Credit card 'chargebacks'....bailiff fees....what happens to the warrant of control?

[*RainbowTears*]

Gawd blimey!!

 

To be a great liar, you must remember all the lies you told (even years ago!!!).

 

Reinventing yourself was never going to work with all that coming back to bite your butt.

 

Karma! It reaps what it sows!

 

Lol...

 

I still feel for those who wander there, as these are people's lives that are being played with.

[Coughdrop]

I hope the point has been made clearly that pursuing these chargebacks could potentially land you in deeper trouble. Potentially, it could also damage the ability of other debtors to pay, as enforcement companies will quite simply stop accepting card payments to eliminate this problem. Thus, someone wanting to pay in full on their card is now deprived that option. I fail to see how this is helping debtors.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Coughdrop
Clarify meaning for people born in 1960

[Bailiff Advice]

Before the new regulations came into effect last year it was common practice to have bailiffs clamping cars for road traffic debts and demanding large sums of money including "attending to remove" fees, aborted van fee, DVLA enquiry fee, HPI fee and VAT. That practice has finished and given that we now have one set fee of £235 it is now the case that ANPR vehicles in London are becoming as rare as hens teeth.

 

Where there has been a significant change with vehicle clamping is the requirement to leave a vehicle clamped for a minimum of two hours and in this space of time debtors could be asked to explore alternative methods of payments (instead of credit cards).

 

Also, it is my understanding that most enforcement companies are now working more closely with banks to object to 'chargeback' applications at an early stage. There are a lot of changes ongoing at present.

[Peterbard]

Before the new regulations came into effect last year it was common practice to have bailiffs clamping cars for road traffic debts and demanding large sums of money including "attending to remove" fees, aborted van fee, DVLA enquiry fee, HPI fee and VAT. That practice has finished and given that we now have one set fee of £235 it is now the case that ANPR vehicles in London are becoming as rare as hens teeth.

 

Where there has been a significant change with vehicle clamping is the requirement to leave a vehicle clamped for a minimum of two hours and in this space of time debtors could be asked to explore alternative methods of payments (instead of credit cards).

 

Also, it is my understanding that most enforcement companies are now working more closely with banks to object to 'chargeback' applications at an early stage. There are a lot of changes ongoing at present.

 

Yes and I suppose in an ideal world the two hours should give the owner of a vehicle which has been incorrectly seized time to produce evidence of ownership/exemption, thus enabling the EA to remove the clamp.

 

Even so the advice to cut off the clamp should be given only in very rare circumstances if at all, given the sanctions within the act for interfering with the EA etc.

[Peterbard]

There is also a misconception that , if the debtor pays by card then does a charge-back the debt is settled and the enforcment power ceases..

This is not the case, the act says that the powers cease when the total amount outstanding is paid , now if you pay the money then take it back it is not payed so the power will continue until it is.

[brassnecked]

Yes and I suppose in an ideal world the two hours should give the owner of a vehicle which has been incorrectly seized time to produce evidence of ownership/exemption, thus enabling the EA to remove the clamp.

 

Even so the advice to cut off the clamp should be given only in very rare circumstances if at all, given the sanctions within the act for interfering with the EA etc.

 

If it was a white couriers van and he was delivering to a debtors neighbour but was parked outside the debtors house, and the EA clamped it having just arrived then if I was that courier I would take the 24 volt angle grinder kept in the van to the clamp, after telling the EA to remove the clamp and he refused, obstruction he claims, his clamp is Restraint of Trade contrary to EU law I contend. Actually under that circumstance there cannot be an obstruction of the EA, as the POD tracker and other paperwork should be sufficient to show the EA he was knackered. If the police arrested tha courier before he cut off the clamp, or even after they would be at fault if they ignored the evidence of a van full of parcels etc, and a PNC check on the vehicle.

 

In essence I agree dodgeball, but there are circumstances where it is justified, and that one above would be such.

 

As to chargeback, it is a refund, so it follows that the debt is still outstanding, any payment having been reversed.

 

(sorry for the diversion but this thread is dragging having exhausted itself and come full circle so I thought a little light relief needed)

Edited February 10, 2015 by brassnecked
correct old English shew to modern show.

[Peterbard]

If it was a white couriers van and he was delivering to a debtors neighbour but was parked outside the debtors house, and the EA clamped it having just arrived then if I was that courier I would take the 24 volt angle grinder kept in the van to the clamp, after telling the EA to remove the clamp and he refused, obstruction he claims, his clamp is Restraint of Trade contrary to EU law I contend. Actually under that circumstance there cannot be an obstruction of the EA, as the POD tracker and other paperwork should be sufficient to show the EA he was knackered. If the police arrested tha courier before he cut off the clamp, or even after they would be at fault if they ignored the evidence of a van full of parcels etc, and a PNC check on the vehicle.

 

In essence I agree dodgeball, but there are circumstances where it is justified, and that one above would be such.

 

As to chargeback, it is a refund, so it follows that the debt is still outstanding, any payment having been reversed.

