rossendales/Council tax pain in the rear ***WON***

[jimbo45]

Hi there

Apart from all this isn't the basic problem that the Bailiff has carried out his stuff AFTER the Liability order has been paid off IN FULL (was it something like 4 months later according to the OP).

 

This in itself renders ANY Bailiff action totally invalid in any case. No case to answer here IMO just go for the jugglar since the Bailiff co has obviously been acting unlawfully in this case.

 

As to the recovey of charges -- that is a totally CIVIL matter and should be dealt with by the parties in dispute in normal CIVIL procedures - usually starting out with a POC notified to the Northampton County Court.

 

A Bailiff CANNOT LEVY JUST FOR HIS CHARGES -- Once the liability order has been satisfied any "extraneous" charges are a matter to be settled by the various parties concerned.

 

A Bailiff (or anybody else for that matter would require a CCJ and then if the CCJ has not been complied with ANOTHER application to a Court to Levy for the outstanding amount.

 

I doubt whther even ROSSENDALES would go through this entire circus to retrieve a disputed 24.50 GBP especially MONTHS after the case with the Council had been settled.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Edited September 12, 2010 by jimbo45

[eggy12]

Well at least they bothered to reply this time

 

 

 

Dear Mr Eggy12,

 

 

 

Thank you for your email.

 

 

 

I can confirm your complaint is under investigation and we will issue a response shortly.

 

 

 

Yours Sincerely

[eggy12]

Ok just had a letter from them trying to worm there way out of things.. I think they no they would not stand a chance in hell at a court.. will copy and post for your pleasure

 

eggy12

[hallowitch]

will copy and post for your pleasure

 

:whoo:

[eggy12]

OK first lets go through the facts

 

1. Council take me to court over unpaid C/Tax and gain Liability Order

2.Account gets passed to Doublecrossendales

3. Doublecrossendales come to my home incurring a 1st visit fee of £24.50.(Oct 20 2009)

4.3 days later I make online payment to Council for the FULL Liability Order(23 Oct 2009)

5. Doublecrossendales then return to my home 3 days after I pay Liability Order and charge an extra £18(26th Oct 2009)

6.I ignore them.

7.They come chasing me for £42.50

8. I ignore them

9.Feb 17th 2010 Attendance fee/Van £110

10.Feb 17th 2010 Levy Fee £24.50

11. Paid online at doublecrossendales web site £42.50 JUST to be on the safe side

12.10th March 2010 Back dated Levy letter posted through my letterbox

13. Requested brerakdown of charges and SAR(still wont give me) below

Summary

Date Type Amount Amount outstanding

Sep 8 2009 Debt 870.71 0.00

Oct 20 2009 Visit 1 24.50 0.00

Oct 26 2009 Visit 2 18.00 0.00

Feb 17 2010 Attendance/Van 110.00 110.00

Feb 17 2010 levy fee 24.50 24.50

Feb 21 2010 Payment byD/C 0.80 0.00

 

 

Payments

 

Oct 23 2009 870.71

Feb 21 2010 43.30

 

 

14. I am now (with the excellent help From HW not forgetting PT,Jimbo and all others) fully loaded with the law regarding this..!

 

Letter sent to doublecrossendales

 

Email sent

 

Your ref....XXXXXXX

My Ref.... GO>J.U.M.P/A.S.A.P 09/10

 

With regard your latest letter dated xxx September 2010.

I am still awaiting my refund of £18 that was paid under stress to you company.

I have also asked for screen shots of alleged visits that you are not willing to send.

Until I am able to see this alleged information I am unable to make a decision on what coarse of action to take.

 

For your information I have added some relevant information from the The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

 

2.- (1) In head B of the Table to paragraph 1, "the relevant amount" with respect to a levy means;-

(a) where the sum due at the time of the levy does not exceed £100, £24.50;

(b) where the sum due at the time of the levy exceeds £100, 24.5% on the first £100 of the sum due,

4% on the next £400, 2.5% on the next £1,500, 1% on the next £8,000 and 0.25% on any additional sum;

 

Take note the following:

and the sum due at any time for these purposes means so much of the amount in respect of which the

liability order concerned was made as is outstanding at the time.

 

Your Company visited my home according to the Breakdown of charges you kindly sent me on Oct 20th

and charged me a Visit 1 fee £24.50, Oct 23rd the liability was paid in FULL. THAT is all you are entitled to.

Anything after that is null and void with regard your recovery.

 

I paid an extra £18 PLUS a card charge of 80p, I require this money refunded to me within 7 days

with an apology for direct harassment that you have unlawfully caused myself, with an offer

of compensation for excessive hours spent researching my rights along with all due stress you have caused me having to take over 6 days off work.

