Do bailiffs bully the disabled?

Without access being offered, entry would not be legal

Mr Mustard's client has got herself in a bit of a pickle. A proud person, she didn't want to bother him with her Ealing PCNs as she thought she could sort them out herself. Thanks though to being ill such that she has to be checked up on every 2 months and suffering from depression due to her illness, lack of money and general quality of life, she has not beaten the PCNs and they have ended up with bailiffs.

Last June she asked Mr Mustard for help with the bailiff at a time when he was so overrun that he couldn't deal with bailiff matters (he also prefers to stop tickets reaching that stage) & passed her the details of a bailiff advice helpline. He told her not to worry as the bailiff could not remove or clamp her car. Guess what happened next? Yes, in September 16 a bailiff acting for Ealing Council clamped the car. Mr Mustard was on his way to the parking tribunal when it happened. He only had time to text the bailiff to tell him he could not clamp the car as the blue badge is permanently on display. Mr Mustard found out later that within 30 minutes the clamp was removed. That bailiff at least realised the game was up having chanced his arm with the wrong person. Mr Mustard's client may be ill but she will not be bullied.

Just before Christmas with perfect timing a second PCN reached the bailiff stage. Now Mr Mustard, as a debt collector in real life, accepts that bailiffs have a job to do and they have draconian powers of removal of goods. There are though also some limited checks on their power. In a civilised society parliament has decided that disabled people will not have their mode of transport removed. In addition, your home is your castle and forced entry cannot take place without specific court consent (for a traffic PCN, it can be for a magistrates court debt) which Mr Mustard suspects would not be granted against a disabled person claiming PIP as they won't have any assets worth the cost of seizure & sale.

The first Notice was delivered on 23 December 16. It was for 2 PCNs.

The next one came on 6 January (perhaps even bailiffs have some time off)

Just another 6 days and here is the third letter, just for one of the PCNs, not for both for some reason.

Another visit on 20 January, for both PCN this time. By now, the bailiff, or at least a bailiff, must have seen the car as it is parked off street outside the property in a disabled bay and with the blue badge clearly visible. It was also the case that the blue badge formed part of the representations which were made & the badge was issued by Ealing Council so they know they are sending a file to bailiffs for goods, nearly always the car, to be seized when the car is exempt by law from seizure. This is information which in Mr Mustard's view should be communicated to the bailiff by their client, Ealing Council (or any other one) at the start so that the disabled do not have their car clamped in error. The previous clamping by a bailiff in the employ of Collect Services may be a factor in them not having clamped or removed despite their many letters and in fact means that in their records they knew from the start of this correspondence that they could not remove the car.

The question is why are they hand delivering letters which state that they will remove 'your Vehicle' when they know it is exempt?

Only 4 days to wait and a third PCN has reached the bailiff stage.

Ooh, a different letter was issued on 3 February. The bailiff didn't need ANPR as the vehicle is usually parked outside the address on the warrant. Another threat to remove which the law will not allow. The balance cannot have increased if a bailiff (enforcement agent) has called recently as the debt already included 3 separate visit fees, one for each PCN, of £235 a pop.

Nearly a month went by, one of the warrants had expired and was not renewed so the debt dropped.

 Another 10 days, another letter.

On 13 March the ANPR letter was again sent containing another threat of illegal action.

Another 11 days and another visit and another illegal threat to remove the car

Another 10 days again, another letter threatening to break the law.

A month until the next letter, sorry if you are already bored, try imagining receiving all these letters especially if sick and living on benefits.

On 8 May Collect had got themselves a new template and sent a different letter about an appointment that never was and again illegally threatening to remove the car.

Just 3 days later back to one of the other letters

Mr Mustard can't quite read the date on the next letter but thinks it may be 10 June. It might be the final roll of the dice by Collect or else they saw that the Newlyn bailiff had only gone and clamped the same car on behalf of Brent Council, a matter about which a solicitor is still waiting a response from Brent Council, the clamp having only been removed after it was in place for 6 days.

