Are TFL bailiffs using fake warrants?

BobRachet

Last year I was fined for driving a Mercedes Vito through Rotherhithe tunnel. I'm not from London but have since found out there was a big uproar when this system was introduced a few years ago, as it caught out lots of unsuspecting small van owners who never are usually restricted from driving on any roads. The signage there is terrible and confusing, dozens of warning sign in a tiny space. I appealed the fine on the basis of poor signage, I happen to be an qualified expert in this area. However the appeal was rejected and there was not further recourse allowed, due to TFL's own dodgy appeal limitations. 

Unfortunately the appeal rejection letter was sent to me while I was on holiday so because I didn't respond in 14 days they increased my fine substantially. I called TFL and offered to pay the original fine amount explaining why I had missed their 14 day window, the person I spoke was sympathetic but said she could not reduce the fine. Her advice was that they never take unpaid fines to court so I could probably ignore it. I was about to move house so regrettably did that. The house move took longer than expected and I promptly got a letter from Marstons debt recovery saying they had a warrant to enter my home about a week before Christmas, they now wanted about 4 times the original fine amount. Not wanting my family to deal with this over Christmas I paid the full amount but asked to see a copy of the warrant. They would not send me a copy.

At this point I got suspicious because it didn't seem like there had been enough time for them to get a warrant. So after paying the full amount, I pursued getting a copy of the warrant. Marstons kept saying TFL had a copy, and TFL kept saying Marstons had it. After many rounds of this it was clear neither of them had a copy of the alleged warrant. So I tried to contact Northampton County Court where the warrant was supposedly issued from (according to the letter from Marstons). The court just forwarded me around various e-mail addresses and I have been going around in circles for months with no warrant or case ID ever being produced. 

I am now 100% convinced there was never any warrant and they just put this on their demand letters to scare people. Well it works, but I feel I have been extorted by Marstons who have had a few hundred pounds paid to them by me due to fear of a real warrant existing. The courts don't seem to care their name is being used in this way. TFL couldn't care less. Without the courts confirming that this warrant doesn't exists I can't further a small claim against TFL. 

Is there anything else I could possibly do to get my money back?

As this is no doubt a common practice by TFL is there any chance of a class action suit against them? I'm sure thousands of people are being duped this way, if indeed no warrant ever existed. 

Le_Kirk

You will be better posting this on the replacement for PePiPoo which is: -

Since we concentrate on parking charge notices from unregulated private parking companies, you would be better off taking this over to our friends on https://ftla.uk  (the recently started forum to replace/supplement Pepipoo),  as they are the experts on council and police issues.

You will need register before reading the FAQs, then posting both sides of your PCN with your query.

Private

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/

Council

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/

Police

https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/

DullGreyGuy

Not sure what's unclear on the signage? https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/rotherhithe-tunnel-vechicle-restriction-warnings-signage-location-v2.pdf its on all routes before the tunnel and at the entrance to the tunnel itself. 


https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/bailiffs-enforcement-agents-your-rights.pdf its worth reading the process, TFL lodge the statutory details with the Traffic Enforcement Centre and assuming no defence etc is filed against it then TEC enables TFL to issue the warrant of control to the Enforcement Agents/Baliffs; its not the TEC actually raising the warrant. 

So your proposed litigation is that TFL had the power to issue the warrant but for some reason didnt actually issue it however did assign and instruct an EA to recover? Seems highly implausible that TFL would have the mechanism to instruct the EAs without raising the warrant given its in their power to do so. 

BobRachet

DullGreyGuy said:

Not sure what's unclear on the signage? https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/rotherhithe-tunnel-vechicle-restriction-warnings-signage-location-v2.pdf its on all routes before the tunnel and at the entrance to the tunnel itself. 


https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/bailiffs-enforcement-agents-your-rights.pdf its worth reading the process, TFL lodge the statutory details with the Traffic Enforcement Centre and assuming no defence etc is filed against it then TEC enables TFL to issue the warrant of control to the Enforcement Agents/Baliffs; its not the TEC actually raising the warrant. 

