A Technicality but need help

[pinkvanilla]

I have a bailiff letter in front of me from Rossendales

adressed to the wrong adress with the wrong postcode Rossendales won't speak to me because of data protection

I know I have the debt to pay I'm not disputing the fact but I'm not at the address on the form and I have paid £1500 of this debt that they can't talk to me about

Where do I stand and can I do anything even though I have let the bailiff in twice and paid him twice before I realised THEIR mistake

It means I have paid a debt that wasn't mine!!!!! Does that mean they have to pay it back

[Saffronflowers]

Sorry I dont understand is it your name - when the bailiff visited did he not tell you what the debt was for?

If it is not you then you have to prove it to them and then yes they should pay ti back to you

By the way never ever let a bailiff in

SFx

[pinkvanilla]

No its the address and postcode the name is correct its the address and postcode that's wrong

And yes I now know after joining here you shouldn't let them in but I didn't know that and paniced

so in a right pickle now but the address that rossendales has is not my address or the address I bought the house at!!! When developers bought the houses they changed the name and gave them new postcodes well this is at old address under old postcode

[Saffronflowers]

That does not get rid of the debt - I cant quite remember the bit of law or the technicalities. What is this debt for?

SFx

[pinkvanilla]

It's for council tax (unpaid) but I am paying it and I basically just needed advice its fine its getting sorted I just wondered if I had any rights because the lady at rossendales wouldn't speak to me as it wasn't my address I was giving on the form she had so she was saying she couldn't discuss it fro data protection, when I called the council they said they had gave the right address but if they had wrong one on file there they would need to speak to someone higher

Just waiting for a call back from council now and hopefully I'll have this sorted by the end of play today just wanted another opinion that was all. the address is completely different to mine though bears no resemblance at all

I have tried to tell them when the bailiffa first arrived I had recieved no post from the council and they said it had been sent out but it seems I know why now!!

[PizzaMaker]

Originally Posted by Saffronflowers

Sorry I dont understand is it your name - when the bailiff visited did he not tell you what the debt was for?

If it is not you then you have to prove it to them and then yes they should pay ti back to you

By the way never ever let a bailiff in

SFx

I like this "Never let the bailiff in", i have had many dealing with bailiffs and have never had any problems with them entering properties.

[The Watcher]

Originally Posted by PizzaMaker

I like this "Never let the bailiff in", i have had many dealing with bailiffs and have never had any problems with them entering properties.

Then you are giving the bailiffs rights - that they don't currently have - and could be causing problems for yourself in the future.

[PizzaMaker]

Originally Posted by The Watcher

Then you are giving the bailiffs rights - that they don't currently have - and could be causing problems for yourself in the future.

So i am letting a bailiff into my property, what right does he not have to come in? He was polite and i offered for him to come in. He explained the situation to me and walked away with no money on a promise that i would pay in 7 days, which i did.

I am old skool, i know how to deal with these people.

A lot of people think of the bailiff, as shaved head, no brains, bust into peoples property. A lot has changed.

I know ex-bankers, policeman, ex-army, doctors who are all in the industry.

[Saffronflowers]

PM - Sadly many Bailiffs now are not old "skool" and abuse their powers - WPO's used to be a very useful tool in getting regular payments however now they are used more as a hammer to crack a nut.

My advice would be Not to let them in ever, however polite they are and therefore avoid any not so plesant tactics.

SFx

[PizzaMaker]

Originally Posted by Saffronflowers

PM - Sadly many Bailiffs now are not old "skool" and abuse their powers - WPO's used to be a very useful tool in getting regular payments however now they are used more as a hammer to crack a nut.

My advice would be Not to let them in ever, however polite they are and therefore avoid any not so plesant tactics.

SFx

I agree that there are a few bailiffs who abuse their power. If this is the case, get their certificates revoked, its that easy.

[tomtubby]

Pizza Maker

Your experience with bailiffs is sadly rare. The most common complaint that our office deals with stems from ever allowing a bailiff into the property. What happens is this:

A bailiff gains entry in the home to discuss a repayment. Not UNTIL the bailiff is in the home do then find out that in fact he want the debt paid within a very short period of time and at a payment rate that is simply unaffordable.

In addition if the agreement is made to pay monthly, the homeowner is NOT told that the monthly payment is to be made on the same date each month that the walking possession is signed, and NOT the end of the month when most people are paid.

If you are just ONE day late with this payment then you will receive a REMOVAL NOTICE which gives the right to then charge a van fee.

Predicably, this past 2 weeks have exposed this "trick" as our company and many advice agencies also have received triple the number of enquiries we normaly receive because February had a short month with the 29th being the last day of the month and falling on a friday. Most people who had agreements to pay at the end of each month made their payments on the Monday being 3rd March. Therefore the payments were late, and the account in default.

If this were not bad enough many people received a "Removal Notice" in their post on the Monday........in others words, with letters sent out on 29th Feb!!!! Many bailiff companies did this.

If you had never let a bailiff in or agreed a Walking Possession, then the above could have been avoided.