Jbw group/whyte lose medway contract

[letsmakeamark]

Article in the local press.

[humandynamics]

I am currently in dispute over a CCTV car fine and was told that my £35 fine is suspended until we have resolved the dispute. Today I received a bill for £105 from the same people. When I called them at my own expense to ask wny they promised a reply by close of play Friday. They did not. I have now written to Robin Cooper and Neil Davies, CEO to ask for an apology for yet another procedural error.

 

Meanwhile, they still commit what can only be described as fraud on a daily basis: Their parking machines do not tell you that they don't give change in what can only be described as a 'very convenient omissiion'. They have admitted as much at the Black Lion centre and have placed notices on these machines but leave the rest of Medway conveniently ambiguous. If NCP were to do this, they would be taken to court. One rule for some and one for another etc.

 

If you wish to complain it is very easy to do so - e-mail addresses are in the form john.smith@medway.gov.uk - so CEO would be neil.davies@medway.gov.uk

 

Finally, when they were asked for comment on BBC Radio Kent, they defeneded themselves by saying that they were not as bad as westminster council, who are the mother of all councils in respect of this. It's rather like saying that you are not such a bad murderer as Atilla the Hun or Adolf Hitler.

[humandynamics]

There is now a Facebook group called Say NO to Medway City Status. This is just another example of the profit seeking Council's attempts to put their own CV's above serving the citizens they are supposed to be there for. Please join and spread the word.

[badjaw]

i am having problems with jbw group they never sent me a letter to inform me that they have taken on my debt instead they waited for a month and visited me when i wasnt in and left a letter saying pay £343 which i found a bit unfair as the original fine was £80 i have complained but they seem to be very well practised at politey telling people to f**k off!!!! HELP the origial fine was a parking fine from fareham council

[fork-it]

COPIED FROM ANOTHER POST: CANT REMEMBER WHERE.

 

 

If you think you have grounds to appeal against the ticket then speak to a parking tickets expert and call the Traffic Enforcement Centre on 08457 045007. More: Info about - County Court Bulk Centre - Traffic Enforcement Centre. parkingappeals.co.uk whose launch was hosted by Lord Lucas, provides support for motorists appealing against tickets may be able to help.

 

The law prescribing bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid parking tickets is Schedule 1 et-al of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs)(Amended 2003) Regulations 1993. If you have been overcharged then you have a right to reclaim them. Broadly speaking the law provides for bailiffs to charge:

 

Letter Fee £11.20 - If letter arrives after first visit is made then its £0.00, if a bailiff says he sent a letter, you have a right to see the Certificate of Posting which has been date-stamped by a postmaster. This is not the same as a proof of posting.

 

Levying Distress up to £100 (excluding bailiffs fees but including court fees) - £28

More than £100 - 28% for the first £200 then 5.5% on everything over £200

 

If no levy is made then bailiffs can charge fees for a maximum of three visits. Multiple fees cannot be charged for simultaneous unpaid ticket collections.

 

The law provides "Reasonable costs" to transporting your goods or vehicle to auction and selling them. If a bailiff asks you to pay a fee for a breakdown of costs under a pretence it is accessing personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998, then you do not owe the bailiff any costs. Culligan -v- Marston Group Ltd et-al, no. 8CL51015, District Judge Avent said - because the Bailiff produced no breakdown of his charges, he is unable to show that it is reasonable costs. Therefore, spuriously named fees such as, van fees, tow truck fees, attending to remove fees and admin fees are NIL. The law does not provide for bailiffs to make a gain for himself or another by transporting your goods or vehicle to auction and selling them.

 

If a bailiff defrauds you with his fees, he commits an arrestable offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. It is called fraud by false representation.

