Has a bailiff "levied" upon a car that is NOT owned by you ??... LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN'S Report !!!!

[tomtubby]

We have a commercial business advising the public with bailiff enquiries and it is a FACT that we receive more enquiries from the public concerning the practice of a "levy" being made by a bailiff on a car that is not owned by the debtor.

 

If the goods levied upon are not owned by you then the levy is not valid and accordingly, the company must refund the levy fee and all associated charges resulting from this levy.

 

This "practice" of levying upon a vehicle is now so widespread that complaints have reached the Local Government Ombudsman and this in turn had lead to Andrew Hobley, the Senior LGO Investigator writing in last month's IRRV (Institute of Ratings, Revenues and Valuation) INSIGHT Magazine on this very subject where he confirms that "these practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman".

 

The IRRV have very kindly provided our business with a copy of the article and they have confirmed that they are happy for it to be referred to but that we should acknowledge that it has been provided by the IRRV and is from their INSIGHT Magazine.

 

 

PS: The final paragraph is very important and I would suggest that when writing a letter of complaint that a copy of this article is provided to them as well. You should also copy your letter to the local authority and ensure that it is marked as a FORMAL COMPLAINT and addressed to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

 

.

 

 

 

April 2010 Insight – Local Government Ombudsman

 

 

As it has become increasingly difficult for bailiffs to gain access to debtors’ homes for the purpose of taking goods for council tax, the practice of levying on vehicles in the absence of the debtor has grown. These vehicles may be parked on the debtor’s property or in the road outside. This practice, if abused, can lead to the Local Government Ombudsman finding fault with the bailiffs and the council employing them.

 

The Ombudsman has dealt with at least four unreported complaints when cars parked in the road were levied on, but did not belong to the debtor. In each case the bailiffs assumed that the vehicle belonged to the debtor, but did not check ownership before making the levy. In one case, having levied on the car, a notice was put through the debtor’s letterbox including the fees. As the debtor did not respond, the bailiffs returned to remove the car, but found it was no longer there. Despite not being able to levy on the goods the bailiffs charged a “van fee” (under head C of Schedule 5 of the 1992 Administration and Enforcement Regulations, as amended) of £105, and posted a further notice through the letterbox to advise the debtor of the new, higher debt.

 

In three other complaints, involving a different authority, the same thing happened – with levy and van fees being charged for cars not owned by the debtors. In those cases the debtors contacted the bailiffs to say that they did not own the cars. The bailiffs acknowledged this, but still insisted that the levy and van fees were payable. When our investigator queried this with the council, they were told that the bailiffs would have checked with the DVLA before moving the car, but even if the debtor did not own the car the levy fees would not have been removed.

 

These practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman. There is no question that when bailiffs have carried out a relevant action, they are entitled to the fees the law allows them to charge. However in these cases the levy and van fees were being charged for goods that the bailiff would not have removed - had the car been found and the bailiffs checked before removal, it would have been found they belonged to a third party.

 

A council may say that a check would be made before any removal, but this does not prevent possible fault. Some debtors will pay when they receive the levy or other notices, and will pay fees that should not have been charged to them. Levying on a car parked on someone’s drive may appear less problematic as it is more likely to belong to the debtor. But if it does not, and levy and van fees are charged and paid, then the debtor has suffered the injustice of paying fees that were not due.

 

In all four cases the Ombudsman recommended the same remedy. The levy and van fees should be refunded and the council should ensure their bailiffs check ownership of vehicles with the DVLA before levying on them. Debtors should pay what they owe, and if a vehicle belongs to the debtor (and any levy would not be excessive) then levying and charging reasonable fees would not be questioned by the Ombudsman.

 

All councils are encouraged to ensure their written policies say that bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership. Failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be the subject of a public report against the authority.

 

 

Andrew Hobley is Senior Investigator with the Local Government Ombudsman.

[YANO BEMUSE]

It is a good enough article but surely the writer must know that you can't check a vehicle's ownership with DVLA. All that you can check is the registered keeper. While that is an indication of ownership, it is by no means conclusive.

 

If anecdotal evidence is accurate, there seem to be a great many cases where bailiffs seize and then clamp or remove vehicles that are leased by the defaulter (who is the registered keeper) knowing that they cannot sell them but simply inconveniencing the defaulters so they pay up. I cannot see how this can be legal: if bailiffs cannot sell something, they can't seize it. In these cases, the defaulters end up paying various fees that should not have been incurred.

 

What would the Ombundsman say about those cases, I wonder.

[quadxeonman]

Hello,

 

I have this exact situation at present and the bailiff Company are refusing to refund me my fees, and have just sent one of their Bailiffs round to collect a further £24.50 Head H Redemption of Goods Fee.