 

(sorry for the diversion but this thread is dragging having exhausted itself and come full circle so I thought a little light relief needed)

 

Yes as said there may be rare circumstances, hopefully as the new regulations are more correctly understood less and less so.

 

Slightly off topic as well I have been looking at the facilities for the debtor to claim in the high court or county court in section 66 of the act, for damages in such a case as you mentioned, I wonder if such n action has been taken upto date and what the mechanisms would be?

[brassnecked]

Yes as said there may be rare circumstances, hopefully as the new regulations are more correctly understood less and less so.

 

Slightly off topic as well I have been looking at the facilities for the debtor to claim in the high court or county court in section 66 of the act, for damages in such a case as you mentioned, I wonder if such n action has been taken upto date and what the mechanisms would be?

 

I would hazard a guess at a twofold approach If the courier was arrested, and detained for obstruction, then a claim against the police for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention. I would imagine a letter before action to the Bailiffco detailing consequential losses, and any third party claims against the courier for non delivery of premium parcels as in Pre 10 am and Before 12 consignments, along with costs of recovering the vehicle etc, all itemised to establish what would be Quantum if the case went to court, the letter could also state that non payment would result in court action etc.

 

It is a can of worms as there is no formal complaint procedure within the new system. But though my scenario is slightly far fetched there are still EAs stupid enough to do exactly what I posted, and police who would assist even though the EA was wrong.

 

As to a Warrant of Control, a chargeback would as you point out mean it was never discharged and would still be active, although in my scenario the EA would now be a potential debtor to the courier for losses due to their ineptitude,

[Peterbard]

Yes I was think g really of the more straight forward incident where perhaps exempt goods were seized and losses where incurred as a result.

I notice there is a provision which states that the bailiff cannot be guilty of trespass etc. this is also contained within the old regs I think. i wonder if this also applied to trespass to goods, since we are talking about civil action the sums claimed would have to be consequential loss on some tort or other.

 

Duty of care ? Anyway way of topic perhaps the subject for another thread.

[brassnecked]

Yes I was think g really of the more straight forward incident where perhaps exempt goods were seized and losses where incurred as a result.

I notice there is a provision which states that the bailiff cannot be guilty of trespass etc. this is also contained within the old regs I think. i wonder if this also applied to trespass to goods, since we are talking about civil action the sums claimed would have to be consequential loss on some tort or other.

 

Duty of care ? Anyway way of topic perhaps the subject for another thread.

 

Yes consequential losses only imho, as the EA erroneously thoughtnthe van was the debtors. Another thread definitely to explore redress for mistakes where a third party is disadvantaged. My scenario would or should not lead to interpleader as the evidence would be there for all to see.

[Bailiff Advice]

My scenario would or should not lead to interpleader as the evidence would be there for all to see.

 

Definitely a subject for a new thread but it is my understanding that Interpleader applications are extremely rare indeed...but most importantly, should never be an option anyway if debtors follow the correct procedure by emailing the LA with evidence to support "exemption" etc. This route is extremely simple and as long as the correct evidence is provided a vehicle etc is released. As I say...a subject for another thread.

 

PS; I heard yesterday of a case that was rejected by the court last Wednesday where a debtor had made an application for an injunction to stop her car being sold. The Judge advised her that the regulations outlined in CPR 85 provide the legal route to be taken where there is a dispute and that she should have taken the steps outlined in the regs first instead of wasting valuable court time. The solicitor for the local authority (who had apparently advised her beforehand that she was taking the wrong course of action) applied for his clients costs and these were awarded.

[Coughdrop]

I hate to defend these institutions, but I'm glad costs were awarded. Procedures are there for a reason, not to be ridden over roughshod.

 

Going back to the two hour thingy a minute, is that not only for vehicles parked on the public highway? My memory (which could well be wrong, it often is!) is that if clamped on a driveway, or debtors land the two hour limit does not apply.

[brassnecked]

I hate to defend these institutions, but I'm glad costs were awarded. Procedures are there for a reason, not to be ridden over roughshod.

 

Going back to the two hour thingy a minute, is that not only for vehicles parked on the public highway? My memory (which could well be wrong, it often is!) is that if clamped on a driveway, or debtors land the two hour limit does not apply.

I think it is but they would show good practice if they followed the two hours even on the debtor's driveway.

[Peterbard]

I hate to defend these institutions, but I'm glad costs were awarded. Procedures are there for a reason, not to be ridden over roughshod.

 

Going back to the two hour thingy a minute, is that not only for vehicles parked on the public highway? My memory (which could well be wrong, it often is!) is that if clamped on a driveway, or debtors land the two hour limit does not apply.

Yes I think you are right CD the two hour thing is section 18 I think, and the other would be securing goods on premises which is section 16 TCoGR

[Peterbard]

Definitely a subject for a new thread but it is my understanding that Interpleader applications are extremely rare indeed...but most importantly, should never be an option anyway if debtors follow the correct procedure by emailing the LA with evidence to support "exemption" etc. This route is extremely simple and as long as the correct evidence is provided a vehicle etc is released. As I say...a subject for another thread.

