Update - TEC now saying Te7 and TE9 not received despite sending email acknowledgement

[Jamberson]

I'm not sure about it. A document showing that the debtor's wife bought or sold a house doesn't really prove where the debtor was living, although it's better than nothing. The email is similar - OK but not brilliant (it's only an email).

 

Do you have an actual council tax bill/statement, with the husband's name on, showing he was liable for council tax at the new address, from April 13? That would be perfect.

[LittleHen]

Council are sending copy bills through by email sometime today but probably not till late, possibly tomorrow. Old paper copy of council tax bill thrown away long since and all other bills in my name. We can wait and chance our arm that the bailiff doesn't come back today, or we can send fors now what we have. As TomTubby said to ge the forms back in asap we thought best to send with what we have to hand. Would it be better to wait for the email?Many thanksLH

[Jamberson]

I'd wait if it were me. It's unlikely they'll do anything in the next few hours - better in my view to have a strong application, but it's up to you.

 

If the bailiff did happen to show up, don't answer the door and keep doors and windows shut. They can't do anything unless you let them in. The worst they would do is try and clamp the car - is it out the way this afternoon?

[LittleHen]

The vehicle the PCN relates to was my husband's former work van. He no longer owns it. His new van is outside our house but is on the HP so bailiff cannot remove or clamp legally as far as I know. My car is on our driveway but this is my car in my sole name bought 5 years ago before we were married so again bailiff cannot clamp or remove as far as I know. My car needed this afternoon to pick up the kids. Husband could possibly move van if really necessary. Thanks so much for your help and your thoughts much appreciated on what to do with the vehicles.My understanding re charging is that as he has already charged £235 for a visit, he can't charge that fee again no matter how many visits he makes,a nd that a further fee of £110 could only be charged if goods were taken away and sold.

[Jamberson]

I'm no expert on bailiff fees, but I think you are right.

 

They can't touch the van legally if it's on HP, nor if it's a works vehicle he needs to earn a living. That sounds OK.

 

You car is vulnerable - they will view it as jointly owned if you are married. It's pretty unlikely they will show up today or first thing, but not impossible. I don't suppose you have a garage to put it in? If it's worrying you, maybe get your forms in now, and send in the council tax when it arrives, clearly marking it as evidence to be attached.

 

As I say, if it were me, I'd risk waiting.

[LittleHen]

I'm no expert on bailiff fees, but I think you are right.

 

They can't touch the van legally if it's on HP, nor if it's a works vehicle he needs to earn a living. That sounds OK.

 

You car is vulnerable - they will view it as jointly owned if you are married. It's pretty unlikely they will show up today or first thing, but not impossible. I don't suppose you have a garage to put it in? If it's worrying you, maybe get your forms in now, and send in the council tax when it arrives, clearly marking it as evidence to be attached.

 

As I say, if it were me, I'd risk waiting.

 

Hi JambersonHuge thanks. The van is indeed a work vehicle, he is a self employed builder and uses the van each day to transport materials etc and would be out of business if he could not use it. We have no garage unfortunately and the car is needed twice daily to transport the kids to and from childcare. Logistically very inconvenient to have to keep it elsewhere but will have to look at moving it tonight once I am home from work and keeping it out of the way until the Council Tax copy bill is received and we have confirmation that the TE7 and TE9 have been received by TEC and passed onto the council. Again huge thanks. We will be making a donation to this site once all this is over, the help given is invaluable and long may the good work of you and all other Caggers continue.

[Jamberson]

Keep us posted...

[LittleHen]

No Council Tax bill copy received from Council. They are now closed (stuck in unexpected meeting so did not get chance to chase just before closing).Will have to call them in the morning but do not hold out great hopes of getting anything promptly. Would TEC be prepared to accept a copy bill to be filed as a subsequent attachment to a TE7 if hubby files it first thing tomorrow?

[Jamberson]

Probably, but there's always a risk of the system going askew if things aren't done by the book. It would probably be OK though.

 

The bailiff won't be put on hold until TEC notify the council, so getting it to them first thing may not speed things up.

 

It's pretty unlikely they will appear in the next 24 hours.

[LittleHen]

Bingo! Found an old file with a Thames Water bill dated Aug 13 addressed to husband at present address, and a boiler warranty addressed to him at present address dated October 13.

 

Would those be sufficient proof of address do you think?

