Coucil tax account and bailiff charges

[Jach]

Would someone look at this account for me please? I am trying to detemine if the bailiff charges are excessive or simply wrong! The full details of my problem with Bristow and Sutor can be found in a separate thread. Started a new thread because it had all got quite complicated and difficult to follow!

 

Old Thread HERE

 

 

Council Tax Charge 01/04/06-31/03/07 £971.37dr

Student Only Dwelling 01/04/06-31/08/06 £407.39cr

Single Occupier Discount 01/08/06-23/09/06 £15.31cr

Court & Local Authority Costs £43.00dr

---------------

Balance £592.17dr

---------------

Liability Order 17/05/07 Account 1 £592.17

Bailiff fees First visit 02/12/08 £24.50

Second Visit 31/12/08 £18.00

Levy Fee 15/01/09 £44.00

Redemption Fee 15/01/09 £24.50

Levy Fee 02/06/09 £44.00

 

Payment Recieved Bristow&Sutor 26/09/09 £546.72cr

£200.45

 

Van Fee 09/09/09 £230.00

Card Transaction 09/09/09 £32.00

Payment made via credit card 09/09/09 £462.45cr

Balance £000.00

 

 

Council Tax Charge 01/04/07-31/03/08 £1018.33dr

Benefit Entitlement £918.17cr

Balance £100.16dr

 

Court & Local Authority Costs £27.00dr

Payment Recieved 01/11/07 £127.16cr

Balance £000.00

 

Benefit recharge £606.55

Court & Local Authority Costs £ 43.00

Total £649.55

 

Liability Order 22/05/08 Account 2. £649.55

 

Bailiff Fees First Visit 02/12/08 £24.50

Second Visit 06/01/09 £18.00

Levy Fee 15/01/09 £45.00

Levy Fee 02/06/09 £45.00

Payment Recieved Bristow&Sutor 26/06/09` £132.50cr

Payment Recieved Bristow&Sutor 09/09/09 £369.55cr

Balance £280.00dr

 

 

Arrangement made (with B&S) £80.00 due 30/09/09 followed by 4 monthly instalments of £50.00

Edited September 23, 2009 by Jach

[ambershadow]

Have you signed a WPO for them for whats owing?

[Jach]

Have you signed a WPO for them for whats owing?

 

Thanks for reply.

No, have never signed anything, the bailiff who called on 09/09/09 refused to let me sign one. Initially he demanded I sign one (he unfortunately had gained peaceful access) then when I had had enough of his bullying I asked to sign just to get rid of them, but as I say he refused Btw at this point a kind friend had stepped in to pay them the £800.00 they demanded, he paid via card 4% charge

[lochnettie80]

is that 2 levy fees i see on the same account?

[Jach]

is that 2 levy fees i see on the same account?

 

Yes on both Account 1 and Account 2. I am finding it difficult to sort out myself Numbers make my head spin, but am trying hard to get my head around it so that I can determine if the bailiff charges are correct or otherwise. This forum has helped me lots, I spend my days off immersed in it! Thanks for everyones help/advice

[lochnettie80]

Yes on both Account 1 and Account 2. I am finding it difficult to sort out myself Numbers make my head spin,

 

cant see why they have added 2 levy charges sure they can only add 1 per account and thats only if levys were made on different days

Also did the levys have different items listed on them

 

the redemption fee does it have anything else wrote next to it (SCH 5)?

i'm not really that good at these things myself. but someone will be along to help you. try not to worry

[hallowitch]

your fees are wrong when i get home from Holiday(Saturday ) and on to my own lappy i will work them out for you

[Jach]

Yes on both Account 1 and Account 2. I am finding it difficult to sort out myself Numbers make my head spin,

 

cant see why they have added 2 levy charges sure they can only add 1 per account and thats only if levys were made on different days

Also did the levys have different items listed on them

 

the redemption fee does it have anything else wrote next to it (SCH 5)?

i'm not really that good at these things myself. but someone will be along to help you. try not to worry

 

To be honest not sure what the rules are re levy charges and what they can and can't do.

