Jump to content


Police let bailiff into my property ***WON - bailiffs certificate removed ***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4069 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I wont be put off and as it stands ive never mentioned court but seen as they have then maybe i should be considering action and compensation for both my injuries and the distress and upset it caused to both me and my 3 children my 8yr old still having nightmares

hold out doing a form 4 just yet, lets see what occurs with their investigations and see what the council say

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 691
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Your reference: 15200138611-4

Complaint reference: 101000006942

 

Dear miss ********,

 

Council Tax Complaint

 

Your complaint received on 23 June 2010 has been referred to Rossendales to investigate the allegations that you have made in respect of *** ****** actions. I have received their reply with regard to this aspect of your complaint and will refer to this later in my letter.

 

Your Council Tax account was passed to Rossendales to collect on our behalf as the outstanding balance had not been paid and it was necessary to obtain a liability order on 22 October 2009. A letter was issued on 23 October 2009 requesting that the outstanding balance, £ 331.81 at that time, was paid within 14 days. The letter warned that if this amount was not paid as requested then the account would be passed to a firm of bailiffs to collect on our behalf. As no payments were received in respect of this debt, the account was passed to Rossendales on 28 January 2010.

 

I have received a report from Rossendales in respect of the actions that they have taken; I will list them in chronological order:

 

A bailiff first visited your property on 17 February 2010; you advised that you were in dispute about the outstanding balance and that you would contact the Council direct with regard to this matter.

 

The bailiff re attended the property on 19 February 2010 and you advised that you had not contacted the Council yet.

 

On 25 February 2010, Rossendales agreed to allow you to pay the debt at a rate of £ 40.00 per month as you were in receipt of Income Support, payments to commence on 1 March 2010. This arrangement was set up as a result of your telephone call to the Council on 25 February 2010.

As no payments were received by the bailiff (£ 10.00 was received by the Council), a broken arrangement letter was issued by Rossendales on 8 March 2010. A further letter was then issued by Rossendales warning that the case would be passed to an enforcement bailiff. On 23 March 2010 a bailiff attended the property and a levy on a vehicle was completed. A copy of the Notice of Distress was given to you at that time. Rather than enforce the liability order straight away, the arrangement of £ 40.00 was reset to commence from 17 April 2010. As no payments were received by the bailiff (a further £ 20.00 had been received by the Council), another broken arrangement letter was issued.

 

As no response was received in respect of this, *** ****** visited the property on 10 June 2010 but was unable to meet anyone so a letter was left with her contact details. She noted that there was a white transit van at the property in addition to the vehicle that had already been levied on. She states that a second visit was made to try to confirm ownership of the vehicles; she noted that you drove off in the levied vehicle after putting a bridle and saddle into the vehicle. From this information, she made the assumption that you owned a horse. However she did not see a horse and did not make reference to ‘moving it from field to field’.

 

She re attended the property on 21 June 2010 at approximately 6.30 am. *** ****** confirms she knocked on the door but received no response. She clamped the vehicle that she had previously seen you driving and left a notice under the windscreen wiper, she then withdrew from the property. She returned to the property 30 minutes later to find the clamp and the wheel had been removed. She attempted to put another clamp onto the vehicle, at which point both you and Mr *********** came out of the property. *** ****** states that Mr ********** removed the keys from her vehicle. She states that she tried to stop Mr ********* from doing so but was physically unable to do so and therefore rang the police. She confirms that there would have been some physical contact during this incident but she denies any allegation of assault.

 

She confirms two police officers attended the incident and that she subsequently entered the property through an open door. She then returned to her vehicle and contacted the Council where she was given permission to uplift goods. The police then requested that the Council telephone Miss******** which we duly did. She then re entered the property and proposed she would accept half the balance then and the remainder was to be paid the following week. Subsequently Mr ********** advised *** ****** that the payment could not be made until 23 June 2010. She agreed to this but left the clamp on the vehicle.