[Jamberson]

Yes, I would say the Water Bill is adequate. You can submit it with that now, and maybe forward the Council Tax as well when it arrives to be absolutely covered.

[LittleHen]

Fab. Filed with water bill attached and husband will call tomorrow to confirm receipt by TEC. We have email acknowledgement but do not trust it after last time.

 

Car OK in drive overnight do you think? Will hide tomorrow after dropping kids, and pick up once confirmed that forms received by council.

 

Once again so many thanks. Really.

[Jamberson]

Yes, I'd say car will be OK. In the unlikely event they show up in the morning, you have proof that you've sent the TE7/TE9 so you should be fine.

[ploddertom]

Even if the van is a work vehicle it is now not completely exempt from seizure - only tools of the trade up to £1350, anything over this is liable to be seized.

[LittleHen]

Even if the van is a work vehicle it is now not completely exempt from seizure - only tools of the trade up to £1350, anything over this is liable to be seized.

 

Many thanks - I had read something about this but as the van is also on HP had understood it could not be legally seized as it does not belong to husband until paid off (not to happen for a few years yet). If I have it wrong please let me know.

[ploddertom]

Many thanks - I had read something about this but as the van is also on HP had understood it could not be legally seized as it does not belong to husband until paid off (not to happen for a few years yet). If I have it wrong please let me know.

 

Sorry must have missed that bit. If on HP then it doesn't belong to you anyway. To be on the safe side you should keep a copy of the HP agreement handy should it be necessary.

[LittleHen]

Paragraphing still not working on this computer, for which apologies. The fun and games continue. The TE7 and TE9 forms filed last night, for which we have an email acknowledgement from TEC confirming receipt, have once again been lost in their system. Husband called first thing this morning and TEC confirmed nothing showing as received on their system despite what their email acknowledgement said. So now we have two acknowledgements of receipt from TEC in respect of which their system has lost the docs somewhere. So we have filed again and this time husband waited on the phone for them to check receipt. This time docs and attachments have been received. The forms have to be checked to see that they have been completed correctly which apparently 'could take time', and the forms may not be processed today despite what TEC say about docs which reach them before 4pm being processed same day. This is absolutely ridiculous. Once we have confirmation that enforcement has been put on hold husband is going to complain. He will check with Equita what date their bailiff attended and ask for evidence, and if the bailiff visited after 15 August following our original email confirmation of receipt from TEC for our submission of 14th (which should have been with the bailiff by 15th), he wants the bailiff visit charge of £235 rescinded as the visit should not have happened if TEC's systems had been working properly and husband's docs had not been lost. Whether this will yield any result, we shall see. Obviously if the OOT is accepted by the council (we live in hope) and the PCN clock is reset he will not need to pursue that avenue.

[LittleHen]

Update

 

We are still waiting to hear the outcome of the OOT statement. My husband has also written a letter of complaint to council in respect of the difficulty he had contacting bailiffs and attempting to pay the initial fine (attempted before he knew about the OOT process and started down that route), which has increased our potential costs by over 100% of what they originally were.

 

As suggested by posters, we have been gathering information concerning the warrant and the date of bailiff visits etc. We have today received a letter from Equita to confirm that:

 

• The warrant was issued on 25 May, presumably to old address
  
• The bailiff my husband tried on multiple occasions to contact was assigned to our case on 24 July but removed 1st August
  
• The current bailiff was not then appointed until 15 August no-one told my husband about the situation although he had continued to try to reach the original bailiff after he was removed on 1 Aug
  
• The new bailiff visited on 21 August. My husband sent his original submission to TEC on 14 August and received confirmation of receipt that same day, after an initial submission that day rejected as form not correctly completed. So if TEC had not lost the form (which apparently is the case) the bailiff would not have visited as the OOT statement would have been received by the council and notified to the bailiff well before the visit. Husband is absolutely furious.
  

 

What is not clear is when the warrant was re-issued to our new address (if that has any bearing on the situation).

 

If our OOT statement is rejected, the additional charge of £235 for the visit will have to be paid, and has arisen as a result of TEC apparently losing our original forms. Would we be able to take action against them to recoup the £235 charge?

 

All this is pie in the sky of course until we hear on the decision re the OOT statement. TEC say expecting to hear 24th/25th Sep.

