I think it was £70 and then went up to £110 before going to the bailiffs.

So are you saying 1 letter is enough (which I didnt get anyway) and then they can attend and charge me £89.74 plus vat for attending at my home ?

When I dealt with these clowns, I got the directors database info from either 192.com or equifax and bombarded each director with letters to thier home address. The letters from thier company stopped. Give it a try, its very satisfying, lol

The local Council state they can and that this fee structure is agreed with them beforehand. The Council told me that the baliffs fees were £11.20 for the first and £28 for the 2nd.

I received a parking fine which I originally challenged but the Counsel state that they did not receive my letter. I then go to Australia on 4 occasions throughout 2009 and leave my house with friends. I have mail on my return but nothing from the Council regarding the parking fine. Last Monday, I receive a hand delivered letter on my doorstep from Philips bailiffs claiming £226.08. I contact them and the Council to obtain information about the debt and arrange a payment plan of 4 x £56.52. Since then, I have considered the matter further and made further enquiries. Below is my letter to the bailiff's sent today: For the attention of the Directors Dear Sirs, Re: Your Fees I am told that for you to progress to the stage of charging £89.74 plus VAT in respect of an attendance with a van, you would first be required to send out two letters of formal demand, the 1st at a cost of £11.20 and the second at a cost of £28.00. Thereafter, if no satisfactory response is forthcoming, an attendance will follow with the appropriate charge being implimented. I am told (by your firm) that all fees are first agreed with your client (in this case Rochdale Borough Council) and having spoken to the manager of Rohdale Borough Council's Parking Services (Kevin), he has confirmed the same and has also provided the information in the first paragraph of this email. I can confirm that I did not even receive the first letter which I understand from kevin, was apparently sent out on 30/09/09 let alone your second letter which I am told was sent out on 14/10/09. I have reason to believe that the letters were not sent to me and on requesting a breakdown of your invoive, it appears that I now have evidence in support. Your breakdown is as follows: 29 Sept 09 Debt £110.00 30 Sept 09 Admin Fee £ 11.20 26 Oct 09 Visit £ 89.74 Can you please tell me where the fee in respect of the 2nd letter is @ £28.00 ? I understand that letters are sometimes not recieved. The original offence was challenged by me as I did not believe that an offence had occured but the Council states that they had never received my letter. There is nothing that I can do about that and further enquiries have placed me in a position whereby I have had to accept that an offence did occur and that I am responsible for the subsequent penalty of £110.00. I would be prepared to accept that a letter from yourselves was sent on 29 Sept 09 and was not received for reasons unknown but I do not accept the coincidence of a second letter also going astray. The lack of fee in respect of that 2nd letter causes me great concern. If a letter had been sent to me and I had responded positively (which I would have done), your fees would have been limited to £11.20 or £39.20 in the case of a second letter. Without a response (which you would not get if the letters were simply not actually sent) you could progress straight to the visit and charge a further £89.74. This is what I believe you have done. As far as Im concerned, this is an attempt to obtain money from me by deception and as such I am going to report the matter to the police. There is a consumer forum that I will also address to see if similar issues have arisen with any other individuals/companies. A copy of this communication will also be sent to Rochdale Borough Council Parking Services for thier records. I await your comments Yours faithfully Has anyone else experienced similar experiences?