So your proposed litigation is that TFL had the power to issue the warrant but for some reason didnt actually issue it however did assign and instruct an EA to recover? Seems highly implausible that TFL would have the mechanism to instruct the EAs without raising the warrant given its in their power to do so. 

Marstons said they had a warrant, and that it was issued by Northampton County Court, this was printed as one of the main points on their first letter, so they can't legitimately make such a claim if no warrant existed. Subsequently they professed that TFL had a copy of the warrant which again turned out not to be true (according to TFL). 

Thanks for the link this is what is says about warrants:

• An EA will have a valid warrant of control authorised by the TEC. The

details of the warrant must be stored by the EA electronically and be

made available in hard copy upon request. A warrant of control expires

12 months after the date of issue and unless it’s extended, cannot be

used to support recovery of an outstanding debt after this time.

• An EA acting on TfL’s behalf must be certificated by a County Court. A

valid photo certificate must be carried by the EA and shown if

requested.

• An EA must not discuss a warrant with any third parties unless

authorised to do so by the named person on the warrant.

So if a hard copy exists then they have failed to provide a copy on request as I demanded. Maybe they actually issue the warrant if you don't pay immeadiatly and do it a day before they come round, if so then they are still at fault for claiming they have a warrant when they don't have one.

Coupon-mad

DullGreyGuy said:

So your proposed litigation is that TFL had the power to issue the warrant but for some reason didnt actually issue it however did assign and instruct an EA to recover? Seems highly implausible that TFL would have the mechanism to instruct the EAs without raising the warrant given its in their power to do so. 

Not implausible at all.

This is MARSTONS we're talking about.  Come on, of course they 'could' cut corners:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/marstongroup.co.uk

Wasn't it Marstons who persuaded a naive Police force to stand and assist them to pull over cars with outstanding Council PCNs (I think), which was a predatory operation shown on a TV show a few years ago that was later shown to be ...ahem... not supported in law?

@BobRachet send them both a SAR.

DullGreyGuy

BobRachet said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Not sure what's unclear on the signage? https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/rotherhithe-tunnel-vechicle-restriction-warnings-signage-location-v2.pdf its on all routes before the tunnel and at the entrance to the tunnel itself. 


https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/bailiffs-enforcement-agents-your-rights.pdf its worth reading the process, TFL lodge the statutory details with the Traffic Enforcement Centre and assuming no defence etc is filed against it then TEC enables TFL to issue the warrant of control to the Enforcement Agents/Baliffs; its not the TEC actually raising the warrant. 

So your proposed litigation is that TFL had the power to issue the warrant but for some reason didnt actually issue it however did assign and instruct an EA to recover? Seems highly implausible that TFL would have the mechanism to instruct the EAs without raising the warrant given its in their power to do so. 

Marstons said they had a warrant, and that it was issued by Northampton County Court, this was printed as one of the main points on their first letter, so they can't legitimately make such a claim if no warrant existed. Subsequently they professed that TFL had a copy of the warrant which again turned out not to be true (according to TFL). 

Traffic Enforcement Court is part of the Northampton County Court, TEC has delegated authority to TFL so TFL create the warrant once TEC have agreed they can but it will be on Northampton County Court paper.  This is how delegated authority works and its legitimate to say they have a Northampton County Court issued warrant. 

I'm not claiming to have any knowledge of the systems that TFL use but were I creating one it could be a very simple system that when the TEC agreement comes in the user simply opens the case, select (or the system selects) the EA and you hit the send button which generates the Warrant and emails it to the EA. Given how basic the system could be it would seem very odd that instead the operator has to select the EA, send them across the details but then forget to create the warrant... just seems an obvious mistake that could be so easily closed. 