The 2nd levy (the day they gained peaceful access) had lots more items on than the 1st which had simply been pushed throught the door. The 2nd one included a washing machine, a dryer, two sofas, microwave,vacuum cleaner and a couple of the kids toys, none of these were on the 1st levy.

Thanks for your continued interest and help with this, I do still worry but this forum has helped me so much already and I appreciate every reply I recieve.

[Jach]

your fees are wrong when i get home from Holiday(Saturday ) and on to my own lappy i will work them out for you

 

Many thanks, I look forward to recieving your help/advice. Enjoy the remainder of your holiday

[Slimrabbit]

To be honest not sure what the rules are re levy charges and what they can and can't do.

The 2nd levy (the day they gained peaceful access) had lots more items on than the 1st which had simply been pushed throught the door. The 2nd one included a washing machine, a dryer, two sofas, microwave,vacuum cleaner and a couple of the kids toys, none of these were on the 1st levy.

Thanks for your continued interest and help with this, I do still worry but this forum has helped me so much already and I appreciate every reply I recieve.

 

They can't levy on a washing machine or kids toys these items are all exempt so to me it looks as though you may have an invalid levy. Someone more knowledgable than myself will copy out the exact legislation for you. Or try an contact TomTubby she's the expert on here.

[seanamarts]

They cannot levy on white goods. ie washing machine, dryer, cooker fridge freezer etc. unless you have two of each. They certainly cannot levy on childrens toys or any item belonging to a child. As for your vacuum cleaner WTF!!!!! ??? they cannot take two sofa's maybe the one but they have to leave you and your child something to sit on. Im not 100% sure on this one but I dont think that they can make two levies for one account, this all seems a little odd to me, the charges here are not right at all.

[Jach]

the redemption fee does it have anything else wrote next to it (SCH 5)?

 

Says only Redemption Fee 15/01/09 £24.50. This, however,was in my statement of account that I recieved from the council, I have yet to request SAR from Bristow & Sutor themselves. I don't even know what a redemption fee is

[Jach]

They cannot levy on white goods. ie washing machine, dryer, cooker fridge freezer etc. unless you have two of each. They certainly cannot levy on childrens toys or any item belonging to a child. As for your vacuum cleaner WTF!!!!! ??? they cannot take two sofa's maybe the one but they have to leave you and your child something to sit on. Im not 100% sure on this one but I dont think that they can make two levies for one account, this all seems a little odd to me, the charges here are not right at all.

 

If you saw my vacuum cleaner you would say WTF??!!!! It wouldn't fetch 50p if I sold it, it saw better days 10 years ago! Had they taken the two sofas none of us would have had anything to sit on, there are three adults, and two children here! Had they taken my washing machine I would have been suicidal

It all seems odd to me too and I suspect the charges are incorrect but I need smarter minds than mine to identify how.

[impecunious]

As far as I know, they can't take items used for cleaning!

 

Impecunious

[Jach]

As far as I know, they can't take items used for cleaning!

 

Impecunious

 

Damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hallowitch]

account 1

Bailiff fees First visit 02/12/08 £24.50

account 2

Bailiff Fees First Visit 02/12/08 £24.50

a bailiff cant charge multiple charges therefore this charge is correct for account 1 but not account 2

 

posted paperwork through the letter box, including an Inventory of Goods Seized notice. They must have looked through the window to record items to levy. do you still have this

account 1

Levy Fee 15/01/09 £44.00

Redemption Fee 15/01/09 £24.50

account 2

Levy Fee 15/01/09 £45.00

these fees are unlawful

1) because the bailiff levied through the window

2) the goods did not belong to you

3) the bailiff should have added the amount of both liability orders together and charged1 levy fee for both accounts

