Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Mark1960

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. So you are saying that firstly you arranged a payment plan with B&S over the phone & they accepted this without wanting to come & invite you into a walking possession agreement? & also the £1800 is for three separate accounts from three separate councils?
  2. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! Appologies for not making myself clear. Do not under any circumstances pay the £180.Just write (copying the council in) explaining that no goods had been levied on and that you had previously only received a single visit from a bailiff in which a fee of £24.50 is applicable under the A&E regs. If the bailiff has returned a second time,£18 is chargeable so in essence,one visit will cost you £24.50 & 2 visits (combined) will cost you £42.50. If you are in a position to pay the remainder of the council tax arrears,I would do so,only make your payment di
  3. Within the letter that they put through your door,was there a blue sheet titled "Notice of Siezure of Goods"? If so,they've probably levied on your car.Charging £180 to attend in a van that is not capable or removing a car does not comply with Schedule 5 of the A&E Regs so you need to write to them informing them of this.Always copy the council in. If they have not levied on your car,you need to write informing them that as they have no levy,they need to amend the "van fee" to a second visit fee which is £18.I would pay the council tax arrears off,if you are in a position to do
  4. I do have some actual experience of county court proceedings,including a pending hearing over bailiff conduct & fees-As I said,experience would not be essential in that instance so I'm not sure why you're waxing lyrical over such a minor,trivial point.
  5. "basic grasp of procedure"?? I'm still waiting for any of you to explain how the levy on that other thread was legal when no act of impounding took place.
  6. As the discussion was about the changes due to take place in April 2014,it was pretty clear that the scenario was a hyperthetical one (unless of course you thought I could see into the future) Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?
  7. If you care to re-read my post,it should be clear,even to you that the hyperthetical scenario I had created involved removing a vehicle on a first visit.Like most of the hot air that comes from the bailiff side of the argument on here,you may talk about/threaten to remove vehicles on a first visit when a debtor refuses to enter into a controlled agreement but in practice,it rarely,if ever happens due in no small part to the consequenses of civil action.
  8. Really???? Well as we were on about April 2014 onwards,it should be pretty obvious that no-one has had any experience but my original answer should have helped the penny drop for you as to why it would not be looked upon favourably by a judge-Not that experience is needed to have made the statement in the first place.
  9. Hi, We were speaking about scenario's next year when part 3 comes into force.Of course not all enforcement comes after CCJ's & debts like Council Tax & parking fines rarely see the debtor afforded the opportunity to speak in court. Bailiffs are driven by the incentive of commission so they will clearly like the debtor to have a feeling of helplessness-The truth is that debtors are far from helpless.Bailiffs working for LA's for instance have a duty to ascertain if a debtor is vulnerable,what their financial circumstances are,if a debtor is in receipt of income support,housing
  10. How am I out of context? We have for the past 2 pages been discussing the essence of the word "agreement".You are now moving the goalposts. The likeyhood is that anyone strong enough to stand up to a bailiff regarding the "agreement" will also refuse him entry.As a consequence,the only option he'll have is to gamble on levying & removing a car there & then.Whereas visit fees will be higher,removal fees will be controlled and the bailiff will risk court proceedings for wrongful levy/theft etc.It will just not be practical for bailiffs to remove goods on the spot & if bailiffs w
  11. Not much use after April 2014 though when Part 3 kicks in. "To take control of goods an enforcement officer must enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor"
  12. No_I am under the impression that some kind of impounding must take place. That said,without an agreement,a levy soon becomes abandoned anyway so I guess an agreement is pretty crucial in the grand scheme of things. Maybe that's why its called a "Walking Possession Agreement" as opposed to just a "Walking Possession"? Just a stab in the dark like.
  13. How can I be in error? In the case on the other thread,the debtor was not present-The bailiff simply cast a net over all vehicles in the immediate area and posted a worthless piece of paper through the debtors letterbox.No act of impounding took place.Goods are required to be seized & then impounded.Impounding is the "securing of goods" and is usually carried out by the bailiff stating his intent.This cannot be completed if the debtor is not present.
  14. Well why didn't you say so in the first place? If the debtor is not present,the debtor has not entered into a controlled goods agreement has he? Even today,in a debtors absence,impounding has not taken place as the bailiff will not have been able to make his intentions known. OK-I see where you're coming from-You want to nit-pik the validity of a WP where the debtor is present but refuses to sign.If it was that simple to just levy on goods there would have been no need to have required "close possession for the past few centuries would there?With the costs involved in modern day
  • Create New...