Bailiffs (Phoenix) and Council tax - please help.

[burmafriday]

HI

 

sorry for being quiet but theere was nothing to post as i was waiting to hear fromt he council and the bailifss.

 

have finally heard from the bailiffs - who sent me a copy of the walking possession.

 

i am totally amazed - they faked my signature. I never signed such a document. the hand writing is nothing like mine - yet the bailiff had the audacity to fake my signature and list some goods - in the same handwriting -

 

any comments - what do i do now??

 

i am just totally amazed.

 

regards

BF

[ploddertom]

Back to the letter writing I'm afraid. Whatever they say do not give them a copy of your signature to make a comparison with unless of course it can be easily identified etc.

 

PT

[burmafriday]

HI PT

good to see you again.

well they have a copies of my signature due to the letters i have written to them -(see this thread) and four letters requestig them copies of the walking possession. but anyone can see tht its not my signature - and its in the hand writing of the bailiff - who wrote the walking possession!!! anyone can see that. he did not even change the pen !!

 

Its unbelievable. !!

 

well i hv to write to the council - and declare this as a fake.

is there a bailiff "organisation" ... like "Association of bailiffs" to whom i can report this?

 

what do you suggest - as the council takes so long to reply to a letter.

 

thanks/BF

[ploddertom]

Understand what you say about the previous letters - was having a der moment - note to self, must take stronger pills.

 

The only associations you can write to are trade bodies funded by the bailiff companies so aren't really independent.

 

About their alleged levy

I've had a very quick read of all the past posts and appreciate this is the first time you have seen this particular document but in order to take things further still we still need to establish some facts:

 

Until today have you ever seen this document either partly or in whole

At the time the supposed levy took place did they leave you a Notice of Seizure

Now you have this document is it possible you can post up details of the items allegedly levy on and if so can you do it verbatim

Does the date on this document match with the date & time the alleged levy was done

 

PT

[RaeUK]

Hi Burma, nice to see you post again.

 

Don't lose that document - make a couple of photocopies to show interested parties.

I am no expert [as many can verify!] but can someone clarify this: Does a walking possession form have to be signed in order for it to be legally binding?

If the answer is yes, than I would want to take advice from my local friendly policeman. Surely, forging a signature in order to gain pecuniary advantage is a criminal offence?

Just my thoughts...

Best wishes to all, Burma.

Rae

[burmafriday]

Hi PT, Hi Rae,

 

yes its actually great to see you after a long "Sabbatical".

 

I'll make some copies.

 

the items he listed - the first three are correct - but then he did barge in

past an old lady - so whilst he was in the hall - may be he could have made a note.

 

the remainder are

"All pictures /ornaments"

"all furnishings"

"all electrical items"

 

As PT mentioned, until today, i hv never seent his doc. and they did not leave me with a notice of seizure.

this was attached to the fake walkin possession they sent.

 

this is the first time i hv seen both these documents.

 

the date of this document does match the date they claimed to have carried out the walkin possession. However, there's no time mentioned.

 

so it seems that its my word against theirs... which leaves me at a disadvantage....however, anyone looking at the documents could see that the signature is totally not mine.

 

i can report this to the council, the police etc. is there anyway i can apply for the possession order to be " striked out" in a court?

 

thanks/BF

[RaeUK]

I can only answer in part and trust you'll attract our resident experts...

 

At the moment we have three things.

Firstly forced entry. Granted, your word against theirs. But your word becomes stronger because of...

Secondly, an apparent forged document. We don't know yet how important that is. Or not.

Thirdly, the worlds worst levy!

 

The point of a levy is to identify specific items which could be sold to cover the debt. These are then 'seized' by the bailiff. However, they can be left in situ as security against default of an agreed payment plan. Hence the 'walking possession'. The whole point of identifying specific items is so that they are recognised as the actual items that are now in legal possession of the bailiff. You can't dispose of them as their absence will be obvious.

 

However,

 

"All pictures /ornaments"

"all furnishings"

"all electrical items"

 

is completely meaningless. There is no security here. Let us pretend you have one picture - an original van gogh - by not identifying it accurately there is nothing to stop you selling it for the usual millions and replacing it with an image of Skegness seafront out of a magazine.

 

If you'll excuse the comment, you get the picture...

 

Best wishes

Rae

[hallowitch]

the walking possession agreement is not wort the paper its written on the levy must contain a proper inventory of goods seized

 

 

Irregular distress (Levy) by Bailiffs

With thanks to Tomtubby

[edit]MRS AMBROSE v NOTTINHGAM CITY COUNCIL

 

As important as the above is, the Judge also agreed that the wording on the Walking Possession was deficient in that the reference to “all other goods on the premises unless exempt” did not specify what those other goods were, and which ones were exempt. The Judge agreed that the levy was also irregular for this reason.

