Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2219 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Guest alreadyexists

On the face of it, this case appears to be very worrying.

 

 

A lot is dependent upon what correspondence you had previously received from your council. BUT... If you sent an income and expenditure breakdown to them BEFORE they engaged bailiffs then you should have been considered for an attachment order. Simply not having sufficient income is no excuse for the council to bulldoze on with bailiffs.

 

 

As others have alluded to, you should now write to the council and raise the point regarding their hasty decision to use bailiffs as opposed to the more logical option of an attachment. It is very important for you to also outline your vulnerability, much of which should be already on their records.

 

 

I recently endured an almost identical scenario to yours. I had to fight tooth and nail with the council over every aspect. What became clear to me is that they won't concede an inch without a fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 440
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest alreadyexists

What is extremely worrying here is that the poster "bincrafty" probably genuinely believes that paying tax or court fines are optional. He probably genuinely believes that if he says "I do not stand under" rather than "I do not understand" then he is actually exempt from the law.

 

 

Unfortunately, the world is full of "bincraftys". Thankfully, although they all talk the talk, hardly any of them walk the walk. In reality, most of them do pay their taxes and do pay their court fines.

 

 

I did like that bit about mortgages being paid back (presumably by someone else) as soon as the money is transferred. On that basis, I think I will pop out tomorrow and set up a property empire. I am currently kicking myself for not thinking of doing this years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Hi Martin

 

I don't think that the council is being underhand, more that 1 department has not updated the records of another department.

 

 

I had some problems not long back and I complained to my CEO.

 

 

In my complaint, I asked her to ensure that the bailiff action was suspended pending the outcome of my complaint.

 

 

It would also be worth confirming the date that the couple moved out of the flat and that the liability order that was obtained is not for a greater amount.

 

 

It looks like the amount outstanding was less than £100 so it is up to you just how loud you want to scream in terms of complaining about the cost of the liability order, or whether you will be happy to just get the £75 bailiff fees knocked off and walk away from it at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Hi Smurfette

 

 

Just looking at what you have just posted, you appear to have had 5 different years council tax outstanding. If what I am reading is correct, you have paid 1 off completely (£420). Surely the amount of goods controlled will only cover 1 of the other 4 liability orders? This leaves 3 others free to still be included in the DRO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

I think that it's widely accepted that a DRO is not an option Craig. That said, it would of course be possible to include the Marston debt on a DRO.

 

 

This appears to be very messy and I would question whether the council have helped matters by utilizing two different enforcement companies.

 

 

Smurfette, after checking my previous post, I had a look through the relevant legislation. As the bailiff is entitled to take control of goods to recover a sum of money, it would appear that it is possible to secure goods against all of the debts he was recovering. That said, I did find some interesting facts that may help you.

 

 

First, the notices that were left you were not the notice of enforcement - The notice of enforcement appears to have been the letter that you mention in post #1. You need to check the date of this notice and ensure that roughly 10 days passed between the date and the visit. If you could post the date of the notice and the date of the visit, it would help.

 

 

Second, Rundles are required by law to record the time at which the notice was posted, it might be worth you asking for this.

 

 

Third, as others have stated, it is important that you discover exactly what you owe and how many liability orders there are. It is also worth asking why the council have used two agencies as this makes life more difficult for you.

 

 

In my case, I insisted that the council switch from using bailiffs to setting up an attachment order. This won't help you because there are so many outstanding debts. I don't think that the council will take the debt back because there are so many different years tax here. Your best bet is to try to find a fault in the way that Rundles have acted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

This website members gave the correct responses.

 

 

There was no requirement to have left a notice after visiting and the bailiff was under no obligation to prove that he posted a non-mandatory letter.

 

 

The only thing that "sucks" from where I am sitting is the story that the OP has given. I find it very hard to believe that a council would waiver a bailiff fee just because a bailiff couldn't prove that he posted a non-mandatory letter. In the grand scheme of things, the letter made no difference whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Hi Dodgeball

 

 

The initial fee and the debt were not paid. The mother made 2 instalments and then defaulted.

 

 

The bailiff then visited and left a hand delivered letter. From then, there appears to have been phone calls between the mother or OP and the bailiff.

 

 

The OP has then claimed that he complained to the council and denied that the bailiff has attended and asked for proof. The proof is obviously that the OP got the bailiffs number from the letter that was delivered and contacted him.

 

 

The OP has claimed that the £235 fee has been removed and that he is now happy to pay what is outstanding.