 

There seem to be a few issues with the Levy and Walking Possession order, that I can work out...

 

From what I can ascertain this is what happened:

 

The bailiff came out of a Tuesday after 9 in the dark, i didn't answer the door, my Company car was outside, The bailiff must have noted the Reg No.

 

The bailiff came back Wednesday night at 10:40, i didn't answer the door, the vehicle was NOT present at the property

 

On the Thursday, the bailiff called me on my mobile from outside my house, i was at work (in said vehicle) so it wasn't at home, he said he had a levy and walking possession order and i had to pay money to stop enforcement..

 

I met the bailiff in a pub car park later that afternoon, I walked, so again, no vehicle present, I paid an amount agreed earlier on the phone.

 

I was bullied into signing the levy, but wrote across it in huge letters that I didn't agree with signing it, that i was being bullied into signing it, and that I didn't own the vehicle.

 

At no point did the bailiff give me any opportunity to prove ownership, he has since also admitted he didn't check with DVLA

 

I was under the understanding that levy's couldnt be signed after the event, as per:

 

"A Walking Possession agreement can only be signed by the person named on the Liability Order and it must be signed at the time that the bailiff is levying, not after"

 

As the levy was written out in the absence of the vehicle, then handed to me some 2 or 3 days later, is it not invalid??

[ploddertom]

Hello,

 

I have this exact situation at present and the bailiff Company are refusing to refund me my fees, and have just sent one of their Bailiffs round to collect a further £24.50 Head H Redemption of Goods Fee.

 

There seem to be a few issues with the Levy and Walking Possession order, that I can work out...

 

From what I can ascertain this is what happened:

 

The bailiff came out of a Tuesday after 9 in the dark, i didn't answer the door, my Company car was outside, The bailiff must have noted the Reg No.

 

The bailiff came back Wednesday night at 10:40, i didn't answer the door, the vehicle was NOT present at the property

 

On the Thursday, the bailiff called me on my mobile from outside my house, i was at work (in said vehicle) so it wasn't at home, he said he had a levy and walking possession order and i had to pay money to stop enforcement..

 

I met the bailiff in a pub car park later that afternoon, I walked, so again, no vehicle present, I paid an amount agreed earlier on the phone.

 

I was bullied into signing the levy, but wrote across it in huge letters that I didn't agree with signing it, that i was being bullied into signing it, and that I didn't own the vehicle.

 

At no point did the bailiff give me any opportunity to prove ownership, he has since also admitted he didn't check with DVLA

 

I was under the understanding that levy's couldnt be signed after the event, as per:

 

"A Walking Possession agreement can only be signed by the person named on the Liability Order and it must be signed at the time that the bailiff is levying, not after"

 

As the levy was written out in the absence of the vehicle, then handed to me some 2 or 3 days later, is it not invalid??

 

You'll be better off with your own thread - click this to start your own and you should get a much more targetted response

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=168

 

PT

[Kidatu]

We have a commercial business advising the public with bailiff enquiries and it is a FACT that we receive more enquiries from the public concerning the practice of a "levy" being made by a bailiff on a car that is not owned by the debtor.

 

If the goods levied upon are not owned by you then the levy is not valid and accordingly, the company must refund the levy fee and all associated charges resulting from this levy.

 

This "practice" of levying upon a vehicle is now so widespread that complaints have reached the Local Government Ombudsman and this in turn had lead to Andrew Hobley, the Senior LGO Investigator writing in last month's IRRV (Institute of Ratings, Revenues and Valuation) INSIGHT Magazine on this very subject where he confirms that "these practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman".

 

The IRRV have very kindly provided our business with a copy of the article and they have confirmed that they are happy for it to be referred to but that we should acknowledge that it has been provided by the IRRV and is from their INSIGHT Magazine.

 

 

PS: The final paragraph is very important and I would suggest that when writing a letter of complaint that a copy of this article is provided to them as well. You should also copy your letter to the local authority and ensure that it is marked as a FORMAL COMPLAINT and addressed to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

 

.

 

 

 

April 2010 Insight – Local Government Ombudsman

 

 

As it has become increasingly difficult for bailiffs to gain access to debtors’ homes for the purpose of taking goods for council tax, the practice of levying on vehicles in the absence of the debtor has grown. These vehicles may be parked on the debtor’s property or in the road outside. This practice, if abused, can lead to the Local Government Ombudsman finding fault with the bailiffs and the council employing them.