 

Any advice/help most gratefully received as always. I am now dreading the doorbell in case it is the bailiff coming back if council have decided against our OOT but we have not received notification.

[Jamberson]

Update

I am now dreading the doorbell in case it is the bailiff coming back if council have decided against our OOT but we have not received notification.

 

Assume it will take a couple of weeks for the council to deal with it. If the council reject it, they will give you another couple of weeks hold, to decide whether to take it further or pay the amount owing, without further action. So, you have a period of no action on the case.

 

If you are worried, you could call the council once a week to check the situation, but they won't just spring a bailiff visit on you.

[LittleHen]

 

If you are worried, you could call the council once a week to check the situation, but they won't just spring a bailiff visit on you.

 

Thanks for responding Jamberson. Recall reading somewhere that bailiffs are notified by email and debtors by post of decisions and that bailiffs use this to spring visits on debtors who are not yet in the picture. Maybe this is untrue. Note you say call the council, is it them rather than TEC?

 

Any merit in pursuing TEC for the extra £235 from bailiff visit, after we had received acknowledgement of TE7 and 9 from TEC but their system lost the forms?

 

Many thx as always

[Jamberson]

You are entitled to notification and a period to decide what to do, by law, so surprise visits should never happen. It is possible if post goes missing though. The council instructs the bailiff what to do and when to resume action, so yes, check with the council where you stand.

 

Not sure how to go about challenging this £235. My instinct would be to approach the council again, but I'm not sure. It's something you can post on the bailiff forum for advice.

[LittleHen]

Many thanks as always Jamberson

 

I did post a question related to our case on the Bailiffs thread but it was merged with this thread - from what I could make out everything to do with this particular situation was thought best kept in one place.

 

Will see what comes out of the OOT and, if the council reject the application, will maybe try posting on the Bailiff thread, although as it will relate to this case it may get posted back to this thread.

[Jamberson]

This is better off on the bailiff forum than here. If they have to be merged, they should be merged there. (Mods? Can we move it?)

 

Alternatively, why not post there just about the refund matter? It's a bailiff issue, little to do with parking.

[LittleHen]

Husband has this afternoon received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunal Service to say Application to file Statutory Declaration out of time was referred to Court Officer and has been refused!

 

Husband is advised that he has to completed notice N244 for this decision to be reviewed.

 

We put down explanation for why original notice of parking offence was not received, wording agreed with Jamberson, so do no understand why OOT has been refused, especially as proof of non residence at former address was provided thru Utility bills with OOT application.

 

Why would application be refused as husband no longer lived at address to which PCN was originally served, and proof of new address provided in form of utility bill attached to OOT statement?

 

Apart from anything else, originally OOT statement was lodged with TEC on 14 August. Initial application rejected via email by TEC as boxes not correctly completed. Application form re submitted on 14 Aug following discussion with TEC representative and form correctly competed over phone with their assistance. Confirmation of receipt of form TE7 and TE9 received from TEC on 14 August - nothing mentioned this time re incorrect completion so assumed all well.

 

See all previous postings re this case - we filed form on 14 August in god fait that no further action would be taken once receipt acknowledged y TEC without any errors mentioned. At that point costs were £127 parking fee plus £75 letter fee. /husband had tried on various occasions (evidence available) n to contact enforcement officer in charge of case with no reply, enforcement officer was appointed on 24 July and removed 1 Aug, no further officer appointed until 15 Aug. Husband called on 14 August to say forms submitted to TEC and to complain again about original bailiff not responding to calls/texts. Equita said new bailiff was to be appointed and would be in touch re this case. First we heard from new bailiff was on return from holiday on 22 August to find notice of enforcement through door adding £235 onto original costs.

 

We do not believe that the rejection is fair.

 

We do not believe that Equita have dealt with this case fairly i.e. appointing original agent, then replacing with new agent but not supplying details so that husband could get in touch to pay fine prior to visit.

 

What on earth do we do now?

 

Will copy and post this to bailiff forum, at very least we feel that £235 fee should be rescinded as husband filed forms TE7 and TE9 on 14 August without rejection (following original rejection email)and it appears that TEC lost these forms, bailiff did not visit until 21 August and so if original TE7 and TE9 as submitted on 14 Aug had been passed to Equita, this additional £235 would not have been levied as bailiff visit would not have happened.

 

Urgent help needed as to what to do next.

 

Best

 

LH