 

PS; I heard yesterday of a case that was rejected by the court last Wednesday where a debtor had made an application for an injunction to stop her car being sold. The Judge advised her that the regulations outlined in CPR 85 provide the legal route to be taken where there is a dispute and that she should have taken the steps outlined in the regs first instead of wasting valuable court time. The solicitor for the local authority (who had apparently advised her beforehand that she was taking the wrong course of action) applied for his clients costs and these were awarded.

 

Yes I think courts will have little time for people who do not use the previsions within the various acts, to gain redress.

 

A new thread entitled lawful redress for unlawful bailiff action, I think.

[Peterbard]

I think it is but they would show good practice if they followed the two hours even on the debtor's driveway.

 

It would be possible for them to take control of the car via controlled goods agreement , without clamping it I should think, then it would depend on the debtor sticking to the arrangement.

 

Whether a bailiff would be willing to do this with the car being such an easy thing to hide away is an other mater of course.

[brassnecked]

Yes I think courts will have little time for people who do not use the previsions within the various acts, to gain redress.

 

A new thread entitled law lawful redress for unlawful bailiff action, I think.

 

Definitely, and ope where we can advise in a scenario similar to the one I posed if the EA is insisting on interpleader and actually did take a third party van full of parcels, and demanded the owner went to interpleader.

 

If evidence is provided on ownership that stacks up within the two hours then there is no need for interpleader and an EA would look very silly if the application went through, assuming the innocent could stump up say £25K for the van and it's contents.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Definitely, and ope where we can advise in a scenario similar to the one I posed if the EA is insisting on interpleader and actually did take a third party van full of parcels, and demanded the owner went to interpleader.

 

 

 

If evidence is provided on ownership that stacks up within the two hours then there is no need for interpleader and an EA would look very silly if the application went through, assuming the innocent could stump up say £25K for the van and it's contents.

 

EA doesn't go for interpleader. The EA tells the claimant a third party claim has been received. Of they admit the 3rd party claim then goods are returned. If they refute, then they accept it must go to interpleader. Its not the EA's choice though.

 

That said, if the EA took a van full of parcels and the delivery guy had shown paperwork proving 3rd party, I.e id, delivery route, company paperwork....then I could see the EA in very hot water as while it is not his responsibility to accept or refute a 3rd party claim, it would clearly be a case for over zealous enforcement which I would imagine a judge would take issue with. If the delivery driver was refusing to provide any paperwork or being obstructive and the EA had some doubts, then he would be ok to as long as he had good reason to suspect it belongs to def.

 

We Cannot impound on the public highway just because it is near the defs house. Ee must have good reason(neighbours confirm its defs car, def seen driving it, we have seen def extract themself from the car) before taking control of a car on public highway. I will look into that further to find out if that is policy or regulation though.

[brassnecked]

EA doesn't go for interpleader. The EA tells the claimant a third party claim has been received. Of they admit the 3rd party claim then goods are returned. If they refute, then they accept it must go to interpleader. Its not the EA's choice though.

 

That said, if the EA took a van full of parcels and the delivery guy had shown paperwork proving 3rd party, I.e id, delivery route, company paperwork....then I could see the EA in very hot water as while it is not his responsibility to accept or refute a 3rd party claim, it would clearly be a case for over zealous enforcement which I would imagine a judge would take issue with. If the delivery driver was refusing to provide any paperwork or being obstructive and the EA had some doubts, then he would be ok to as long as he had good reason to suspect it belongs to def.

 

We Cannot impound on the public highway just because it is near the defs house. Ee must have good reason(neighbours confirm its defs car, def seen driving it, we have seen def extract themself from the car) before taking control of a car on public highway. I will look into that further to find out if that is policy or regulation though.

All the driver would have would be a GPS tracker, so would have no no paperwork, and obviously parcels addressed to different customers. The driver would be in hot water if he opened the back to let the EA see the parcels. The info on the tracker should be sufficient and any attending plod could do a PNC check. personally I would cut off the clamp and let the law take it's course as I take it all the way as a test case. I would refute any implication of Obstructing the EA, as he has no right to the vehicle or more specifically it's load.

 

One issue is that many couriers will reverse their van onto a driveway to deliver, as to park on the road may be an obstruction, so the vehicle would not be on the highway thereforre more likely to be mistakenly seized.

 

That scenario is extreme but is a possibility and exposes some hidden aspects, and possibilities.

 

Sorry I am being negative Grumpy, but have first hand experience of numbskull bailiffs full of testosterone after third party goods, and as a councillor, them threatening to clear a house including the beds and children's toys to try to frighten a single mother for £10 left of a TV licensing fine that was now in excess of £300 with the fees

 

Could the site team move these off topic posts to a new discussion thread, something like Redress for debtors and third parties when Enforcement flawed or unlawful?