Deception issues. I received a parking fine which I originally challenged but the Counsel state that they did not receive my letter. I then go to Australia on 4 occasions throughout 2009 and leave my house with friends. I have mail on my return but nothing from the Council regarding the parking fine. Last Monday, I receive a hand delivered letter on my doorstep from Philips bailiffs claiming £226.08. I contact them and the Council to obtain information about the debt and arrange a payment plan of 4 x £56.52. Since then, I have considered the matter further and made further enquiries. Below is my letter to the bailiff's sent today: For the attention of the Directors Dear Sirs, Re: Your Fees I am told that for you to progress to the stage of charging £89.74 plus VAT in respect of an attendance with a van, you would first be required to send out two letters of formal demand, the 1st at a cost of £11.20 and the second at a cost of £28.00. Thereafter, if no satisfactory response is forthcoming, an attendance will follow with the appropriate charge being implimented. I am told (by your firm) that all fees are first agreed with your client (in this case Rochdale Borough Council) and having spoken to the manager of Rohdale Borough Council's Parking Services (Kevin), he has confirmed the same and has also provided the information in the first paragraph of this email. I can confirm that I did not even receive the first letter which I understand from kevin, was apparently sent out on 30/09/09 let alone your second letter which I am told was sent out on 14/10/09. I have reason to believe that the letters were not sent to me and on requesting a breakdown of your invoive, it appears that I now have evidence in support. Your breakdown is as follows: 29 Sept 09 Debt £110.00 30 Sept 09 Admin Fee £ 11.20 26 Oct 09 Visit £ 89.74 Can you please tell me where the fee in respect of the 2nd letter is @ £28.00 ? I understand that letters are sometimes not recieved. The original offence was challenged by me as I did not believe that an offence had occured but the Council states that they had never received my letter. There is nothing that I can do about that and further enquiries have placed me in a position whereby I have had to accept that an offence did occur and that I am responsible for the subsequent penalty of £110.00. I would be prepared to accept that a letter from yourselves was sent on 29 Sept 09 and was not received for reasons unknown but I do not accept the coincidence of a second letter also going astray. The lack of fee in respect of that 2nd letter causes me great concern. If a letter had been sent to me and I had responded positively (which I would have done), your fees would have been limited to £11.20 or £39.20 in the case of a second letter. Without a response (which you would not get if the letters were simply not actually sent) you could progress straight to the visit and charge a further £89.74. This is what I believe you have done. As far as Im concerned, this is an attempt to obtain money from me by deception and as such I am going to report the matter to the police. There is a consumer forum that I will also address to see if similar issues have arisen with any other individuals/companies. A copy of this communication will also be sent to Rochdale Borough Council Parking Services for thier records. I await your comments Yours faithfully Has anyone else experienced similar experiences?

Deception issues. I received a parking fine which I originally challenged but the Counsel state that they did not receive my letter. I then go to Australia on 4 occasions throughout 2009 and leave my house with friends. I have mail on my return but nothing from the Council regarding the parking fine. Last Monday, I receive a hand delivered letter on my doorstep from Philips bailiffs claiming £226.08. I contact them and the Council to obtain information about the debt and arrange a payment plan of 4 x £56.52. Since then, I have considered the matter further and made further enquiries. Below is my letter to the bailiff's sent today: For the attention of the Directors Dear Sirs, Re: Your Fees I am told that for you to progress to the stage of charging £89.74 plus VAT in respect of an attendance with a van, you would first be required to send out two letters of formal demand, the 1st at a cost of £11.20 and the second at a cost of £28.00. Thereafter, if no satisfactory response is forthcoming, an attendance will follow with the appropriate charge being implimented. I am told (by your firm) that all fees are first agreed with your client (in this case Rochdale Borough Council) and having spoken to the manager of Rohdale Borough Council's Parking Services (Kevin), he has confirmed the same and has also provided the information in the first paragraph of this email. I can confirm that I did not even receive the first letter which I understand from kevin, was apparently sent out on 30/09/09 let alone your second letter which I am told was sent out on 14/10/09. I have reason to believe that the letters were not sent to me and on requesting a breakdown of your invoive, it appears that I now have evidence in support. Your breakdown is as follows: 29 Sept 09 Debt £110.00 30 Sept 09 Admin Fee £ 11.20 26 Oct 09 Visit £ 89.74 Can you please tell me where the fee in respect of the 2nd letter is @ £28.00 ? I understand that letters are sometimes not recieved. The original offence was challenged by me as I did not believe that an offence had occured but the Council states that they had never received my letter. There is nothing that I can do about that and further enquiries have placed me in a position whereby I have had to accept that an offence did occur and that I am responsible for the subsequent penalty of £110.00. I would be prepared to accept that a letter from yourselves was sent on 29 Sept 09 and was not received for reasons unknown but I do not accept the coincidence of a second letter also going astray. The lack of fee in respect of that 2nd letter causes me great concern. If a letter had been sent to me and I had responded positively (which I would have done), your fees would have been limited to £11.20 or £39.20 in the case of a second letter. Without a response (which you would not get if the letters were simply not actually sent) you could progress straight to the visit and charge a further £89.74. This is what I believe you have done. As far as Im concerned, this is an attempt to obtain money from me by deception and as such I am going to report the matter to the police. There is a consumer forum that I will also address to see if similar issues have arisen with any other individuals/companies. A copy of this communication will also be sent to Rochdale Borough Council Parking Services for thier records. I await your comments Yours faithfully Has anyone else experienced similar experiences?