Mr Mustard wonders if Ealing Council keep a close enough eye on what their bailiffs get up to, whether sending the debts of Motability car drivers and blue badge holders to bailiffs is even reasonable given that the power of the bailiff is to seize goods and they can't seize the car (and secondhand household effects are pretty worthless) and whether sending 15 letters threatening the removal of an exempt item is harassment (a question which Mr Mustard will ask his lawyer tomorrow but feel free to comment if you are one).

It really isn't very attractive to threaten to break the law in order to enforce it.

How has it made the lady herself feel? Like this:

There are right and wrong ways of doing your job. If the above message is the result of how it is currently done, it is undoubtedly the wrong way.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Met Police £20 a day: Newlyn Bailiffs £40 a day - Why?

Have assumed these are plus vat

So the Met Police charge you £20 a day (£24 if vat is payable) to store your car (very safely Mr Mustard imagines) if they have to look after it for you following, say, it being stolen and recovered.

A Newlyn bailiff, who takes your car off your driveway whilst you are on holiday, charges £40 a day + vat to store it. They can only recover what is reasonably incurred? They charge £40 a day + vat. Is it reasonable to charge twice what the police would charge you? Mr Mustard thinks not.

Is it reasonable to charge £40+ vat a day in August 14 when the Newlyn charge in July 13 (on the  Mr Toyota file) was £30 + vat a day? Mr Mustard doesn't think so. This excessive increase may be related to a government imposed scale of fees in April 14

Is it reasonable to charge £40 a day + vat when Heathrow airport charge £20 a day? Mr Mustard doesn't think so.

booked in advance will be cheaper, these are the airport's own charges.

Are Barnet Council failing to properly supervise the bailiffs that they have let NSL appoint without obtaining a copy of the contract? Mr Mustard thinks so.

Are Barnet Council breaching the duty of care that they have as regards the actions of their bailiffs? Mr Mustard thinks so. He has a number of current complaints which are not being responded to, they must have been put on the too difficult pile.

Mr Mustard thinks he is going to have to arrange a high level meeting with the council about bailiffs as, on every file he touches, the bailiff has not acted properly in one way or another.

There is a good / awful story about to break in the Barnet Times.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Harrow Council Bailiff's "special" offer - a 75% discount

First of all Mr Mustard is going to say something nice about Barnet Council, he realises he doesn't so it very often but he is all relaxed and happy, just back from 10 days in Sri Lanka being a guest at a wedding and seeing some of the sights. Also, haggling with Tuk Tuk drivers over a £2.50 fare when they were tyring to fleece him for £5 which looks very small beer when compared to a Newlyn bailiff acting on behalf of Harrow Council. This story simply would not happen in Barnet as Mr Mustard has good contacts with two of the in-house parking managers (he cuts out the middleman NSL as they don't really get him) and they would have realised that what had been done was wrong and sorted it out following amicable discussions.

Sadly we are dealing with Harrow Council who are a different kettle of (rotten) fish altogether.

Now you are going to have to concentrate here as I give you the time line. All names are fictional.

1 November 11 - John Johns buys a car, a small people carrier which is perfect for use as a mini-cab. He slightly naughtily registers the car at his work address, Maestro Minicabs.

5 March 12 - He sells the car to Harold Smith who registers the car to his home.

18 March 12 -  Harrow's cctv spots the car, at 2am, on a double yellow in a service road in front of shops. The driver has been to a late night shop.

28 March 12 - The vehicle record has not yet been changed at the DVLA and a postal PCN is sent to John Johns.

7 June 12 - The car is sold to John Smith (Harold & John are related but live at different addresses) who registers the car to his home.

31 July 12 - Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd is incorporated. It trades from the same shop unit as Maestro minicabs and there is also a beauty business in the same unit.

10 September 12 - Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd buy the car for £2,900 in cash and rent it out straight away to a taxi driver.

