The one thing I have, still, is cast iron proof that the bailiff lied in both his interviews regarding the fictitious levy. The meeting next week will be the first time any of these have actually seen the video I made which blows holes - nay, craters - in his statement. Have to go out now so can't continue this chat right now, but will call back later to see if anyone has anything that I haven't thought of... though reading back, I think I have enough material of my own to go with the advice you chaps gave me in the early days.

Well I didn't know this : " ... the Revenues & Benefits Service was outsourced by the authority over 5 years ago so Liberata are responsible for the Collection of Council Tax on behalf of Pendle. " Liberata being : http://www.liberata.com http://www.liberata.com/Sectors/LocalGovernment.aspx Learn something new everyday...

PT - no mate, I never asked for one, just wanted my breakdown... do you think I should ask for one ? May not get it in time now anyways...

Bejesus... have just read through the original complaints made to Rossendales ... had forgotten most of this stuff already - no wonder they're taking their time

Still ongoing Duckie ! Received an email today agreeing to a face to face meeting next week. If anyone has any questions they would like me to ask, please let me know

PT - Oh believe me, I will have personal words with Mr MP Fired off a second email re. my FOI request this morning, which reaches its 20th day on Saturday. Got a reply from Chief Exec apologising for the delay in answering my mail 5 weeks ago and assuring me that various departments were indeed looking into my concerns. There's still some life in this thread yet...

... and keep on at PBC - I am still on their case and awaiting my FOI response and have just requested a face-to-face meeting with the council tax office... Plenty more to pass on to them before I am through yet, but the more that are making themselves heard the better.

Not interested Seana, to be honest. We both know the only thing he is sorry for is his loss of fees !

Morning All ! Not updated this for a week or two because nothing happened ! 1 - My friendly local councillor who said he would investigate and call round to see me... didn't call round to see me. Or answer my email. Or even telephone. 2 - The CEO at Pendle Council, who 4 weeks ago promised "I will investigate the issues you have raised and get back to you with a full reply very shortly" ... hasn't got back to me with any sort of reply, let alone a full one ! 3 - Our newly elected local MP who bombarded me with literature extolling his virtues and why I should vote for him not 5 months ago... hasn't even acknowledged my mails ! 4 - Rossendales themselves, however, sent me a brief reply on Friday saying they were still looking into things and would get back to me this week. Officialdom at it's best... And so to yesterday. And a victory of sorts. From Rossendales. Dear Pendle_dad RE: Stage 2 Complaint I acknowledge receipt of your Stage 2 complaint received 23rd August 2010, the content of which has been noted. I have reviewed you original complaint along with Ms X's investigations and subsequent response. I will address each of your points as you have raised them. I confirm Rossendales adheres to all relevant codes of conduct and holds its own vulnerability process. I sincerely apologise that Mr S did not withdraw once he became aware of your recent bereavement and can confirm the matter has been referred to the bailiff manager in order appropriate action can be taken. I note you refer to the opening comment of Ms X's letter in relation to Mr S’s attendance and state there is no mention of a levy. Page 2, paragraph 9 of Ms X’s correspondence describes that a levy was undertaken by Mr S after he met you and you refused entry to your property. Mr S is adamant he left a copy of the Notice of Distress at your property on his visit of 03rd September. I have asked Mr S about the handwritten note added to the Removal Notice you have supplied. He has advised the “plus recovery costs” is in reference to further costs which may have been incurred if removal had been undertaken, including the cost of a tow truck and storage charges; the level of these costs would not have been known at this stage. I acknowledge this statement to be unclear and have passed your comments to the bailiff manager. Mr S is unable to recall a conversation held regarding the clamping of your van but as advised by Ms B, notes made by him at the time do refer to you requesting the van was not clamped. I can advise that Rossendales do not undertake DVLA checks on vehicles prior to levying. A DVLA check would only show the registered keeper who is not necessarily the owner. The bailiff would only levy on a vehicle he had reason to believe belonged to a tax payer due to, for example, it being parked on the tax payer’s property or confirmation being received from a neighbour. Once a bailiff has levied on items he reasonably believes belongs to the liable party and left a copy of the Notice of Distress, the onus is on the tax payer to provide proof of a third party claim to ownership or any other exempt status they believe to exist. Mr S has confirmed that for a few days from 06th September 2010 he was not working due to personal reasons. I have discussed with him the contact he made to you during the said dates and he has advised this was in response to a text he initially received from you with regards to providing a cheque payment. Although Mr S was not actively working during this time, he had an ongoing workload and if he was in a position to respond to a tax payer during this time he may have done so. With reference to your request to know how Mr S was informed of your payment in the sum of £530.00, I can advise that all payments updated on to our system whilst the account is allocated to a bailiff generates an automatically sent text message to the bailiff’s mobile telephone. Therefore, Mr S was made aware of your payment without direct contact from our office. I can confirm that a copy of Schedule 5 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations should be left at the time of levying distress and apologise that this was not the case. I have brought this matter to the attention of the relevant managers in order appropriate action can be taken. The value placed on goods at auction can be significantly reduced and therefore, although you value the two vehicles at approximately £4,000.00 they would not necessarily achieve this if removal and sale became appropriate. When removing goods the bailiff must ensure they are to the value where a significant portion of the debt as well as all bailiff, removal and storage fees are paid from the sale. Therefore, the bailiff found it appropriate to re-levy on your Renault Laguna in case removal was undertaken. I can confirm we received instruction from Pendle Borough Council on 09th September at 12.58 after the bailiff had attended your property. Our case database received an image of the Notice of Distress completed on 03rd September, which was electronically transmitted to our office on this same day via blue tooth technology; therefore, it cannot have been backdated. At the time the Notice of Distress was completed, the only outstanding bailiff fees was the levy, van attendance and waiting time as those incurred by the first call bailiff had been incurred and paid prior to this date; therefore, these were not included on the Notice of Distress. The levy fee is calculated on a sliding scale as described in Schedule 5 of the Council tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations. I have spoken to Mr S regarding the incorrect figure detailed and he has advised this was due to human error for which I apologise. However, this error does not invalidate the levy as you suggest. If you had made a payment for the full balance quoted on the Notice of Distress, an overpayment of £5.00 would have been generated. As I am sure you are now aware, the “other” fee listed refers to the van attendance fee and waiting time incurred. I apologise this was not clarified for you at the time. The rear of the Notice of Distress is not completed as this is an Attendance to Levy Notice which would have been completed and left in the event a bailiff was unable to levy distress which was not the case in this instance. Mr S is adamant he left you a copy of the Notice of Distress on 03rd September 2010 which you passed back to him on 09th September 2010 stating the fees added were illegal. Please provide the video footage you hold if you would like us to investigate this matter further. I sincerely apologise for Mr S’s continued pursuance of payment from you, after he had been informed of your recent bereavement. I have made the appropriate managers aware of the issues raised in your complaint in order all necessary actions can be taken. I can confirm fees associated with Mr S’s attendance have been removed and consider you account now closed. Yours Sincerely, Rossendales So... we finally have an apology - a few apologies actually - and we have had the fees removed... but how many more have gone through this, put their hands in their pockets and paid without question ? Back to the council now with a formal letter of complaint to them about their role in all this, especially their total lack of response to my emails and requests for help. This is not over by a long way, but at least Pendle_Mum can answer the door again ! Thanks everyone for the moral support, utterly priceless advice and encouragement on this. Will let you know when the next installment happens

