Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4241 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

The Local Government Ombudsman's ruling involved Rossendale Borough Council and Bailiff Company, Equita. Date 15th December 2010.

 

Note: More details here !!!

 

The Complaint by Mr H concerns the following:

 

• Charging “multiple” fees to Mr H’s account for enforcing two Liability Orders

 

• Charging for visits that Mr H disputes ever took place

 

• Levying upon a vehicle that did not belong to Mr H and failing to provide a Notice of Seizure.

 

Paragraph 21 of the Ombudsman’s report states:

 

“I am also concerned that there are fees charged to both of Mr H’s accounts in relation to one visit on 2nd July 2009. Although there were two Liability Orders in place, I do not consider it reasonable to charge twice for one physical visit”

 

"Paragraph 53:

 

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2nd July 2008."

 

It looks to me like this is Equita's party piece.

 

By all accounts, they charged you two first visit fees (£24.50) on 22/08/11 and two second visit fees (£18) on 30/08/11. You also dispute that these visits actually took place.

 

 

You can challenge the levies and attendance fees on the grounds that they:

 

1) Failed to leave a notice of seizure of goods and inventory

2) They allegedly levied on goods which were not yours (vehicle)

3) They are unable to supply you details of seized goods on the other levy

 

Additionally, ask them to justify reasonable costs incurred for the attendance charges on both occasions, i.e. what transport did they hire.

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Another irregularity.

 

The attendances (first and second visits) are made with the view to levying goods. A maximum of two of these can be charged for where no levy takes place.

 

The bailiff charged you for these on 22/08/11 and 30/08/11 in respect of both liability orders, so must have attended with the view to levying goods for BOTH accounts.

 

In that case why did the bailiff not deal with both liability orders in respect of the levy and attendance to remove fee on 27/09/11? It seems they are having their cake and eating it, so to speak, by charging you for this, a second time when they imposed it again on 09/06/12.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I had a think about a proposed letter you could write/email your council, which I hope other caggers can make suggestions to improve on.

 

Of course you can add, remove, edit, or not bother with it at all, but I think you have a strong case considering the LGO reports.

Formal Complaint

Revenues and Benefits Department

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Spurious fees and charges made to Council Tax account – Reference number [xxxxxxxxxx]

 

I have been charged almost £500 bailiff fees by your bailiff contractor 'Equita' and seriously doubted they had been applied lawfully. Consequently I've researched the
Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
and also taken advice, and believe the bailiff has exploited the authority's schedule of fees to make a gain for himself.

 

I have obtained a breakdown of all fees and charges imposed by Equita, along with the corresponding dates they were allegedly incurred.

 

Equita's account of enforcement action taken by its bailiffs varies wildly between its version and reality. Discrepancies largely surround bailiff attendances which were charged for but had never been made. [
Expand with details if necessary
]

 

As a preliminery course of action I would like Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council to focus on what I consider the main irregularities with its bailiff contractor's conduct which are the charges imposed for both attending with a view to levying distress and removing goods.

 

Attendance with a view to levying goods

 

Your contractor stated it charged two visit fees when only a single attendance was made on 22/08/11 which incurred £49 in fees. This action was repeated on 30/08/11 where the fees incurred were £36. This incurred a a total of £85 for both visits. If in fact these visits had been made [
Elaborate with your version of events
] the total charge should have only been £42.50.

 

The Local Government Ombudsman ruled against charging for multiple visits in a similar case to this in a report dated 15th December where Equita had also applied multiple charges for a single visit. I have enclosed details of the LGO report for your reference. [
include LGO report details from this post
]

 

Levy and Attendance with a vehicle with the view to removing goods

 

The attendances (first and second visits) are made with the view to levying goods. A maximum of two of these can be charged for where no levy takes place (Header “A” of
schedule 5
to the Council Tax Regulations). Equita has stated its bailiff charged me for these on 22/08/11 and 30/08/11 in respect of both liability orders. If so he must have attended with the view to levying goods for BOTH accounts. It follows then that the bailiff should have levied in connection with both liability orders on 27/09/11, imposing fees only in respect of that attendance. By charging this a second time on his 09/06/12 attendance, the bailiff has intended to make a financial gain for himself.