19 July 13 - Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd rent the car to Alan Alans for a year.

6 January 14 - The bailiff finds the car near to Maestro Minicabs (not surprising as Alan Alans gets his fares from there) and clamps it and doesn't believe there has been a genuine sale when there have been three. This is because a friend of Fred Brown's who is helping them is called John and the bailiff thinks this is John Johns when it is actually John Roberts.

So starts a long round of complaining to the council, Harrow councillors and a local MP, Matthew Offord, none of whom seem to be at all interested. Rather than spend money on legal fees Mr Mustard thought the Local Government Ombudsman would see how wrong the seizure was, but he was wrong. Legal action will have to be next.

There are some interesting aspects to this case.

Harrow Council told the Ombudsman that the law is that they can only ask DVLA once for keeper's details. The LGO accepted this. In Mr Mustard's view that is bunkum. He will catch them in future months doing just that on another case, for sure.

There was no action by Harrow Council after issuing the Charge Certificate in June 12 until the Order for Recovery in August 13. As John Johns was no longer working for Maestro Minicabs, and as they destroy driver's records 6 months after they leave, it is unsurprising that John Johns did not respond to any PCN paperwork. The undue delay of more than 6 months at any stage in the processing of a PCN is, per London Councils, reason to cancel the PCN and would almost certainly have lead to a cancellation at PATAS if the case could have got there.

The Ombudsman refused sight of the Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery to Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd on the grounds of data protection, as they do not know John Johns. So their car can be taken without sight of any document about the relevant PCN and they have no rights of appeal. A right Catch 22 that one.

The DVLA supplied all the ownership dates. They show that the PCN was issued to the wrong keeper, it should have been to Harold Smith. The LGO, the bailiff and Harrow Council are not concerned by this.

In all this time the vehicle has not been sold by the bailiff which indicates a certain nervousness on their part. They are right. There is going to be one hell of a claim against them.

Why was the car taken in the first place when it was clearly tools of the trade?

The vehicle has now been in storage for over 200 days.

The bailiff has provided the following figures for the debt at 1 August 12; best take a deep breath here and sit down.

Item	£
150 days storage	7,200.00
Bailiff fees	963.02
PCN itself	172.00
Total	8,335.02

which is a storage rate of £48 a day (it must be at Heathrow Airport in the short term car park?) Why have only 150 days been charged for when the car has been in storage for over 200? Doesn't that 2p really hurt!

But, if Fred Brown's want to make payment to take the vehicle (note that the bailiff isn't planning to return it even though it won't be in a drivable state; it will be filthy, it will have flat tyres and the battery will be as flat as a pancake despite the bailiff's duty to take care of seized goods) then they can pay a mere £1,980 as follows:

 

Item	£
150 days storage	1,016.98
Bailiff fees	791.02
PCN itself	172.00
Total	1,980.00

So why is the bailiff offering a discount of 75% and doesn't that evidence the excessive nature of bailiff's fees?

The main reason, in Mr Mustard's opinion is that they know they are in the soup and they hope to negotiate their way out of it.

Imagine a bill for £8,335 for a vehicle which cost £2,900, what sort of idiot would pay that?

Even £1,980 is ridiculous as the vehicle has depreciated in the "care" of the bailiff. They will be lucky to get £500 for it at auction without a log book or keys so returning the car if they can get more for it that way from the owner than at auction makes for more profit for the bailiff.

Mr Mustard thinks that they are going to find themselves in front of a County Court judge explaining why they took a car away from a company that didn't even exist when the PCN was issued and who aren't liable for the PCN which is in any event in the wrong name. Mr Mustard is looking forward to the hearing when he will sit in the back row, smiling to himself, saying nothing, quietly taking notes and watching the bailiff sweat.

This story isn't over yet.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Bailiffs

The use of bailiffs to collect council tax has been in the news this week with the Citizens Advice service worried about the speed at which they are resorted to, charges being made for visits that never took place and councils not keeping any data about the actions of the bailiffs (in respect of whose behaviour they have a duty of care).