If this reaches the stage where court action is taken, it can't be. Some of this information will also form a crucial part of my complaint to the council, especially any perceived complicity in Rossendales overcharging and breaking the law. At this stage, however, nothing would surprise me...

Rule 1 - play safe - admit nothing - sign nothing ! ... of course they seem serious - the intention is to stop you selling any more of these items. They have, therefore, succeeded in what they actually wanted to do. They wouldn't, no, but trading standards would - but only if they have been given a search warrant. If they had a search warrant, you would have known by now, they wouldn't give you any warning (ie chance to dispose of things) and having made you aware now that they have been watching you, they've given you a chance to get rid of anything suspicious so it's highly unlikely they'd bother. Still - being safe won't do any harm... just in case. I wouldn't be bold enough to actually recommend anything to you other than Rule 1 ! All I can do is let you know what happened to colleagues of mine. I've just remembered that when you sell an item and send an invoice to a customer, your payment address is also sent to them automatically on the eBay invoice in case they want to send payment that way, so they could have got your address that way too . You can send them a letter admitting nothing and stating the items won't be sold again if you like, or you can put it to one side and wait for any (unlikely) follow up. I wouldn't even mention the rest (ie customer details or details of the person who supplied you). As mentioned earlier, there have been a number of threads on the ebay discussions boards about this over the years - I have yet to hear of anyone who has had any further action taken in situations like these.

PS - I'm not saying you sell fake signed Rooney shirts by the way !! - I was just using that as an example of why goofbay is a useful tool !