Deception issues. I received a parking fine which I originally challenged but the Counsel state that they did not receive my letter. I then go to Australia on 4 occasions throughout 2009 and leave my house with friends. I have mail on my return but nothing from the Council regarding the parking fine. Last Monday, I receive a hand delivered letter on my doorstep from Philips bailiffs claiming £226.08. I contact them and the Council to obtain information about the debt and arrange a payment plan of 4 x £56.52. Since then, I have considered the matter further and made further enquiries. Below is my letter to the bailiff's sent today: For the attention of the Directors Dear Sirs, Re: Your Fees I am told that for you to progress to the stage of charging £89.74 plus VAT in respect of an attendance with a van, you would first be required to send out two letters of formal demand, the 1st at a cost of £11.20 and the second at a cost of £28.00. Thereafter, if no satisfactory response is forthcoming, an attendance will follow with the appropriate charge being implimented. I am told (by your firm) that all fees are first agreed with your client (in this case Rochdale Borough Council) and having spoken to the manager of Rohdale Borough Council's Parking Services (Kevin), he has confirmed the same and has also provided the information in the first paragraph of this email. I can confirm that I did not even receive the first letter which I understand from kevin, was apparently sent out on 30/09/09 let alone your second letter which I am told was sent out on 14/10/09. I have reason to believe that the letters were not sent to me and on requesting a breakdown of your invoive, it appears that I now have evidence in support. Your breakdown is as follows: 29 Sept 09 Debt £110.00 30 Sept 09 Admin Fee £ 11.20 26 Oct 09 Visit £ 89.74 Can you please tell me where the fee in respect of the 2nd letter is @ £28.00 ? I understand that letters are sometimes not recieved. The original offence was challenged by me as I did not believe that an offence had occured but the Council states that they had never received my letter. There is nothing that I can do about that and further enquiries have placed me in a position whereby I have had to accept that an offence did occur and that I am responsible for the subsequent penalty of £110.00. I would be prepared to accept that a letter from yourselves was sent on 29 Sept 09 and was not received for reasons unknown but I do not accept the coincidence of a second letter also going astray. The lack of fee in respect of that 2nd letter causes me great concern. If a letter had been sent to me and I had responded positively (which I would have done), your fees would have been limited to £11.20 or £39.20 in the case of a second letter. Without a response (which you would not get if the letters were simply not actually sent) you could progress straight to the visit and charge a further £89.74. This is what I believe you have done. As far as Im concerned, this is an attempt to obtain money from me by deception and as such I am going to report the matter to the police. There is a consumer forum that I will also address to see if similar issues have arisen with any other individuals/companies. A copy of this communication will also be sent to Rochdale Borough Council Parking Services for thier records. I await your comments Yours faithfully Has anyone else experienced similar experiences?

palomino, A couple of typing errors wont detract from the clear content of the correspondence and I would imagine Rockwell will be able to adapt to a similar post office service. Thanks for that info however as I wasn't aware that recorded deliveries were no longer offered. You are wrong however regarding the authorisation to instruct solicitors. If Rockwell are a third party acting for the bank (or another company) they will need specific instructions. Who is going to pay for the solicitors instruction if Rockwell's client never told them to instruct? If Rockwell are a third party, thier roll will have been clearly defined as to what steps can and should be taken. It may be that the initial instruction may have stated that they can utilise the services of solicitors if necessary but they can not do this off thier own back. In any event, I have asked them for clarification of such issues as you can see. Cheers

