Taking Control of Goods 2013 and the enforcement of unpaid Magistrate Court fines.....

[tomtubby]

Panaka;

 

I contribute to many forums but have tended to avoid this one due to general the 'roll over and let the bailiff poop all over you' stance.

 

I believe I know the site you are referring to, EDIT

 

 

 

Given your comments about "profiles" would you mind confirming whether or not YOU use the user name of PANAKA on the other "many forums" that you contribute to?? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary.

 

 

"The collective fight must be to make the bailiff's life as difficult as possible."

 

What a ridiculous comment for anyone to make. Such a comment is normally the reserve of sites connected to "debt avoidance" or more commonly: Freeman on the Land and other worthless set ups.

 

The "collective fight" should instead be to assist debtors who have been the subject of bailiff enforcement . I will provide an excellent example in a few moments.

 

 

The 'Magicians Choice' thingy has certainly worked for me.

 

Now you are being silly. Who do you think that you are trying to kid.....

 

If the "Magicians Choice" magic trick worked for you then please explain YOUR own post on the previous page where you stated this:

 

 

"Shall I let you into a little secret? I had the bailiffs at my door recently regarding council tax. They were demanding the debt plus £277.50 - £42.50 for 2 visits in March and £235 for a visit in April "

Edited May 29, 2014 by Andyorch
External forum name removed.

[sequenci]

A court or council is never going to pass their money onto a bailiff.

 

 

Actually, I know first hand that this happens.

[HCEOs]

Actually, I know first hand that this happens.

 

I also know that they do pass money on.

 

However, given the amount of work bailiffs get from councils they will forgo the odd fee in the interest of their commercial relationship.

[tomtubby]

Panaka,

 

 

Let me demonstrate to you how this forum differs in the advice that it gives to debtors. I will use a true example seen yesterday on the website in question and I will compare the 'advice' given by "JasonDWB" with the advice that the debtor would have received if she had posted on this forum:

 

 

The debtor (Servalan83) posted a query about Task Enforcement bailiff clamping a car and demanding £520.

 

The debtor confirmed that she had moved from her property at the end of October and had 'no fixed abode' for around 5 weeks until moving into her current property. It would seem that she had driven into the CC charging zone in November.

 

Crucially, she states on the forum that she had "suffered a "full fledged suicidal breakdown" including "Psychotic Depression" and that she also suffers from "chronic severe depression and Borderline Personality Disorder". She is not registered disabled for the purpose of benefits but registered "at work under the Equality Act 2010".

 

It appears that the bailiff (from Task Enforcement) located her car outside of her home and clamped the vehicle before knocking on the door to request payment of £520. (I would hazard a guess that the fees were £202 for the CC charge, £7 for the TEC registration fee, £75 for the Compliance Fee and £235 for the Enforcement Fee).

 

The enforcement agent informed her that he would leave the car immobilised for 2 hours before removing the vehicle.

 

She confirmed that due to her health problems she had failed to update her records at DVLA.

 

She paid the bailiff £520 by borrowing the money from her ex husband.

 

Most importantly, in the first line of her post she states that the bailiff was "a polite young man".

 

Rather worryingly she confirms on the forum that: "The only documentation I have even now from Transport for London was an item on his charge list saying 'Congestion Charge Penalty £202"

 

 

 

"JasonDWB" advice.

 

Firstly, he misled this desperately vulnerable debtor by wrongly advising her that the enforcement was "not complainant" given that the enforcement agent had not "GIVEN in PERSON" a "Regulation 6 Notice". Firstly, there is no such document as a "Regulation 6 Notice". Instead, it is a Notice of Enforcement. Secondly, the notice may be GIVEN in a variety of ways...only one of which is in person.

 

The debtor believing the incorrect information to be true has now made a formal complaint to Transport for London and to Task Enforcement regarding 'failure of Regulation 6 and Regulation 10).

 

She has yet to receive a response from TfL. Without waiting to view the response from TfL, JasonDWB astonishingly advises the debtor to "have a chat with the Local Government Ombudsman". He even provides a helpline number for the LGO.

 

Again, believing the information to be true (which it isn't) the poor debtor states that "once this is over I want that bailiff to lose his licence as he is clearly in contempt of the law" and that: "You'll have to advise me later how to do that".......

 

Lastly, "JasonDWB" directs her as to how she can make a Form 4 Complaint.

 

 

 

Sorry....even as I am typing this I find it difficult to believe that this is a TRUE case.

 

 

What 'advice' would she have been given on this forum?

 

We would have asked her to check with the Traffic Enforcement Centre as to whether or not a request had been made to AMEND the warrant of control.

 

Next, we would have asked her whether a Notice of Immobilisation had been properly completed.

 

We would have advised her that the fees charged of £520 appear to be correct.

 

She would have been told that the bailiff acted correct in that he advised her that he would leave the car immobilised for 2 hours.

 

We would have advised her that a Notice of Enforcement may be GIVEN by a variety of different methods.

 

We would have told her that as she had not received a Notice of Enforcement the new regulations did NOT invalidate or revoke the enforcement at all.

 

I would have advised her to consider filing an Out of Time witness statement but in order for it to stand a good chance of being accepted I would have asked her to clarify her comment about the documentation that she had from Transport for London for £202 (which I assume would have been the Order for Recovery). I would have also suggested that she should make sure that you provide with her Witness Statement some evidence of the date in which she vacated her previous property and the date on which she moved into her current address.

 

If I had personally answered her query, and given her serious "vulnerability" I would have referred her query to one of two people at Task Enforcement and one of three people at TfL. I have no hesitation in saying that TfL are by far the best LA and if suitable evidence is provided to prove that a debtor had not resided at a particular address they will reduce the charge accordingly.

 

She would NOT have been told on this forum to contact the LGO. The reason being that we all are fully aware that a complaint should NOT be made to the LGO before allowing a Local Authority to fully respond to a query.

 

This desperately vulnerable debtor would NOT have been told by anyone on this forum to consider a Form 4 Complaint ( and even more so if she has posted that he "was a polite young man").

[ploddertom]

This has gone so far off track it is better to close it and let things cool down.