 

Subsequently a police officer rang *** ******* and confirmed that you would not press charges against her if she collected the money that day, the officer advised her not to attend alone. She then rang to arrange this but Mr ********* disputed the outstanding balance and refused to make payment as he stated that you were to press charges against *** ******

 

She only returned to the property to retrieve her wheel clamp. The account was then put on hold.

 

I note that you have pointed out that Mr ********** vehicle is not subject to a Walking Possession Agreement. If the bailiff had proposed to clamp it, she would simply have had to levy on it prior to doing so. The fact Mr *********** is a market trader does not necessarily mean that this vehicle is a ‘tool of the trade’.

I have spoken to the officer that rang you as a result of the request from the police. He confirms that no agreement was made for you to pay £ 100.00 per week. He denies being unpleasant but does state that he did advise that you must deal with the bailiff. As I understand the situation the clamp has been removed from your vehicle. However Council Tax does remain due and must be paid to Rossendales. I have advised them to allow you until the end of July to do so. If it has not been paid in full by then, the bailiff will take further action to recover the outstanding debt. I have however requested that *** ****** takes no further action in respect of recovering this debt.

If you wish to take action in respect of the alleged assault, this is a matter that you must pursue with the police.If you are not happy with the result of my investigation, you can ask our Corporate Complaints Officer to review your complaint. If you wish to do so, please telephone #

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Revenues Officer

Link to post
Share on other sites

As no payments were received by the bailiff (£ 10.00 was received by the Council), a broken arrangement letter was issued by Rossendales on 8 March 2010. A further letter was then issued by Rossendales warning that the case would be passed to an enforcement bailiff. On 23 March 2010 a bailiff attended the property and a levy on a vehicle was completed. A copy of the Notice of distress was given to you at that time. Rather than enforce the liability order straight away, the arrangement of £ 40.00 was reset to commence from 17 April 2010. As no payments were received by the bailiff (a further £ 20.00 had been received by the Council), another broken arrangement letter was issued.

As regards to this one i did not fone anyone to make this arrangement i sat in the council office and the person on the desk rang up rossendales and made the arrangement and it was for me to pay 10 pound per week which i had been doing without fail until i got the letter stating the 40 pound had to be paid on set days of the month and that they stated that was the agreement made which i no it wasnt as i cant afford 40 pound in 1 lump some like that .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reference: 15200138611-4

Complaint reference: 101000006942

 

Dear miss ********,

 

Council Tax Complaint

 

Your complaint received on 23 June 2010 has been referred to Rossendales to investigate the allegations that you have made in respect of *** ****** actions. I have received their reply with regard to this aspect of your complaint and will refer to this later in my letter.

 

Your Council Tax account was passed to Rossendales to collect on our behalf as the outstanding balance had not been paid and it was necessary to obtain a liability order on 22 October 2009. A letter was issued on 23 October 2009 requesting that the outstanding balance, £ 331.81 at that time, was paid within 14 days. The letter warned that if this amount was not paid as requested then the account would be passed to a firm of bailiffs to collect on our behalf. As no payments were received in respect of this debt, the account was passed to Rossendales on 28 January 2010.

 

I have received a report from Rossendales in respect of the actions that they have taken; I will list them in chronological order:

 

A bailiff first visited your property on 17 February 2010; you advised that you were in dispute about the outstanding balance and that you would contact the Council direct with regard to this matter.

 

The bailiff re attended the property on 19 February 2010 and you advised that you had not contacted the Council yet.

 

On 25 February 2010, Rossendales agreed to allow you to pay the debt at a rate of £ 40.00 per month as you were in receipt of Income Support, payments to commence on 1 March 2010. This arrangement was set up as a result of your telephone call to the Council on 25 February 2010.

 

 

did the council or rossendales provide you with a means of payment

 

As no payments were received by the bailiff (£ 10.00 was received by the Council), a broken arrangement letter was issued by Rossendales on 8 March 2010. A further letter was then issued by Rossendales warning that the case would be passed to an enforcement bailiff. On 23 March 2010 a bailiff attended the property and a levy on a vehicle was completed. A copy of the Notice of Distress was given to you at that time.

did you recive a notice of seizure of goods levying the car

 

Rather than enforce the liability order straight away, the arrangement of £ 40.00 was reset to commence from 17 April 2010.

did she/rossendales provide you with a means of payment

 

As no payments were received by the bailiff (a further £ 20.00 had been received by the Council), another broken arrangement letter was issued.