Mr Mustard usually gets involved with parking tickets before bailiffs are instructed and much prefers to keep it that way. He has however helped a few people and the following table gives you an idea of how the penalty for a simply traffic contravention (which may not even have taken place but any failure to follow the proper procedure means that you end up guilty) can increase to a disproportionate amount.

	Original	Value of	Bailiff	Bailiff	Extra paid	Notes
#	PCN £	Warrant £	Claim £		or claimed £
1	110	172	1,571	Newlyn	1,227	Car put on low loader to force payment
2	110	172				on the day the motorist returned from USA
3	130	202	431	Newlyn	229	visit stage (max 3)
4	110	172	389	Newlyn	217	visit stage (max 3)
5	110	172	185	Task	13	Initial letter
6	110	172	389	Newlyn	217	visit stage (max 3)
7	110	172	389	Newlyn	217	visit stage (max 3)
8	60	97	110	Task	13	Initial letter
9	110	172	623	Newlyn	451	visit stage (max 3) Overcharge
10	60	97	110	Task	13	Initial letter
11	110	172	185	Task	13	Initial letter
12	110	172	1,164	Newlyn	992	Vehicle taken to car pound
13	110	172	1,181	Newlyn	740	Vehicle taken to car pound
14	110	172
15	60	97
16	110	172	457	Newlyn	285	visit stage (max 3)

Amounts in black bold type were actually paid (before Mr Mustard was involved).

Amounts in blue were not paid and many of the PCN were subsequently cancelled due to illegal behaviour by the bailiff.

Amounts in red were not paid (save for a without prejudice settlement of £100 in the £740 case) and the vehicles were both recovered from the pound.

Although all the residents were in Barnet these cases includes ones for Camden and Harrow councils.

Bailiffs don't have to send the a warning letter before they visit but if they do it will cost you £11.20 + vat. If you owe the debt, pay it at this point.

After that you can be charged £28 + vat for debts under £100 (a £60 PCN will have become £97). For debts over £100 the bailiff charges should be 28% of the first £200 and 5.5% of the balance. Schedule 1 of The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 states that aggregate costs and charges for attending to levy distress and for actually levying distress should not be more than 3 times the above amounts. On a £110 PCN, the debt due to the council rises to £172 so maximum charges should be £144.48 + vat (= £173.38).

In addition, Mr Mustard has seen clamping fees and vehicle removal fees and cancelled towing fees which is how you end up owing an extra £451 (or more). Once your car is removed an extra £30 a night or so will be added for storage.

It is clear that on file #9 that Newlyn were asking for more money than they were due to receive at a time when they had not yet (illegally) clamped the vehicle (which belonged to Motability).

Dealing with bailiffs who have your car in a clamp or a pound is very difficult. Please do what you can to avoid this situation by responding properly to all PCN paperwork.

The government are slowly getting round to bailiff legislation; not a moment too soon.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Mr Toyota is innocent

Not the car of Mr Mustard's friend who is not called Mr Toyota

Here is the text of an email that Mr Mustard sent to his friends in the parking department to give them a sporting chance of doing the right thing before they read about it in the local papers.

Imagine you are Mr Toyota, step back in time to June 2013, you have an old but lovely car on your drive and you haven't heard of Mr Mustard and your life is normal. Suddenly everything changes. You are at work on 19 June 13 when your girlfriend telephones to say that a clamp has been applied to your car on your own drive. You telephone the bailiff to find that this is because you have an unpaid Barnet Council PCN from July 2011. This is the first that you have heard of it.

The bailiff demands £606 which you don't have at this moment.

That evening Mr Mustard comes to call at the suggestion of a mutual friend. He says the council are acting improperly but it will take more than that knowledge to get them to stop. He explains about the Witness Statement procedure although you are out of time because you didn't know about the PCN. You file forms TE7 & TE9 the next day.

On 20 June the bailiff comes back and removes the car by transporter.

The council file their evidence and ask that the Out of Time Witness Statement (which winds the PCN back to the beginning so that the PCN can be appealed) be refused.

