Wrong house number, right street - Bailiffs, URGENT Options

[Jae24]

Hi,
My father in law has had bailiffs at his door for a pcn for stopping his back wheels in a box junction in camden,

He did not receive the original PCN or any correspondence until the bailiffs knocked at the door, he dispute this and was show a warrant with the wrong house number, the bailiff was insistent that it was what was taken from V5C.

However, my father in laws car is on Motability and he has never seen the V5C, the only information he has is his general correspondence from motability, all of which is correctly addressed.

He is a very honest man and had he received the ticket he would have made payment in the first instance, however he is now being harrassed for over £500 by Marston bailiffs who are uninterested in anything other than getting into his house.

Can someone please advise the best course of action here please, he has already written to Marston, explaining but was sent a reply the next day, which did not acknowledge anything he had told them but just demanded payment and threatened forced access with a locksmith.

Thanks in advance

[Advertisement]

[Jae24]

He has an old fashioned faith in authority, but I'll certainly push him towards the OOT forms as best I can.

As it stands, he has pointed out to Marston, that he is in what is considered a vulnerable household, being disabled and living alone, but I expect that will only hold them off for so long, so have urged him to act fast, i plan to print out the forms and go round tomorrow am with the guidance that has kindly been posted here to hopefully talk him through filling them out.

[DancingDad]

The only way to stop bailiffs is via the OOT.
Even that is not certain though this is as good as we often see.

What is certain is that the council do not have to do anything, as far as they are concerned they have done all the law requires of them.
Once they are told they will not be so sure but still need to do nothing.
They have aimed the bailiffs, pulled the trigger and the process will continue unless a higher authority (TEC) steps in.
Our experience is that council parking departments have only a limited range of actions...reject, reject again, ignore.....

OOT.

[Neil B]

He has an old fashioned faith in authority,

And the current authority is the court.

Explain to him that what we're suggesting is effectively exactly the same as his idea but
makes him safe as well.

Also -
Why has this simple step not been taken?

What is to stop him phoning Camden and asking the simple question, 'what address
were they given by Motability?'

[hcandersen]

Your FiL's reluctance to press Motobility now gives him no choice but to OOT.

As posted, the procedure is that:

Motobility get NTO to which they respond with reps giving a person's name and address IN WRITING.
This is a matter of record, not confidential. You FiL should have required their reps and the authority's notice of acceptance.

But he didn't; he has nothing and time's pressing.

IMO he must assert in the OOT that he has spoken to Motobility who confirmed that they gave the authority XYZ address, he cannot therefore understand how the authority addressed all notices to ABC address as a direct result of which none of the notices were served because none was 'properly addressed' as required.

[DancingDad]

Your FiL's reluctance to press Motobility now gives him no choice but to OOT.

As posted, the procedure is that:

Motobility get NTO to which they respond with reps giving a person's name and address IN WRITING.
This is a matter of record, not confidential. You FiL should have required their reps and the authority's notice of acceptance.

But he didn't; he has nothing and time's pressing.

IMO he must assert in the OOT that he has spoken to Motobility who confirmed that they gave the authority XYZ address, he cannot therefore understand how the authority addressed all notices to ABC address as a direct result of which none of the notices were served because none was 'properly addressed' as required.

That is about the size of it.
Motability's reluctance to put anything in writing says to me that they were the ones that messed up and do not want to admit it or send anything that could leave them exposed to a claim from FIL.
Ridiculous. As HCA says, it is a matter of record both at Motobility and Council so cannot be hidden.


But makes no difference.

I would like confirmation from council that the wrong house number had been used on all notices or from TEC that it was the house number council related to them.
It's all computerised so if TEC were given an address, that is the one that the council's system has on record and the one where the notices would have gone to.

OOt should include
I ask that TEC accept the Statutory Declaration Out of Time.
The first I knew of the outstanding PCN was when bailiffs knocked at my door.
The showed me a warrant but that had the wrong address on it, being made out to no 23 (street name) instead of my correct address 25 (street name)
I had received none of the normal Notices such as PCN or Charge Certificate, I assume because they were incorrectly addressed. (or I know that if you do phone council)
The vehicle is registered to Motobility who have confirmed that they received the original PCN, challenged it on Hire Company grounds and gave my name and address.
And that the enforcement authority accepted this.
I can confirm that the address they hold is the correct address and include a copy of the lease agreement showing this.
I assume that at this point, the authority sent a new PCN but to the wrong address. (would be excellent if the word assume could be lost but need to talk to council or TEC to find what address is on record)
Given the incorrect address, I ask that TEC accept that I could not have seen or responded to Notices in good time and accept this Out of Time request.
To do otherwise, given that notices were not correctly address would seem to be an injustice.