Cheers, I will keep the group updated. Regards Gispaul

Hi all. Got a letter from this crew following a debt of a business loan and overdraft. The bank closed my account and told me they'd sold the debt. You should be able to pick up on things from my reply to thier letter as follows: Rockwell Debt Collection Agency 15/09/08 PO Box 66 Southend-on-sea Essex Your Ref: 44309021/RW1D-026A SS1 2GX Dear Sirs, Re: Alleged debt to Lloyds TSB bank PLC - £17902.21 Your letter of 13 August 2008 has taken me completely by surprise as when I last spoke to Lloyds TSB about this issue, they told me that they had actually sold the debt and that it nothing to do with them anymore. You will therefore understand my confusion when you say in you letter that you have been instructed by Lloyds TSB Plc. For that reason alone, the first matter that must be clarified by you is precisely who you are acting for. If the debt has originated with Lloyds TSB and has been purchased by a third party, I wish to know the details of that third party along with your reasons as to the misleading information provided in your correspondence of 13 August. If this is not the case and you are indeed instructed directly by Lloyds TSB Plc, then I apologise for my confusion and will write to your client to determine why they had previously told me that it was no longer their concern. In any event, you will need to provide me with copies of the historic material associated with this debt inclusive of the initial and supplemental loan and overdraft agreements. These are important as I intend to have all bank transactions analysed in respect of charges and thereafter forward a claim/s in respect of any funds unreasonably taken. This will in all probability affect the overall amount being claimed by your client because if those funds are found to have been taken unreasonably, funds would have been available to satisfy the monthly overdraft and loan repayments, no penalties and/or interest would have been incurred and in fact the business may have been in a stringer position generally and may indeed still be trading to the present day free of this debt. It is not a realistic proposition for your company to write to me on 13 August 2008 and demand payment of such a large amount of money by 20 August 2008 and threaten further action if the same is not adhered to. Firstly, I am unemployed. I do not own my own house and I have very little in the way of assets. Your representative is not welcome at my home as any communication regarding this matter must be wholly in writing so that all concerned can have full and accurate records of said communications. Finally, I feel it is extremely important to know precisely whom I am dealing with. Your letterhead states that Rockwell Debt Collection Agency is simply a trading name of Tessara Credit Services Limited. It seems that other trading names include BTMK SOLICITORS, PACE FORWARD & FENTON COOPER and again I am slightly confused as to who is who. I am sure that you will agree that these are important issues which should be satisfied and fully explained prior to attempting to put forward a lawful demand for payment. You also say in your letter that you may instruct your solicitors to pursue this debt through the Courts and that this may increase the debt. Do you mean your client may instruct their solicitors or are these solicitors BTMK Solicitors (a trading name of Tessera Credit Services Ltd) or are they completely separate solicitors that you have been authorized to instruct? Once all of the above has been explained and supported with documented evidence, I will be only to happy to discuss the financial issues with you further but I can only reiterate that given that the issues arise from my business banking account, there will be a considerable period of time which will need to elapse in order to allow the unreasonably bank charge issues to be dealt with and I am unable at this present time to commence that undertaking until you provide me with all of the historic information that I have requested inclusive of the original and subsequent agreements. This is a matter which has been on my mind considerably. Obviously this kind of debt can be extremely stressful and I am at least glad that we can at least now finally commence the process of resolving this debt. . It may be of mutual assistance if you could place a name or signature on any future correspondence that you forward to me as we may both need to rely upon these letters (whether for reference purposes or indeed in Court) and it will of course eliminate any confusion on your part as to who had actually written such letters. In addition, given the seriousness of this matter, may I ask that all future letters are sent to me by registered mail as it will become very important to ensure that I actually receive your letters. If you write to me for instance and I fail to reply (a matter which I would never do unless I simply had not received your letter) you may take such failure to reply as an act of contempt and abandon our mutual co-operative steps to resolve this issue in favor of an unproductive Court hearing. I will likewise do the same in respect of registered mail commencing with this response. No doubt the entire process will be long and arduous for both of us and I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for you patience, understanding, co-operation and assistance. I now look forward to hearing from you in due course and I will remain Yours faithfully