 

 

A breakdown will of course be a breakdown, not just a total figure so you should be able to see at a glance what the total outstanding amount is and what has been added in fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Hi Dodgeball

 

 

We do not know for sure if the compliance fee would have come off the first payment. In my own case, I discovered that the bailiffs were required to collect the outstanding debt in its entirety first and only once that was collected could they allocate anything to their fees. Besides, the compliance fee would only have been paid if the payment was £75 or more. If the mother was paying instalments of £20, then only £40 would have been received.

 

 

In post number 12, the OP refers to the enforcement fee as follows:

All I had to do was question who sent the letters for the Enforcement fee. 2 weeks ago I asked the bailiff for evidence of him coming round dropping the letter off.

These letters should not be confused with the notice of enforcement - When that was sent, the mother entered into the repayment plan that she subsequently defaulted on. The letters referred to above were clearly hand delivered, hence the OP referring to them being "dropped off". What has happened here is that a notice of enforcement was received and the mother contacted the bailiff company and then entered into a repayment plan. When the mother defaulted, a bailiff visited, leaving the letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Hi Dodgeball

 

 

Are you sure it was me who said the letter was sent? Here is what I wrote in my first post:

 

There was no requirement to have left a notice after visiting and the bailiff was under no obligation to prove that he posted a non-mandatory letter.

 

In my own case, I didn't actually end up paying any bailiff fees as my debt was transferred to an attachment order. However, during my stand off with my council, they informed me that any money I paid to either themselves or the bailiff would be offset against my arrears as it was council policy to recover the debt before funds are allocated to their enforcement agents.

 

 

You are correct - No letter was required. However, it does appear to be standard practice for the bailiff who visits to leave a letter giving contact details so that the debtor can make contact. I don't think that the money has actually been paid yet (or hadn't at the time the OP last posted). He said at the time "All in all i am now happy to pay"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Surely if the OP was not even aware that a court order had been applied for then a simple application for a set aside would suspend enforcement in any case?

 

 

If it were me, I would certainly try to get my money back sooner, rather than later and with an application for a set aside, there would be no fear of anyone returning to force entry. There are several grounds to ask the bank to reverse the transaction:

 

 

1. Why did the bailiff visit a residential address when there were business premises as well? It can only have been to intimidate the occupants (which is confirmed in post #1). Whilst it was lawful to have visited the address, it is questionable whether there was any sense in doing so before visiting the business address.

 

 

2. The bailiff ignored section 20 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards which states that he should not be deceitful and/or misleading. He threatened to take £3,300 worth of privately owned goods to satisfy a limited company debt. He also claimed he was "THE court enforcement service.

 

 

3. A fee of around £600 was wrongfully charged, purely because the bailiff receives commission on that payment. The fee may only have been charged if the situation progressed to stage 2 of the enforcement process. As the OP had offered to pay, there was never a need to move up to stage 2.

 

 

4. We don't even know if a notice of enforcement was sent. There seems to me, to be little incentive to send a notice of enforcement, which if acted upon will net the bailiff £75, as opposed to charging around £800 if a visit takes place (figures excluding VAT)

 

 

If the OP didn't know about the court hearing, then a set aside should be considered. Furthermore, the electricity company were required to write to the debtor after obtaining judgement to inform of the consequences of not paying. With a set aside in place, it paves the way to reverse the transaction although I would imagine that this should be done sooner rather than later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists
At present all has been paid in full so no further enforcement is possible but we do need to know more about the original CCJ.

 

 

Hi Ploddertom.

 

 

THE OP has not only paid in full, he has paid £600 over the odds. The OP has already stated in post #1 that he wasn't aware that the electricity provider had applied for an order. My feeling is that if the OP was to obtain his money back, he would be in a far stronger position and it would be far more likely that the bailiff and creditor would accept an offer to settle and payment of compliance and 1st stage enforcement fee. Contrary to what Dodgeball has stated, the electricity supplier WILL suspend the writ whilst a set aside is being applied for.

 

 

Put yourself in the shoes of the OP. If you had paid £600 that you shouldn't have, wouldn't you want that money back? Leaving it in the hands of the bailiff makes it 10 times as hard to recover whereas if you hold the money, they are far more likely to accept your offer to settle and pay the lawfully incurred fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Hi Bailiff Advice.

 

 

I am sorry but you are wrong. I did not make any assumption. The OP clearly stated that he was not aware that the electricity company had APPLIED for a court order:

...and did not know that the utility company had applied for a court order.

if he had received a summons, he would have been fully aware of such an application.

