Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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

Rossendale bailifs trying to take car which is not ours


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5657 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

Hi. I'm new to this site so just bare with me!! I have had the day from hell today and i don't know how many times i have been reduced to tears from the dreaded Rossendales. 14 days ago we were contacted about a council tax debt which we had forgotten all about as they had been chasing us at a very old address, even though the council were fully aware we had moved, by a Rossendale Bailiff, to call her ignorant would be polite. Obviously we did not let her into the property but she stood at the front door demanding over 700.00 there and then. Like everyone else i accept my debts but i am a 'can't pay' and not a 'won't pay' so we offered full payment of one of the debts and then offered to settle the second debt with a p.a. She point blank refused our offer and then advised she would be putting a Levy charge on a car which was not ours!! When she left i called the dreaded call centre (was on hold for over an hour!) and asked why this was. They advised me she can make an assumption that a car parked on the opposite side of a busy terraced road no where near our property was therefore ours! We found this very funny seen as though neither myself or my partner can drive!...anyways, stupidy we just ignored it as i thoought they can't remove a car which is not ours!...anyways today we get a call from the Bailiff saying she will remove the car at 5pm, obviously then i begin to panick, i was more concerned over what the neighbour or resident would do to us when they found out it was being removed because of our debt, so hastily i rang the call centre. Again the agent advised she HAD the right to remove a car without doing any checks on the vehicle first and it was down to me to prove the car is not mine, now call me stupid, but how do i prove something is not mine??!! We live very close to a busy town centre, i don't even know whos the car is, it could be anyone's and im not going knocking on everybodys door asking them to hand me their car documents, who would?..i asked to speak to a manager who was very very rude, and advised me that although they employ the bailiffs they cannot have any influence on their decision?!! AGAIN the manager said the bailiff had the right to remove the car without ANY checks!...at my wits end i searched this site and found a really good website on debt advise and i gave them a call....straight away she advised me they cannot touch the car without doing a DVLA check to find out who the owner is, which is obviously not me!!! and that if we offered a part payment (or full payment of one debt) then they should then accept a p.a for the rest of the debt....

Another thing that really annoyed me was that the Bailiff informed us she was coming today but we had 200.00 for her on Friday, we called the contact centre, the bailiff god only knows how many times and she refused once again to come an collect the money!

We have now written a complaint to Rossendales and the council offering full payment of the debt on the 15/12/08 but only to the council as the bailiff had charged us incorrectly, putting on two call out charges with a van when only been the once, and also the levy on a car which was not ours, our starting debt was 507.20 with the council but the bailiff reconed we owed over 700.00!! when we challenged her for a breakdown over the phone she then advised that we didn't owe that much and it was about the 500.00 mark!!

 

I cannot believe how much trouble i have had with these ignorant low life people and i cannot believe that they have lied to us over and over, i am just giving a heads up to everyone on here of what they can be like, but we have not signed or allowed entry to our property at any point, and if they do put a levy against a car which is not yours do not give into their bully boy tactics!!

 

sorry about it being so long

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. I'm new to this site so just bare with me!! I have had the day from hell today and i don't know how many times i have been reduced to tears from the dreaded Rossendales. 14 days ago we were contacted about a council tax debt which we had forgotten all about as they had been chasing us at a very old address, even though the council were fully aware we had moved, by a Rossendale Bailiff, to call her ignorant would be polite. Obviously we did not let her into the property but she stood at the front door demanding over 700.00 there and then. Like everyone else i accept my debts but i am a 'can't pay' and not a 'won't pay' so we offered full payment of one of the debts and then offered to settle the second debt with a p.a. She point blank refused our offer and then advised she would be putting a Levy charge on a car which was not ours!!

 

Apart from speaking to the bailiff you did the right thing.

 

 

When she left i called the dreaded call centre (was on hold for over an hour!) and asked why this was. They advised me she can make an assumption that a car parked on the opposite side of a busy terraced road no where near our property was therefore ours!

 

 

No they can't see Statute of Marlborough 1267 - but that's typical of the bluff and bluster tactics used by many bailiffs, which is why you NEVER EVER SPEAK TO THEM, unless it is to gather information for a complaint.

 

 

Hi. I'm new to this site so just bare with me!! I have had the day from hell to i thoought they can't remove a car which is not ours!...anyways today we get a call from the Bailiff saying she will remove the car at 5pm, obviously then i begin to panick, i was more concerned over what the neighbour or resident would do to us when they found out it was being removed because of our debt, so hastily i rang the call centre. Again the agent advised she HAD the right to remove a car without doing any checks on the vehicle first and it was down to me to prove the car is not mine, now call me stupid, but how do i prove something is not mine??!!

 

Taking property not belonging to the debtor is theft, and to prove something is not yours all you have to do is pop down to your nearest solicitor and make a statutory declaration, usually costs a fiver.

 

I cannot believe how much trouble i have had with these ignorant low life people and i cannot believe that they have lied to us over and over, i am just giving a heads up to everyone on here of what they can be like, but we have not signed or allowed entry to our property at any point, and if they do put a levy against a car which is not yours do not give into their bully boy tactics!!