 

On neither occasion of the alleged levies did the bailiff leave with me a notice of seizure of goods and inventory. This is a requirement and stated in
R45(5)
of the Council Tax regulations. The bailiff had levied on goods which were not mine, this was the alleged levy made on 09/06/12 (vehicle). The first levy, allegedly made 27/09/11, your contractor is unable to supply details of which, if any goods, had been seized.

 

I also doubt if asked, Equita could justify that costs of £167 for each attendance would have been reasonably incurred, and the transport brought would have been capable of removing a vehicle. These fees must have been reasonably incurred if they are to pass them on to the debtor.

 

The LGO has also ruled that where there has been no prior levy, no charge can be made for attending with a vehicle with the view to remove goods (Header “C” of
schedule 5
to the Council Tax Regulations). This is stated by Equita to have been the case, both on 09/06/12 and 27/09/11, i.e. where no prior levy had been made.

 

I have also enclosed the LGO report for your reference
(Report on an investigation into complaint numbers 95A01890 & 95A04826 against London Borough of Ealing, 24 July 1997)

 

The above evidence suggests I have been the victim of bailiff malpractice and as Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council are wholly responsible for its bailiff contractor I request it arranges for the fees and charges imposed by your contractor to be refunded in full. If this is not complied with I will escalate my grievance to the local government ombudsman for investigation.

 

Yours sincerely.....

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ask the Brain-Dead Idiots of Equita to return the campervan straight away. We could be talking Theft of A Motor Vehicle on the part of Equita. Ring the other bailiff firm and offer to report the campervan as stolen to the police, which, technically, it is. This will make it difficult for Equita to sell it privately or put it through a public auction as no reputable motor auction house will risk its reputation or possible prosecution for being involved in the disposal of stolen goods. The offence is Handling Stolen Goods. The levy Equita placed on it is also illegal as the other bailiff firm had already placed a levy on it. As for them attending when a person below the age of 18 years was the only person at home, that is a very big, no-no. They should have asked when an adult would be present and then walked away.

 

I'm attaching a copy of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents to this post.

national-standards-enforcement-agents.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks for the speedy response,

I currently claim jobseekers allowance, I also have a claim in for housing benefit and council tax which is still being processed 7 weeks later, the council are aware of this. It is Ashfield District Council and was for 849.00 however this is without the 25% red which they have admitted they forgot to add, I paid 500.00 to the bailiff but he now says I still owe 1200.00 !! :-(,

Was the levy legal if a levy was already on it from a different company?

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

The levy is not legal if another bailiff firm had already levied on it. See Post #29.

 

Also, you might wish to write to senior staff at the following government departments and draw their attention to what is going on -

 

Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) [Responsible for the OFT]

 

1 Victoria Street

London

SW1H 0ET

 

The Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP (Secretary of State)

The Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP (Minister of State)[Portfolio includes Consumer Affairs]

Baroness Wilcox (Parliamentary Under-Secretary)[Former Chair of National Consumer Council]

Martin Donnelly (Permanent Secretary)

 

Correspondence to Vince Cable, Norman Lamb and Baroness Wilcox should be addressed to the Ministerial Correspondence Unit.

 

Department for Communities & Local Government

 

Eland House

Bressenden Place

London

SW1E 5DU

 

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP (Secretary of State)

The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (Minister of State)[Housing & Local Government]

Sir Bob Kerslake (Permanent Secretary)

 

Ministry of Justice

 

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9AJ

 

The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke PC QC MP (Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State)

The Rt Hon Jonathan Djanogly MP (Minister of State) [Portfolio includes H.M. Courts & Tribunal Service - HMCTS, Bailiffs)

Sir Suma Chakrabarti KCB (Permanent Secretary)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so very much for you help today, I will be getting straight onto it again tomorrow. I just want my VW campervan back, all of this has worried me sick to the point of not being able to eat or sleep :-(,

The Bailiffs in question are called Dukes limited.

