it will only benefit the directors and owners of the big bailiff companies. Not the bailiffs themselves or the charge payers, and certainly not the local authorities. i am led to understand the only fees will be the letter fee of £85 and the attendance of £215 NO others most of the bailiff companies use self employed bailiffs for enforcement purposes and they currently get a %age (usually 50%) of fees added onto the debt IF they collect full payment. So with the current fee structure it is in their best interest to add as many fees as they can get away with, including removal fees, waiting time and others. this being said if the potential is there to collect full payment on a debt they will stand their ground and stay until they get their money or in some rare cases remove goods. so next year we can say goodbye to the bailiffs who are employed by the small to medium sized companies, the ones who actually perform the first and second visits, the ones who collect payments and set arrangements perform levies and do walking possessions, set arrangements and understand the needs of their customers set realistic payment plans ( basically all the bailiffs we never hear about on this forum ) next year when many of these people get their visits from XYZ bailiffs the same as last year they expect there 40/50 pound levy fee and the 12 pound walking possession only to be told by the bailiff sorry no i need it in full straight away. gone will be the well built up relationships between local councils and the smaller bailiff companies, complaints will go through the roof, all the same the bailiff is demanding full payment. instead of most accounts passed to bailiffs only incurring 42.50 at the most, each will now be minimum of £85.00 and every door knocked another 200+ quid - hence my comment that the bailiff company big wigs being the obvious winners in this outcome, so its no wonder that the companies are expressing the welcome transparent changes to the industry. Back again to my original comment that bailiffs and customers themselves will suffer - if there is no incentive for a bailiff to have to list goods to put their fees on they will all become glorified postmen going to as many properties as possible to maximise their potential profits... if there is no other fees to be added to a debt why would they hang around waiting for a payment when they can leave a letter and move on to the next one to see if that's any better... so for example here, if someone owes 1000 pounds and they incur the 85/215 combo making it 1300 pounds, there is a hpi free 10k car sitting on the drive, but to remove it the bailiff needs to call a towtruck, this fee will not be chargable so it would only cut in to the fees the bailiff has added on making it pointless for the bailiff to remove it. no real threat to remove, so the household think ok then well if nothing happens when we dont pay why pay it next year, or the year after!! another example, bailiff visits and council tell bailiff company to accept an arrangement, the customer pays the costs and then stops paying, there is not a self employed bailiff in the uk that would waste his time and effort revisiting to collect payment when there is no financial benefit to him to do this. therefore the account either gets put on the backburner or gets returned to the council unconcluded many accounts are re-hashed out to other companies if one company is unsuccessful (usually the afformentioned smaller companies get returns) - companies now wishing to accept this type of recycled work may get their costs but the bailiffs wont want to waste their time trying to collect the debts knowing that they have been attempted by the previous company bailiffs. these previously mentioned examples will have a severe detremental affect on local authorities, many many files unpaid with more and more money outstanding. this year the council tax reform and bedroom tax will mean many many more liability orders, and as soon as the people on benefits realise the only people bailiffs are likely to obtain payment from are those who are working and have the money or family and friends to pay, the threat to pay disappears and in many cases the debt will remain unpaid. the bailiff industry is a dying trade - the bailiffs who set arrangements try to help and look after local authorities needs will be swept aside for the full payment only letter dropper bailiffs, and they will only want to work for companies who have a the massive amount of work, ie your equita's and your rossendales to maximise their chances of earning the most amount of money. like i said earlier, the smaller companies could well fall to the wayside and we could be left with just the big 2 or 3, the ones who flood this forum on a daily basis with their wrong doings. finally here this thought has only just come to me, if bailiffs are certificated to levy distress by courts, and there is no need to levy goods to add costs now when doing a visit, there could be the argument that the companies do not need to employ bailiffs just someone who can drive a car and post letters basically any old joe with no training. very testing and potentially difficult times indeed - not just for bailiffs but more importantly for the hundreds of local authorities in England and Wales

I honestly believe the new system/ fee structure will make the collection sysyem a lot worse, and there will be a lot more problems, when i get home i will post an in depth response

A vehicle when sold at auction will typically sell for approx 25% of the average resale value Even less if sold without keys logbook mot tax etc Going off a previous post it was said about a work laptop so im assuming the op is either working or self employed, so i guess there isnt a vulnerbility issue It doesnt get to the stage of removal without having the initial 1st and 2nd visits as well so there will be pre enforcement letters I would not class this removal as excessive, unfair maybe and of course not nice for anybody to have to go through, but not excessive. I think the only way to get the car back at this stage would be to pay marstons.