 

Welcome to the world of bailiffs - now you know why you never talk to them either in person or on the phone. You only communicate in writing/email and your correspondence should follow a carefully planned route.

 

Start by using a template letter which you alter to suit yourself, pay the council direct as much as you can, keep the doors and windows locked.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

( bailiffs address)

(your address)

(date)

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Re: ********* Client reference ********* 
Please understand that I am fully aware of my rights and you will not

gain entry to my home under any circumstances to levy goods

I know the fees allowed under statute and when these fees can be applied.

 

Dear Sir/madam,

 

Re: REMOVAL NOTICE dated (date on their letter).

You have not gained peaceful entry to my home, and so you have no right of entry.

You have made an unlawful levy against property which is does not belong to us and have repeatedly stated that you can do this on the telephone.

Claiming fees that you are not entitled to knowingly is fraudulent as you know.

 

I expect you to stop all enforcement action on this account, because you are claiming unlawful and excessive fees, I will make any payments to the council because I know that you will take any unlawful/excessive fees from my payment to you first and then pass on what is left to the council, therefore unfairly reducing my ability to pay my debt.

 

I have not refused to pay the Council Tax arrears.

I am sending a copy of this letter to ********* City Council

 

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is yet another example of why it is so important that you put everything in writing.

 

Rossendales are CORRECT in that the bailiff can assume that a car belongs to you. The onus of proof is actually on you....not the bailiff to prove otherwise. However, the part of this case law is that for the bailiff to levy he or she MUST HAVE GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE GOODS ARE OWNED BY YOU.

 

You told the bailiff that this car is not your so she should have acted with a degree of caution. What is needed is this:

 

You need to WRITE to the company the make them aware that you advised the bailiff that this is not your car and that neither of you drive. I would personally take a picture to show the distance from the house. Request that this levy is removed immediately and that all associated charges /removal costs are removed failing which you will be writing to the magistrates court to get this levy removed ( I can advise later). The letter MUST be copied to the council as they are wholly responsible for all actions of their agents (bailiffs).

 

Our office have seen this same situation so many times in the past few weeks.

 

PS: Please ensure that any letter that you send to the council and rossendales is kept short but to the point. I will be try to put together a template letter this morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for all your advise, we sent an e-mail with a letter of complaint attached to both the said council and Rossendales and after reading many posts on this site used some technical jargon...the bailiff must have got the point as she did not return yesterday, but there was no reason for her to believe the car was ours, we didn't go anywhere near or touch the car, i honestly don't know who this car belongs to, but also i wanted to check if anyone else also recieved any calls from a company called LBM (i think) because after this levy was put on and we disputed this we started getting at least two calls a day from this company asking if we were still selling a 'Blue Ford Focus'...Rossendales advised they do not use this company but it all seems a bit too much of a coincidence, and when i asked these people where they had obtained my number from they hung up!

I am awaiting a reply from the council/rossendales but we will be paying it to the council now, and we certainly will not be having any more contact with Rossendales, other than in e-mail....

 

Thanks again for advise, any further comments/suggestions will be most welcomed as i am not letting them get away with this!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

just a quick note, this is a the letter i sent, i know you said keep it short and to the point but i fear i may have rambled a bit as i wrote it late last night but is all the info i have provided ok..please check and let me know!

 

 

To Whom it may concern

 

 

RE Council Tax Arrears

 

 

After numerous phone calls, we feel we are getting no further with Rossendales the Bailiff firm employed to collect outstanding arrears for the above named properties.

 

 

On the 17/11/08 a bailiff from Rossendales came to collect an outstanding debt of roughly 780.00 GBP, I had advised due to recently being made unemployed I was unable to offer the full payment. She would not accept any form of payment arrangement and demanded the full amount to be paid within 14 days.

 

 

I then spoke with Rossendales contact centre on the 17/11/08 and asked for a breakdown of the charges and was advised immediate that 90.00 GBP was to be taken off due to an apparent administration error on their part.

 

 

Again I tried to set up an arrangement but was advised I would now need to speak to bailiff to set this up as it was out of the contact centres hands.

 

 

Whilst also speaking to the contact centre they had advised a Levy charge of 24.50 GBP had been placed on a Blue Ford Focus which was parked on the opposite side of the street, and did not belong to us, she had assumed this was our vehicle.

 

 

The most worrying part of the situation is that we are unaware of who the vehicle belongs to, therefore we are unable to provide proof that we do not own the car, whereas if we did own it, we could then provide proof. After speaking to numerous of agents and two managers at the call centre we have been advised that Bailiff can remove the vehicle WITHOUT checking with the DVLA first as to whom it belongs to, and they will partly place the vehicle on a removal van and await challenge from the owner of the vehicle, and if they do not come forward it will be seized.

 

 

Obviously we found this very distressing as it could cause problems with neighbours or locals and embarrassment to both ourselves and Rossendales as the vehicle was not ours, but again we were advised time and time again they have the legal right to remove the vehicle without making any necessary checks first.