 

The Ombudsman has dealt with at least four unreported complaints when cars parked in the road were levied on, but did not belong to the debtor. In each case the bailiffs assumed that the vehicle belonged to the debtor, but did not check ownership before making the levy. In one case, having levied on the car, a notice was put through the debtor’s letterbox including the fees. As the debtor did not respond, the bailiffs returned to remove the car, but found it was no longer there. Despite not being able to levy on the goods the bailiffs charged a “van fee” (under head C of Schedule 5 of the 1992 Administration and Enforcement Regulations, as amended) of £105, and posted a further notice through the letterbox to advise the debtor of the new, higher debt.

 

In three other complaints, involving a different authority, the same thing happened – with levy and van fees being charged for cars not owned by the debtors. In those cases the debtors contacted the bailiffs to say that they did not own the cars. The bailiffs acknowledged this, but still insisted that the levy and van fees were payable. When our investigator queried this with the council, they were told that the bailiffs would have checked with the DVLA before moving the car, but even if the debtor did not own the car the levy fees would not have been removed.

 

These practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman. There is no question that when bailiffs have carried out a relevant action, they are entitled to the fees the law allows them to charge. However in these cases the levy and van fees were being charged for goods that the bailiff would not have removed - had the car been found and the bailiffs checked before removal, it would have been found they belonged to a third party.

 

A council may say that a check would be made before any removal, but this does not prevent possible fault. Some debtors will pay when they receive the levy or other notices, and will pay fees that should not have been charged to them. Levying on a car parked on someone’s drive may appear less problematic as it is more likely to belong to the debtor. But if it does not, and levy and van fees are charged and paid, then the debtor has suffered the injustice of paying fees that were not due.

 

In all four cases the Ombudsman recommended the same remedy. The levy and van fees should be refunded and the council should ensure their bailiffs check ownership of vehicles with the DVLA before levying on them. Debtors should pay what they owe, and if a vehicle belongs to the debtor (and any levy would not be excessive) then levying and charging reasonable fees would not be questioned by the Ombudsman.

 

All councils are encouraged to ensure their written policies say that bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership. Failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be the subject of a public report against the authority.

 

 

Andrew Hobley is Senior Investigator with the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

Thanks for this good post.

 

My car has been clamped and taken away with the Bailiff on 1st July 2010. I bought this car on 21/01/2010 from a friend. My friend had a parking ticket on the same car before.

 

I explained to the clampers that I am a new owner but refused to release my car. They told me to pay £800 if I want to y car back.

 

The same Bailliff visited my Friend on march and collected £200 for the same purpose.

 

I am very confused what to do since I want my car back and I do not have the money.

 

Does anyone knows how the Bailliff cost calculated?, £800 for the parking ticket does enter into my head. The PCN was £140, how could figure rocket to £800?.

[hallowitch]

Kidatu please start your own thread use this link

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=168

[Kidatu]

Kidatu please start your own thread use this link

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=168

 

 

Thanks for the advice

[dedogs******]

is there a link to this report?

[tomtubby]

is there a link to this report?

 

The only link would be in the Insight Magazine that is available to all local authorities.

[serhat]

Hi,

 

I have been levied charges even do my car is on finance, how do i go about claiming a refund, you can see the charges which have been added by NEWLYN BAILIFFS on my post below

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?273499-Clamped-by-NEWLYN-forced-to-pay%282-Viewing%29-nbsp

 

Thanks in advance.

[janey100]

Hi , can you tell me if this applies to a car that is exempt? IE: needed for work. I work as a community home carer. I did not let them in, they levied car even though i said it was needed for work. Then had a van come on 2 occasions and was charged for them even thought they took nothing. help! jane

[hallowitch]

Hi , can you tell me if this applies to a car that is exempt? IE: needed for work. I work as a community home carer. I did not let them in, they levied car even though i said it was needed for work. Then had a van come on 2 occasions and was charged for them even thought they took nothing. help! jane

 

hi janey welcome to CAG can you please use this link to start your thread this will ensure you get the best possible help

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ewthread&f=168

[marinachild]

Mmmm I think I love CAG.

Better than a coffee shop gossip.

 

I got this one for you.

 

PCN from hull city council.

Levied on car..

Car sold and crushed under SORN.

So how can bailiffs (CCS enforcement) use dvla checks.

[marinachild]

Mmmm I think I love CAG.

Better than a coffee shop gossip.

 

I got this one for you.

 

PCN from hull city council.

Levied on car..

Car sold and crushed under SORN.

So how can bailiffs (CCS enforcement) use dvla checks.

[MJack]

hi there..

 

have we any legal points of law relating to the checks bailiffs carry out on vehicles that are owned by a finance company but are registered to debtor on dvla as keeper?

