1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 
di So, the Home Office has finally deemed to reply to Commercial Motor's .22rn Back Campaign—and we're
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
not going to get our money back. Well, what did I expect? Is it sorry because, according to the Court, 'it got it all wrong'? Sorry it only gave us four hours to pay 112,000? Sorry rt impounded our vehicle? Sorry it almost wrecked our lives? Sorry it threatened US with the bailiffs? Yes, the Home Office got it wrong but it is still hanging onto our money. Tough luck, old chap!
The Home Office does not =I understand that the money it has z collected was only paid under duress 0
("0 and to save victims' livelihoods and possibly their homes.
c-= I suspect the majority of hauliers who paid did not have the means or the time to gamble on whether the Home Office would actually come after their assets if they refused to pay. In my case, I ▪ was only given four hours to pay before the vehicle was impounded F.; and my driver told to find his own way home. What a way to treat a r2 British citizen!
ET_ My vehicle was subject to a finance contract and I was advised that, if the truck was auctioned, it would not make its true value and I would be liable for any shortfall to the finance company. At this stage, my options were so limited that I had to comply with the Home Office to get the truck released. To me, this is not admitting guilt but trying to save 22 years' worth of hard work.
It is not my intention to write about the politics of the Civil Penalties Scheme run by the Home Office, but I am still baffled as to how someone can be responsible for the actions of someone else and be made liable for penalties incurred.
I would also question the Guarantee of Payment system used by the Home Office. When the court ruled the system being used was not lawful, the amount of fines owed was said to be £12m. Why was this figure so high? Operators soon realised that if they played ball with the Home Office and sent the relevant guarantees, the truck was then released.
Hauliers realised that, if you were prepared to take a gamble, you could just sit back and see if the bailiffs turned up for the money. One operator I know did not pay a penny and now he is in the clear. For those of us who paid this makes it even worse: we were all accused of the same offence, so how can the Home Office justify keeping the money paid?
I suggest to those heading up the Home Office that they admit they got it wrong and they lost control of the whole situation. We understand it was never going to be easy, but it cannot be that they take money from one person and not another who has committed the same offence.
Despite my earlier pledge not to get involved with the politics of this fiasco, I have one last thing to say: the Home Office is run by the government, and that government will be looking for our support at the next general election. I can say for sure that I will never vote Labour again]