What are the bailiffs rules please?, Car was clamped without any notice after OOT rejected Options

[Debs2016]

Hi everyone,

I am new to this forum and need some advice please.
Sometime back in April 2018 I received 2 PCNs for bus lane. I went to a new place and somehow missed noticing the bus lanes I presume as I would have never broken the law knowingly. Anyway I did not receive the PCN as my V5c book was not updated with my new address. Totally my mistake due to my ignorance. I only got to know of the fines when the bailiffs contacted me on my new address asking me to pay £173 per PCN.a
I raised an OOT for both PCNs a day apart from each other. Since then I have received 1 PCN with a reject status. I am yet to receive the 2nd one. I received this reject letter on the 19th October 2018. But the letter is dated 13th October 2018. My understanding after reading the letter was that from the time it gets rejected I had 14days to take up the case to the courts if I want to. Today is the 10th day from the letter date and the baillifs without any notice visited my residence and clamped my car along with a mail saying I need to py £408 for just the 1 pcn which the OOT got rejected. 2 hours later they were back asking for a payment of the £408 or said they are towing away the car.
I had no choice but to pay up as also I live alone with 2 small kids nd could not risk not having the car. I begged them to give me till tommorow morning so I could speak to TEC but they refused.
My question is
1. If the OOT gets rejected dont I have 14 days before baillifs come knocking on my door
2. Are the baillifs not supposed to atleast give me call and inform me they will come and maybe least give me one chance to pay before they visit and add extra charges?
3. What will happen if the request for the 2nd OOT I raised gets rejected and for some reason Baillifs get the message before me. It means they will again visit without informing me and ask for another £408. How do I avoid this. Bailiff who visited me today refused to take the payment for that as he said it's still on hold.

Sorry for all the questions. I just feel so depressed right now as it's not fair. Please advise me if the bailiffs are in the wrong. And if there is anything I can do.

Thanks

[Advertisement]

[Debs2016]

[Neil B]

Ok, good.

Now, as it's Friday and they are about to close --

I am however still lost and don't know what my next step should be,

Last sentence post #9

Have you done this yet?

We seem to have lost sight of the fact the bailiff acted in the 14 day period, arguably unlawfully.

You don't know and can't assume the Council are complicit in that.

ime these are normally due to communication failures between Council and bailiff.

Have you contacted the Council yet ! ! ?

[Debs2016]

Thank you Neil, John UK and southpaw82. Finally I got it.

Not after the bailiffs visited and I paid. The council were not at all helpful and not very friendly when i called the last time. I however called up TEC and they said they are sending the form that the council sent back to them, by post.

[Neil B]

Thank you Neil, John UK and southpaw82. Finally I got it.

Not after the bailiffs visited and I paid. The council were not at all helpful and not very friendly when i called the last time. I however called up TEC and they said they are sending the form that the council sent back to them, by post.

You asked what you need to do.
I answered.
You're telling me you're going to ignore me?

Bye.

[peterguk]

not very friendly when i called the last time

????

Don't take this personally, but this is a legal process, not mutual hugs, tea and biscuits at a self-help social meeting.

This post has been edited by peterguk: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 - 16:17

[Neil B]

Ok, last word on the matter, unless you come to your senses first thing Monday.

It's simple.

A bailiff clamped your car, arguably unlawfully (YOUR very first question re 14 days)

You paid them (?) despite believing their action was unlawful.

You did not first ask those responsible why it had happened.

You still haven't asked them.

You haven't raised a complaint with them.

You don't even know if they are aware this happened.

You don't know if they agree it should not have happened or disagree.


'They', 'them', 'those responsible' are THE COUNCIL.

-----
You might have noticed that I earlier shared my own experience >

As an example, relative to the 14 day matter, "Tell your bailiff to get that ******* clamp off pronto" did the trick.

I didn't pay. The clamp was removed in less than an hour.

Because I phoned the party responsible - the Council.

[phantomcrusader]

If the OOT gets rejected dont I have 14 days before baillifs come knocking on my door

What makes you think this?