 

account 1

Van Fee 09/09/09 £230.00

there is no such thing as a van fee

the bailiff can charge reasonable cost for this the cost to hire the van diesel costs (a maximum of 50 miles i think )however as both levies are invalid this fee cant be charged

account 1

Levy Fee 02/06/09 £44.00

account2

Levy Fee 02/06/09 £45.00

 

both these levy are unlawful

1 because the are levied on exempt goods (do you still have notice of seizure)

2) as 3 above

3) cant have 2 levies on same account

 

 

it is very complicated this one so i hope you understand my breakdown if you don't just ask

 

in my opinion you bailiff fees for both accounts should be

 

1st visit fee £24.50 this cover both accounts

Second Visit 31/12/08 £18.00 this is correct

Second Visit 06/01/09 £18.00 this is correct however i would question why both 2nd visits were not done on same day looks a bit sus to me (a week apart)

total bailiff fees for both accounts £60.50

[Jach]

account 1

Bailiff fees First visit 02/12/08 £24.50

account 2

Bailiff Fees First Visit 02/12/08 £24.50

a bailiff cant charge multiple charges therefore this charge is correct for account 1 but not account 2

 

posted paperwork through the letter box, including an Inventory of Goods Seized notice. They must have looked through the window to record items to levy. do you still have this

account 1

Levy Fee 15/01/09 £44.00

Redemption Fee 15/01/09 £24.50

account 2

Levy Fee 15/01/09 £45.00

these fees are unlawful

1) because the bailiff levied through the window

2) the goods did not belong to you

3) the bailiff should have added the amount of both liability orders together and charged1 levy fee for both accounts

 

account 1

Van Fee 09/09/09 £230.00

there is no such thing as a van fee

the bailiff can charge reasonable cost for this the cost to hire the van diesel costs (a maximum of 50 miles i think )however as both levies are invalid this fee cant be charged

account 1

Levy Fee 02/06/09 £44.00

account2

Levy Fee 02/06/09 £45.00

 

both these levy are unlawful

1 because the are levied on exempt goods (do you still have notice of seizure)

2) as 3 above

3) cant have 2 levies on same account

 

 

it is very complicated this one so i hope you understand my breakdown if you don't just ask

 

in my opinion you bailiff fees for both accounts should be

 

1st visit fee £24.50 this cover both accounts

Second Visit 31/12/08 £18.00 this is correct

Second Visit 06/01/09 £18.00 this is correct however i would question why both 2nd visits were not done on same day looks a bit sus to me (a week apart)

total bailiff fees for both accounts £60.50

Many, many thanks hallowitch for the above help, I have had a brief look but will have a closer study of it tomorrow (I work nights most weekends, so always feel a bit out of sorts when I get up; last one tonight )

Your input is so helpful to me, its been stressful enough dealing with all this, but working out the correct charges and figures is not my forte!

Will sort through my paperwork tomorrow (my pile of paperwork continues to grow! ) , pretty sure I still have the levy that was taken through the window. Will post on this thread tomorrow to let you know.

Once again thanks for your help, without people such as yourself and others on this forum, these rogues would be able to continue their bullying and rip off tactics, the sort they use every day without conscience or thought of consequence.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

[Jach]

Many, many thanks hallowitch for the above help, I have had a brief look but will have a closer study of it tomorrow (I work nights most weekends, so always feel a bit out of sorts when I get up; last one tonight )

Your input is so helpful to me, its been stressful enough dealing with all this, but working out the correct charges and figures is not my forte!

Will sort through my paperwork tomorrow (my pile of paperwork continues to grow! ) , pretty sure I still have the levy that was taken through the window. Will post on this thread tomorrow to let you know.

Once again thanks for your help, without people such as yourself and others on this forum, these rogues would be able to continue their bullying and rip off tactics, the sort they use every day without conscience or thought of consequence.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

 

Hallowitch sorry for the delay in answering yr advice re my charges. I'm still on the case and intend to dispute the charges added by Bristow & Sutor!! However I also recieved a breakdown of these charges from B&S themselves this week so I am busy comparing these with my paperwork I have from themselves and the paperwork I recieved from the council (the ones I posted on here). It's soooooo complicated but the more I read on here (every day) I have the confidence to take this all the 'way' if necessary. Will keep you updated, I now have a week off work so will thoroughly go through all the info I have and post back with further details and for further help/advice if thats ok?