 

I have a seizure notice...have never let a bailiff in my house...and he has put my car on the notice,it is extremely disproportionate to the amount owed (was 2500 only 600 now -made payments to council) and car is worth 18k apprx

 

he hasnt entered any costings on the notice and has lumped them together with the total amount-so fees look like around 400 for a few letters(not chargeable) and what looks like a few visits

 

Im going to go to small claims I think against bailiff-had enough of their "harassing,chimp like atitudes and scrapyard dog type bullying" but would like to know of checks they do for legal owners NOT keepers of vehicle

 

cheers

 

mjack

[MJack]

can anyone advise on my previous request.

 

 

cheers

 

mjack

[newstarter]

loos like an excessive levy to me (where the value of the goods outweigh the outstanding debt) and added charges,im not too hot on bailiffs at the moment but i do know that the onus is on the debtor to prove that they are not the legal owner of items seized by a bailiff.

[ploddertom]

Quite simple, at the time of the levy the Bailiff is allowed to assume the goods are yours, it is up to you to prove otherwise by possibly providing copies of finance agreements. If he was to lift the vehicle then he should do a simple DVLA request but all that would show is who the registered keeper is. As for its value - if he has been denied entry at your premises and it is the only item available then yes the levy will stand.

 

PT

[MJack]

he would be denied entrance into my home although he has never met me to see if he could come in-so surely no process has been carried out.section 7 letter has been dreadfully filled out by bailiff,signed so legally binding,no fees advised on form,and everything lumped together(costs and debt) .so do i have a case under fraud act for claim through small claims?

[daren1964]

i think you will find that extra is all bailiff fees and charges, i had the same with a £60.00 fine that i stupidly left, the end fee was over £500 and it was a court bailiff so i had to pay it, the morale of the story is to pay the initial parking fine in the first instance, obviously first double check that the parking fine is legal as there are many websites dedicated to avoiding by loop hole law, the payment of issued parking fines!.

[tadia]

Widely regarded as a bad move! Oh f**k volonny info]RUN! RUN! RUN! RUN!

[photoman]

I've recently had this problem, whereby Equita sent me a letter claiming to have performed a levy upon a vehicle I do not (nor know who does) own.

 

 

Here is the letter sent to the bailiffs (which I have sent along with a highlighted copy of the relevant sections from "The Fraud Act 2006" )

 

Dear Ms XXXXX,

 

In response to your letter of XX/XX/11.

 

Thank you for the information provided.

 

Your letter claims that your enforcement officer XXXX XXXXXX performed a levy on XX/XX/11 upon a vehicle bearing the registration number XXX XXXX .

 

I HAVE NEVER AT ANY TIME OWNED THAT VEHICLE.

 

I can only presume that at such time the agent in question randomly selected a vehicle parked near my home and decided to imply I own such vehicle in order to serve his purpose.

Your officer at such time (or yourselves since) will very likely have facilities to perform a rudimentary check in order to first determine ownership of the vehicle, and even if not, 
you have no other grounds to believe the vehicle at such time belonged to myself.

 

By still implying I was in fact the owner of the vehicle (in order to perform a chargeable levy) is to do so whilst either knowing or believing such a fact is or might be untrue or misleading. 
Such an action is a false representation, made in an attempt to procure a financial gain for yourselves, and so a criminal offence under section 2 of the “The Fraud Act 2006”.

 

Regarding your assertion that you have contacted your client, who you say confirmed I am liable for the fees; XXXXXXXXX Council were probably unaware at the time of making such a statement that your fees were derived as a result of unlawful false representations on your companies part. I have copied this and your recent letters to the relevant department at XXXXXXXX Council, whereon I am sure you will now find they assert otherwise.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

XXXXXX XXXXXX

[photoman]

PS: Some may claim it's a perhaps bit strong to assert that the bailiff company are committing fraud by acting in such a way?

 

However, I believe this is exactly what is happening. Look up section 2 of the "FRAUD ACT 2006" which states:

 

Fraud by false representation

 

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

 

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

 

(b)intends, by making the representation—

 

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

 

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2)A representation is false if—

 

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

 

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

 

(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

 

(a)the person making the representation, or

 

(b)any other person.

 

(4)A representation may be express or implied.

 

(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

[bustthematrix]

Too right!

[ivafiver]

I believe the seizure of goods is purely punitive. It's a punishment. The value of the goods seized and sold at auction would be so little, because who really wants second hand stuff. Its just to deprive you of your home. Plus the extra charges they put on, swamps the value of what is seized, so you cannot cover the total. I don't know if they come back for more to make up the shortfall or whether they think you've been punished enough. though I think that's unlikely.