 

The following procedure currently has a 100% success rate. The letter below asks the bailiff to pass a truth-test about his fees. Three things can happen:

 

1) The HCEO tries to convince you his fees comply with the law – you now have a written confession he intended to defraud you

2) He can refund you – this is called mitigation of intent to defraud and accepts the opportunity to put things right

3) No reply – you can proceed with litigation at your leisure

 

In any event, you have the bailiff with pants at half mast

 

The Bailiff Company

Their Address 1

Their Address 2

Their Address 3

Postcode

 

BY POST AND BY EMAIL

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: [YOUR NAME + REF]: Your fees.

 

I write following visits by your bailiff however there appears to an irregularity with your fees and I am writing to ask you to provide me the following within seven (7) days:

 

1) The name of the court that issued the certificate for the bailiff in charge.

 

2) Written itemised breakdown of a) your fees, and b) the original debt.

 

3) The name and address of the organisation that instructed you

 

4) If you have charged non-statutory fees prescribed in law, a breakdown of your costs to show they are reasonable and not charged for the purpose of making a gain for yourself or another.

 

5) a) Truthfully confirm in writing your fees are lawful and comply with legislation or, b) refund me the unlawful fees plus reasonable compensation for being cheated by your bailiff with his fees by midday the seventh day from the date of this letter.

 

A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an arrestable offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 2 of the Act specifically describes a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss therefore, if no satisfactory refund is made to me by 12.00 midday seven (7) days from the date of this letter I will automatically file a complaint to police under the 2006 Fraud Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. If you have charged VAT on unlawful fees then you may be reported for VAT fraud and your documents will be given in evidence.

 

Case law requires I recover unlawful bailiffs fees from your client that instructed you. If you fail to make the required refund within seven days I will automatically proceed by filing the claim at court.

 

This is a letter before action and is not a request to access any personal data about me in the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998. It is delivered by Royal Mail and deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It now is your responsibility and in your best interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

YOUR NAME

Copied to: The Mayor and Burgesses of [NAME OF COUNCIL]

 

 

Send a copy of the letter to the council along with a copy of the bailiff’s fee document.

 

Head of Revenue

Borough Council

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Postcode

 

[DATE]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Parking ticket [CAR REGISTRATION/PCN] and your bailiffs fees

 

Please find a copy of a letter before action that has been delivered by even post to your contractor who is claiming you have instructed to act.

 

You contractor is cheating with his fees and it is my intention to reclaim them by filing proceedings in the small claims track if they are not refunded in full within seven days.

 

As the council is liable for its agents it is my intention to name the council as the principle defendant, however, Court rules require me to give the council reasonable opportunity to settle the claim beforehand.

 

If you wish to settle the claim, please pay me the sum described in the enclosed letter at the above address within seven days from the date of this letter.

 

You may wish to launch an investigation or make your own enquiries; this does not delay the proceedings being filed at Court, and to protect other taxpayers from being defrauded in this way, the case will pass to the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

These documents are delivered by Royal Mail and deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It now is your responsibility and in your best interests they are handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

[YOUR NAME]

 

Encs:

1 Copy of letter to bailiff

2. Copy of bailiff document showing his fees.

 

If you don't get a refund in seven days or the bailiffs fob you off with excuses, download and complete a Form N1 from the HMCS website. The Defendants are addressed as:

 

THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF [NAME OF COUNCIL] 1st DEFENDANT

 

AND

 

[NAME OF BAILIFF COMPANY] a firm, 2nd DEFENDANT

 

Brief Details of the Claim - enter - Reclaiming unlawful bailiff's fees.

 

Particulars of claim:

 

I received a bailiff acting for the defendant collecting an unpaid parking ticket. The bailiff dishonestly charged me [£AMOUNT] bailiffs fees contrary to the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs)(Amended 2003) Regulations 1993 which prescribes £28 and reasonable costs for transporting a debtors goods in a van. The bailiff did not move any goods in a van and I did not sign any documents for the bailiff. I have been defrauded by the bailiff who is cheating with his fees and I asked for a refund but it was the bailiff’s choice to keep the money. On 20 April 2007, Lord Lucas in the House of Lords asked HM Government (inter-alia) "whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter"? Baroness Scotland of Asthal, The Minister of State, Home Office replied: (inter-alia) "A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006". Reasonable costs have been defined by District Judge Advent on the 9th & 24th September 2008 presiding over Case No 8CL51015 Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). The court ruled that “because the Bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable". I claim i) the sum of [£AMOUNT], ii) Interest under Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from the date the money became due at the daily rate of 0.00022%, iii) reasonable costs the court thinks fit for being defrauded by the defendant iv) Reasonable costs the court thinks fit for Discovery of Information and compiling this case for court, v) costs allowed by the court at the prescribed rate.