Thanks once again for yr interest, advice , support and help. Without the people on here I wouldn't have a clue!!!

[hallowitch]

no hurry post them when you can

as slimrabbit and said seanamarts have said the 2nd levy is invalid and i suspect this is why the bailiff did not want you to sign it its littered with exempt goods

was your 1st levy taken through the window

 

NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ENFORCEMENT AGENTS may 2002

List A

 

1) The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from distress at the instance of a creditor in respect of a debt due to him by the debtor-

a) clothing reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household;

b) implements, tools of trade, books or other equipment including a car or van reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household in the practice of the debtor's or such member's profession, trade or business, not exceeding in aggregate value £1,000 or such amount as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;

c) medical aids or medical equipment reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of his household;

d) books or other articles including a computer reasonably required for the education or training of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household not exceeding in aggregate value £1,000 or such amount as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;

e) toys for the use of any child who is a member of the debtor's household;

f) articles reasonably required for the care or upbringing of a child who is a member of the debtor's household.

 

2) The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from distress if they are at the time of the distress in a dwellinghouse and are reasonably required for the use in the dwellinghouse of the person residing there or a member of the household-

a) beds or bedding;

b) household linen;

c) chairs or settees;

d) tables;

e) food;

f) lights or light fittings;

g) heating appliances;

h) curtains;

i) floor coverings;

j) furniture, equipment or utensils used for cooking storing or eating food;

k) refrigerators;

l) articles used for cleaning, mending, or pressing clothes;

m) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse;

n) furniture used for storing-

(i) clothing, bedding or household linen;

(ii) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse; or

(iii) utensils used for cooking or eating food;

 

o) articles used for safety in the dwellinghouse or of household articles

3) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations add to the list set out in subsection (2) above, or delete or vary any of the items contained in that list.

We consider that under 1(b) and 1(d) the preferable aggregate value might be £1500.

[Jach]

no hurry post them when you can

as slimrabbit and said seanamarts have said the 2nd levy is invalid and i suspect this is why the bailiff did not want you to sign it its littered with exempt goods

was your 1st levy taken through the window

 

NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ENFORCEMENT AGENTS may 2002

List A

 

1) The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from distress at the instance of a creditor in respect of a debt due to him by the debtor-

a) clothing reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household;

b) implements, tools of trade, books or other equipment including a car or van reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household in the practice of the debtor's or such member's profession, trade or business, not exceeding in aggregate value £1,000 or such amount as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;

c) medical aids or medical equipment reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of his household;

d) books or other articles including a computer reasonably required for the education or training of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household not exceeding in aggregate value £1,000 or such amount as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;

e) toys for the use of any child who is a member of the debtor's household;

f) articles reasonably required for the care or upbringing of a child who is a member of the debtor's household.

 

2) The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from distress if they are at the time of the distress in a dwellinghouse and are reasonably required for the use in the dwellinghouse of the person residing there or a member of the household-

a) beds or bedding;

b) household linen;

c) chairs or settees;

d) tables;

e) food;

f) lights or light fittings;

g) heating appliances;

h) curtains;

i) floor coverings;

j) furniture, equipment or utensils used for cooking storing or eating food;

k) refrigerators;

l) articles used for cleaning, mending, or pressing clothes;

m) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse;

n) furniture used for storing-

(i) clothing, bedding or household linen;

(ii) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse; or

(iii) utensils used for cooking or eating food;

 

o) articles used for safety in the dwellinghouse or of household articles

3) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations add to the list set out in subsection (2) above, or delete or vary any of the items contained in that list.

We consider that under 1(b) and 1(d) the preferable aggregate value might be £1500.