Call tomorrow remind them of the original email date they will have it on their system They will remove the summons and court order fee - many councils are making this mistake at the moment bristol council and stoke on trent council sent between them over 12000 incorrect summons by mistake and have had to start the whole process on each account from the beginning, this is due to their billing departments having to bill everyone they didnt have to last year, ie the change in council tax benefit and so called bedroom tax. Dont worry about it

Bare in mind each time she moves property it will have a different reference number so maybe only one bill will show when typing the one reference in on the computer

There seems to be confusion on the answers given so far based on your info in the posts so far If you are refering to a commercial premises for a business, by going over by as little as one day the landlord can issue his own warrant to distrain and either instruct bailiffs to attend or go to court and self-certificate for up to 30 days and collect it himself. If you are talking about your home amd rent arrears, the landlord can ask a debt collector to request payment or they may take you to court to get you evicted, or get a judgement against you to enforce payment by court bailiff or hceo

The bailiffs can still enforce for their fees using the liability order - make sure they are paid so this doesnt happen. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 Regulation 45 in particular paragraphs 3 & 4

Surely this is bordering on bribery "Oh go on give us your work, we will give you a cut of the profits"

Did the attachment go through a bailiff company, and if so is it possible they took their fees out of it first?

Tomtubby im going to assume you didnt see "switchedon's" post from this morning, i did and during three messages he admitted he was the same poster goading you on LB Forum. It also had a private message he says you sent asking for a call and of course asked about trespass again. Now the posts have disappeared, maybe he/she has sobered up and removed them, but i wouldnt take this poster seriously. All the best, joebloggs

http://www.civea.co.uk/news-5.htm there you go outlawa have a quick read, i would say they are implying it should be added on every account whereby a levy takes place

well charges h states on the back of a levy something along the lines of "when no sale takes place because payment is made or tendered" i always thought it was a charge added when a levy is done and this fee goes off the debt last, and serves as the release of items seized placing them back into the control of the charge payer as i said other posters dont believe it should be charged but it is written into many councils bailiff contracts, and of course the bailiff association civea issued a statement a few years ago saying it is okay to charge it

Arrears to local authority - £229.33 Levy fee to scale schedule - £28.00 Must of levied on the very first visit Attending with a vehicle with a view to removing - £390.00 Jesus what did they attend in a limo?! Walking Possession fee - £11.00 void if not signed so shouldn't of been charged Removal Fee / Where no sale takes place - £22.50 sch 5 head h - open to criticism Arrears to local authority - £80.57 Levy fee to scale schedule - £22.50 check they haven't listed exactly the same items otherwise void Walking Possession fee - £11.00 again if unsigned void so not chargable Removal Fee / Where no sale takes place - £22.50 see my other comment levy fees correct as long as different items listed on each. goods belonging to a partner possibly classed as joint and several ownership walking possession nil charge on each, so yes the items are levied but if you were to default they have no right to force entry to retrieve as no w/p sch 5 head h, other posters disagree with this charge, however many councils ok it along with civea - very much open to interpretation as for the van fee this is over double the debts owed to your council - this is dsigusting and should be challenged. my advice would be to challenge the costs but if you can maintain the arrangement to stop any more visits and charges that would be of benefit to you. complain to both the council and bailiff company as well

I would be interested to know as someone who has very little knowledge on the subject, on what grounds you attempted a chargeback I understand there are 4 main categories for going down this route, a bank error, doubled up or duplicate payment, a claim not to of received purchased items or un-authorised/fraud. fees charged aside, if you have given your card details either via chip & pin or over the telephone you have therefore okayed the transaction. So on what grounds did your bank cancel the payment. please do not think i am criticising you doing the chargeback, i am merely interested in what category it falls into with respect of paying bailiffs for future reference.

