Jump to content

UK27

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About UK27

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. A van fee cannot be charged, the fees are specified in Schedule 5 of the Counilc Tax(Administration & Enforcement) Regulaions 1992 SI 613 states that Head C allows for : For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, Reasonable costs and fees incurred goods are not removed): This means that there must have been a levy for the fee to be charged.
  2. Hi Dave, any news on progress yet? Can you post the 7 day letter so I can use it as well?
  3. I have said all that I can, I do not believe that you have to worry, of course you will have to pay the debt but how you deal with the bailiffs is up to you. The fact that the bailiffs have been calling you all night is a bit strange, I wonder if they are following this thread, in any case they cannot remove your goods over the phone so the best thing to do is speak to them. They really do not want your goods as they are unlikely to cover the debt and costs, speak to them as avoidance gives them no option but to call and enforce. Failing that take the advice of Conniff, 4,500 posts must mean s
  4. 5) The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation 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. The memorandum setting out the appropriate amount relates to the chages in schedule 5
  5. In a nutshell because the bailiff has not specified the fees associated with the levy then it is invalid - he cannot effect entry to enforce the levy. Speak to them and tell them that you need more time to pay.
  6. I have some concerns about Conniff's motive on here as most of what is said seems to support the bailiff so would not be surprised if it was the bailiff. The term irregular relates to the state of the levy, this means that whilst the levy is not illegal because there is a liability order in force the actions of the bailiff constitute an irregularity and therefore an invalid levy.
  7. Not keen on Mr Glover I had a similar response, saying that I did give them a good "runaround" so got my money's worth from the costs I paid which was worth it. Where are you going to go from here?
  8. Let me know how you get on as I am looking at trying to get some costs back from Peterborough.
  9. OK in simple terms the bailiff must specify the costs otherwise the levy is irregular and therefore invalid, he has not done this, legally the levy is void. I have posted a link to the regulations have a look at 45 and then look at the walking possession agreement the bailiff has left, it is laziness on the part of the bailiff but nevertheless will invalidate the levy
  10. I think you are missing the point, the bailiff has not specified any fees charged on the walking possession agreement he has put a total amount outstanding and simply put "inclusive" against the fees, this is not legal. Schedule 5 details the costs the bailiff can charge, but he hasn’t done this.
  11. The regulations require the bailiff to leave at the premises an inventory and schedule of fees, there is no schedule of fees as the bailiff has stated the amount is inclusive, therefore there is no record of the fees charged, this is a legal requirement under section 45(5) of The Council Tax(Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 SI 613 (5) The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation 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 distre
  12. Whose side are you on? you can do whatever you like, bear in mind I have already said that the levy is irregular therefore invalid, which means that legally it is void. The hiding would not be an issue because of this but will thwart their attempts of removal if they chose to continue.
×
×
  • Create New...