Hi Hallowitch, do you know whom I have to claim excessive bailiff fees from? South Staffs Council or Bristow & Sutor? Just been on B&S website looking for an e mail address, but to contact them you have to put in yr account number, then you have several options. I chose disputing their fees, where it said

'Bristow & Sutor charge fees in accordance with Schedule 5 to the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended). Click here for the Schedule of Fees. Please note unless you are disputing charges incurred because you have strictly adhered to an arrangement with us, so that you do not think a visit or action was necessary the fees added should be correct'

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

How do they get away with this :-?

[Jach]

was your 1st levy taken through the window

 

Sorry hallowitch , missed this bit of your post (my head is too full of all this stuff ) but yes 1st levy was taken through the window, and there is lots of differences between 1st and 2nd (which was when they unfortunately gained peaceful access via my son).

[hallowitch]

both levies defiantly invalid

 

EVANS v SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL (1991)

 

 

 

Background:

This case was an Appeal by a Community Charge payer against the decision of the Magistrates Court that had dismissed her complaint against the bailiffs that had levied on goods on behalf of her local authority: South Ribble Borough Council.

 

The bailiff had attended at Mrs Evans property for £341 of arrears. Mrs Evans was not at home when the bailiff visited, the bailiff then posted an envelope through her letter box containing a notice of Distress, a draft Walking Possession agreement signed by the bailiff and requiring Mrs Evan’s signature and return plus various other documents that explained the methods of payment, and the amount of the debt.

 

Mrs Evans did not return the Walking Possession; instead she sought legal advice about this method of seizure.

 

 

In his Judgment Mr Justice Simon Brown, reviewed the law and he concluded the following:

• “Once entry is made, very little in the way of seizure and impounding is required…...but there must in the first instance be an entry (into the property), thus: "it is my clear conclusion that external inspection and posting through the letterbox is a course of action insufficient to bring about the legal consequences of Distress”
  

And that: the process of distress consists ofthree stages;

· the entryinto the premises,

· the seizureof the goods

· the subsequent securing of the goods (generally called impounding)

 

 

In your case the bailiff has clearly made an external inspection without gaining entry into the property and that this cannot therefore be a valid levy as provided in the case of Evans v South Ribble and that you should be refunded any fees and charges applied to your account by return. In addition, the remaining nominal items or garden furniture are of worthless value.

__________________

[Jach]

both levies defiantly invalid

 

EVANS v SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL (1991)

 

 

 

Background:

This case was an Appeal by a Community Charge payer against the decision of the Magistrates Court that had dismissed her complaint against the bailiffs that had levied on goods on behalf of her local authority: South Ribble Borough Council.

 

The bailiff had attended at Mrs Evans property for £341 of arrears. Mrs Evans was not at home when the bailiff visited, the bailiff then posted an envelope through her letter box containing a notice of Distress, a draft Walking Possession agreement signed by the bailiff and requiring Mrs Evan’s signature and return plus various other documents that explained the methods of payment, and the amount of the debt.

 

Mrs Evans did not return the Walking Possession; instead she sought legal advice about this method of seizure.

 

 

In his Judgment Mr Justice Simon Brown, reviewed the law and he concluded the following:

• “Once entry is made, very little in the way of seizure and impounding is required…...but there must in the first instance be an entry (into the property), thus: "it is my clear conclusion that external inspection and posting through the letterbox is a course of action insufficient to bring about the legal consequences of Distress”
  

And that: the process of distress consists ofthree stages;

· the entryinto the premises,

· the seizureof the goods

· the subsequent securing of the goods (generally called impounding)

 

 

In your case the bailiff has clearly made an external inspection without gaining entry into the property and that this cannot therefore be a valid levy as provided in the case of Evans v South Ribble and that you should be refunded any fees and charges applied to your account by return. In addition, the remaining nominal items or garden furniture are of worthless value.

__________________

 

Thanks for the prompt reply, you are a star (wish you were my neighbour ) Sorry to appear dim, but does it make any difference that the bailiffs subsequently did gain peaceful access following the 1st levy? Thus the one they made after (2nd levy made inside the house) sort of nullifys the 1st levy?

Again I apologise because I realise this is all very complicated, but need to know where I stand when I dispute their fees, which I intend to do even if it takes forever!

As I have said before this forum has given me the confidence to pursue this, plus it makes me soooooo mad that they believe they can simply get away with charging such fees Why do they do it when they must be aware of current legislation regarding fees etc?? After all the info available to us must be available to them, or do they rely on people's ignorance, ( I had NO idea what they could and couldn't do before finding this forum). I so wish I understood all this.

Also thanks for yr continued interest and help. I look forward to the day when I can post on here that I have been sucessful in getting some justice in all this. I read posts every day re bailiffs and see there are people in much worse situations than mine, and it frustrates me that the vulnerable are put into situations that can affect their whole lives.

I will not give up, it may take me a while, but I shall take all the advice on here and hopefully get a positive result. Then I can advise others.........DO NOT DANCE TO THE BAILIFFS TUNE, YOU HAVE RIGHTS TOO!!!!

[hallowitch]

makes no difference that the bailiff gained entry for 2nd levy the fact that he is trying to charge for 2 levy on 1 liability order is wrong

 

your 1st levy was taken through the window

your 2nd levy has exempt goods on it

this makes both levies invalid it also makes you wonder why the bailiff didn't want you to sign the 2nd levy and why he wanted a 2nd levy if he thought his first was lawful

[Guest Happy Contrails]

Would someone look at this account for me please? I am trying to detemine if the bailiff charges are excessive or simply wrong! The full details of my problem with Bristow and Sutor can be found in a separate thread. Started a new thread because it had all got quite complicated and difficult to follow!

 

Its only as complicated as the bailiff makes it. If your son is under 18 then the entry is not allowed. The law says a bailiffs visit fee for collecting council tax is £24.50 1 liabilirty order. If you have signed nothing then no other fees are due. Time to have the bailiff dance to his own tune and watch the fun start, this procedure works everytime - and watch how fast the council pulls the bailiffs contract from under his feet!

 

The Bailiff Company

Their Address 1

Their Address 2

Their Address 3

Postcode

 

BY POST AND BY EMAIL

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: [YOUR NAME + REF]: Your fees.

 

I write following visits by your bailiff however there appears to an irregularity with your fees and I am writing to ask you to provide me the following within seven (7) days:

 

1) The name of the court that issued the certificate for the bailiff in charge.

 

2) Written itemised breakdown of a) your fees, and b) the original debt.

 

3) The name and address of the organisation that instructed you

 

4) a) Truthfully confirm in writing your fees are lawful and comply with legislation or, b) refund me the unlawful fees plus reasonable compensation for being cheated by your bailiff with his fees by midday the seventh day from the date of this letter.

 

A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an arrestable offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 2 of the Act specifically describes a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss therefore, if no satisfactory refund is made to me by 12.00 midday seven (7) days from the date of this letter I will automatically file a complaint to police under the 2006 Fraud Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. If you have charged VAT on unlawful fees then you may be reported for VAT fraud and your documents will be given in evidence.

 

Case law requires I recover unlawful bailiffs fees from your client that instructed you. If you fail to make the required refund within seven days I will automatically proceed by filing the claim at court.

 

This is a letter before action and is not a request to access any personal data as defined under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

This letter is delivered by Royal Mail and deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It now is your responsibility and in your best interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

YOUR NAME

Copied to: [NAME OF COUNCIL]

 

Send a copy of the letter to the council along with a copy of the bailiff’s fee document.

 

Head of Revenue

Borough Council

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Postcode

 

[DATE]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Council tax arreats and your bailiffs fees

 

Please find a copy of a letter before action that has been delivered by even post to your contractor who is claiming you have instructed to act.

 

You contractor is cheating with his fees and it is my intention to reclaim them by filing proceedings in the small claims track if they are not refunded in full within seven days.

 

As the council is liable for its agents it is my intention to name the council as the principle defendant, however, Court rules require me to give the council reasonable opportunity to settle the claim beforehand.