 

 

In order to apply for a set aside, there must be mandatory grounds such as the sum had been paid prior to judgement or discretionary grounds such as being on holiday/ill in hospital or simply not receiving a summons. Acknowledging that one owes the debt and has the funds to pay is not grounds to set aside, so I am not surprised that these applications are refused permission.

 

 

I have not cast doubt on the notice of enforcement - I simply stated that it had not been established whether one had been sent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

i Ploddertom

 

I wouldn't disagree with what you have said, other than it is clear what fees have been charged (as you have correctly guessed) and that applying for a set aside would also prevent a knock at the door.

 

I would add a third option to your two options and that is my original stance of set aside plus reversing the payment. I can only speak as to what I would do and experience has taught me that I would be in a much stronger position to negotiate if I was holding the money. As the set aside application would put paid to any further enforcement, the OP would not be placing himself at further risk.

 

By holding the money, the OP would be in a strong position to get rid of the 2nd enforcement fee without the need to go to a detailed assessment as he would be in a strong bargaining position.

 

 

If he chose to set aside, he could approach the electricity provider and warn them that they were exposed to costs on a summary assessment basis if the application to set aside was successful.

 

 

However, in order to avoid this, he would be prepared to settle the entire debt in full. Given the misdemeanours that I previously mentioned, it might be that the bailiffs would be prepared to walk away from this on the creditors instructions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists
The OP has stated that he made payment by direct debit (presumably a direct bank transfer from his account to the enforcement companies). I would therefore be very surprised indeed if he were able to gets the agreement of the bank to reverse the payment.

 

As I have said before, further information is needed from the OP.

 

I agree - Although it is possible and something that is well worth considering (provided that the OP is confident in the setting aside).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

In fairness to Whitey (and I agree with him), the point is that the £600 2nd enforcement fee should not have been added. This highlights the very point that Whitey is making, ie, some EA's are sadly motivated by greed.

 

 

Take that £600 off, as well as the £111 execution cost (which is clearly not a fee) and the grand total is not such a far cry from the supposed £362 after all. In fact, the only thing in dispute is the VAT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Hi

 

 

In order for you to receive a summons, you must have firstly defaulted on your payments of council tax. The council must then have sent you a reminder notice giving you 7 days to catch up with payments.

 

 

Secondly, you must have defaulted again. This time the council must have sent you a final notice, giving you 7 days to pay the years tax in full.

 

 

Until both of these notices have been sent out, the council can not apply to the court for a liability order. In order to obtain a liability order, there must be a sum outstanding (this may be just the costs the council claim to have incurred in applying for a liability order).

 

 

The council will have to show the court that there is an amount outstanding and that the 2 notices mentioned above have been sent to you.

 

 

My worry is that you may have spoken to somebody at customer service, who will not be up to speed with council tax recovery. You need to phone the council tomorrow and speak with someone from the recovery department, preferably the recovery manager. Find out what has happened, find out if the 2 notices have been sent out to you, clarify that all payments you thought that you were making to this years account have indeed gone towards this years account and not older accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

a) I did not receive a notice of enforcement.

It was not required to send you personally a notice of enforcement. A notice sent to the company (the debtor) at any relevant address was sufficient

b) I was visited only once by bailiffs.

As stated in the previous thread, the general feeling is that you have been overcharged by around £600 by way of the 2nd stage enforcement fee.

c) No goods were taken into their control to be sold.

The bailiff was entitled to charge a compliance fee and a first stage enforcement fee. There is a debate in the discussion section as to whether VAT was permissible or not.

a) The bailiffs did not produce a writ.

They didn't have to

b) They could not/would not produce a breakdown of their fees

Again, they didn't have to but should do so if you request it in writing

 

c) Were dressed in the manner of and portrayed themselves as officers of the law

Many sectors do this, security firms etc. I personally can't see a major problem with that.

 

Paying the creditor minus the fees will not stop enforcement. The writ commands the bailiff to take control of goods to recover the debt AND any fees they are entitled to.

 

Contrary to what has been posted in the other thread,

you do have grounds for a set aside if you were not aware of the court hearing.

 

 

Did you receive a claim pack? (this may well have been sent directly by the court)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists
In the first instance I would like to clarify whether i have been fleeced.

 

WRT the court judgement it was a High Court Writ according to the bailiffs, although I am not privy to it.

 

edit: I think it will be easier to decide on course of action if the Lord Chancellor did imbue these bailiffs with the authority to extract the stated amount.