What exactly has been put on the levy of distress, bare in mind they have not been in the property, have they? If they are charging anything other than 42.50 1st and 2nd visit fees they are legally obliged to leave one. If you are in any doubt and they havent left a copy, get onto the office at rossendales, they will have a copy on their computer as bailiffs use a digital pen for their paperwork. Come back on the forum with your findings

Oh right ok i didnt know you could specify how much to claw back i assumed it would have to be a specific transaction. I suppose it lies now on you proving and arguing the fees with equita, and you have got the confirmation the council have had the money remitted to them. Have you had a comprehensive breakdown of costs incurred and the dates each fee was added? You dont appear very expectant that they will drop the issue about the fees you have had back so i guess you will have to wait for the ceo to respond, but the fact still remains they will try to enforce what they say is remaining using the issued warrant so in the mean time keep your car out the way

Any fees legitimetly incurred in the collection of an unpaid fine are added onto the debt and you are expected to pay these costs. Im reading between the lines here as you said you cant go into detail, im assuming you at one point paid equita including their costs. It would appear you have done a card chargeback cancelling this payment, and then paid the fine and i assume the 7 pound charge for them to register the warrant at northampton T.E.C So there is still therefore the issue of equitas fees hence why they are contacting you to pay these. Please be aware that if you pay the council directly, any fees incurred upto that point can still be collected and enforced using the issued warrant. The warrant lasts for exactly 12 months from the day it is issued.

That is the letter bailiff companies use when its their last visit before its returned back to the council It details the possibilities of further action ie committal bankruptcy charging order or attachment of earnings. Once they go it will most likely be returned to your council then as long as you call them to make arrangements before they take further action you will be fine Tell the police to tell the bailiffs you are aware of your rights, no previous attendance where a levy was made and certainly you didnt sign the walking possession, any alleged levy is void. The only time a bailiff can enter the property is if you have let one in and signed wp on goods in the property or for a magistrates court fine which has nothing to do with council tax

The best one ive heard regarding fotl was from a couple of my mates who are self employed bailiffs. They went to a property big band d property nice area, previous visits debtor stated they were not the people on the liability order but were merely "lawful residents" so when they knocked they were told the same thing, and had the door shut on them. The freemen forgot to lock the door however so the bailiffs basically followed them into the hall. Arguments ensued and the occupiers called the police. 10 minutes later when the police arrived they tried the same thing on the police, police said ok well if you are not the two people on the liability order who are registered at the address, and you wont give details of who you are, we will arrest the pair of you for burglary. They searched the property found driving licenses passports and v5's all with their names on and photos, the police had a rant at them saying you use your drivvel beliefs as and when it suits but as soon as it comes to wanting something that will be of benefit to you ie driving license, it all goes out the window and bang goes the real name on the paperwork. My mates already knew the vehicles were theirs anyway (but thats another story for another time) and the mrs had to walk down town paid a sizeable amount to pay the council tax. Completely agree that the committal route is the best way to go for these types if all other avenues fail. Unfortunetly when you type in google how to get out of debt these websites are all to prominent so i think the ideology will get a lot more popular and i dare say there will be an awful lot of posters using this method

Examples of court cases are in a section of this wiki page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land In particular the second one and the last one relate to council tax

Journos of the local papers with the "thisis" websites always mis represent the actual truth of the stories when it comes to bailiffs. I wouldnt be surprised if she had a bill of about 900 missed the first 3/4 payments so the council asked for the whole year got a court order she assumed she was 450 behind so that was all to pay, then when the bailiff visited he added a 110 van fee, then she has gone straight to the paper, twists the truth and of course have her photo taken with her letter from rundles. I might be wrong of course but come on 5/600 quid in charges either shes lying or had christ knows how many visits before it got to borderline removal and shes paid up

If its a council property its most likely a sundry debt

Dont be surprised if the single bailiff visiting this time and being thrown out, turns into another visit with 2/3 bailiffs a locksmith and the police plus 300 quids worth of fees

Obviously wont comment on the fees but im sure they wont be 900 quid, however the council can take up to 2 years / liabilityorders out of your wages at a time. I have also known some councils include fees for bailiff collection in the attachment of earnings then pay the company after they have recovered it from you

Yes