 

If you wish to settle the claim, please pay me the sum described in the enclosed letter at the above address within seven days from the date of this letter.

 

You may wish to launch an investigation or make your own enquiries; this does not delay the proceedings being filed at Court, and to protect other taxpayers from being defrauded in this way, the case will pass to the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

These documents are delivered by Royal Mail and deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It now is your responsibility and in your best interests they are handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

[YOUR NAME]

 

Encs:

1 Copy of letter to bailiff

2. Copy of bailiff document showing his fees.

 

If you don't get a refund in seven days or the bailiffs fob you off with excuses, download and complete a Form N1 from the HMCS website. The Defendants are addressed as:

 

THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF [NAME OF COUNCIL]

 

AND

 

[NAME OF BAILIFF COMPANY] 2nd DEFENDANT

 

Brief Details of the Claim - enter - Reclaiming unlawful bailiff's fees.

 

Particulars of claim:

 

I received a bailiff acting for the defendant collecting unpaid council tax. The bailiff dishonestly charged me [£AMOUNT] bailiffs fees contrary to the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 which prescribes £24.50 and reasonable costs for transporting a debtors goods in a van. The bailiff did not move any goods in a van and I did not sign any documents for the bailiff. I have been defrauded by the bailiff who is cheating with his fees and I asked for a refund but it was the bailiff’s choice to keep the money. On 20 April 2007, Lord Lucas in the House of Lords asked HM Government (inter-alia) "whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter"? Baroness Scotland of Asthal, The Minister of State, Home Office replied: (inter-alia) "A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006". Reasonable costs have been defined by District Judge Advent on the 9th & 24th September 2008 presiding over Case No 8CL51015 Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). The court ruled that "because the bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable". I claim i) the sum of [£AMOUNT], ii) Interest under Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from the date the money became due at the daily rate of 0.00022%, iii) reasonable costs the court thinks fit for being defrauded by the defendant iv) Reasonable costs the court thinks fit for Discovery of Information and compiling this case for court, v) costs allowed by the court costs allowed by the court at the prescribed rate.

 

If you are on a low income then complete an EX160 fee exemption form.

 

File the Form N1 at you local county court. The claim will be defended (with the same old bailiff's ramblings) and the court will send you an allocation questionnaire. Keep all documents and receipts given to you by the bailiff and await the hearing date. Do not be bullied by bailiffs or the council's barrister to get you to drop the claim. You want ALL your money back plus your costs and interest in CLEARED FUNDS. Go before the Judge and ask for it. When the judge has awarded your judgment, always ask the judge for your "costs of today at the prescribed amount", he'll award you an extra 60-quid on top of your costs. Remember, you are a litigant-in-person and court rules say the judge must advocate for you in court.

 

When a bailiff defrauds you with his fees he commits an arrestable offence, this will keep him busy.

 

The Chief Constable

Name of Police Authority

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Postcode

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Reporting a crime committed under the Fraud Act 2006

 

I enclose a document given to me by a man saying he is a bailiff firm [and threatened to commit breaking and entering and take property unless I pay him £AMOUNT]. He charged fees £AMOUNT when the law prescribes a fee of £24.50.

 

The bailiff commits an offence under the 2006 Fraud Act. Lord Lucas sitting at the House of Lords on 20 April 2007 when he asked HM Government whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) replied with, inter-alia (quote) A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 (unquote).

 

Section 1 means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

The law can provide reasonable costs in respect of bailiffs transporting goods in a van (attending to remove fee) however no goods have been levied and no document has been signed by me. District Judge Advent on the 9th & 24th September 2008 presiding over Case 8CL51015 Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). The court ruled that (quote) because the bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable (unquote).

 

Any offence committed under the 2006 Fraud Act is an arrestable offence under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Please assign a crime reference number and I request the crime is investigated professionally and objectively and I am happy to help you in your enquiries and stand as a prosecution witness at trial.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

YOUR NAME

Enc: copy of bailiff document giving contact details