[Bailiff Advice]

The following is taken from the TEC User Guide 7.8

"The authority should either serve a copy of the rejection on the respondent or provide TEC with two copies"

Does anyone know a link to the latest User Guide? Failing which, I will be making a request to TEC over the weekend.


http://Bailiffadviceonline.co.uk

This post has been edited by Bailiff Advice: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 09:05

[phantomcrusader]

The following is taken from the TEC User Guide 7.8

"The authority should either serve a copy of the rejection on the respondent or provide TEC with two copies"

Does anyone know a link to the latest User Guide? Failing which, I will be making a request to TEC over the weekend.


http://Bailiffadviceonline.co.uk

Should it not say "objection" rather than "rejection"? The council don't get to reject an out of time, that is for the court to decide.

Is there any statutory backing for the guide, advising that regard must be given to it?

2014 version is the latest I can find online.

This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 09:46

[Bailiff Advice]

Is there any statutory backing for the guide, advising that regard must be given to it?

I would think that Item 1.3 of the User Guide would suffice.

Once authorisation to use the TEC facilities is obtained from the TEC manager, it is the responsibility of the authority to fully adhere to the user guide.
Failure to do so may result in referral to the operations manager / district judge, which could ultimately result in the suspension of debt registrations.

PS: I have written to TEC to request a copy of any update. The one exhibited is the latest guide that I am aware of.

This post has been edited by Bailiff Advice: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 14:48

[phantomcrusader]

Is there any statutory backing for the guide, advising that regard must be given to it?

I would think that Item 1.3 of the User Guide would suffice.

Once authorisation to use the TEC facilities is obtained from the TEC manager, it is the responsibility of the authority to fully adhere to the user guide.
Failure to do so may result in referral to the operations manager / district judge, which could ultimately result in the suspension of debt registrations.

PS: I have written to TEC to request a copy of any update. The one exhibited is the latest guide that I am aware of.

Doesn't seem to be any instruction in the guidance that an objection to an out of time must be made using a specified form. My information is that objections are usually only a sentence long. Something like "The council objects to the out of time application as it was the respondents responsibility to ensure the keeper details were up to date with DVLA" and this is sent in an email using the email address TEC direct councils to use.
The CPR rules don't require a council to send a copy of their objection to the respondent and the daily email out of time notification does not give any instuction for them do so and the TEC user guidance only says "should" (not must) and flip flops about whose responsibility it is. Failure to adhere to the guidance "may" result in a manager or DJ looking into it and "could" result in a suspension. Not exactly strong words.

There also seems to be nothing in CPR or guidance that prohibits enforcement from commencing once an out of time has been refused.

A complaint could be made but someone knowledgeable could counter it with the above points. The OP has nothing to lose at this stage by giving it a go but needs to be fully aware.

This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 16:00

[Neil B]

My information is that objections are usually only a sentence long.

About a page and a quarter on average. There are plenty on here.

Something like "The council objects to the out of time application as it was the respondents responsibility to ensure the keeper details were up to date with DVLA"

Never seen anything quite so direct.

this is sent in an email using the email address TEC direct councils to use.

Maybe but all the ones I've seen are in letter/statement format.

There also seems to be nothing in CPR or guidance that prohibits enforcement from commencing once an out of time has been refused.

Arguable but what is most important in this case, as I've tried to hammer home to 'Debs', is to ascertain whether the
Council even know about it and whether it was intentional/sanctioned.

[phantomcrusader]

I suspect the ones seen on here are overwhelmingly London ones.

CPR only invite councils to object to the TE7 application (the reason given for why the WS is submitted late) but as most respondent's out of time's go unnecessarliy beyond this and start discussing why the PCN should be cancelled, councils get drawn in to countering (even though the court is not concerned with the background to the PCN and why it should be cancelled) and so a page and quarter will be the result.

Out of times are in most cases because the respondent did not know about the debt until the bailiff made contact (due to a failure to keep the DVLA updated with a change of address). A one sentence email like the one I said in my previous post is sufficient as an objection for TEC.

The default position with TEC these days is to refuse any out of time that a council objects to and to allow any they don't object to. TEC don't actually consider a case on its own merit until a N244. They just don't have the resources. The current TEC backlog is horrendous.

This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 20:49

[Neil B]

I'm not quite sure what your aim is here but sure do presume a lot.

I suspect the ones seen on here are overwhelmingly London ones.
No.