[Neil B]

Your FiL's reluctance to press Motobility now gives him no choice but to OOT.

Noting Dad's reply too.

Jae said FiL "pressed" them so wehave to give him credit for that.
But they didn't answer the question; 'what address was given in the representations to
transfer liability?'
They should not need to be coy about the matter as no one is gunning for them. FiL just wanted
assistance in getting the matter reset; nothing more.

One might even resort to mentioning their 'inaccurate' reps (if so) and how such a 'mistake' borders on
being subject to a max £5k fine? Albeit a 'mistake' and absent the necessary knowingly.
Extreme maybe but a nudge.

Easier - ask the Council on the phone, as I've said.
Yes I know you like writing HCA and you're right but he has no time and getting attention to the
live issue via a phone call can be so effective to start with.

And I still support OOT asap.
There'll be time to get any additional details to Council before they decide whether to object.

[Neil B]

Dare we ask how things are progressing?

[phantomcrusader]

Schedule 12 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 allows enforcement agents to enter and take goods from "relevant premises" which includes where they believe the debtor usually lives. It is not absoutely necessary for a warrant of control to state the address from which goods may be taken.

Nonetheless, this is not widely known and most councils buckle when told the warant address is incorrect and they needlessly apply for a new one under cpr 75.7 to accord with old operational guidance. However, as the operational guidance to local authorities has been withdrawn by the DfT, there is less to use against them when it comes to procedure.

This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 - 23:41

[hcandersen]

...which misses the point.

If the warrant is addressed incorrectly then how can anyone presume based only on this evidence that the statutory notices were correctly addressed?

You cannot, and this is the point.

Forget who can break into your house and focus on the OOT, not receiving the PCN and the prima facie evidence (the warrant) that this was because it was misaddressed.

[Jae24]

OOT has been posted, along with copy of motability hire agreement and dla letter in support, these have also been copied and accompany a letter to camden council and likewise Marston.

The letter to Marston asserts the fact that he is living in a vulnerable household, as a disabled person living alone, and has made clear that should they wish to attend they are to give adequate notice to allow for him to arrange for his social worker and other relevant third parties to be present.

When having a chat with solicitor who witnessed the OOT he was confident that the case should be dismissed, as unreasonable to expect FIL to have known PCNs to wrong address, Error not his fault as info provided to Motability, in the first instance comes from DWP and continues to be correct as per their systems, and in his words "what's to say they've even sent a PCN in the first place? Did they send it recorded delivery?" He has also kindly offered some pro-bono support should they continue to pursue the case, as a favour and a hobby.


So I guess it's now just a waiting game.

[Neil B]

OOT has been posted,

Should have e-mailed -- and you still can.
It doesn't matter they'll end up with two; first to arrive gets processed.

tec@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

4pm daily processing deadline.

[DancingDad]

Plus 1 to email a copy of it all, will stop it today/tomorrow as opposed to post which may not get processed until Monday.

What wording did you use on the OOT, copy please, so we know if there are problems.
Similar to what you sent to council?

Solicitor.
Fair play to him but our experience with solicitors involved in PCNs is poor, they simply do not have the experience and often get confused with more regular cases.
That he asked if notices were sent recorded shows his inexperience, councils never send via recorded (and nor should you), the law does not require it.
Plus he obviously has not dealt with TEC before.
Default on OOTs is that councils object and if they do, TEC reject.
Not 100% but seems that way.
TBF, many OOT applications are simply rubbish and do not address that the application is late or why TEC should accept.
And many are through self inflicted issues like people not updating address information on V5c.
Double check with us regarding any advice he may give.

Yours has all the elements that says TEC should accept.
I would like to ensure that council have reason not to oppose, hence request for what you have sent.

[Jae24]

They have been sent 24H recorded and also emailed.

[OOT wording]
>>
I first became aware of the penalty charge when a bailiff from Marston Holdings, acting on behalf of The London Borough of Camden, arrived at my door, 16 ***, requesting payment, in the first instance I asked to see a warrant, as I had no idea as to why he was present, on inspection of the warrant it was addressed to 15 ***.
As the address entered on the warrant was incorrect, I am of the strong belief that the normal notices such as PCN or Charge certificate were also incorrectly addressed and therefore were never received.