 

If you are talking specifically about not knowing about the transferring up to the High Court, then no, you were not automatically entitled to be notified in advance.

 

If this is what you are referring to by "not knowing" about the hearing then your only option as I see it is a detailed assessment. You can try a complaint to the electricity provider but the chances are, they will just refer you to the bailiffs who in turn will claim that they were entitled to charge the 2nd stage fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Surely you mean that a notice of enforcement was not received? You must contact the bailiffs and ask if a notice was sent and if so, to what address and the date of the notice. Also ask for a copy to be sent out with the fee breakdown. There needs to be around at least 10 days between the date of the notice and the visit. The bailiff is also required to keep a record of the time that the notice was sent (posted).

 

 

You have gone from the bailiff "dressed in the manner of a policeman" to "impersonating" a policeman. I think you ought to check what impersonating a policeman actually entails. It is a lot more than dressing in similar clothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

You must think carefully here. I understand that you are angry but if you allow me my input from a neutral perspective, it will be as follows:

The 2 bailiffs were not impersonating police officers. They have not stolen money off you, at worst, they have abused the fee schedule and at best, they are just unaware of what should have been charged.

 

 

If you decide to go for a set aside, you must be aware that there is a cost to make the application and if you lose, you will be expected to pay the other sides costs. If you go for a set aside, enforcement will be suspended, pending the outcome so the reversal of funds is not a risk. If you do a reversal without the set aside, Ploddertom is correct that they will return swiftly.

 

 

If you want to challenge the fee without the set aside, this will have to be by way of detailed assessment. Again there is a risk of costs if you lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

They were not wearing any article of police uniform, they were wearing similar items but not identical. They also called themselves "the court enforcement services", not policemen. I can't see how you could possibly think that they were impersonating policemen?

 

 

If you really did have money stolen from you, you would need to contact the police and report the criminal offence. In this instance, you are involved in a civil dispute - You say you were overcharged, they say you were charged in accordance with a fee schedule listed in legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Neither way is easy and neither is without risk. If you are 100% sure that you received no court papers or notice of hearing then you have a right to apply for a set aside. This will give you a chance to pay the debt, minus bailiff fees, interest, execution fee, etc.

 

 

A detailed assessment could be settled prior to the hearing or it could go to court where you may find yourself up against a lawyer representing the bailiff company.

 

 

Only you can decide which way (if any) you want to take this. I am just pointing out that it is not easy. Ploddertom made sense by suggesting that you discover where all these documents have been sent. It could even be that there has been a mistake made which explains why you have received nothing - If that is the case, the set aside should be straightforward.

 

 

I liken bailiffs to timeshare salesmen - They will take you for what they can in order to boost their commission, BUT they don't get convicted of theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Hi Bailiff Advice

 

 

I have a question here (and this is for my own benefit as much as anyone else's). If you had bailiffs at your door for a £2,000 judgement debt that you knew nothing about, had never received a letter before claim, response pack or any notification whatsoever, would you just pay the £2,000 (and additional bailiff fees, execution costs and interest) because there was nothing that you could do, or would you expect to be afforded the right to challenge the judgement on the grounds that you had no prior warning of action?

 

 

Of course if successful in any subsequent court action, the applicant would be refunded all court fees paid out. Regarding a detailed assessment, is there any figures or evidence anywhere of failed claims by debtors?

 

 

What this case highlights is that once fees have been taken by bailiffs, it is extremely difficult and indeed risky to attempt to obtain refunds. To me, it seems a very uneven playing field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

A simple yes or no is all that is required to be fair.

 

 

Would you pay? or;

 

 

Would you expect to be afforded the right to challenge?

 

 

I assume that this was where you were leading to when you suggested enquiring as to what address documentation was sent to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest alreadyexists

Hi Uncle Bulgaria

 

 

I'm pretty sure that you would be able to if service was not carried out in accordance with CPR 6 (which states where documents MUST be served on a limited company)

 

 

You are fortunate as you know your rights better than the average Joe Bloggs regarding these matters. That said, I'm not entirely convinced that the police would get involved. The bailiff showed the writ on a screen which is all that he was required to do. No other paperwork was asked for by the OP.

 

 

The OP was threatened with having £3,300 worth of goods removed from his private residence and also having his business premises broken into (the latter being perfectly lawful). He was under intense pressure and with no time to think or stall. He did what most of us would have done in that situation and paid the bailiff what he was demanding, not knowing what he was being charged for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2219 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...