|  |
Bailiffs chose not to pursue appeal of detailed assesment decision
Posted on Tuesday, February 03 @ 23:37:28 GMT by pulpsimon |
|
The baillif company having been granted leave to appeal the decsion have decided not to pursue the application
The
Judge had specified in granting permission to appeal "The bailiff was
following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the
right to charge for wheelclamping before.
My decision that they
cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now)
not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough
with de-criminalised parking.
Accordingly, it has significant
local and possible National implications and that is a compelling
reason why an appeal should be heard"
More interesting quotations from the original decision
The Submissions
21.
The principal submission from Mr Culligan as to whether or not he is
liable to pay the bailiff's charges is straightforward and simple: he
says that the bailiff has wrongly characterized the immobilisation fee
as a removal expense under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 whereas, in his
view, the application an immobilisation device i.e the wheel clamp,
took place at the time of seizure which is all part of levying distress
and should be dealt with under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1
22. The
converse argument advanced by the Defendants is that the application of
an immobilisation device is not necessary in order to complete a levy
which itself is complete at seizure, and that the application of an
immobilisation device is a separate and distinct act
23. The
answer to these competing submissions is of no little consequence or
importance If i find against the Defendants it will significantly
affect and impact upon their ability to charge, and the extent to which
they can charge, for any wheel clamping, certainly in the London
Borough of Camden and, I suspect, a number of other London Boroughs who
operate the same sort of agreement that the bailiff currently has with
Camden. Indeed, if Mr Culligan is correct then the immobilisation fee
of £100 is not chargeable insofar as it does not fall within or exceeds
the 28% limitation (or the £38.14 in this particular case) in respect
of levying distress imposed by Schedule 1
& findings
65.
Indeed, neither that charge nor that made in respect of the proposed
removal of Mr Culligan's vehicle is recoverable because there is no
evidence by the receiving party of reasonableness of those charges
66.
I realise that the non-payment of PCN's in London and other
metropolitan l areas is a huge problem. I am also conscious that my
findings in this case, (and I am clear in my conclusions on the
arguments and authorities before me) may have wider consequences and
may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge
for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it
within the cost of levying distress To do otherwise would, in my
judgment, be unlawful
67. I would also add that if the
Defendant's or either of them in the light of this judgment now
continue to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up
to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an
immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well
then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be
unlawful
|
| |
Average Score: 4
Votes: 1
|
|
|
