dukes bailiffs council tax from 2008

[seanamarts]

Usually one person, called the liable person, is liable to pay council tax. Nobody under the age of 18 can be a liable person. Couples living together will both be liable, even if there is only one name on the bill. This applies whether the couple is married, cohabiting or in a civil partnership.

[westgarth]

Usually one person, called the liable person, is liable to pay council tax. Nobody under the age of 18 can be a liable person. Couples living together will both be liable, even if there is only one name on the bill. This applies whether the couple is married, cohabiting or in a civil partnership.

 

that still doesnt detract from the fact that the person on the liability order has to sign the walking possession - or maybe it does ?

 

regards

westgarth

[seanamarts]

Ok lets get this sorted, first of the bailiff gained a peaceful entry and made a levy, regardless whether a WPO was signed or not, thats the bailiffs leverage.

Even if the WPO was not signed, the bailiff would have left with the WPO written out as unsigned. regardless whether a payment plan was verbally set out and agreed to the bailiff would want some sort of payment plan. Unfortunately because the partner had signed the WPO it still stands as she is still liable for C/T for the property as well. however some items that have been levied are in fact not allowed so this may make the levy invalid, ie sofa's and vacuum cleaner, by the way 'Hoover' is a name of a brand and not an item. So unless he has stated vacuum cleaner then he cannot take it any way.

I suggest that you write to the council and state this, and ask if they could take back the debt, make an offer of payment and se where you go from there.

[RaeUK]

Seanamarts, that's exactly my understanding, thankyou.

 

Westgarth, you have completely miunderstood my post. You weren't pulled up on anything.

 

Claire52, I stand by my points in post #15. Please write to the bailiff / council as HW / SM advise.

 

Best wishes all and a Happy Easter.

Rae

[Thegreenpimpernel]

For clarity - Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

In summary.

 

If the bailiff has made peaceful entry and obtained a walking possession agreement, he can return and even force entry ( in certain circumstances) to recover those goods if you default on the arrangement. He can also then charge an attendance to remove fee whether he removes or not.

 

But if the bailiff gained peaceful entry and did not obtain a walking possession agreement - then he cannot return to either force entry nor add an attendance to remove fee.

 

In this case there seems to be a WPA , but that needs to be invalidated due to the disallowed items.

 

Correct?

 

EDIT - In my opinion westgarth's point about who can sign the WPA is probably technically correct - but that would probably take a court case to establish and enforce. I suspect way beyond the means of the OP in this case.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Thegreenpimpernel

[westgarth]

For clarity - Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

In summary.

 

If the bailiff has made peaceful entry and obtained a walking possession agreement, he can return and even force entry ( in certain circumstances) to recover those goods if you default on the arrangement. He can also then charge an attendance to remove fee whether he removes or not.

 

But if the bailiff gained peaceful entry and did not obtain a walking possession agreement - then he cannot return to either force entry nor add an attendance to remove fee.

 

In this case there seems to be a WPA , but that needs to be invalidated due to the disallowed items.

 

Correct?

 

EDIT - In my opinion westgarth's point about who can sign the WPA is probably technically correct - but that would probably take a court case to establish and enforce. I suspect way beyond the means of the OP in this case.

as far as i was aware if a levy was made and the baliff doesnt stay with the goods or appoint someone to stay with the goods or remove the goods and a wpa is not signed then there is nothing to stop the person levied against removing the goods as the baliff cannot prove that he has levied, if that was not the case then the baliff can simply look through a window and list and stick the levy list through the letterbox and say he had peacefull entry, the wpa gives the baliff the rights to collect the goods if payments are not made and the person levied against by signing the wpa has agreed not to remove the goods. possession is 9/10 of the law.......

 

regarding the court case to establish and enforce, it would be the baliff who would have to take the case to court in my opinion not the defendant.

[westgarth]

Seanamarts, that's exactly my understanding, thankyou.

 

Westgarth, you have completely miunderstood my post. You weren't pulled up on anything.

 

Claire52, I stand by my points in post #15. Please write to the bailiff / council as HW / SM advise.

 

Best wishes all and a Happy Easter.

Rae

 

I have just read your post again and it certainly came across that way to me ?

 

anyway moving on

[Thegreenpimpernel]

westgarth

 

As far as i can see we agree, no valid WPO - no right to return and seize.

However, i suspect that if the bailiff just pushes past them at the door (armed with the disputed WPO) or shows it to the police, he would have possession. Hence the court case.

 

You would need a kick-ass lawyer to, well versed in bailiff law. It seems hard enough to get justice for illegal forced entries and blatant assaults if you read some of the threads on here. Never mind a 'wrong person signed the form' scenario.

[westgarth]

westgarth

 

As far as i can see we agree, no valid WPO - no right to return and seize.

However, i suspect that if the bailiff just pushes past them at the door (armed with the disputed WPO) or shows it to the police, he would have possession. Hence the court case.

 

You would need a kick-ass lawyer to, well versed in bailiff law. It seems hard enough to get justice for illegal forced entries and blatant assaults if you read some of the threads on here. Never mind a 'wrong person signed the form' scenario.

 

point taken, but if clare52 writes to the council and puts them on notice that that the baliff has not had the wpo signed by the correct person, and has not got legal access to the goods and has made charges for fee's that are not due and holds the council directly responsible for the baliffs actions as he is acting directly for them as their agent then the council will I am sure put a hold on the case while it is sorted out.

 

Thats what I would do as soon as possible and copy the letter to the baliff and my local MP so everyone is fully aware of the situation.

[claire52]

here is the update done the letter to bailiffs by email and letter also sent to council bailiff now rung dad saying walking possession is legal and put phone down on him any idea what we do now

[Completely desperate]

HI Claire 52 see my thread for what these people get up to from dukes dont trust them one inch.

