Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • £85PCM to sky, what!! why are you paying so much, what did you watch on sky thats not on freeview?  
    • Between yourself and Dave you have produced a very good WS. However if you were to do a harder hitting WS it may be that VCS would be more likely to cancel prior to a hearing. The Contract . VCS [Jake Burgess?] are trying to conflate parking in a car park to driving along a road in order to defend the indefensible. It is well known that "NO Stopping " cannot form a contract as it is prohibitory. VCS know that well as they lose time and again in Court when claiming it is contractual. By mixing up parking with driving they hope to deflect from the fact trying to claim that No Stopping is contractual is tantamount to perjury. No wonder mr Burgess doesn't want to appear in Court. Conflation also disguises the fact that while parking in a car park for a period of time can be interpreted as the acceptance of the contract that is not the case while driving down a road. The Defendant was going to the airport so it is ludicrous to suggest that driving by a No Stopping  sign is tacitly accepting  the  contract -especially as no contract is even being offered. And even if a motorist did not wish to be bound by the so called contract what could they do? Forfeit their flight and still have to stop their car to turn around? Put like that the whole scenario posed by Mr Burgess that the Defendant accepted the contract by driving past the sign is absolutely absurd and indefensible. I certainly would not want to appear in Court defending that statement either. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will do the contract itself later.
    • Yes - ignore. Because of another MET victim today I looked at all our MET cases back to June 2014 ... yes, 10 years. They have never dared take a motorist to court and argue their case before a judge.  They have started the odd court case, but as a means of trying to intimidate the motorist into coughing up, when the motorist defended and refused to give in it was MET who bottled it and discontinued.
    • Unpaid wages should be pretty straightforward if you did the work. Don't be intimidated. You need only show you were due money, and did not get money.   The risk is that they have no money to pay you (and legal fees) - frankly a solicitor maybe be costing them more than your claim is for and I might have expected them to make a commercial decision to settle before this point regardless of the merits of the case.
    • Thanks so much FTMDave.  This is so much better   I'm still tempted to leave the blue section in is as if I lose it will at least save me a little bit of money.  But I get your point that it's pretty superfluous.   Thinking I'll get this in the post on Monday unless you think it's worth delaying?   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5581 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

The owners of the property must claim them back.

 

The debtor can give a statutory declaration saying the items arent' his/her property and usually the bailiffs should accept that, although in some circumstances they can insist on a stat dec or other evidence from the owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

she has the receipt for p.c. but Ive not got a receipt for the telly

for my sins (Lil) i only live a few doors away from my daughter and i know exactly how much she owes the bailiff and keep that amount in the house i have included in this the 2 levy fees but not the fee for the van on the 12 January i will not pay that but will continue to pay this every week from my bank account so if they try anything on i will have the money there to pay them

Link to post
Share on other sites

"When the levy was initially carried out you signed the document claiming the goods to be owned by yourself. At the point of Jacobs having to remove goods then sufficient proof will have to be shown as to whom the goods belong to prevent the removal."

 

Your bailiff Mr Ekiss left us with no choice but to sign the document or let him remove goods even though we offered him proof of the ownership of the goods, this behaviour was not only unlawful, he has made an invalid levy and has charged excessive fees, these are easily sufficient grounds for a form 4 complaint.

 

This is your last opportunity to correct his error before we take action against him, please note that a copy of this letter is being sent to xxxxx council.

 

or something along those lines.

 

Remember that you MUST send a copy to the council, the head of the council tax department separately, and your councillor, as well as your MP to rack up the embarrassment factor, because you want as many people to know about this as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am trying to write a letter to the council and will post it here before i send it but i need a wee bit of help i have counted this a few times my

self but would appreciate someone else checking the figures for me

12 January amount due according to the bailiff £287.58

may/16th dept £190

June/7th visit fee 1 £22.50+vat£3.94

June/9th visit fee 2 £ 16.50 +vat£2.89

July/11th walking possession £11.00 +vat£1.93

July/11th levy fee £27.00+vat£4.73

Jan/12th attendance/van £90.00+vay13.50

total costs £384.71

less payments £129.62

my calculated balance on the 12th January is £255.09

does this add up because there is £32.49 difference from my calculations and the bailiffs i might just add here that the 2 visits they are calming for were to her old property she only had one letter at her new address

Link to post
Share on other sites

may/16th dept £190

June/7th visit fee 1 £22.50+vat£3.94

June/9th visit fee 2 £ 16.50 +vat£2.89

July/11th walking possession £11.00 +vat£1.93

July/11th levy fee £27.00+vat£4.73

Jan/12th attendance/van £90.00+vay13.50

total costs £384.71

 

Woah there Bessy!