 

 

After seeking advise from National Debt Advise they have advised that this information given by bailiff was incorrect and they cannot remove a car without the necessary checks with the DVLA first, I then spoke to bailiff again and she had advised we were given the wrong information and that she COULD remove the vehicle.

 

 

Unfortunately we cannot provide proof that something is not ours, we live on a terraced property very close to town centre where numerous of people park/live therefore we do not know who does own the vehicle.

We are asking the Levy charge be removed from the vehicle (also nothing has been signed by either myself or my partner) and our outstanding balance, and I hereby notify that we are willing to pay 200.00 GBP off the full balance of 258.20GBP (which is the 507.20GBP minus the 49.00 GBP for the illegal levy put on the car and a release of good charge aswell) and the remainder 258.20 GBP to be paid on the 15/12/08 and then the matter to be fully settled.

 

 

We are aware this debt is outstanding and needs paid, unfortunately we are more of a 'Can't Pay' and not a 'Won't Pay' which is why we are offering for the full amount to be settled by the 15/12/08 but unfortunately Bailiff is not willing to accept our arrangement.

 

 

I am asking this to be raised as a complaint against the Bailiff and all the contact centre agents and managers we have spoken to, for giving us incorrect advise and threatening our selves with incorrect use of their powers, also for their manner hood and attitude towards a very delicate situation. We will not be bullied into agreeing something which is not affordable, I.e. the full amount or goods to be removed, we are willing and want to pay but due to circumstances we are unable to pay the full amount as requested.

 

 

I would therefore ask that this matter to be placed on hold with Rossendales until resolved, and kindly ask Council if we can pay the debt directly back to yourselves, I.e. the 200.00GBP and the following 258.20 GBP on the 15/12/08.

 

 

Please note that a copy of this letter of complaint and a further complaint re the abuse of powers given to the bailiff will be forwarded onto the Enforcement Services Association and we are also considering a Formal Form 4 complaint to be put and also a Regulation 46 Complaint to the Magistrates Court if this matter is not resolved.

 

 

Kind Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, new to this and having the same problem with rossendales. Have just paid Rossendales £866.00 since september only to find myself now owing £137.00 default charges. I have been told that if I don't pay the charges by 16th December, then the car outside our house will be taken ( which is not ours) . They say that as i have no letter from them on agreeing a payment plan, (which was agreed on the phone) then i have not got a leg to stand on. Also, i have tried to phone there main office only to find myself on hold for 30 minutes at a time. And when they did finally answer, only to be told, that unless i have the exact time and date of the call when the agreement was made, they will not be able to cancel the charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the car is not yours and you have no idea who owns it, why not let them seize it if they are serious. I imagine they would be quite embarrassed when having to explain to the police when the actual owner reports it as stolen. Done often enough, it would cause a good media story, causing loads of people to be outraged when legally just parking on the street?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is yet another example of why it is so important that you put everything in writing.

 

Rossendales are CORRECT in that the bailiff can assume that a car belongs to you. The onus of proof is actually on you....not the bailiff to prove otherwise. However, the part of this case law is that for the bailiff to levy he or she MUST HAVE GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE GOODS ARE OWNED BY YOU.

 

You told the bailiff that this car is not your so she should have acted with a degree of caution. What is needed is this:

 

You need to WRITE to the company the make them aware that you advised the bailiff that this is not your car and that neither of you drive. I would personally take a picture to show the distance from the house. Request that this levy is removed immediately and that all associated charges /removal costs are removed failing which you will be writing to the magistrates court to get this levy removed ( I can advise later). The letter MUST be copied to the council as they are wholly responsible for all actions of their agents (bailiffs).

 

Our office have seen this same situation so many times in the past few weeks.

 

PS: Please ensure that any letter that you send to the council and rossendales is kept short but to the point. I will be try to put together a template letter this morning.

 

TomTubby,

 

Whilst I understand that the onus on proof of ownership lies with the debtor does a bailiff have a duty of care to check with the DVLA before levying on the vehicle.

 

If the vehicle of say a neighbour where clamped by mistake surley they would be responsibile for costs (ie time off work, phone calls etc) and should also pay compensation.

 

If this were established as precident then surley they would be more careful in carrying out due dilegence before clamping a "random" vehicle.

 

Cheers

 

GDHFS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I understand that the onus on proof of ownership lies with the debtor does a bailiff have a duty of care to check with the DVLA before levying on the vehicle.

 

yes, but he/she also has the right to assume the debtor owns items on the property or close to it.

 

 

If the vehicle of say a neighbour where clamped by mistake surley they would be responsibile for costs (ie time off work, phone calls etc) and should also pay compensation.

 

 

Obviously correct, because unlawful seizure is a serious matter, but that's not why the threat is made. The object is to put pressure on the debtor who may not want to explain to their neighbours that they are having a little difficulty paying bills.

 

 

 

If this were established as precident then surley they would be more careful in carrying out due dilegence before clamping a "random" vehicle.

 

Bailiffs are very special people; not because of their legal status, but because of the way in which councils and many police officers behave towards them, and because most people aren't interested until they themselves have a problem and then it's often too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...