Bennison has been telling people to pay the court directly to avoid fees for years, even when there is no evidence that this method actually works, and there is plenty of evidence that it doesn’t, as can be seen here: Magistrates Court Fines.
Here we have a poster who had previously followed the advice on BHF to pay the court direct to avoid paying bailiff fees. Wouldn’t it be lovely if this worked? Trouble is, it doesn’t, and, rather than debtors saving money and screwing the bailiffs for their fees as Bennison would like them to think, it has all the opposite effect: it ends up lining up the bailiffs’ pockets! That’s right, every stage of the enforcement process attracts extra fees, and as the sum outstanding comprises both the initial fine plus the enforcement fees (minus any moneys paid towards the debt), enforcement can continue even when only the fees are outstanding. This is where Bennison’s advice goes terribly wrong and, what looks like the perfect way to get out of paying fees ends up costing debtors a lot more than if they had agreed to pay the fees to start with.
Bennison then posts the following:
The bailiff took an enforcement step after the enforcement power had ceased. That is a breach of paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007).
No, the enforcement power had not ceased as we all know. HMCTS told the poor sod as much:
HMCT court officer replied back saying any money you have paid will be forwarded to the bailiffs.
Bennison continues with his drivel…
As you are no longer a debtor, you cannot bring an action under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the TCEA 2007, instead, you have to bring it under section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. This is because you ceased being a “debtor” for the purpose of Schedule 12 when the fine was paid.
Ceased being a debtor? Not going by what we have just seen above!
The action is brought on a form N16a at your home county court (not a magistrates court), make a witness statement proving the amount you were fined and the date you got a receipt for payment of the fine.
Form N16a is an injunction application, something Bennison should be very well acquainted with, since one such application cost him £26,000. You can read all about it here: Bennison v Nominet.
Provided the receipt pre-dates the time the car was taken, you have a clean case.
Really? What kind of case would that be? Since the car has already been taken, the poor debtor can hardly apply for an injunction against the bailiff seizing it!
Once you have your car back, you can sue for damages for loss of use of the car, plus any damages caused to it. But – you must give notice of the damage as soon as the car is returned to the bailiff company, otherwise, the damage can be attributed to you. The action is brought separately because paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 of the TCEA 2007 makes the enforcement agent ant his company liable for the care of controlled goods until they cease to be controlled.
You couldn’t make it up! He lost use of the car because he didn’t pay the debt as seen above. There is nothing to sue for!
You can also recover all the money taken, but if you haven’t paid the bailiff, then you might want to consider “Pay and Reclaim”. This procedure is highly toxic for the bailiff company because this action is brought in the small claims track and the bailiff company has no prospect of ever recovering their solicitors fees no matter how the proceedings pan out. The bailiff company always loses with a “pay & reclaim” action, Hence why such a case becomes toxic for the bailiff company.
Would he care to explain what the debtor would write in the particulars of this claim? I hope its not something as “clever” as what Bennison wrote in his own claim form against Nominet!
I wouldn’t worry about the length of time the car is with the bailiff company, you get about £75 a day for the deprivation of use. Use it to rack up a claim, or you can apply for an interlocutory relief under section 4 and get the car back straight away.
Rack up a claim? With no prospect of recovering the court fee paid to issue the claim, let alone any money claimed!
If no paperwork was given when the car was taken, then you can claim damages for breach of statutory duty by failing to give a notice after entry(sic), akin to bringing a remedy for a drive-by clamping when a car registration with unpaid tickets is found on the street by a kerb-crawler.
Struggling with the lingo
Drive-by clamping? What’s that when it’s at home? How can you clamp a car while driving by? Only Bennison could come up with that one! As for kerb-crawlers, does Bennison have a clue what he’s saying here? Maybe English isn’t his first language (or his second), and he is just parroting what he’s heard like a 3 year old.
Even if you decide to use Pay & Reclaim, you can still sue the bailiff company for damages to the car, provided that damage was not there before it was taken, The bailiff will have videoed himself using a body-work video camera while taking control of the car. This will decide whether the damage claimed is pre-existing. If the bailiff refuses to make over his body-work video footage, his defence is defeated.
Bennison is equally unfamiliar with this other word, bodywork.
If you want to start the show, then contact me for an initial telephone consultation and I can go over the options open for you and explain the legal position. The evidence I need is:
1. The amount you were fined
2. Date you paid it to court (receipt)
3. Date the car was taken
4. Amount demanded by the bailiff – fine and fees.
It is Bennison who is starting his own show there, the show me the money show! We all know what happens next. He will probably charge for drafting documents, then refer the case to his favourite solicitor, the one who has “won” other cases. The rest is, or will be, history, as seen here: A history of failures and lost cases.
My contact details are in my email signature beneath this post
Of course they are, even when, according to this other thread, he claims to have sold the website in question.