Coupon-mad said:

DullGreyGuy said:

So your proposed litigation is that TFL had the power to issue the warrant but for some reason didnt actually issue it however did assign and instruct an EA to recover? Seems highly implausible that TFL would have the mechanism to instruct the EAs without raising the warrant given its in their power to do so. 

Not implausible at all.

This is MARSTONS we're talking about.  Come on, of course they 'could' cut corners:

But it's not Marston's that would be cutting corners, the OP is alleging that TFL cut the corner by instructing Marston's without attaching the warrant of control which TFL themselves have the authority to create. 

Zbubuman

Coupon-mad said:

DullGreyGuy said:

So your proposed litigation is that TFL had the power to issue the warrant but for some reason didnt actually issue it however did assign and instruct an EA to recover? Seems highly implausible that TFL would have the mechanism to instruct the EAs without raising the warrant given its in their power to do so. 

Not implausible at all.

This is MARSTONS we're talking about.  Come on, of course they 'could' cut corners:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/marstongroup.co.uk

Wasn't it Marstons who persuaded a naive Police force to stand and assist them to pull over cars with outstanding Council PCNs (I think), which was a predatory operation shown on a TV show a few years ago that was later shown to be ...ahem... not supported in law?

@BobRachet send them both a SAR.

I remember watching this. They were pulling vehicles off a roundabout and clamping them on the spot. If i remember correctly they also managed to get a driving instructor arrested because he had a butter knife in the car in his lunch box ( albeit if i am not mistaken they should not have seized the car in the first place, as this was his source of income thus depriving him of the ability to pay off the alleged debt)

Coupon-mad

DullGreyGuy said:

BobRachet said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Not sure what's unclear on the signage? https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/rotherhithe-tunnel-vechicle-restriction-warnings-signage-location-v2.pdf its on all routes before the tunnel and at the entrance to the tunnel itself. 


https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/bailiffs-enforcement-agents-your-rights.pdf its worth reading the process, TFL lodge the statutory details with the Traffic Enforcement Centre and assuming no defence etc is filed against it then TEC enables TFL to issue the warrant of control to the Enforcement Agents/Baliffs; its not the TEC actually raising the warrant. 

So your proposed litigation is that TFL had the power to issue the warrant but for some reason didnt actually issue it however did assign and instruct an EA to recover? Seems highly implausible that TFL would have the mechanism to instruct the EAs without raising the warrant given its in their power to do so. 

Marstons said they had a warrant, and that it was issued by Northampton County Court, this was printed as one of the main points on their first letter, so they can't legitimately make such a claim if no warrant existed. Subsequently they professed that TFL had a copy of the warrant which again turned out not to be true (according to TFL). 

Traffic Enforcement Court is part of the Northampton County Court, TEC has delegated authority to TFL so TFL create the warrant once TEC have agreed they can but it will be on Northampton County Court paper.  This is how delegated authority works and its legitimate to say they have a Northampton County Court issued warrant. 

I'm not claiming to have any knowledge of the systems that TFL use but were I creating one it could be a very simple system that when the TEC agreement comes in the user simply opens the case, select (or the system selects) the EA and you hit the send button which generates the Warrant and emails it to the EA. Given how basic the system could be it would seem very odd that instead the operator has to select the EA, send them across the details but then forget to create the warrant... just seems an obvious mistake that could be so easily closed. 

Coupon-mad said:

DullGreyGuy said:

So your proposed litigation is that TFL had the power to issue the warrant but for some reason didnt actually issue it however did assign and instruct an EA to recover? Seems highly implausible that TFL would have the mechanism to instruct the EAs without raising the warrant given its in their power to do so. 

Not implausible at all.

This is MARSTONS we're talking about.  Come on, of course they 'could' cut corners:

But it's not Marston's that would be cutting corners, the OP is alleging that TFL cut the corner by instructing Marston's without attaching the warrant of control which TFL themselves have the authority to create. 

No. Marstons would have been tasked to apply for the necessary Warrant before they could rock up mob-handed.

It is them who may well have cut corners.