CPR only invite councils to object to the TE7 application (the reason given for why the WS is submitted late) but as most respondent's out of time's go unnecessarliy beyond this and start discussing why the PCN should be cancelled, councils get drawn in to countering (even though the court is not concerned with the background to the PCN and why it should be cancelled) and so a page and quarter will be the result.
No.

Out of times are in most cases because the respondent did not know about the debt until the bailiff made contact (due to a failure to keep the DVLA updated with a change of address).
Not for a significant number, of the tiny proportion we see here.

A one sentence email like the one I said in my previous post is sufficient as an objection for TEC.
Already answered; No and that would be akin to contempt of Court.

The default position with TEC these days is to refuse any out of time that a council objects to and to allow any they don't object to. TEC don't actually consider a case on its own merit until a N244. They just don't have the resources. The current TEC backlog is horrendous.
We suspect so.

[phantomcrusader]

I'm not quite sure what your aim is here but sure do presume a lot.

I suspect the ones seen on here are overwhelmingly London ones.
No.

CPR only invite councils to object to the TE7 application (the reason given for why the WS is submitted late) but as most respondent's out of time's go unnecessarliy beyond this and start discussing why the PCN should be cancelled, councils get drawn in to countering (even though the court is not concerned with the background to the PCN and why it should be cancelled) and so a page and quarter will be the result.
No.

Out of times are in most cases because the respondent did not know about the debt until the bailiff made contact (due to a failure to keep the DVLA updated with a change of address).
Not for a significant number, of the tiny proportion we see here.

A one sentence email like the one I said in my previous post is sufficient as an objection for TEC.
Already answered; No and that would be akin to contempt of Court.

The default position with TEC these days is to refuse any out of time that a council objects to and to allow any they don't object to. TEC don't actually consider a case on its own merit until a N244. They just don't have the resources. The current TEC backlog is horrendous.
We suspect so.

No presumption. I and my former team dealt with out of times and TEC objections every day for several years and had a direct line to TEC officers. A few of whom I still have regular contact with. You may not be aware but TEC regularly send out emails to LA's advising of a change or delay in their process (DVLA & NPAS (now TPT) do the same) but these changes/delays are not immediately made public. I've no aim here other than to give that perspective and to assist where I can. It may not be your perspective but that does not make mine wrong.

This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 22:14

[Neil B]

No presumption. I and my former team dealt with out of times and TEC objections every day for several years and had a direct line to TEC officers. A few of whom I still have regular contact with. I've no aim here other than to give that perspective and to assist where I can. It may not be your perspective but that does not make mine wrong.

But the fact remains I've never seen examples of objections on this forum of the sort you describe.

--
Since you've been kind enough to explain, perhaps you can clarify something.
In your former role, would you have been happy that to unleash a bailiff, in the 14 day period previously
discussed, was lawful?
Further, if you were satisfied it was lawful, would you have done so without any qualms?

[phantomcrusader]

No presumption. I and my former team dealt with out of times and TEC objections every day for several years and had a direct line to TEC officers. A few of whom I still have regular contact with. I've no aim here other than to give that perspective and to assist where I can. It may not be your perspective but that does not make mine wrong.

But the fact remains I've never seen examples of objections on this forum of the sort you describe.

--
Since you've been kind enough to explain, perhaps you can clarify something.
In your former role, would you have been happy that to unleash a bailiff, in the 14 day period previously
discussed, was lawful?
Further, if you were satisfied it was lawful, would you have done so without any qualms?

This forum does not deal with even 1% of PCN's issued in England and the % of out of time applications that it deals with is probably not even 0.1% of the England total. So I'm not surprised you've not seen examples of what I describe. However, those PCN's and out of times that do come the forum's way are as far as I see given superb and realistic advice.

I and my team were never happy to call in bailiffs. If we could enter in to payment plans or compromise on a debt we would. If someone wrote in and said they had been forwarded an Order for Recovery by an old landlord, we would withdraw the OFR, CCert, NTO and issue a new NTO to the new address so that the debtor could avoid the stress and hassle of TEC.

Truth be told, not all but a good many stat decs/witness statements were clear cases of perjury but pursuing them through the courts was not seen as good use of public money. TEC don't get involved in perjury either. Many stat decs/witness statements had all boxes ticked or 2 contradictory boxes ticked but still TEC allowed them.