__________________

 

read post 54

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/200261-please-i-realy-need-3.html

[ploddertom]

 

Does a walking possession form have to be signed in order for it to be legally binding?

 

 

No it has to be signed to enable the Bailiff to claim a Walking Possession Fee. If he has forged your signature he has committed more than 1 crime altough getting Plod to take it up is another matter.

 

There has been so much wrong with this from the very beginning. The Council haven't a clue about NSEA and tag along with the Bailiffs each & every time. The Bailiffs I believe know they are in the wrong but won't back down.

 

If it were me I would be perched on the Council CEO desk waving my Formal Complaint under his nose - accompanied by my local Councillor and also Leader of the Council. Hallowitch has already mentioned about the levy being irregular and I would demand its removal and removal of the associated charges. If they fail then I would then issue a Regulation 46 Complaint (Google it) against the Council - they are responsible and have them in Court ASAP.

 

For all the hassle you have had I would be seriously thinking of making a Claim for harrasment from both Council & Bailiffs. It's about time they were brought to book.

 

PT

[burmafriday]

HI All

 

thanks for your comments and contributions.

 

The Bailiffs droped a letter - "Notice before Removal" dated 02/06/2010 whilst I was away from home and they state that they will be attending within 48 hours with a locksmith and the police if necessary to gain entry to my property.

 

I did not see this letter till just now.

 

i am contacting the council and phoenix again but this will take time for them to receive.

 

i am going to take this to the police and show them as i hv to go away on business the rest of this week and i cannot cancel this.

 

 

i'd appreciate any comments or suggestions pl.

 

thanks

BF

[burmafriday]

Hi All,

 

well i phoned the council and basically they said i must contact the bailiffs and get their complaints procedure - (which i have done but they hv not replied)

 

I told the council that the signature on the Walking Possession form is not mine. I also told them that the inventory on the Notice of Seizure of goods is "irregular" but - their response was that i hv to contact the bailiffs. The lady said it was none of their business how the Bailiff conduct themselves!!

 

When i told them I would report this to the police and issue a summons against them (As Per Hallowitch's comments Ambrose V Nottingham council) I was told by the council that they will contact the bailiffs to call me.

 

They do not seemed to be concerned on any of my comments even when I told them that the signature on the Walking Possession form was not mine, nor the fact that the notice of seizure and walking possession was not given to me on 22nd Sept 2009.

 

So I sent them an email to the council as follows :

 

 

Further to my earlier email, I am formally writing to request for my debt to be removed from your bailiffs as the levy fails the tests set out in the Ambrose judgment (AMBROSE V NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL) because your agents have carried out an all goods levy.

 

The inventory or list of goods left by the bailiff lists only 6 items where the last three were[/font]

 

All pictures/ornaments

All Furnishings

All electrical items

 

This levy fails the Ambrose case and is, therefore, be irregular.

 

I understand that you do not have copies of the levy - I am writing to you and will attach copies.

I shall be most grateful if you will be so kind as to reply to me within 12 days.

 

I have been advised that failure to comply with this will be grounds to issue a Regulation 46 Complaint in the

local Magistrates Court and I shall seek further legal advice over this.

 

Furthermore, will you please note that the signature shown on the Walking Possession form is not my signature.

 

Yours sincerely,

+++++++++

 

pl let me hv yr comments

All the best/BF

Edited June 8, 2010 by burmafriday
too many fonts on copy + paste

[burmafriday]

Hi All,

 

One thing i need to clarify - the Vulnerable status - does this apply to the person or the household. in the early part of this thread, my 88 year old partially blind, partially deaf and partially disabled aunt can be classed as vulnerable.

 

Rae (Kelcou) is of the view that her vulnerable status applies to the household. I told the council that it applied to the household. They disagreed. I tried to do some research on this but cant find anything.

 

Can some one tell me a source i can use to substantiate this.

 

I went on Department for Constitutional Affairs - Enforcement - National Standards for Enforcement Agents

but there is nothing there to establish if the vulnerable status applies to the person only.

Many thanks

BF

Edited June 8, 2010 by burmafriday
too many fonts when u copy and paste

[RaeUK]

Hi Burma,

 

'but there is nothing there to establish if the vulnerable status applies to the person only.'

 

Nor, you should note, is there anything to establish it doesn't. I like to use the example of simple common sense. The vulnerable status is there to aid the vulnerable. Not some vulnerable but not others, that would be discriminatory.

 

Take your elderly aunt for example.

 

Scenario one: The debtor is disabled and therefore vulnerable. The case is passed back to the council to protect the health of the debtor. As a by product the debtors disabled elderly aunt is also protected.

 

Scenario two: The debtor is not vulnerable but the household contains his elderly disabled aunt. The bailiff calls and insists on making a levy in a threatening manner. Elderly aunt suffers serious and detrimental affects to her health. The debtor sues the bailiff and council...