As no response was received in respect of this, *** ****** visited the property on 10 June 2010 but was unable to meet anyone so a letter was left with her contact details. She noted that there was a white transit van at the property in addition to the vehicle that had already been levied on. She states that a second visit was made to try to confirm ownership of the vehicles;

If she already had a levy why did she want another there was no need to return to confirm ownership a dvla check could conform this

 

she noted that you drove off in the levied vehicle after putting a bridle and saddle into the vehicle. From this information, she made the assumption that you owned a horse. However she did not see a horse and did not make reference to ‘moving it from field to field’.

 

She re attended the property on 21 June 2010 at approximately 6.30 am. *** ****** confirms she knocked on the door but received no response. She clamped the vehicle that she had previously seen you driving and left a notice under the windscreen wiper

not in an envelope

 

 

, she then withdrew from the property. She returned to the property 30 minutes later to find the clamp and the wheel had been removed. She attempted to put another clamp onto the vehicle, at which point both you and Mr *********** came out of the property. *** ****** states that Mr ********** removed the keys from her vehicle. She states that she tried to stop Mr ********* from doing so but was physically unable to do so and therefore rang the police. She confirms that there would have been some physical contact during this incident but she denies any allegation of assault.

 

She confirms two police officers attended the incident and that she subsequently entered the property through an open door.

 

why did she enter your property again there was no need she had already levied on your car and could have confirmed ownership of the van between the 10th and 21st June

She then returned to her vehicle and contacted the Council where she was given permission to uplift goods. The police then requested that the Council telephone Miss******** which we duly did. She then re entered the property and proposed she would accept half the balance then and the remainder was to be paid the following week. Subsequently Mr ********** advised *** ****** that the payment could not be made until 23 June 2010. She agreed to this but left the clamp on the vehicle.

 

Subsequently a police officer rang *** ******* and confirmed that you would not press charges against her if she collected the money that day, the officer advised her not to attend alone. She then rang to arrange this but Mr ********* disputed the outstanding balance and refused to make payment as he stated that you were to press charges against *** ******

 

She only returned to the property to retrieve her wheel clamp. The account was then put on hold.

 

I note that you have pointed out that Mr ********** vehicle is not subject to a Walking Possession Agreement. If the bailiff had proposed to clamp it, she would simply have had to levy on it prior to doing so. The fact Mr *********** is a market trader does not necessarily mean that this vehicle is a ‘tool of the trade’.

I have spoken to the officer that rang you as a result of the request from the police. He confirms that no agreement was made for you to pay £ 100.00 per week. He denies being unpleasant but does state that he did advise that you must deal with the bailiff. As I understand the situation the clamp has been removed from your vehicle. However Council Tax does remain due and must be paid to Rossendales. I have advised them to allow you until the end of July to do so. If it has not been paid in full by then, the bailiff will take further action to recover the outstanding debt. I have however requested that *** ****** takes no further action in respect of recovering this debt.

If you wish to take action in respect of the alleged assault, this is a matter that you must pursue with the police.If you are not happy with the result of my investigation, you can ask our Corporate Complaints Officer to review your complaint. If you wish to do so, please telephone #

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Revenues Officer

 

 

 

I cant belive it still with rossendales

Link to post
Share on other sites

did the council or rossendales provide you with a means of payment

 

 

did you recive a notice of seizure of goods levying the car

 

did she/rossendales provide you with a means of payment

 

 

If she already had a levy why did she want another there was no need to return to confirm ownership a dvla check could conform this

Link to post
Share on other sites

something else ive noticed she has mentioned my ex been at the van and removing her keys but then does not mention me there also does not mention her counterclaim of assault

Link to post
Share on other sites

hold out doing a form 4 just yet, lets see what occurs with their investigations and see what the council say

 

Apparently Form 4 is not worth bothering about.