The vehicle in question, is registered to Motability, who have confirmed they received the original PCN and provided you with my name and address. I can confirm that the address held by Motability is correct, as confirmed by their advisers, and have enclosed a copy of my hire agreement with them, which shows this.
I understand that at this point the authority would have issued a new PCN, but this was, somehow, sent to the wrong address, and this continued to be the case with further correspondence, until the bailiff arrived at my door.

Given the use of an incorrect address, which was through no fault of my own, I could not have seen or responded to Notices in good time.

>>

letters to Marston and Camden were similarly worded.

[wording of vulnerable household declaration to marston, copied to camden]
>>

Dear Sirs,
Re: Account reference ***
I refer to your previous correspondence informing me that your company have been instructed by The London Borough of Camden to enforce a warrant against me, in respect of Penalty Charge Notice.
In your letter you state that you will be visiting/returning to my home to seize goods unless full payment of *** is made by return.

The purpose of this letter is to advise your company that I believe that my household circumstances fall within the category as contained within the National Standards for Enforcement Agents of “vulnerable situations”. The reason for this is that I am a 78 year old man who resides alone and I am also registered as disabled, as can be verified with my GP, and in receipt of DLA.

Accordingly, I would like to request that you do not visit my property as this would cause undue stress and anxiety. Instead, I would like to request that you return this case back to The London Borough of Camden.

If you do, however, find it necessary to visit, for any reason, in future, I request that you do not do so without first providing me with plentiful notice, so I am able to make arrangements for my social worker and/or relevant third parties to be present to support me, and witness the visit.

I would be grateful if you could confirm safe receipt of this letter, and confirmation that the case has been returned to The London Borough of Camden.

<<

I'll update when he hears back. Particularly, with regards to the vulnerable household declaration, as in relation to Motability customers, if it works, it seems like an important step, which could ease the pressure from bailiffs.

This post has been edited by Jae24: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 14:50

[Jae24]

We have an outcome...

Marston have recalled the warrant from their bailiff and returned to London Borough of Camden....

London Borough of Camden have reissued the PCN correctly addressed, and will accept the reduced rate fee of £65.

We also have a letter of apology from both.

[Neil B]

and will accept the reduced rate fee of £65.

Whoah.
Not without us taking a look at it first.

If the mistake was Camden they are too late to serve a PCN.

You pay nothing.

[Jae24]

Camden response... FIL noted they had apologised but doesn't sound that way to me..

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you to inform you that the Enforcement Agency, Marstons, have recalled the warrant from their bailiff.



I can also inform you Parking Operations obtains the registered keeper information from the DVLA and not Motability. Any discrepancy regarding your address is for you to rectify with the aforementioned parties.



Though I appreciate the distress the above must have caused, any further action on your behalf should be taken up with the above companies given the misinformation regarding your address.



As for the Penalty Charge itself, this has now been reissued to your correct address and, as such, currently stands at £65.00. You will receive the charge within due course (allowing 14 working days) whereby you can make formal representations against it, once received you may also settle the charge at the reduced rate of £65.00.



I hope this brings resolution to the matter, if you have any further enquiry regarding the charge itself please feel free to email me. However I must stress, if you intend to challenge the Penalty Charge you follow the statutory process making representations on the council’s Parking section of the webpage.



Yours sincerely,





Morgan Hewitt
Quality Officer
Customer Services
Corporate Services
London Borough of Camden


Marston response:

Dear Mr.****

I am writing to inform you that the warrant has been withdrawn and will be returned to The London Borough of Camden without prejudice.

We apologise for any inconveniences you may have experienced.

[Fluffykins]

Could Motability's efforts be forced into the open with a suitably crafted SAR?

[SPARKY26]

I think your find that the customer of the Motability car is the registered keeper. So all PCN will go straight to the customer and not to Motability first

[Neil B]

I think your find that the customer of the Motability car is the registered keeper. So all PCN will go straight to the customer and not to Motability first

No. Obviously not.
Have you read the thread?

[DancingDad]

I can also inform you Parking Operations obtains the registered keeper information from the DVLA and not Motability.

Motability is RK
Motability keeps lessee's details.
Bu55er all to do with DVLA who Motability lease the vehicle to.

And if council get nothing from Motability, how the hell did they transfer liability?
Sure as hell didn't get it from DVLA.


Pay nothing, let us look over things first.
Demand, full history from Motability, in writing. SAR request if needs be but hopefully, telling them that you couldn't care if they effed up and just want to sort the PCN, they may play ball.
PCN history from Camden.... demand it, advise that this will be called as crucial evidence should they not supply and thus force you to adjudication.