Once again thank you very much

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a spate of incidents on this and other sites involving Equita and some of them are serious. Unless the OFT, Trading Standards and relevant government ministers and secretaries of states are made aware of what is going on, Equita and other bailiff companies will continue to get away with unlawful and illegal behaviour. It's up to peeps to make the right noises in the right places and rattle the right cages. Until this is done, the situation will not change.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

thankyou very much i will get on to this right away. i have just been looking through my letters that i have been sent from equita if actualy recieved foue letters on the same day although i got the same letter twice both dated the 30/08 saying a liability order was granted liability order 1 for 722.92 pound and liability order two for £209.17

to be paid by return of post failurre to do so will result in a bailiff calling. so how can i have had a visit on the 30/08 or even the 22/08 it is from here that i have had all the trouble but i will try the letter that you have put on for me thankyou again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reporting this to the OFT's Credit Fitness Team and Trading Standards is essential. There has been a spate of incidents, lately, involving Equita, some of which are serious. Even though I am a retired police officer, the police, these days, are clueless, mainly because they do not cover bailiff law as part of their training. Whilst the only sanction the OFT can inflict upon Equita is to revoke their Cat. F Debt Collection Licence, this would be disastrous for Equita as they would be prevented from collecting any debt other than public debt and they would also be prevented from collecting public debt, as it is usually a condition of contract/tender to hold a Cat. F Licence when tendering to government departments and local authorities for enforcement work. In respect of reports to OFT/Trading Standards, if I may borrow the advertising slogan of a well-known supermarket operator, "Every little helps", meaning that the more people who tell the regulators about Equita's activities, the quicker they can do something about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thankyou very much i will get on to this right away. i have just been looking through my letters that i have been sent from equita if actualy recieved foue letters on the same day although i got the same letter twice both dated the 30/08 saying a liability order was granted liability order 1 for 722.92 pound and liability order two for £209.17

to be paid by return of post failurre to do so will result in a bailiff calling. so how can i have had a visit on the 30/08 or even the 22/08 it is from here that i have had all the trouble but i will try the letter that you have put on for me thankyou again

 

 

 

Seeing as though you are disputing the visits took place I should replace the following paragraph if you use that letter:

 

 

 

Attendance with a view to levying goods

 

Your contractor has stated in its breakdown of costs that only a single attendance was made on 22/08/11 for which it charged for two visits incurring £49 in fees. Similarly it states that a single attendance was made on 30/08/11 for which it charged for two visits incurring £36 in fees. A total of £85 (four visits) was incurred in respect of only two alleged visits. If in fact these visits had been made [Elaborate with your version of events] the total charge should have only been £42.50.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

hi sorry i havnt been on for a while. i sent the letter to both rochdale council and to equita. i altered it a little i never heard anything back from equita but i got a phone call from thecomplaints manager today. he said that he has spoken to equita and wants to meet me on monday so we discuss the matter futher face to face. im hoping that this is a good sign and maybe i might get somewhere. i will keep you posted on monday so thanks for the help with the letter much appreiciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for letting us know take written details of what regulations they have breached and remind them the council is ultimately wholly liable for deeds or misdeeds done by their agents on their behalf

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

write down what you need to know Legislation ect and don't be afraid to refer to it

 

don't agree to anything at the meeting (take notes ) unless its the return of all fees on both accounts

 

then they go on about how they noticed the dates weren't logged but tthe dates were

22/08/2011, 30/082011, 19/09/2011/, 14/11/2011, 27/04/2012/ , and 09/06/2012 gives me the names of three bailiffslink3.gif and where they were certified

 

absolute Crxx demand a copy of the screen shot of your account the screen shot should have date/time of visit and notes as in type of house , fence ,hedge , etc (basically notes to prove they have been to your house)

 

demand copy's of both the notice of seizure (form 7)

 

 

 

DEMAND that if a bailiff has charged fees where no visit /levy has taken place (charging for work not done) the council issue a form 5 to his/her issuing court charging van/attendance fee the same day

 

you are being charged visit fees for the 30/8 and you also received a letter from Equita dated 30/8 delivered by royal mail (who is kidding who here)

 

As outlaw said to levy goods the bailiff must leave a notice of distress at the time of the levy (this is a legal requirement)

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/45/made

 

Distress 45

 

(5) The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorization of the authority, which he shall show to the debtor if so requested; and he shall hand to the debtor or leave at the premises where the distress is levied a copy of this regulation and Schedule 5 and a memorandum setting out the appropriate amount, and shall hand to the debtor a copy of any close or walking possession agreement entered into.