 

Note: The law says the Bailiff can charge a letter fee £11.20, unless the bailiff gives you a certificate of posting this fee can be disregarded.

 

If you are on a low income then complete an EX160 fee remission form.

 

File the Form N1 at you local county court. The claim will be defended (with the same old bailiff's ramblings) and the court will send you an allocation questionnaire. Keep all documents and receipts given to you by the bailiff and await the hearing date. Do not be bullied by bailiffs or the council's barrister to get you to drop the claim. You want ALL your money back plus your costs and interest in CLEARED FUNDS. Go before the Judge and ask for it. When the judge has awarded your judgment, always ask the judge for your "costs of today at the prescribed amount", he'll award you an extra 60-quid on top of your costs. Remember, you are a litigant-in-person and court rules say the judge must advocate for you in court.

 

When a bailiff defrauds you with his fees he commits an arrestable offence and you have a right to make a criminal complaint to police. Your document is sufficient evidence and the police should at minimum, arrest the bailiff and question him under caution at a police station and the bailiffs DNA goes on the national database!

 

The Chief Constable

Name of Police Authority

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Postcode

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Reporting a crime committed under the Fraud Act 2006

 

I enclose a document given to me by a man saying he is a bailiff firm [and threatened to commit breaking and entering and take property unless I pay him £AMOUNT]. He charged fees £AMOUNT when the law prescribes a fee of £28.

 

I appreciate the police have a propensity to dismiss bailiff crime to be a civil matter, but the official legal position is the bailiff commits an arrestable offence under the 2006 Fraud Act. Lord Lucas at the House of Lords on 20 April 2007 when he asked HM Government whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) replied with, inter-alia (quote) A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 (unquote).

 

Section 1 means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

The law can provide reasonable costs in respect of bailiffs transporting goods in a van (attending to remove fee) however no goods have been levied and no document has been signed by me. District Judge Advent on the 9th & 24th September 2008 presiding over Case 8CL51015 Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). The court ruled that (quote) because the bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable (unquote).

 

Any offence committed under the 2006 Fraud Act is an arrestable offence under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Please assign a crime reference number and I request the crime is investigated professionally and objectively and I am happy to help you in your enquiries and stand as a prosecution witness at trial. I respectfully ask that police do not look for reasons for not investigating a crime or try to conceal it in some way to avoid passing the case to the Crown Prosecution Service.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

YOUR NAME

Enc: copy of bailiff document giving contact details

 

If the police fob you off with excuses or tries a delay tactic, write down the name and rank of the police officer and contact the IPCC and your MP with a written complaint of 'Perverting the Course of Justice'. It is an offence under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to conceal a crime under false pretences. You will then find the police will start cooperating soon enough!

[letsmakeamark]

Word has it that jamie waller has just kissed his contracts manager goodbye. Azra jennings who started her job a couple of years ago with a lot of advertising done by waller worked her final day on friday 6th may 2011. Good luck to her and very very bad luck to mr waller. However when i approached jbw for comments they refused.

[hallowitch]

looks like your right

 

twitter

Azra Jennings

Great night thank you to all @JBWGroup I will miss each and everyone of you xAx

 

7 May

»

[sillygirl1]

Wonder who will replace her.....

[letsmakeamark]

They will probably go for some one in either philips or newlyns plc.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

"Wonder who will replace her....."

 

Darth Maul?

 

former members of the Mubarak regime?

