). Bailiffs have claimed that the costs of putting on a clamp, etc. are costs to be included in attending to remove where no goods are removed, if payment is made before the vehicle concerned is removed.

 

 

 

 

DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:-

 

1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods.

 

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

 

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:-

 

"Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so I cannot see that Form 7 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7".

 

The District Judge went on to find that the application of the clamp falls within the act of levying distress and does not form part of the removal process, whatever the Bailiff's Contract with Camden says.

 

The Bailiff also charged Anthony Culligan £100 for the " reasonable costs " of removing the vehicle (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at Anthony Culligan's home. Because the Bailiff produced no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived at he was unable to show that it was reasonable.

 

The District Judge in his conclusion says:

 

"I am also conscious that my findings in this case ... may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress. To do otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful... I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgment now continued to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be unlawful....".

 

What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed.

 

You should know however that Marstons obtained permission to appeal from the District Judge. His reasons for granting the permission were :

 

"The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheelclamping before.

My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking.

 

Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard"

 

Finally, Camden now as a matter of urgency, need to revise their Contract with Bailiffs such as Marston, to take account of the District Judge's Judgment generally, and in particular to remove the authority to charge a fee for an immobilisation device over and above that provided for in the Statutory Fee Regulations.

 

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?212401

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?214391

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?115030

[serhat]

hi thanks for the reply,

 

could i ask, is their a anywhere in which i could get a template letter to explain that the car is on finance and the charges levied are illegal as the car does not fully belong to me due to it being on finance.

 

i dont understand how they can charge so much for charges that are illegal, the goverment should do something about this.

 

i mean everyone should sign an online petition and send to the relevant parties with all evidences of these companies adding excessive charges and forcing people to pay, acting illegally with a bailiff certificate.

 

thanks

[pin1onu]

Have a go at drafting something yourself and post up so that people can comment.

 

There is provision for challenging bailiffs charges. Tomtubby in the bailiff section has posted on this.

 

As you only received the original paperwork, you should also be filing a Statutory Declaration to get the PCN's process returned to the NTO stage. You can download the form at http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=2362. Get it witnessed at your local county court where they'll do it for free and send to TEC by fax. You should advise the bailiff and the council that you have done this. They should suspend bailiff activity.

 

If the Declaration is accepted you will get an NTO which you can either pay or appeal.