 

Since when have they been allowed to add VAT to these charges???

In fact, there is a thread from last year when a poster spoke to HMRC and got specific details etc stating that they cannot add it on to ct charges.

 

Got to go out for a bit but will try to find it when I get back.

 

I'm sure in the meantime, someone will be along to confirm this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, can you let us know the year these charges refer to, eg May 2006, 07, 09? Not the ct dates but the dates they have been applied to your account. These are the old charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, there is a thread from last year when a poster spoke to HMRC and got specific details etc stating that they cannot add it on to ct charges

 

Here you go.. have a read.. particularly post #13

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/162926-baliffs-vat.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

they were all applied year 07 apart from the attendance/van that was 09

 

another account she had for 06/07 with vat added to there charges on this old account they also added vat to her payments (example debit card charge £2+vat 35 P allpay charge£2+ vat 35p) thats why we changed it to a standing order to avoid these charges

thanks for a very very interesting read

 

HE HE I'm getting all excited now if i can get the vat and unlawful charges removed from both these accounts she wont owe them anything they may owe her( lol)

I'm excited because i have been paying this for her to try and help her out and i want to start paying her rent arrears as soon as i have paid off the bailiffs (thank you for your help very much appreciated)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, see how you've done a complete 360 degree turn around from your first posts :D

 

Ok, so have done some more searching and what the above thread says about VAT not being applicable to council tax bailiff fees is correct (incidentally that goes for business rates, magistrates courts distress warrants, child support arrears and income tax in case anyone else needs to know). This is confirmed in the consumerwiki and tomtubby's site.

 

And the fees, which are set down in law for England and Wales, state the following..

 

BAILIFFS’ CHARGES FOR COUNCIL TAX AND POLL TAX FROM APRIL 2007

 

EVENTCOUNCIL TAX CHARGES

For a visit to your home where no entry is made and a list of goods is not made(i.e. a levy is not made)

£24.50 for a first visit

£18.00 for a second visit

No further charges for further visits

 

For making a levy (i.e. where the bailiffs gain peaceful entry and make a list of goods)

£24.50 for the first £100 or less

4% for the next £400

2.5% for the next £1,500

 

For entering into a 'walking possession' agreement

Flat fee of £12

 

For a 'close possession' agreement (e.g. bailiff stays with the goods)

£15 per day

 

For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to recover goods after the levy has been made under this heading

Reasonable costs incurred

(N.B. only one charge can be made.)

 

For the removal and storage of goods

Reasonable costs incurred

 

For various items relating to sale or proposed sale of the goods (e.g. auctioneers' fees etc)Various fees and expenses

 

 

 

(Taken from the National Debtline website)

 

So, yes, you have been overcharged by the addition of VAT, but actually undercharged on the charges applied.

 

Good grief.. if we know this, how come a certified bailif doesn't?! :eek:

 

I think you need a short and to the point letter pointing out the error of their ways (copied to the council as well of course because by association, they've got it wrong as well ;-))

 

Chris.. if you've got a moment to help..??

Edited by KJD
Poop! That didn't come out very well in the original post!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to sort out what you should have paid, what they've charged, and what the difference is.

 

Are you able list the following..

 

Original debt 1 (and are you sure it's right?);

Original debt 2 (ditto);

Each individual charge they have made;

How much you've paid in total.

 

And to confirm, they arrived and levied on both debts on just one occasion?

 

I know you've done this before, but it would help to have it all set out in one post :)

 

I'll dust off me abacus and see what we can work out, then we can formulate a plan of attack ;)

 

Karen

Edited by KJD
Note to self - stop watching England game whilst posting!
Link to post
Share on other sites

:oops:dept (1) original dept £192.38 checked with council and is correct

September 06 visit fee1 22.50 +vat£3.94

October 06 visit fee2£16.50+vat£2.89

July 11th 07 walking possession £11+vat£1.93

July 11th 07 levy fee £27+vat£4.73

august 07 payment by debit card £2+vat£0.35p

October 07 payment by allpay £2+vat£0.35p

November 07 payment by debit card £2+vat£0.35p

November 07 payment by allpay£2+vat £2+vat£0.35p

November 07 payment by allpay £2+vat£0.35p thats all the charges on that one total amount paid to bailiff £279.38 account closed

 

dept (2)original dept £190.20 checked with council and is correct

June 07 visit fee1£22.50+vat£3.94

June 07 visit fee2£16.50+vat£2,89

July 11th 07 walking possession £11.00+vat£1.93

July 11th 07 levy fee £27+vat£4.37

January 09 attendance/van£90+vat13.50

on this account up until 11th January 09 she had paid £129.62

 

yes both accounts were levied on the same day 11th July 07 the same goods were used for the levy on both accounts hope this is clear for you because that was hard work (lol) but your help is very much appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick question

 

When the bailiff came and did the wp / levy, had the first one been paid off already? If, not how much was left and therefore added to the 2nd one? Do you know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually don't worry about that as IMHO it doesn't make any difference.

