Ref: Judgement by District Judge Avent.

 

If a debtor considers that he has been overchared by a bailiff, he can apply to the court for Detailed Assessment. This will involve a Cost Judge closely examining the charges applied by the bailiff against the statutory fee scale as laid down by Parliament together with Case Law.

In the Legal Cases section of our Downloads area we are providing a full copy of a Detailed Assessment Judgement following a complaint by the claimant concerning disputed fees of £200 relating to a "clamp fee" of £100 and a further fee of £100 for “attending to remove” when enforcing an unpaid PCN that had been issued by London Borough of Camden.

This Detailed Assessment is vitally important as District Judge Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is therefore not part of the cost of removal. 

 

At Paragraph 50 of his Judgement District Judge Avent stated that:

 

"Accordingly, in my judgement the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure.  This being so, I cannot see that Form 7 (Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory) can or should include any costs of removal"

 

On the matter of the charge of £100 for "attending to remove" (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at the Claimant’s home, District Judge Advent confirmed that:

"This amount (£100) cannot be recovered because the defendant (Marston Group Ltd) have produced no evidence whatsoever as to how this charge has been arrived at and therefore they are unable to show that it is reasonable”.

 

He also confirmed that:

"A bailiff does not have free rein to charge what he likes because the schedule of charges does not stipulate a sum but rather provides for "reasonable charges"

The District Judge in his conclusion further stated that:

 

"I am also conscious that my findings in this case 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 judgement, be unlawful

 

“I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgement now continued 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 judgement it would be unlawful....".

 

What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed. 

 

The bailiff company obtained permission from the court to appeal this Judgement, and in granting this,  District Judge Avent stated that:  

 

"The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheel clamping 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"

If Marston Group had appealed, the case would have been referred to the Court of Appeal and, if the Lord Justices agreed with the Judgment this would allow a precedent to be set and this landmark ruling could have led to significant claims being made against all bailiff companies by debtors.

 

Marston Group advised the court shortly afterwards that they had decided to accept the Judgement of District Judge Avent and accordingly they advised the Court of their decision not to appeal.  

Note: