Jump to content

gramtrad2

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About gramtrad2

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks. The car was on lease and the leasing co have already grassed me up, so to speak! I guess it is probably best to wait and see what POPLA have to say and then decide on strategy,
  2. Hi All, I would appreciate a little bit of advice. I parked in an NCP car park on a quiet Sunday afternoon and did not pay the parking charge due to the machine not working. When presented, many months later with a £100 parking charge, I appealed and they turned me down, without even addressing my specific concerns. I have just now taken my appeal to POPLA, but am not confident that they will help. From what I have read online, it seems that these NCP people are chancing their arm by asking me to pay £100 charge. If it goes against me, I will be tempted to send them a cheque for £3 to cover the fee and tell them to go forth and multiply. Am I correct in saying that they are unlikely to start civil procedures against me? I would welcome views on this, please.
  3. Hi, This is very interesting. It is a bit complicated and I am a bit thick. So I hope that I have this right; if not please ignore me and I shall keep taking the medication! I have a situation where I have 6 charging orders against my property. These were all forced by banks etc and 2 have statutory interest clocking up each month. After the mortgage, there is very little equity and the likely hood is that there would be little available in the event of a forced sale. The house is in my name only; my wife shares it with me and has done since I bought it. Funds were used from our previous house, to purchase the property. What I should have done was to register my wife's interest in the property at an early date; I did not and the charges went on before I realised that I should have done that! Solicitors have advised me (12 months ago) that my wife would probably not be able to jump in font of the charges to grab a slice of any equity when, eventually the property is sold. I wonder if this new directive will help to strengthen any claim that she has.
  4. Ha ha ha! Someone at North Lincs Council must have a nose that it continually growing.
  5. The attendance to remove fee, or enforcement fee as they call it, relates to a previous year. Having got them to refund all of such fees in the recent years charges, I then asked them for a refund in respect of an earlier years charges. Problem here is that it is all a bit hazy and I cannot remember what transport they turned up in! I made the mistake of cutting them some slack on this and asking them to check; however, they sidestepped checking and just quoted the regs at me! All that said - the enforcement fee was charged at the same time as the levy, which I understand is not correct. They should levy first and then charge an enforcement fee, if appropriate, surely. An Ombudsman's case backs this up.
  6. The visits were some time ago. I do recall that there were two - a first one when I was not there and then, a little later when, obviously, I was there. I have a vague recollection that they put a note though the door (so no one answered) but cannot recall any more! As for the Header Fees, you are correct in saying that no goods were removed.
  7. Hi All, Just had a reply from the Council regarding my Complaint against Ross and Roberts; please see uploaded letter. It looks as though I am going to have to press ahead with legal action since they have stonewalled me on refunding the outstanding costs. I have one query which I should be grateful for an informed view on : Visit fees are not supposed to be charged at the same time as levy fees. This is something that I have successfully challenged on and obtained refunds for earlier episodes of bailiff action (see earlier comments in this thread). However, on the remaining visit fee - the Council quite rightly point out that the bailiff attended twice, albeit on the same day (at an interval of something like 45 mins). This is what they say in their letter: ".....Visit Fee £22.50 – I have again consulted my Colleagues in Revenues who have advised me that the Bailiff can make numerous visits on the same day but can only charge one visit fee per day and that if as in this instance he gets a reply at the property on the same day but at a different time he can levy on the goods and there are fees for that action. They also advise that as far as they are aware both fees were not charged at the same visit......" My research suggested to me that they could not charge a visit fee and a levy fee on the same day. Am I correct or not? Also, the Council invite me to ask for an Independent review. Is there any point in that? I guess I would get stonewalled again! Aside from that I am still awaiting a statement from Ross and Roberts regarding an earlier visit that they had identified. I have also submitted a FOI request in an attempt to identify how many other tax payers within my area have been charged with a visit fee and a levy fee at the same time. In addition, I am working on my Form 4 complaint in respect of the bailiff that lied about clamping my car.
  8. Hi All, I have now had a reply from the Council and have duly responded; both letters uploaded. The Council have messed up big time. In trying to dissuade me from putting in a Form 4 Complaint they have been led by Ross and Roberts and mistakenly said that the bailiff incident, which resulted in my argument that my car had not been clamped, took place over 14 months ago. In fact it took place only 2 months ago. Their superficial and inaccurate response indicates that they have not taken my complaint seriously and shown a basic lack of understanding as to what went on. They have been led by Ross and Roberts ! In addition, they have knocked me back on the further refunds that I requested (£227.50 for earlier visits - enforcement fee, header fees and visit fee). As you will see from my letter I have torn into them and threatened legal action. I will now be taking advice and the council will ultimately have to pick up the bill. I have also told them that I will be looking into a much earlier case that I had forgotten about, but was reminded of by Ross and Roberts (in line with their policy of shooting themselves in the foot!). On the wider front, they continue to ignore my request that they should check if Ross and Roberts have charged others a visit and a levy fee at the same time. So I have now proceeded with a FOI request to ascertain how many times that this has happened. Watch this space.
  9. Thanks. I have looked at this. What you say is correct to an extent. My mortgage is quite large. I would probably be forced to sell on the basis that I could find somewhere to rent which would be cheaper and then pay more towards the bankruptcy.
  10. Many thanks; that is useful information. I someone could clarify my point b, I should be grateful. I will be looking at my options.
  11. I get the impression that the Council have little idea what is going on and rely heavily on Capita (aka Ross and Roberts) to guide them. My letters seem to have opend their eyes a bit and they seem to be seeing the light. Now that I have slowly teased out the facts of the case, I sense that they are having reservations about Ross and Roberts and are clearly concerned about the possible knock on effects of a major issue being brought to light. (Ie the charging of a visit fee at the same time of a levy fee). I can't wait t see how they respond to my last letter! The only way that they are going to get out of it (for now) is to fold. If they don't - they are screwed.
  12. [ATTACH=CONFIG]43128[/ATTACH]Thanks, Outlawla. Have fixed that. Correct copy now uploaded. Regarding the Ross and Roberts note on 20 visits a day - classic example of them shooting them selves in the foot. That, as you may see from my letters, is a theme that I have identified though out their correspondence!
  13. Thanks, Ploddertom, First of all, regarding Bailiff 2 - yes he is registered; I checked this with The Taunton court. Yes, I do believe that I have uncovered a systematic abuse of power by the Bailiff company. As for a Freedom of Information Request to verify this, I am quietly confident that it will have some success. I have been following another web site which makes a play of submitting awkward FOI request - "what do they know". Similar requests have been nailed down by pointing out to the council that the bailiff firms is under contract to them to provide the information. So all the council have to do is ask for it from the bailiff company. Media coverage would follow that, if justified by the FOI response, or, indeed, if the request got stonewalled. Regarding putting the bailiff in his place, getting the Council to put in a Form 5 complaint - we would probably have a better chance of seeing cows fly, in my humble opinion. The Council only have my word for what has happened, against the word of the Bailiff. I don't think that they would risk finding in my favour without evidence. The other option that you suggest is writing to the court to have a note put on file. Sure, this could be done and they may or may not invite a Form 4 complaint. However, the lad in question has another 18 months or so before he has to renew; he is a "bad un" and needs to be curtailed long before that. I have given Ross and Roberts a way out - to sort it out amongst themselves. If they do not, I think that a Form 4 is the way to go for a swifter result. I don't care about costs going against me; that said, I am not in any way in the wrong - I and my witnesses know what happened and can confidently file affidavits to that effect without fear of perjury. A bailiff who deliberately lies in an attempt to justify his actions or commission is a danger to the general public. When he appears before the court, which he will if I correctly present the Form 4, he will be faced with perjuring himself in court. Brown trousers and balls of steel will be required! As for compensation, as you can