Once we were served notice of an out of time being refused we would contact the bailiff to advise that enforcement can now be taken off hold and commence again. It was left to the bailiff to decide on whether this would be immediately or after a number of days. There is no rule, direction or guidance that prohibited them from choosing the immediate option.

Councils retain at all times the discretion to cancel/reduce a PCN/debt or request a warrant be returned but sadly too few exercise this discretion even when a case clearly merits it.

Please bear in mind though that there is always two sides to the story. The forum does not get to see the thousands of daily challenges that are downright lies. We all know that people gamble and park or stop when they should not just to quickly nip to a shop or a bank or to pick up or drop off. The reason many councils have adopted a hard line approach is because the staff receive daily abuse and written lies. Most people are willing to scream abuse or lie even just a bit to get out of paying a sum of money if there is nothing to lose by it. Under the mag court system there was something to lose by it but this is not so under the civil system. Yes there are inept wardens and office staff but these are vastly outnumbered by the dishonest members of the public. If someone claims they were unloading and the warden did not witness it after a 5 to 10 min obsevaton, how is the truth established? If someone says they had broken down and fixed it themselves the next day, how is the truth established? It's not an easy job to sort the honest from the dishonest on the limited information available.

This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 23:56

[Neil B]

No presumption. I and my former team dealt with out of times and TEC objections every day for several years and had a direct line to TEC officers. A few of whom I still have regular contact with. I've no aim here other than to give that perspective and to assist where I can. It may not be your perspective but that does not make mine wrong.

But the fact remains I've never seen examples of objections on this forum of the sort you describe.

--
Since you've been kind enough to explain, perhaps you can clarify something.
In your former role, would you have been happy that to unleash a bailiff, in the 14 day period previously
discussed, was lawful?
Further, if you were satisfied it was lawful, would you have done so without any qualms?

This forum does not deal with even 1% of PCN's issued in England and the % of out of time applications that it deals with is probably not even 0.1% of the England total. So I'm not surprised you've not seen examples of what I describe. However, those PCN's and out of times that do come the forum's way are as far as I see given superb and realistic advice.

I and my team were never happy to call in bailiffs. If we could enter in to payment plans or compromise on a debt we would. If someone wrote in and said they had been forwarded an Order for Recovery by an old landlord, we would withdraw the OFR, CCert, NTO and issue a new NTO to the new address so that the debtor could avoid the stress and hassle of TEC.

Truth be told, not all but a good many stat decs/witness statements were clear cases of perjury but pursuing them through the courts was not seen as good use of public money. TEC don't get involved in perjury either. Many stat decs/witness statements had all boxes ticked or 2 contradictory boxes ticked but still TEC allowed them.

Once we were served notice of an out of time being refused we would contact the bailiff to advise that enforcement can now be taken off hold and commence again. It was left to the bailiff to decide on whether this would be immediately or after a number of days. There is no rule, direction or guidance that prohibited them from choosing the immediate option.

Councils retain at all times the discretion to cancel/reduce a PCN/debt or request a warrant be returned but sadly too few exercise this discretion even when a case clearly merits it.

Please bear in mind though that there is always two sides to the story. The forum does not get to see the thousands of daily challenges that are downright lies. We all know that people gamble and park or stop when they should not just to quickly nip to a shop or a bank or to pick up or drop off. The reason many councils have adopted a hard line approach is because the staff receive daily abuse and written lies. Most people are willing to lie even just a bit to get out of paying a sum of money if there is nothing to lose by it. Under the mag court system there was something to lose by it but this is not so under the civil system. Yes there are inept wardens and office staff but these are vastly outnumbered by the dishonest members of the public. If someone claims they were unloading and the warden did not witness it after a 5 to 10 min obsevaton, how is the truth established? If someone says they had broken down and fixed it themselves the next day, how is the truth established? It's not an easy job to sort the honest from the dishonest on the limited information available.

Thank you for this. I've not even read all of it but later.

Meanwhile, can I just flag up an issue we tend to be quite conscious of on the forum: Both of us, through this discussion,
may be putting off the OP. She's already commented on that vein and, latterly, viewed again without further comment.
It's the weekend so she can't do much but our exchange still clutters the thread.

It sounds like you have particular knowledge of interest and the Flame Pit might be a better place to continue.
If I can find the time I will start a topic there.