 

I've worked out the following..

 

Debt 1:

Total £192.38

1st visit £24.50 Sept 06

2nd visit £18.00 Oct 06

 

Total £243.88

 

Debt 2:

Total £190.20

1st visit £24.50 Jun 07

2nd visit £18.00 Jun 07

 

Total £232.70

 

Walking Poss fee - invalid as arrangement already in place

Levy fee - invalid as arrangement already in place and invalid as on goods not belonging to your daughter

Van fee - invalid as arrangement already in place

 

So I make that a total of £476.38

 

You've paid £409.00

 

Which means a balance of £67.58 to pay.

 

The odd fees of 35p you;ve been charged on the debit card and allpay transactions may well stand because altho we've seen a ruling that they can't charge a fee for credit card payments, I don't believe it covers debit cards (they are cheaper to process; in fact 35p is not bad).

 

So if you add that on as well, the total outstanding is £69.33

 

Bearing mind it's getting late, could someone else check my figures / reasonings to see if they agree? :D

Edited by KJD
added dates
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have already wrote to the bailiff and had a reply

(post 40) so i am now trying to write a letter to the council about the bailiffs charges i also sent an e-mail to my mp about 3 weeks ago got no reply from him the allpay and debit card charges were £2 the vat was 35p

thanks again for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have already wrote to the bailiff and had a reply

(post 40) so i am now trying to write a letter to the council about the bailiffs charges i also sent an e-mail to my mp about 3 weeks ago got no reply from him the allpay and debit card charges were £2 the vat was 35p

thanks again for your help

 

Ok so we can drop the £1.75, so the outstanding amount is £67.58.

 

I appreciate you've already written to all and sundry about this, but I think another one, detailling the charges, events, etc, should be sent to the bailiff, council (both the ct department and complaints), your mp, et al. We can state the events, the errors, your position and that's that... no more faffing about by them. They accept it, or all bets are off!

 

I'm not the best at writing letters (tend to ramble on a bit!! as you can see!!) but I'll give it a go if you like. Only it'll have to be a bit later as am at work at the moment. I'll draft one up, post it on here and see what the consensus is.

 

I know you're getting weary of all this, but if you don't nip this behaviour in the bud, it'll go on and on. These blooming people sh be content that they have an arrangement and that you've been sticking to it. The number of posts that are coming on here every day with more and more queries about bailiffs show that times are tough. You have been nothing more than accomodating to them, and it's time they knew it!

 

Rant over..

 

Let me know what you think :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so have a couple of questions for you before we try to do this letter..

 

  1. the arrangement to pay by standing order - when and how was that set up, for each debt?
  2. you say there are 2 levies, both done the same day. What are on the levies - just the pc & tv? And are both items on each levy or one on 1st levy, one on 2nd levy?
  3. you have written to the bailiffs, the council & your MP. We've seen the reply from Jacobs to your 1st letter. Did they reply to your one with the proof re the pc? And have the council or MP replied at all?
  4. you say the 1st debt has been settled / account closed. Do you know when that was?
  5. has the bailiff at any time given your daughter a copy of the fees / charges?

I'm in my other role of 'Mums Taxi' this evening so may be hopping on & off the site a bit

 

Karen

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so another quick question for the experienced CAGgers.

 

This lady is in Wales and as far as I can see I believe the amended regulations only apply to England. In which case, the originial 1992 fees still apply in Wales. I've picked this up by looking at both rules (see the headings at the top) and also in one of Jacobs Bailiffs own newsletters, which said that altho the amended regulations were being implemented in England, Wales still had to put them in place.

 

The 2 rules are here..

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

The Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006

 

Anyone any got any other information on this??

 

(Of course, if this is the case, Hallowitch, your fees exc VAT were right, which will bring down the total I posted above :))

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using correct info..

 

 

Debt 1:

Total £192.38

1st visit £22.50 Sept 06

2nd visit £16.00 Oct 06

 

Total £230.38

 

Debt 2:

Total £190.20

1st visit £22.50 Jun 07

2nd visit £16.00 Jun 07

 

Total £228.70

 

Walking Poss fee - invalid as arrangement already in place

Levy fee - invalid as arrangement already in place and invalid as on goods not belonging to your daughter

Van fee - invalid as arrangement already in place

 

So I make that a total of £459.58

 

You've paid £409.00

 

Which means a balance of £50.58 to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...