 

http://www.bexley.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3028&p=0

the levy fee /van attendance fee cant be charged same day the council,Equita ,the bailiff cant change statutory legislation

 

Regulation 45(b) schedule 5 charges connected with distress

C For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed):

Link to post
Share on other sites

the is no provision in legislation for these fees

 

Bailiffs are governed by the distress for rent rules 1988 and regulation 10 clearly states

Fees, Charges and Expenses

 

 

10. No person shall be entitled to charge, or recover from, a tenant any fees, charges or expenses for levying a distress, or for doing any act or thing in relation thereto, other than those authorised by the tables in Appendix 1 to these Rules.

 

Appendix 1 being regulation 45 (b) schedule 5 charges connected with distress

 

card charge £1.00

card charges£3.50

girobook charge £5.82

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to what HW has said above this is actually backed up by case law - Day v Davies 1938 1 All ER 686. The part of it being " for doingany act in relation (to a levy), other than those specified and authorised", this was handed down from the Court of Appeal.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi sorry i havnt been on for a while. i sent the letter to both rochdale council and to equita. i altered it a little i never heard anything back from equita but i got a phone call from thecomplaints manager today. he said that he has spoken to equita and wants to meet me on monday so we discuss the matter futher face to face. im hoping that this is a good sign and maybe i might get somewhere. i will keep you posted on monday so thanks for the help with the letter much appreiciated

 

Bit late responding to this post, but very interested in what the next level of B.S the council had to offer on Monday.

 

Any news?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all. sorry i havent been on here for a while but my pc wasnt working. firstly may i thank everyone for all your help and advice and for helping me with the letter to write. i met with the man from rochdale council and he got intouch with equita who have agreed to fefund all my fees that i was charged £394. in total they actualy called it a good will gesture. then i have been offered £85 not to persue it any further. i was going to leave it there as i didnt think i could go any further but the council tax guy told as i has taken out a loan back in september to pay them as they were harassing me that i may be able to ask them to pay my interest charges back as well.i will let yo know if i get it.

the guy i met with said that he was glad that i got in touch as they only get to hear about things like this if people actualy make a complaint so again thanks for pointing me in the right direction x

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all. sorry i havent been on here for a while but my pc wasnt working. firstly may i thank everyone for all your help and advice and for helping me with the letter to write. i met with the man from rochdale council and he got intouch with equita who have agreed to fefund all my fees that i was charged £394. in total they actualy called it a good will gesture. then i have been offered £85 not to persue it any further. i was going to leave it there as i didnt think i could go any further but the council tax guy told as i has taken out a loan back in september to pay them as they were harassing me that i may be able to ask them to pay my interest charges back as well.i will let yo know if i get it.

the guy i met with said that he was glad that i got in touch as they only get to hear about things like this if people actualy make a complaint so again thanks for pointing me in the right direction x

 

Let's hope that when the contract comes up for its periodic review, the council serve them with a Default Notice (the equivalent of a Yellow Card in football). Depending on the council's policy, if Equita collect too many of these in a given period of time, the council could revoke their contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words Equita have been caught out and this is not a 'good will gesture' it is an admission they tried to defraud you...£85 compensation for the time you spent having to correct their maladministration is Imho an insult. They should not have to be chased to pay interest and charges on the loan , they should be able to identify it was their actions that forced you to take out that loan.

 

Well done on getting this far and I suspect you will be placed to hit their pockets hard?

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent!

 

Well done for persisting.

 

It seems like they're going out of their way to keep this under wraps by the way they're offering to buy you off.

 

Keep us updated...

 

 

EDIT:

 

Good will gesture. Yeh right!

 

They all try that psychological nonsense.

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

WELL DONE YOU

 

Tell him (the man from the council) you will not take any further action if council issue a form 5 against the bailiff(s) who charged you the levy fee and van attendance fee on the same day

1) because he didn't leave a notice of seizure at the time of the levy (a legal requirement)

2) because he charged a van/attendance fee on the same day as the levy (legislation does not allow this)

 

the compensation payment is increased (£100/150)

AL interest and charges on the loan paid in full

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...