Recieved a 24 hour notice of removal on the 10/11/22 saying they they'd be collecting money or goods for the infraction of driving through a bus lane in Blackpool back on the 28/08/21.
I sold the vehicle on the 06/08/21 privately and have a screenshot from the DVLA proving this so I contacted Jacobs enforcement explaining this to get the not sufficient evidence reply.
They also have my name inncorectly spelt as "aba Davies" instead of "asa Davies" which I'm aware they need to get it changed but they refuse to do so and still say they'll take goods.
They said I need to appeal it with the tec which I did and they won't help me as my name doesn't match what's on their ticket and said I need to contact the original supplier of the charge which was Lancashire council to ammend the name before I can appeal it.
I emailed the council and got a short reply of this has nothing to do with us as it's been passed on to an enforcement agency.
I've phoned the DVLA and they are sending me a letter confirming i wasn't the owner of the vehicle at the time the offence took place but Jacobs are saying that this isn't good enough and that they will continue to chase me for money or goods.
I'm stuck in a loop of nobody wanting to help as I'm happy to appeal it but they won't accept it as the first name is misspelled. Everytime I email or call the encorforement agency they tell me it's in the hands with a local enforcer ( who still works for Jacobs ) and tell me to ring him but apart from the first phone call I had with him I can no longer call or text him as the number doesn't dial and the texts don't go through ( not sure if he's blocked me).
Bus lane in Lancashire
Re: Bus lane in Lancashire
Selling the contravention vehicle doesn't get you off the hook as far as the traffic contravention debt is concerned. But it does put the contravention vehicle off the table as far as the enforcement is concerned.
Taking a contravention vehicle owned by someone, not the debtor named on the warrant of control usually lands the creditor/council a big bill for the losses incurred by the new owner. The creditor/council pays and all the costs are thrown at the bailiff company.
I accept that 'Jacobs' is not a company. It is Simon Jacobs and his wife Paula who work from their home in Birkenhead with a virtual office address. So I will use the expression "bailiff company" anyway. This came about when a process server needed to serve 'Jacobs Enforcement' with court documents and found Simon Jacobs on his morning constellation.
Bailiff companies put a high burden of proof on vehicle ownership. That is often detrimental to any defence if the third-party claim goes before a court. The third-party claimant exhibits the bailiff company's 'policy' which usually far exceeds the statutory maxim for proving whether the third-party claimant actually gained beneficial ownership.
I would take no further action as far as the vehicle is concerned. You sold it.
Appealing to the TEC, and I use the word 'appeal' lightly. Is usually a waste of time. If the warrant has a debtor's previous address on it, then it is a 'defective instrument'. If bailiffs take control of goods under a defective instrument, the creditor is royally on the hook for everything that follows. CPR 75.7(7) places responsibility for applying to the TEC for a new warrant specifying the debtor's (respondent's) new address with the creditor.
It’s not your problem.
If they wrongly spelled your name, then that is not enough to make the warrant a defective instrument.
If the warrant specifies another person or entity, then it can only be enforced against that person or entity named on the warrant.
If the warrant specifies another person or entity, then it can only be enforced against that person or entity.
Never telephone a bailiff or a bailiff company. They will mess you about.
There is a procedure to find out whether the warrant is valid by using the TEC security check.
Just give your postcode to your previous address as your answer to the security check. If they accept that postcode, you have just got the TEC to prove the warrant is a defective instrument.
Just give your postcode to your previous address as your answer to the security check, and if they accept that postcode, you have just got the TEC to prove the warrant is a defective instrument.
Taking a contravention vehicle owned by someone, not the debtor named on the warrant of control usually lands the creditor/council a big bill for the losses incurred by the new owner. The creditor/council pays and all the costs are thrown at the bailiff company.
I accept that 'Jacobs' is not a company. It is Simon Jacobs and his wife Paula who work from their home in Birkenhead with a virtual office address. So I will use the expression "bailiff company" anyway. This came about when a process server needed to serve 'Jacobs Enforcement' with court documents and found Simon Jacobs on his morning constellation.
Bailiff companies put a high burden of proof on vehicle ownership. That is often detrimental to any defence if the third-party claim goes before a court. The third-party claimant exhibits the bailiff company's 'policy' which usually far exceeds the statutory maxim for proving whether the third-party claimant actually gained beneficial ownership.
I would take no further action as far as the vehicle is concerned. You sold it.
Appealing to the TEC, and I use the word 'appeal' lightly. Is usually a waste of time. If the warrant has a debtor's previous address on it, then it is a 'defective instrument'. If bailiffs take control of goods under a defective instrument, the creditor is royally on the hook for everything that follows. CPR 75.7(7) places responsibility for applying to the TEC for a new warrant specifying the debtor's (respondent's) new address with the creditor.
It’s not your problem.
If they wrongly spelled your name, then that is not enough to make the warrant a defective instrument.
If the warrant specifies another person or entity, then it can only be enforced against that person or entity named on the warrant.
If the warrant specifies another person or entity, then it can only be enforced against that person or entity.
Never telephone a bailiff or a bailiff company. They will mess you about.
There is a procedure to find out whether the warrant is valid by using the TEC security check.
Just give your postcode to your previous address as your answer to the security check. If they accept that postcode, you have just got the TEC to prove the warrant is a defective instrument.
Just give your postcode to your previous address as your answer to the security check, and if they accept that postcode, you have just got the TEC to prove the warrant is a defective instrument.