The TEC (Traffic Enforcement Centre) is a sausage machine for PCN legal processing. They duly reject the Out of Time witness statement on 22 July 2013.

You have to buy another car as you can't run your business without one. You have people and equipment to ferry about.

On 3 August 13 you file the N244 form which says you want to argue your case in front of a District Judge at the Barnet County Court. You have to shell out a Court Fee of £80 which you'll never see again, even if you win. (Actually you could ask for costs but it is pushing your luck given that your car is at stake.) You get allocated a Court Date of 8 November 13. Your car will be rotting in the pound until then.

The 8 November arrives and you attend Court. The District Judge is unconvinced until you explain the complete lack of service of any document and then she grants the Order required. Your PCN will be rolled back to July 2011 and the bailiff will no longer be entitled to retain your car.

In the meantime having purchased another car you have no insurance for the impounded one, you have declared it as off road, the road fund licence has expired, the battery and tyres will be flat and it isn't legally drivable.

After a delay of 10 days the Court decision arrives. You speak to the council contact centre who tell you that doesn't mean that you are due to have your car back. You tell them the papers have a whiff of your story and you are inclined to spill the beans. You are put on hold for 5 minutes and magically now you can have your car back. You are sent on an email and telephone number chase round. The bailiff refuses to return your car. You have to go and get it. Where is it? Roydon in Essex, where else would it be?

Now you are hacked off. You have had the fright of your life when you car was clamped, you never received any paperwork prior to clamping nor the PCN itself, you have been without your car for 5 months, your girlfriend has been made ill with the stress, you have had to buy another car and you are £80 out of pocket on a £110 PCN and now the council expect you, Mr Toyota, to pay out to a car transport firm to get your own car back when you are totally innocent of any wrong-doing whatsoever.

That can't be equitable, surely?

Now happily Mr Mustard can report that the parking manager at Barnet Council pretty quickly came to the decision that the car should be returned to Mr Toyota free of charge (a goodwill gesture and not a precedent) and it is now back on the drive from which it was taken some 5 months ago. The fact that it was Mr Mustard who wrote probably helped.

The battery is flat as are 2 tyres, hopefully they will be OK once pumped up again. A bailiff has a duty of care for goods in their possession and Newlyn have clearly failed in that regard. They couldn't easily charge the battery without being in possession of the keys and a motorist is likely to be resistant to handing them over. However, it probably makes sense if in return the bailiff agrees to keep the battery charged and if you do end up losing the car a better price will be obtained for one that is in running order. There is absolutely no excuse for bailiffs not pumping up the tyres once a month. If vehicles are stored indoors they should be covered and if they are outdoors they should also be washed once a month especially if they are on an airport flight path or a quarry.

The price of innocence

So my question to all readers, and do please retweet this blog, is "can it be right that the bailiff removes your car and you have to go and get it back once your PCN is back at the first stage at which you can appeal it?"

You are now officially innocent. You have a PCN which you can appeal.

You have been deprived of your vehicle for 5 months. 

The car is in a pound 20 miles away.

You are already £80 out of pocket.

The bailiff wasn't wrong to take it as when he did as he had a valid warrant (actually in this case the warrant address was doubtful but we'll let that go) so we can't look to the bailiff for recompense.

However, the bailiff is only ever the servant of the council but is a mercenary who gets his pound of flesh (they usually take about a stone) from the motorist.

Surely the council should foot the cost of returning vehicles which they are no longer entitled to keep out of the super profits that the parking regime generates?

Mr Mustard couldn't find any case law on this and he thinks some might exist? If you know what should happen when your car is taken away and then you get the PCN put back to the beginning of the process i.e. should the car be returned or do you have to go to the pound to collect it, which might be 50 miles away? please email mrmustard@zoho.com

The one thing that Mr Mustard has realised out of this is that penalty for falling outside of the process is very severe indeed and completely disproportionate for whatever the trivial offence was in the first place.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard