Van Fee - Levy etc

[el_sid]

I have settled my daugthers debts (Rossendales) for unpaid Council Tax.

 

On the print out of charges, obtained via the Council, I notice a charge for VAN. I thought that there must first be a 'Walking Possession Order' for this Van charge to be legal!

 

I asked Rossendales about this. Their reply was, if a Levy was charged, then the Van charge is legal, it could be against my daughters car parked outside. Is this possible? (Car is not on HP).

 

Thanks

Edited December 26, 2009 by Alan8376

[cerberusalert]

Moved to Bailiffs Forum.

[lets fight bailiffs]

they can take a levy on a car, and only if it is not on HP.

 

However if they have taken levy on a car then the van was not needed so this would only allow a levy fee and visit fee if this was the first or second visit because the law only sets out fee's for two visits no more.

 

please can you give us some more info like did you receive the first court order.

 

what are there charges.

 

LFB

[pink_eeyore]

If they levied on the car you should have been provided with a copy of the levy. If you do not have this ask them to produce a copy - if they can't its invalid by default.

[el_sid]

Sorry, can't be more informative...

 

 

My daughter has the full list of charges, which span Council Tax over to financial years.

 

Whilst sitting in with my daugther in the Interview Room discussing the case with the Council Debt Recovery person, I noticed the Van charge listed and lead myself to believe this was illegal (see earlier thread).

 

Does the Van have to be parked outside the house? Must it be a Recovery type of vehicle? Can it be around the corner?

 

Must there be a Court Order for car removal?

Edited December 18, 2009 by Alan8376

[Nintendo Pü]

The law does not provide for bailiffs to charge a van fee, it only provides a visit fee of £24.50 but the legislation does not mandate what mode of transport the bailiff must use.

 

The fee is not lawful and you can reclaim it by asking the council to refund you. The council is liable for its bailiffs, but if you are palmed off with contact the bailiffs then file a claim in the county court for the fees on a Form N1.

 

The bailiff is the councils responsibility as any other contractor employed by them. Dont bother trying to get a refund from the bailiffs, they will only wind you up.

[el_sid]

what mode of transport the bailiff must use.

What do you mean by mode of transport? Are you refering to how they arrive or the xtra vehicle brought along to move goods and or recover the car?

[ploddertom]

I think you need to establish a table of action.

 

1. What amount was the original Liability order for and when did the Council pass it to the Bailiff?

 

2. Although you have details from the Council, contact the Bailiff Company and ask for a statement of the account including a screenshot. As a delaying tactic they may write back and ask for £10 - this is not for personal data as listed with the data Protection Act. They are obliged to give you this information.

 

3. Compare what the Council have given you and what the Bailiff has - do they tally.

 

4. Have they charged the correct fees - doesn't matter how many times they have been they can only charge for 2 visits, £24-50 & £18-00 providing no levy was made. If they did a levy on a vehicle as others have said let them prove it. You say the vehicle was not on Finance but does your daughter actually own it or was it bought for her by someone else?

 

5. If they have charged any incorrect charges you can claim them back either from the Council or the Bailiff. Despite anything they may say the Council is responsible for the Bailiff's actions. If speaking to the Council ask to see someone Senior in the Revenues dept.

 

6. If unsure post the charges etc on here for further advice.

 

PT

[el_sid]

Sorry for not being better informed!

 

I'll answer what I can.

 

1. Car is owned by daughter

 

2. The printout I have seen is from Bailiff Company screen shot and is very detailed. This info was provided by the Senior Person in Revenue Dep't who was with us in the Intervew room (I believe the person was a Bailiff in earlier job?? And I believe they goes out doing similar work going to houses for Council, but not sure in what capacity!).

 

I want to query the charges listed on screen shot to ascertain legality.

 

Sorry, If I can get the screen shot over the week end and some how transfer the info onto this forum I will.

 

Thanks for the info suppled so far..

Edited December 18, 2009 by Alan8376
typing

[ploddertom]

Sorry for not being better informed!

 

I'll answer what I can.

 

1. Car is owned by daugther

 

2. The printout I have seen is from Bailiff Company screen shot and is very detailed.

 

Was this just to look at or did you actually get a copy? You can always request one if necessary as you need all angles covered.

 

This info was provided by Senior Person in Revenue Dep't who was with us in the Intervew room (I believe the person was a Bailiff in earlier job?? And I believe goes out doing similar work going to houses for Council, but not sure in what capacity!).

 

I want to query the charges listed on screen shot to ascertain legality.

 

Sorry, If I can get the screen shot over the week end and some how transfer the info onto this forum I will.

 

You can re-type or scan and post to Photobucket but make sure you obliterate all info that can identify you.

 

Thanks for the info suppled so far..

 

PT

Edited December 17, 2009 by ploddertom
typos

[el_sid]

I am now in possession of printout. As there are 4 x A4 sheets, I don't proposed to type it all out.

 

Here is the main section on costs.

 

Fee date Fee Type Amount

7/9/ 09 Debt 252.15

 

24/9/09 Visit Fee1 24.50

 

29/9/09 Visit Fee2 18.00

 

6/10/09 Levy fee 33.00

 

10/10/09 Attendance/Van 110.00

 

11/09/09 Payment by DC 0.80

 

11/09/09 Payment by DC 0.80

 

The Van attendance gives me cause for concern!

 

Any pointers please.

 

Thanks

Edited December 26, 2009 by Alan8376

[lets fight bailiffs]

As per PU's and my other post they can't charge a van fee the only other fee they could charge is for recovery of the car and that never tool place.