 

It would be absolutely stupid and ludicrous not to apply the Standards to the household in the spirit in which they are intended. This is the interpretation of 99% of councils and bailiffs...

 

As for the council believing there is nothing they can do regarding the debt as it is with the bailiff. The bailiff is only the councils contractor. The council are wholly responsible for their contractor at all times.

 

On two occassions this council has lied to you...

 

Yes, get your councillor involved ...

 

Best wishes

Rae

[burmafriday]

HI Rae

 

Many thanks for your input. I'll write to the Council again and try and argue the "Vulnerable Situation" issue.

 

Yes - i'll also contact my local MP etc.

 

I'll be back on line later in the evening as i got to be off now .. first bit of business prospect for nearly a year

 

thanks again /BF

[RaeUK]

Whichever way they want to look at it, you have the moral highground. A refusal to accept that the Standards apply to the household leaves the non-debtor vulnerable at risk and opens the accusation of wilfull discrimination...

Best wishes

Rae

[burmafriday]

Hi -

 

Thanks Rae, PT, Hallowitch and every one. You all hv been a tower of strength. I know its not over yet, but i could not have come this far without yr input, help and support.

 

I've had enough now - its time to put this to an end. i got work to do and other bills to pay - i just dont have any more time for this.

 

I am going to spend the next few days.. through to the weekend to finalise this. I will take a dynamic and positive approach and write to the various people and authorities mentioned in the thread, now that its pretty clear where I stand.

 

To quote the great prophet El Ali Bin Derek Trotter - "Who dares win Rodders - Mange tout"

 

I'll let you know how this whole thing finishes.

 

 

Thank you all.

 

All the best/BF

[RaeUK]

Lol, great quote!

I'm sure it must have been mentioned, but don't forget your MP and - I haven't had a chance to look closely at this site - try here:

 

Office for Disability Issues

 

Best wishes, good luck and keep us posted!

Rae

[burmafriday]

Hi All

 

I sent a really detailed letter to the council and i think i am nearly there.

However, the councilare still holding ground that

 

a) on the Vulnerable status issue, - I do not qualify

b) They think the signature on the walking posession is mine! - even though i said i never signed one

c) On the subject of citing the Ambrose v. Nottingham City Council - they tell me that i hv to take this up with the bailiff.

They maintain that the bailiff is totally independant - they got nothing to do with the Bailiff. Is that really the case? since they instructed the bailiff to act on their behalf and the bailiff works for them.?

 

Acc. to this site Council Tax and Bailiffs

 

I should serve a summons to the council

 

Before i do the deed - can anyone tell me this case number?

 

I think this case was also cited by Tomtubby who is a CAGGER

 

Many thanks/BF

[hallowitch]

They maintain that the bailiff is totally independent - they got nothing to do with the Bailiff. Is that really the case? since they instructed the bailiff to act on their behalf and the bailiff works for them.?

 

The bailiff is not independent from the council

 

the council employ the bailiff

they council are fully responsible for all actions taken by there employees (the bailiffs )

 

ask the council if they signed up to the

 

Council tax arrears - good practice protocol

 

Launched on 1 July at the LGA annual conference, the document is highlighted in the Consumer White Paper published in July as an example of protecting vulnerable consumers

 

 

Council tax arrears - good practice protocol

 

 

Time for a formal complaint to the chief executive of your council i think

[hallowitch]

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

Distress

45.—(1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.

 

 

i think your council needs reminding that they the authority are levying distress through there agent the certificated bailiff

[burmafriday]

Hi

 

Thanks Hallowitch for your fast reply. This is a very, very useful piece of information. I can put it to good use. Many thanks indeed.

I'll get cracking on to it after the weekend.

 

I am going to see if we can get another 5/1 over the fritz fraternity. (Er- i say that in the nicest possible way) That will cheer me up.

 

Come on England!.

All the best/BF

[RaeUK]

Without trawling back through the thread, did you not submit a Formal Complaint to the CEO of the council, BF? If so and the reply was not acceptable than consider a complaint to the Ombudsman - alongside HWs excellent advise

Best wishes to you and I remain surprised that this council is acting in the manner it is! They remain in the wrong...

Rae

[burmafriday]

HI Rae

 

thanks Rae - good point!!.

you are right - no i did not send a formal complaint.

Actually, I think it worked out better - as now i have better ammunition for that. I will have to do that after the weekend as i got a pile of stuff to do this weekend.

 

All the best/BF

[ploddertom]

You may also need to involve the Leader of the Council

 

Barnet Council Local Democracy

 

PT

[burmafriday]

hi PT

 

many thanks - will you pl give me some guidance on how to approach this as i seemed to hv hit a mental block!

 

The whole thing revolves around their intransigence and refusal to acknowlege the inappropriate behavior of their contractor.

 

 

many thanks/BF