I also ask for BOTH bailiff name's and what courts they were certified at along with

a copy of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents that you should have and be aware of.

 

If this is not resolved to my satisfaction I will issue a claim in the county court for return of the £18

you owe me plus costs and will name XXXXX Borough Council as Co-defendants.

 

Regards

Eggy12

 

 

 

 

I have already picked this to bits.. You will have SOOOoo much fun with this letter so without further a due "THE REPLY"

 

..........

 

 

 

.........

 

 

 

.......

 

 

 

Thats the biggest load of ollocks ive heard since i last spoke to my ex hahaha

Edited September 16, 2010 by eggy12

[hallowitch]

I have already picked this to bits.. You will have SOOOoo much fun with this letter so without further a due "THE REPLY"

 

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...s/scan0001.jpg

doesn't work

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...scan0002-1.jpg

doesn't work

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...scan0003-1.jpg

worked

 

personally i would send a formal complaint to chief executive of your council it is not good enough for rossendales to tell yo to search the INTERNET for copy of national standards of enforcements agents

 

Copies of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents must be freely available from the offices of enforcement agencies, or agents on request and wherever possible from creditors.

 

 

in an effort to assist you we have cancelled the levy fee van fee

 

 

should read

oh sh**t we got caught fees removed

[eggy12]

working on other 2 images.. Photo bucket is playing silly buggers

[eggy12]

OK

Edited September 16, 2010 by eggy12

[hallowitch]

OK should be working now

 

nope no its not :-oand when i try to go on the 3rd one i get asked for log in details

 

http://photobucket.com/

[eggy12]

Ok somethings not working properly.. I put links up and they show all 3 letters as IMG in the thread.. Gonna restart puta, Start again

[eggy12]

ok refreshed and reloaded and page 6 post 117 should show correctly now

[Zamzara]

So it seems there is express statutory authority, as far as council tax goes, for treating the amount paid as discharging the fees first. I was previously skeptical of this claim, but no-one pointed me to regulation 52 before.

 

This isn't looking that good as far as the £18 goes, to be honest.

[outlawla]

So it seems there is express statutory authority, as far as council tax goes, for treating the amount paid as discharging the fees first. I was previously skeptical of this claim, but no-one pointed me to regulation 52 before.

 

This isn't looking that good as far as the £18 goes, to be honest.

I take it that you're referring to the following in Rossendales' letter in post 117:

 

From post 117

By paying ..... Borough Council direct on ......... 2009, you attempted to avoid paying the first visit fee of £24.50. The "Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992" state If, before any goods are seized, the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount and the levy shall not be proceeded with. Please note the relavant words here are "including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender". These charges were not included therefore we could proceed for the outstanding balance.

 

Please also note that payments made are first of all allocated to bailiff costs incurred and subsequently to the debt owing to the Authority persuant to S52 (4) of The "Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992". When you paid the sum of £.... to ...... Borough Council, in theory there was £24.50 unpaid in Council Tax. Therefore the subsequent bailiff fees were correct and you are liable for the same.

 

Looking at the document, the following references are what Rossendales are citing from the Council tax regs:

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (613)

 

PART VI Enforcement

 

Distress

45.—

(3) If, before any goods are seized, the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount and the levy shall not be proceeded with.

 

Relationship between remedies

52.—

(4) Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in accordance with this Part, any sum recovered thereby which is less than the aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges shall be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum.

 

Am I interpreting correctly, that Rossendales are claiming the fees and charges stated in the above two sections refer to "their" fees? And that owing to S52 (4) of The "Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992", any payments made are first of all allocated to the bailiff costs?

 

If so, there is no mention in either of the two sections of "bailiffs" and would be surprised if the word "bailiff" appears anywhere in the "Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations".

 

Although there is ambiguity, I would say that the additional costs and charges referred to in the above sections, refer to those additional costs and charges incurred by the council, not the private bailiff firm. And because the council do not incur costs from the bailiff firm and have no obligation to pay them anything, the whole matter is done with. It therefore seems logical that there is no need for anyone ever to deal with or pay a bailiff a penny in relation to council tax debt.

Edited September 18, 2010 by outlawla

[eggy12]

Indeed... What irate's me about the letter is the part where they mention that after 1st visit i paid but they then go on to say because the bailiff had "no response" to first visit he was therefore entitled to to proceed with second visit and charge an extra £18... NOW hold on a minute, my response was to pay liability order..! Its not my fault that you did not let bailiff no liability had been paid(I thought he would "as an employee of rossendales", have access to the account) ! SO instead of visiting me again in November demanding £42.50 they should have asked for charges of £24.50 END OFF STORY.

 

"In Theory" = There view

"In reality" = there full of crap

 

CHARGES leading up to payment mean court costs.. NOTHING else !