see from the letters from the Council and Bailiffs, they have already put £100 on the table between them. They will also be aware from my correspondence with them ( the Council, that is), that they are now being charged for my time and they may soon be faced with covering my other expenses. They can see the bill increasing. Their best option would be to pay me my compensation now, reign in the bailiff (ie sort the liar out) and be seen to be looking closely at the "admin" expenses that Ross and Roberts are charging. That would stop me in my tracks. Otherwise, they are back to "death by a thousand cuts" and they will almost certainly end up spending more money (and time) in the long run. They should " cut and run", because I won't
  14. Re my earlier post - here are two files which did not upload (must be a limit per post)
  15. Hi All, Decided to publish and be dammed. I was going to wait for the final result, but hey ho, lets get it out there. These blighters need to have their wings clipped and I am now on a mission to do just that. Have now uploaded the latest exchanges between me and the council plus letters from Ross and Roberts. Please note that the Ross and Roberts letter of 4th April 2013 is uploaded in two parts (could't work out how to merge pdf; scanner did not give me an option). Hope that I have eliminated all of the personal information; a pie and a pint for anyone who finds an error for me! Each time I have replied to the Council and referred to Ross and Roberts' letters. And each time, as you will see, in accordance with true bailiff tradition, I have upped the ante ! Had they refunded me what I had asked in the first place, I would probably have gone away and forgotten about it. But I had to drag the refunds out of them bit by bit and am still doing so. What they are going though now reminds me of the old Chinese torture - Death by a Thousand Cuts! I have recovered £260 odd and a further £266, which constitutes all of the refunds due for the last bailiff visit and the one before that, except for my bounced cheque fee and credit card payment fee. And I have an offer of compensation of £50 from the council and £50 from Ross and Roberts on the table (I have declined both). I am now pressing them for a refund of a further £227 in respect of an earlier year, plus interest and compensation (£100 from Ross and Roberts, plus £900 from the Council). It would appear, from what they have told me that there is also an earlier years worth of charges which I had forgotten about! So, if they fail to sort out my latest demand, I have advised them that I will up the ante again and ask them to present me with full statements for that earlier year which I had forgotten about. Aside from all that, what has got my goat is that the last bailiff who called to see me (the incident that kicked off this whole thing), lied about an aspect his visit. Now that should come as little surprise to anyone who does any research on the integrity of bailiffs! This is what happened : Ross and Roberts informed me in one of their letters that MR X , the bailiff had started the recovery process by clamping my car!! That was not the case; he did not clamp my car and I have witnesses to corroborate the same. I challenged them on that statement, as you will see from my letters. I pointed out that I had no axe to grind, since they had already agreed to refund my fees in respect of that visit. I also gave them a chance to deal with the matter internally before I pursued a Form 4 Complaint. But guess what ? They backed him up. It is just not right that a bailiff can lie like that! What is he doing on visits to other (less clued up) people? He must be stopped. In my last letter of 4th April, I gave them 10 days to persuade me why I should not put in a Form 4 Complaint. The Council told me, yesterday, that they have received Ross and Roberts' comments and were just waiting for some internal information; so I will get a reply to that letter early next week. On a separate subject, again, I have challenged the Council to check on "admin" fees incorrectly charged to other tax payers. Ross and Roberts, it has become apparent, incorrectly charged me visit and levy fees on three separate occasions! So, it begs the question - how many others did they do this to? So far, in their letters, the Council have sidestepped the issue! I have now informed them, in my latest letter of 4th April, that if they do not address this matter, I will do it for them, starting with a Freedom of Information Request. If I do not get a satisfactory answers regarding the bailiff conduct and to my other requests, I have told them, by email, that I will be taking further action and if I incur costs (likely) they will be held liable for the same. I will, of course take professional paid for advice (probably from a well known Cag person). That's it for now.
×
×
  • Create New...