Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. Go to this site, type bailiff's name in the search bar and go... http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/CertificatedBailiffs/searchPublic.do?search=Brown
  2. Wonky, This is what they write on every early complaints correspondence. It is an underhand method of scaring the little people off by giving them the impression that it is going to cost the already penniless common vexacious pauper even more money to add on top of what they have already stolen from them. " Whilst we take all complaints very seriously and investigate them thoroughly, we will apply for costs in any case of a vexacious complaint involving court action."
  3. "However, is my complaint is vexacious then they will have to add legal charges" Yes ArrogantDuck, whatever you do DO NOT annoy Rossendales and do not dare to look them in the eyes. They find little people buzzing around them asking awkward questions very vexating and you will be swatted by their divine bureaucratic debtor swatter.
  4. Haven't informed the council of this possible little gem as yet Hallowitch, and I'd bet my left testicle that Rossendales did not forward a copy of that statement to the council either. All other copies of correspondence I've received from them have 'copy to Pendle BC' written at the end, this one does not. Also I note that in my SAR notes, the non-bailiff Ms ***** ***** claims to have spoken to my son and been "refused entry" (utter fabrication by the way). Therefore, according to her, she attempted to enter my house to levy goods. + the amount of correspondence I received from Rossendales claiming that Ms **** ***** is/was a bailiff is enough to sink a ship. Outright lies and deception all the way.
  5. Just to expand a little, this is Rossendales response at last after 4 Months of avoiding the same query asked of them time and time again concerning the certification details of the 'first call "bailiff"' "I can confirm that Ms ****** ****** was awaiting certification at the time of her attendance, however this does not impede on validity of visits undertaken by her. Should Ms ***** ***** have established contact with you, thereby requiring a levy to be undertaken, she would have been required to call upon the services of a certificated bailiff" I must note that Ms ***** ***** has NEVER held a bailiff certificate and does not hold one to this day. I can't find any legislation backing Rossendales statement, yet equally I am struggling to find anything to contravene what they say in any guidelines or rules. Which would be the best body/watchdog to contact in respect of this matter? Edit; Thanks for your reply TGP. The fact that they avoided coming up with an answer to the question for so long seems a tad suspicious to me.
  6. One is not required to be a bailiff to incurr certificated bailiff fees. In fact anyone from any, or no proffession with any, or no qualifications may make visits on debtors on behalf of Rossendales and incurr certificated bailiff fees as long as they have the telephone number of a certificated bailiff to hand in the event that someone answers the door before they have a chance to run off. This is in Rossendales own words, in writing. Anyone with any links to rules and regs in the bailiff industry would be appreciated
  7. Pendledad, I've been off-line for a while and to save me time trawling through threads, have you asked for / received a Subject Access Request from Rossendales?
  8. I think you should be ringing the Council up straight away and ask them how many liability orders they have against you, how much each one is for and when they were handed over to Jacobs. Compose yourself and have pen and paper ready. Ditto what Hallowitch said.
  9. "I owe 512.60 and 700 to Jacobs" Are you saying you owe £512.60 +£700.00 to Jacobs? Any idea of how many liability orders against you?
  10. I think the good caggers on here will want to know what the debt is for. Oh and if you've had threatening phone messages from Jacobs make sure you save them, you may need them for future action.I would say that with your health problems you may fall in the 'vulnerable' catagory. Take care, your in good hands:-)
  11. Oh I do indeed, signed at the bottom "Ms C Bailiff of Rossendales Ltd." and another on the 18th. Plus the numerous occasions in correspondence that the complaints team referred to Ms C as their "bailiff" or "first call bailiff". Just a reminder Hallowitch, Ms C never attended her certification hearing and therefore never became a bailiff. She has never held a bailiffs certificate (unless of course it belonged to somebody else).
  12. Tomtubby, Hallowitch and all, Well it's finally arrived! There's a big pile of stuff to get through. One thing that's caught my eye though the last paragraph of a reply to some of the questions I posed concerning the certification of the "first call bailiff" Ms C ;- "I can confirm that Ms C was awaiting certification at the time of her attendance, however this does not impede on validity of visits undertaken by her. Should Ms C have established contact with you, thereby requiring a levy to be undertaken,she would have been required to call upon the services of a certificated bailiff." The reply could have read ;- "I can confirm that Ms C was not a bailiff and we are perfectly within our rights to send any Tom, Dick or Harriet around to victims houses to maximize our fees as long as they have the phone number of a certificated bailiff to hand in case of contact" As you can see, it would appear that it is not necessary for a 'bailiff' to call to incur 1st and 2nd visit fees. As long as somebody calls on their behalf (ie hairdresser, accountant as long as they have the phone number of a certificated bailiff on them). If you catch the errand runner posting their 'visit with a view to seizing goods' (before they run away), they would have to call for a certificated bailiff to meet them to levy on goods. I suppose that would make it okay for Ms C or any other uncertificated person to arrive in a van to attend to remove and incur further charges after a levy had been undertaken as long as they have the telephone number of a certificated bailiff.?
  13. Oh no! it was my fault! I wasn't in when the postman tried to deliver my SAR from Rossendales by recorded delivery and I must have lost the 'missed delivery note' that postie must have posted in my absence. Just received this email from the council after asking the whereabouts of my SAR- Dear Mr ********, Rossendales sent this information by recorded delivery on 9th August 2010. As the delivery was not called for, the Royal Mail returned it to Rossendales some weeks later. I have now asked Rossendales to resend the information again, by recorded delivery. I should be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of the same, via e-mail, or contact me in 7 days time if there is a further problem. Thanks -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My response- Thank you for your response, Normally when I have not received a recorded delivery the postman puts a collection or delivery notice through the door to confirm that the item is at the RM collection point. I may have overlooked this on this occasion as the post has recently been delivered rather carelessly folded inside advertisment 'junk' leaflets from supermarkets. In track and trace / recorded deliveries, I believe that a delivery reference number will be issued to the sender. Please would you ask Rossendales if they would confirm the delivery reference number of the item that they sent on the 9th of August 2010 so that I can contact royalmail.com with queries concerning the item. Also, I have requested that Rossendales send any recorded telephone conversations that took place between myself and them (the one that they made reference to and used in their first letter to me dated 10th May 2010 in particular) in written transcript and WAV file. There may have been a problem with delivery of the WAV file also, as I do not appear to have received the email as yet (I presume that the WAV file was posted via email on the same day that the rest of the SAR was dispatched. Please can you confirm this with Rossendales. Again, thank you for your assistance I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely,
  14. Yes Tomtubby, clarification is needed with rergards to this. Rossendales believe that they are acting within the rules accordin to this part of a communication with myself. "It was not necessary that you signed either the inventory or the Walking possession Agreement, and consequently you did not do so. This levy incurred a fee of £31.00 calculated in accordance with Schedule 5 of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992 which we enclose. Only once a levy has been completed, can a van attendance fee be applied and this is also in accordance with the above regulations. Again it is not necessary for the Walking possession Agreement to be signed to incur this fee. Whether goods are removed after completion of a levy is then at the discretion of the bailiff." My particular case has become more shall we say...interesting after I took it on myself to discover that the first two visits were conducted by a receptionist with the intent of extorting monies from myself in the form of visit fees.This made my very first visit from a certificated bailiff one that incurred levy fee of £31.00, van attendance fee of £120.00, and waiting fee of £60.00. Not bad for a first visit that lasted 12 minutes and no levy was made, eh?
  • Create New...