Just a filler, as I know several colleagues who have been in similar positions. Firstly goofbay. Many sellers of fake signed football shirts (amongst other things) will sell their rubbish on private listings - that way you can't check to see how many "rare, signed Wayne Rooney shirt"'s they have sold this week. Goofbay will show everything a seller has sold in the previous 90 days. There are other useful tools eg snipers, misspellings tools, feedback checkers etc. The reason they have used goofbay is possibly because you have used private listings. Despite scare stories, eBay, as a rule, won't release that much information to the company without a court order, which could be why they have checked goofbay to see what you have sold. I've been involved in a trading standards investigation that took over 3 years involving an ebay seller and the information "we" got from ebay was hard fought over, I can tell you ! Now then. They obviously do have your address, so there's a very good chance that they have actually bought something off you and that's how they have determined authenticity. I know Umbro and Adidas do this for a fact, so if it's one of them, then that's how they have got the info. You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide ANY information to them about your customers - indeed, you could well be breaking the law if you do. You obviously shouldn't list any more of these items if there is any doubt as to their authenticity and to be on the safe side I would make sure there are none left in the house. You are also under no obligation to put your hand in your pocket either as they can't just throw a bill at you and demand you pay it. They can ask, of course, and you can pay, but they can't force you to pay anything. And, of course, if it went to court they would have to prove the item they have in their posession actually came from you - which could prove tricky. The traders I know who have been in similar positions varied their responses. I know 2 did nothing at all (other than remove the questionable items) and one wrote back admitting nothing, but agreeing not to sell any more. No further action was taken. I can only give you my experience of this, but if you took a postal payment instead of a paypal payment on any of them, then that's likely to be the one that got you in hot water. Be a bit more careful in future and try not to lose any sleep. They will certainly be watching you and won't let things drop if they have cause to remove your items again - even if it's on a second account.

As mentioned before, I want to see if the council are actually aware of what their bailiffs are up to, if they condone it by lack of diligence, if there is a lack of complaints then is it because people don't know how to complain or complaints are not taken seriously and to see if it is something that I should be pushing to be brought before a council meeting. Not all of these is in connection with my case. There are a lot of people who would have given up a long time ago and paid these illegal fees. If I can do something to stop others going through what I've been through (and, of course, many others) then I feel it's something I should continue to persue, whatever the outcome of my case. Bullies need to be stood up to.

Just fired this FOI request off to the relevant dept : ------------------------------------- Request Date : Sunday September 26 2010 FROM PENDLE DAD Dear Sir / Madam I am writing to request council information held on Rossendales Ltd., the bailiff company employed by Pendle Borough Council. The information I request is as follows. 1 - Details of the decision-making process in choosing Rossendales Ltd. as bailiffs, namely : - a) who was involved in awarding the contract - b) who opposed the contract - c) on what basis the decision to award the contract was made 2 - What (if any) remuneration the council receives from Rossendales Ltd. other than monies originally owed by council tax or other debtors 3 - Minutes of any and all Pendle Council meetings in which Rossendales Ltd. have been discussed in relation to anything whatsoever. 4 - How many liability orders in respect of council tax arrears have been passed to Rossendales Ltd. on behalf of Pendle Borough Council since they were awarded the contract. 5 - How many liability orders have been returned to the council by Rossendales Ltd. in respect of those who are considered to have fallen into the "vulnerable" categories outlined in council guidelines. 6 - Any discussions on the scale of fees charged by Rossendales Ltd. 7 - When their contract is up for renewal 8 - What checks the council make to ensure that council guidelines are being followed by Rossendales Ltd. 9 - How many council tax payers have been contacted by the council following visits from Rossendales visits to determine that correct and legal procedures have been followed. 10 - Dates and times of any spot checks made on Rossendales bailiffs "in the field" by council officers. By this, I mean any occassion on which a coucil officer has, unannounced, witnessed the conduct of a Rossendales bailiff, including any follow up visits to a council tax payer who has had a visit or a hand-delivered letter from a Rossendales bailiff. 11 - Information on what Pendle Council actually does to ensure that Rossendales Ltd. adheres to the council's guidelines on the collection of council tax and information on what Pendle Council does to ensure that Rossendales Ltd operates wholly within the law. 12 - Any formal complaints made to Pendle Council in connection with the behaviour of Rossendales Ltd bailiffs - I will accept figures as opposed to transcripts or other personally identifiable records that may be restricted under the Data Protection Act. 13 - The complaints procedure for making complaints to Pendle Council about any breach of guidelines or legislation by Rossendales bailiffs including : - a) where this information is published - b) if this information is given to coucil tax payers at the time of a visit by Rossendales Ltd bailiffs - c) if this information is given to council tax payers after a visit by Rossendales Ltd bailiffs (by post, for example) - d) who handles complaints against Rossendales bailiffs - e) how many complaints have been upheld against Rossendales Ltd. I am happy to receive this via email to avoid any unnecessary paperwork being printed. If you prefer to send by post, then please could you send via trackable method and advise by email when this has been posted. Alternatively, I can collect in person from Colne Town Hall. I believe I should receive this information within 20 days and look forward to hearing from you in due course. My preferred method of contact is by e-mail. Yours faithfully PENDLE DAD -------------------------------------- See what comes back from that...