 

Just get your money back and look at a form 4 afterwards. A successful fee recovery strengthens your complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wont hurt to have the form and everything ready just have to wait for the fee break down i already no as it stands that ive been over charged it was worked out that i should only be paying 42.50 in charges and my orgional debt was 303.81 when it was passed to rossendales but this bailiff demanded 672.31 so its a heafty amount

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you need a fee breakdown? You already know what the fee should be, £24.50.

 

The £18 is only payable if the bailiff shows compelling evidence a 2nd visit has been made.

 

You will find it common place for bailiff to try charging hundreds of pounds in fees, they hope you dont know better and pay up. If you make a claim, you usually get your money back a day before trial date, and that can be interpreted the bailiff was fully aware the fees were unlawful (deliberate intent to defraud), plus, they cant afford to risk a CCJ against their name and affects their ability to renew their consumer credit license.

 

Any applicant for a consumer credit license must have a 100% clean credit rating otherwise they could be made to lodge thousands of pounds in indemnities with the OFT when they next renew their consumer credit license. File the claim and you quickly have the bailiffs dancing to your tune.

 

Your Form 4 will take a completely different route after you have recovered the unlawful fees. It becomes so much harder for a Judge to find in the bailiffs favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

id much rather have the list even if its just to say i have it in writing altho i still have 2 letters demanding 2 diffrent amounts even if i wouldnt get money back as i have not paid it to them im trying to pay the council the 303

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without going back through the entire thread - and working with dodgy memory syndrome - like HW I'm dumbfounded that this remains with the bailiff. IIRC you are on benefits [income Support?]. You have shown quite categorically that you are struggling to pay this debt. Income Support is an attachable benefit and the council can use this to recover the debt at about £3-4 per week. Being fully aware of your personal circumstances, the council still supports a bailiff wanting half the money now and half the next week. The council knows that this is an impossible request and know that they can do something more humane to alleviate the situation.

How is the Formal Complaint going?

Best wishes

Rae

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ask for a breakdown if you want, but you probably wont get one, instead the bailiff will pretend its accessing personal data so they can charge you £10 fee. Its a mugs game

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ask for a breakdown if you want, but you probably wont get one, instead the bailiff will pretend its accessing personal data so they can charge you £10 fee. Its a mugs game

 

i was informed on here by someone what to ask for in respect of the breakdown and under a certin act of the law they have to give me that breakdown and it does not incur the £10 charge to which i have sent to them via email and recorded delivery

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its not Freedom of Information Act or Data Protection Act, but im scratching my head what law it could be that could be.

 

I only know after litigation has started, there is an obligation to disclose when the court asks them.

 

Does anyone know what law that says a bailiff must disclose when requested, how he has priced up his fee invoice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of reply letter from council complain

 

On 25 February 2010, Rossendales agreed to allow you to pay the debt at a rate of £ 40.00 per month as you were in receipt of Income Support, payments to commence on 1 March 2010. This arrangement was set up as a result of your telephone call to the Council on 25 February 2010.

 

For starters i did not speak with rossendales i also did not call the council or rossendales i went into the council office and a council staff member called rossendales and put forward that i could afford 10 pound per week n he said that i could go into the office to pay this weekly as i did not make the arrangement with rossendales does that count for anything and the council seem to be denying knowledge of this visit to

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Agreed to allow you to pay' - how very kind of them!

 

Are they saying they're doing you a favour if they're 'allowing you to pay', or are they implying that they're deliberately and knowingly making it difficult for you?

 

Asking for a recording of the call they refer to would also be advisable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they realize it but the council have really have dropped the police in it namely "He denies being unpleasant but does state that he did advise that you must deal with the bailiff". Even if offered it with the best of intentions he has absolutley no authority to give such advice nor was he wise to do so as by doing it he has involved himself directly in the collection of a debt.

 

In addition such language clearly implies that he DID aid the bailiff in entering your home

 

I do hope you are going to complain to the police

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...