[brassnecked]

Gordon Brown, on loan from the IMF

[letsmakeamark]

No they will try and poach from another bailiff company or some ex council manager. Wesminster would be their favorite. After all thats where they poached and then also marstons as well as they also poached from there as well. Wander how long till somone actually poches the chair of jbw group etc ?

[brassnecked]

No they will try and poach from another bailiff company or some ex council manager. Wesminster would be their favorite. After all thats where they poached and then also marstons as well as they also poached from there as well. Wander how long till somone actually poches the chair of jbw group etc ?

 

Nice game of musical jobs then? Gordon Brown was a joke wildcard BTW

[letsmakeamark]

Nobody from the b a i l i f f world has said anything yet. I was sure mr waller would jump at any publicity he got ?

[seanamarts]

Talking of Mr Waller, does any one follow him on face book? I have to say he likes to let everyone know what he is up to

It looks like he is far too busy to even care what happens to his company

Edited May 13, 2011 by seanamarts
some one stole my 'i' and 's'

[letsmakeamark]

Well dont want to say to much. This is a repeat of when that nice lady tracey cox was at jbw a couple of years ago. she left by first going over to westminster and then leaving jbw altogether. Apparently jbw are also signing refusal on out of times witness statements as well for a number of councils. Oops did i say that ?

[Yellow160]

Talking of Mr Waller, does any one follow him on face book? I have to say he likes to let everyone know what he is up to

It looks like he is far too busy to even care what happens to his company

 

Yeah seen a few tweets from him, trading his porsche in LOL.. must be coining it in.

 

and they seem to have offices within spitting distance from where i work in Darlington.

[letsmakeamark]

They seem to have them everywhere. For some odd reason they dont seem to have that many a staff sticking around.

[letsmakeamark]

Thursday, November 03, 2011

[url=http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/CCTV-car-s-fines-void/story-13744945-detail/story.html#][/url]

Exclusive

EVERY fine issued by Medway Council's CCTV car should be repaid because of blunders in its paperwork, an appeals tribunal has heard.

Thousands of motorists could be refunded fines - thought to total more than £1 million- if campaigner Nigel Wise is successful in his request for a parking ticket issued by the infamous camera car to be overturned.

Mr Wise, a carer and member of the anti-camera-car campaign group No To Mob, highlighted errors in the council's certification for the vehicles when he appealed a ticket at a Traffic Penalty Tribunal hearing last week.

He told the tribunal: "It's an appeal which will have repercussions for Medway Council. Not just for this PCN [penalty charge notice] but for every PCN they have ever given."

Fighting a ticket on behalf of Jackie Hubbard, of Twickenham, Mr Wise said the council's breaches were "inescapable".

He also referred to a similar appeal he had won in April, which forced Richmond Council to agree to repay about £1 million-worth of CCTV-vehicle issued tickets.

Mr Wise argued that the council's certificate for the cars, issued by the Vehicle Certification Agency, was "defective" and "deficient" because it did not list the recording system used on the vehicles, as required by law.

He also said the fact that council staff review footage recorded by the cars before issuing a ticket - instead of doing so at the time of an alleged parking offence - is contrary to the council's CCTV code of practice.

During the appeal, at the Grange Moor Hotel in Maidstone, last Friday, adjudicator John O'Higgins said he would consider Mr Wise's claims with no "preconceptions" and "prejudgment".

The adjudicator adjourned the hearing for 28 days to allow the council to respond in writing.

A Medway Council spokesman said: "It would be inappropriate for us to comment before we present our case before the tribunal, except to say that we shall vigorously contest this incorrect claim as our vehicles are properly registered and certified."

Max Evans

 

Original here : http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/CCTV-car-s-fines-void/story-13744945-detail/story.html

[green_and_mean]

Obviously not much exciting happens in Kent if they have to report parking cases that haven't even been decided on.

[letsmakeamark]

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Let-parking-ticket-battles-begin/story-13819035-detail/story.html

 

 

 

If it transpires that all the parking tickets issued by those dratted Smart cars can be rescinded because of a technicality then power to the elbow of those who discovered the error of their ways.