[claire52]

HI Claire 52 see my thread for what these people get up to from dukes dont trust them one inch.

 

can not find your thread

[Completely desperate]

On the 6/1/2010 I was approached on my doorstep by two men. One introduced himself name and (a title of) enforcement officer and my partner (name) is a warrant officer, we are here on behalf of (name of council) non domestics arrears for () property £2,1034 " this officer has a warrant for your arrest if you are unable to pay this debt , you will be taken from here to (Place) police station where you will be held until tomorrow morning where you will then attend Magistrates court for committal to prison. Absolutly taken aback by this as this account is nearly ten years old for a failed business, which is another horrendous story. My reply "I dont have it his reply "collect your belongings and make your way to the van parked here". It has a cage in the back but no seats., not the best I know" In the mean time while I was getting my prescription tablets together, at this point let me tell you I have had 3 heart attacks over the last 18 months and take over 170 tablets a week to stay alive. My wife arrived on the scene after me telephoning her to tell her I was being arrested. at this time I felt myself at the start of an Angina attack To cut things short they convinced me to contact my sister who agreed to pay them £1000 which they said would stop the arrest. While on the phone to my sister I found they had walked into the house. My wife had to leave as she was still on work, they left me to go to my sisters house to collect their £1000 leaving me with a two receipts one for a walking possesion and another for me to pay the balance they said was owing at £90 per month for 12 months and if I didnt pay it they would be back to take me to prison. By this time I was in the throse of a full blown engina attack and spitting up blood which I showed to them and asked how much more do you want from me. JUst sign thewse and we,ll be out of you way. I learnt from my sister some 30mins later she paid them £1,400 not £1,000 making the receipt I had for the balance incorrect. he said she was,nt coersed into paying more but I am not to sure, as my sister is an Invalid and aged 65, I had no transport to get to her and the as I Know know them now to be BAILIFFS, said I could not go with them to my sisters as their insurance would not cover me to be inthe van. I suppose on reflection now that should have been an awakening call to me. But by this time I was completely out of it. I was not very well for the rest of the evening and the following day. Today Friday 8 January I managed to contacted the Council guess what!! no commital to prison had been applied for by them and certainly no warrant of arrest has been applied for. they had however passed the collection to the bailiffs concerned. How do I stand, my friends, can I get the money back my sister paid because of their conduct, and have I any redress about their lies and deceit. What would happen if my sister cancelled the Credit card payment or is she able to do this. As my username implies I am (Completely desperate) what can I do ? I have a name with which to speak to the council who was not available today because of the weather and was told to ring back on Monday. I went down to the Council Offices, they said no-one who has the authority to speak to you re. this is in the building. I am at my wits end. any help or suggestions I would welcome with open arms.

[claire52]

thanks for that

[claire52]

OK here is the latest on the bailiff from yesterday

 

OK so he put the phone down on my dad he has rung my dad in the last 10 minutes saying he passing it back to council as the goods levied will not cover the debt.

 

we think he went back and looked at his paper work and found out he got it wrong as well as being told we have sent them letter to his company asking for a break down (only guessing at this point)

[seanamarts]

OK here is the latest on the bailiff from yesterday

 

OK so he put the phone down on my dad he has rung my dad in the last 10 minutes saying he passing it back to council as the goods levied will not cover the debt.

 

we think he went back and looked at his paper work and found out he got it wrong as well as being told we have sent them letter to his company asking for a break down (only guessing at this point)

 

Bailiffs getting it wrong.. never!!!! lol

He obviously realised that the levy was illegal and could not pursue it, and if a complaint was imminent he would rather pass the debt back in the hope that you wouldnt take this further, I would say you have won this battle. Now I suggest your dad gets on to the council and works out a payment plan before they contact him, this will show that your dad is willing to pay an no further action is sought after.

[claire52]

can we still be liable for the costs they have added and dad ringing them when he on his break so i think this battle has been won too now i can open some windows lol

[seanamarts]

can we still be liable for the costs they have added and dad ringing them when he on his break so i think this battle has been won too now i can open some windows lol

Its possible for the 1st and 2nd visits which amount to £42.50, but as for the rest I doubt it as the levy seems to be illegal, it would be down to the council to decide I would imagine.

[claire52]

thanks for all the help every one has given on this can not thank you all enough

[ploddertom]

Surely if they pass it back as Nullo Bono then there are no Bailiff costs to pay.

 

PT

[seanamarts]

Surely if they pass it back as Nullo Bono then there are no Bailiff costs to pay.

 

PT

Quite possible plodd, but the bailiff could pursue his fees from the council and the council will add it to the debt. But I have been known to be wrong;)

[ploddertom]

Quite possible plodd, but the bailiff could pursue his fees from the council and the council will add it to the debt. But I have been known to be wrong;)

 

Would be very inclined to argue this strongly as they are "admitting" they were in the wrong in the first place. Would also strongly suggest that the OP contacts their local Councillor for help ASAP - unless already done so.

 

PT

[claire52]

OK this is where we at now. we have had a break down of costs sent to us

then this is where we not sure about it as we paid 450.00 by debit card

 

payment made 451.50

debt 1.121.88

letter 1.00

levy fee 57.00

walking possession 12.00

sch 5 head h 24.50

attendance/van 235.00

payment by d/c 1.50

attendance/van 185.00

 

and to make things just that little more interesting it also say the name of the bailiff and where he was granted his bailiff certificate but the name on the letter dose not match the name of the bailiff we have been talking to

[Yoshiro]

hhhmmmmm 2 van fees?????

[claire52]

hhhmmmmm 2 van fees?????

 

yes and the last van fee i was at home all day the day the said they came and my mum was in till 2:30 that day and surprise they did not knock on the door if they came lol