 

the fee for removal of a car as per magistrates court fee's set out is £125

 

Can you tell me was this a distress warrent or was this just nice council bailiffs

[ploddertom]

I am now in possession of Rossendales Client printout. As there are 4 x A4 sheets, I don't proposed to type it all out.

 

Here is the main section on costs.

 

Fee date Fee Type Amount

7/9/ 09 Debt 252.15

 

24/9/09 Visit Fee1 24.50

 

29/9/09 Visit Fee2 18.00

 

6/10/09 Levy fee 33.00

 

Do you know what they levied on? Either they gained entry to the property or they have levied on goods outside (usually vehicles). However in both instances they have to leave the appropriate paperwork which list the goods - for articles outside this may be posted through the door. It would be interesting to see what the levy consists of. Also looks a bit on the high side.

 

10/10/09 Attendance/Van 110.00

 

This would be charged if they were attending with a view to removing goods and may be fair dependent on the levy.

 

11/09/09 Payment by DC 0.80

 

11/09/09 Payment by DC 0.80

Is the above a typo or did you make 2 payments?

 

The Van attendance gives me cause for concern!

 

Any pointers please.

 

Thanks

 

PT

[el_sid]

PT

 

 

Not aware of any distress warrant!

 

They have not gained access to the house. Maybe car was outside. Not aware of any paperwork regarding the car. It was never touched.

 

First DC payment was made. I persuaded daugther that all should be paid. My decision for 1st and 2nd DC.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Alan8376

[Nintendo Pü]

what mode of transport the bailiff must use.

What do you mean by mode of transport? Are you refering to how they arrive or the xtra vehicle brought along to move goods and or recover the car?

 

The law doesnt provide for bailiffs to charge you a van fee. the bailiff is charging you a fee that has not been done because the van was not used to transport any goods belonging to the debtor to be sold at auction.

 

The bailiff has in fact, charged for work he has not done and commits an offence under the Fraud Act. http://angie.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-04-20b.93.6

 

You have a right to report the bailiff to police or your local fraud squad at the local constabulary for defauding you of money.

 

[el_sid]

The law doesnt provide for bailiffs to charge you a van fee. the bailiff is charging you a fee that has not been done because the van was not used to transport any goods belonging to the debtor to be sold at auction.

 

The bailiff has in fact, charged for work he has not done and commits an offence under the Fraud Act. http://angie.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-04-20b.93.6

 

You have a right to report the bailiff to police or your local fraud squad at the local constabulary for defauding you of money.

 

 

This interests me, as it is an area where the Bailiff has made a charge I do not agree with!

 

Can I be sure that there is not a 'get out clause' some where?

 

Thanks again

[Nintendo Pü]

Any Civil action you bring against the council to recover the bailiffs fees might be strengthened by reporting the matter to the police, any threat to report unless repayment is made could be interpreted as blackmail so just report it without telling the bailiff. It might raise the stakes for the bailiff and make him pay attention when he is questioned under caution and his DNA goes on the national database under the POCA regulations on handling a suspect in custody.

 

If you are taking the fraud route, the Fraud Act 2006 is perfect for your problem, I suggest you compile all the evidence before presenting the package to the local constabulary. Suggest you approach them via their local fraud squad by way of prior appointment with a specific detective.

 

Include the text of the Lord Lucas QA of 20 April 2007 in the House of Lords.

[el_sid]

Thanks,

I will review options!

 

One final question. Who takes the action for fraud, myself who paid the costs, or my daugther who had the Council Tax payment problem?

 

Thanks

[Nintendo Pü]

Its you, because the bailiff made a false representation forcing you to make over a money transfer. You should recover the money from the council, but, if you want, you can name the bailiff as a 2nd defendant on the From N1 if you need to file a claim.

[el_sid]

I have had a look at the N1 form. Why the bit about claiments solicitors firm at the bottum? Can't I handle it myself?

[Nintendo Pü]

You can use a solicitor if you like, but the form and the small claims procedure is designed for use by member of the public, and solicitors fees are not recoverable in civil claims under £5000, - and that also means the defendant cannot claim solicitors fees from you.

 

You are best going before the judge as a litigant in person , i.e. without a solicitor. Have a look through the offical advice on the HM Court Service website. Making a Claim

[el_sid]

Are Bailiffs technically working/employed for the council when recovering outstanding Council Tax fees?

[lets fight bailiffs]

yes they are working as an agent or subcontracter therfor the council have a duty of care for the peaple they employ even as an agent.

 

and as for a get out clause maybe this should help you understand the law of fraud.

 

Crime: Fraud

 

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

• Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]
  

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94

 

 

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): 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. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

One 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 decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

• Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and by doing so obtains a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2744]
  

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. 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, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA95

 

 

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

• Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2745]
  

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. 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, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

• Whether bailiffs who illegally obtain entry to a debtor’s premises with the intent of obtaining payment from a debtor, or of taking possession of goods, commit a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2746]
  

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for bailiffs is that there is a right of entry that may be exercised into any relevant premises. In circumstances where a bailiff illegally obtains entry to a debtor’s premises, their conduct will amount to fraud only if they dishonestly, and with the intent to make a gain or to cause a loss, make a false representation, fail to disclose information or abuse their position. While an illegal entry may be made with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss, it may well not involve the other elements necessary to commit a fraud.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA96

[el_sid]

A big thank you to all who have had an input this evening. 'Sleep tight'

[Nintendo Pü]

Are Bailiffs technically working/employed for the council when recovering outstanding Council Tax fees?

 

Yes, but the council is still liable for them becauase they act as a contractor.