Perhaps they're like George Cook, who clearly took exception to the Penalty Charge Notice his son received 13 months ago when he stopped at a "Taxi Rank" in Longley Road, Rainham, to pick up his mum and was captured on celluloid by a camera car in the six seconds he had stopped.

George went on the rampage and as I've said before, he's not someone you want to annoy. He finds things out and they're generally anti-establishment things.

What he discovered this time was that the Longley Road taxi bay was not shown on the relevant Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).

His visit to Medway Council Parking Services at Strood secured him a copy of the latest TRO for Medway Taxi Bays. Longley Road, Rainham, is not shown and any PCNs issued there are consequently invalid.

The lines are still there together with the words "Taxi Rank." It should read "Taxis" while on each end of the bay, where the elbow turns 90 degrees towards the kerb, there are lines missing.

It appears taxi bays and double yellow lines cannot be used together, either.

For more than a year the council's parking team has been aware the bay is not compliant and shouldn't be there. Any person having received a PCN there should be able to reclaim any fine imposed.

The taxi bay road markings in Blue Boar Lane, Rochester; Station Road, Strood; Slicketts Hill, Chatham; Cross Street, Chatham; Richard Street, Chatham; Ordnance Street, Chatham; Railway Street, Gillingham and Twydall Green, Gillingham are also not compliant with something called TSGR&D 2002.

All have one or more of the following errors: white paint instead of yellow, the words Taxi Rank instead of Taxis or double yellow lines.

Any readers receiving a PCN for these should appeal stating: "The alleged contravention did not occur" and add (according to their situation) wording like "I am also appealing as the Bay does not comply with TSGRD 1028.2 as legend marked on bay is "TAXI RANK" and should be "TAXIS" or "Paint used is white where it should be yellow" or "Bay end markings do not have broken transverse lines at end, only the inverted 'L' shape marking the outside corner of each end of the bay" or that "The 1018 (Double yellows) cannot be used in conjunction with a 1028.2 in any case (direction 22(3) of TSRGD 2002)" or even "Sign covered by foliage, missing or illegible."

The sign-off line should be: "The penalty charge should be cancelled forthwith."

And there you have it. Not only the knowledge, but the way to complain, the wording needed and how to get your hard-earned money back.

[sailor sam]

A lot of people are wrongly under the impression that they can stop for a 'few seconds' to drop off/pickup someone in taxi bays, bus bays and on other places where a 'no stopping' restriction applies. Obviously there is a signifitant difference between these and DYLs. However, the bays must be corectly signed/marked for them to be compliant. See the below link;

 

http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/parking.htm#Taxi

[Jamberson]

I find things like this quite depressing. It will be a triumph for someone to get their PCN refunded - but will also compel the council, at the public's expense, to send a crew around all their taxi ranks, changing "Taxi rank" to 'Taxis". What a waste of time and money.

[green_and_mean]

I find things like this quite depressing. It will be a triumph for someone to get their PCN refunded - but will also compel the council, at the public's expense, to send a crew around all their taxi ranks, changing "Taxi rank" to 'Taxis". What a waste of time and money.

 

Don't worry its all going to change soon! Parking sign regulations are due to change in the next TSRGD and most will be removed allowing Councils to be more flexible, the need for upright signs will be removed if the bay is sign written such as a blue badge bay and there are many more changes.

[sailor sam]

Don't worry its all going to change soon! Parking sign regulations are due to change in the next TSRGD and most will be removed allowing Councils to be more flexible, the need for upright signs will be removed if the bay is sign written such as a blue badge bay and there are many more changes.

 

Personally, (speaking with my bus driver's hat on) I think that the 'no stopping' restrictions on town/city centre bus stop/bays should continue to be enforced. legislation is comming in to make all service buses low floor and wheel chair accessable so it follows that buses will have to be able to pull up near the kerb. Cars occupying stops, even for a few seconds will make this difficult.