Re: Bus lane in Lancashire
Hi thanks for the reply. I kind of understood what you said ( I'm not the best with legal jargon)
So the fact that they have my name wrong doesn't matter. I read online that if the name is incorrect they have to go back to the council/tec to get it amended? But my address was correct. Are you saying phone the tec and give them a postcode of a previous address and if they accept it then it's not valid?
What would I do if they accept it?
Thanks
So the fact that they have my name wrong doesn't matter. I read online that if the name is incorrect they have to go back to the council/tec to get it amended? But my address was correct. Are you saying phone the tec and give them a postcode of a previous address and if they accept it then it's not valid?
What would I do if they accept it?
Thanks
-
Syd Snitkin
- The Watcher
- Posts: 171
- Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
- Location: In your loft, waiting
Re: Bus lane in Lancashire
Zeke, the car was sold on 06/08/21, the contravention was on 28/08/21. OP has proof of sale, and proof of change of ownership from DVLA. It's not his debt.
Former General Manager of a nursing home, trained in music and classical guitar, MBA in contract law, expert legal commentator on bailiff law. enjoys PG tips. No not me, some screwball elsewhere
Re: Bus lane in Lancashire
@Davi926 you state you have proof from the DVLA that the vehicle was sold before the contravention that was on 28/08/21. If the screenshot you have from the DVLA show that you transferred ownership on 06/08/2021 then the debt is not yours.
The TEC & bailiff "company" is a waste of time, they will just mess you around, they just want your money.
The important thing here is the regulation the bailiff is working under in particular - Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states; an enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor.
Its very important when the bailiff comes to your home you do not let them in, keep your doors locked at all times as they can and will walk through an open or unlocked door which they legally can do. If you are willing to talk to the bailiff do it from an open window or outside your home and make sure you close and lock the door behind you.
email or post the proof you have from the DVLA to Lancashire council and the bailiff company telling them you can prove that you are not the debtor and any enforcement action taken is unlawful as per Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and you will take legal action against both the local authority, the induvial bailiff and company .
The TEC & bailiff "company" is a waste of time, they will just mess you around, they just want your money.
The important thing here is the regulation the bailiff is working under in particular - Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states; an enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor.
Its very important when the bailiff comes to your home you do not let them in, keep your doors locked at all times as they can and will walk through an open or unlocked door which they legally can do. If you are willing to talk to the bailiff do it from an open window or outside your home and make sure you close and lock the door behind you.
email or post the proof you have from the DVLA to Lancashire council and the bailiff company telling them you can prove that you are not the debtor and any enforcement action taken is unlawful as per Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and you will take legal action against both the local authority, the induvial bailiff and company .
Re: Bus lane in Lancashire
Thankyou for the replies. I have emailed both the bailiff company and council with the screen shot and the council replied it's nothing to do with them as it's with the enforcement agency and Jacobs reply saying that it's not sufficient evidence to prove I wasn't the owner. I just get the feeling they don't care who owned it and just want money.
I phoned the DVLA yesterday and they are sending me a letter to confirm I wasn't the owner of the vehicle and that it sold on the 06/08/21.
I phoned the DVLA yesterday and they are sending me a letter to confirm I wasn't the owner of the vehicle and that it sold on the 06/08/21.
Re: Bus lane in Lancashire
Call the TEC and see what postcode it accepts in the security check.
Back in 2017, I had a client who had a car towed away.
I got a copy of the warrant and the enforcement address was current, but the date of issue was before the client moved to the address (as shown on her tenancy agreement).
That showed that someone at the TEC is changing the warrant address, and using the telephone call security check to get the debtor's new postcode.
On a hunch, I called the TEC on an unrelated client PCN. I gave GL6 9AT in the security check - which was swiftly accepted.
Posing as the client, I telephoned the bailiff company, and the warrant showed Princess Anne's Gatcombe Park as the address for enforcement.
I don't know if bailiffs confronted Princess Anne's royal protection officers, but I shared it on Facebook, anyway.
Others in the group copied it and started giving SW1A 2AA in the security check. The TEC started throwing warrants with 10 Downing Street as the enforcement address.
It showed someone at the TEC was changing the warrant address to the new postcode when they suspected the address had changed after they have issued the warrant.
Back in 2017, I had a client who had a car towed away.
I got a copy of the warrant and the enforcement address was current, but the date of issue was before the client moved to the address (as shown on her tenancy agreement).
That showed that someone at the TEC is changing the warrant address, and using the telephone call security check to get the debtor's new postcode.
On a hunch, I called the TEC on an unrelated client PCN. I gave GL6 9AT in the security check - which was swiftly accepted.
Posing as the client, I telephoned the bailiff company, and the warrant showed Princess Anne's Gatcombe Park as the address for enforcement.
I don't know if bailiffs confronted Princess Anne's royal protection officers, but I shared it on Facebook, anyway.
Others in the group copied it and started giving SW1A 2AA in the security check. The TEC started throwing warrants with 10 Downing Street as the enforcement address.
It showed someone at the TEC was changing the warrant address to the new postcode when they suspected the address had changed after they have issued the warrant.
Re: Bus lane in Lancashire
Well I phoned the Tec and gave them a different address they then asked for a previous address so I gave them the correct one so I don't know if that'll throw them off
Re: Bus lane in Lancashire
They might change it from your previous address to the postcode you gave in the check.
Look at the date of issue. It might pre date your new postcode.
Look at the date of issue. It might pre date your new postcode.