Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4965 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

Hpoing someone can gve me some advice. Helping a friend with Bailiff who visited for council tax debt. She didn't let him in the property, and only spoke to him on the doorstep. But he said taht the only way to come to an arrangement was to tell him what property she has and then to sign the paperwork. She did this and he nows states has a signed walking posession.

 

I have looked at the paper work and spoke to Jacobs to state that the paperwork is invalid on the following points:

-That the bailiff never entered the property and hasn't sighted any of the goods that she says she owns.

-That he has levied her washing machine

-That he has levied the same goods twice for 2 seperate council tax debts.

 

Could you let me know if any of this is correct and how I go about proving this to Jacobs. They were very rude on the phone and said that they are withing their rights to do all of the above and I should learn the rules and regulations. I would like some ammunition before I put the complaint in writing, as they requested.

 

Thanks in advance for any help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

washing machine exempt goods

 

they can only levy goods once

 

 

once a bailiff Levy's goods they don't belong to the debtor they belong to the local authority but they are left on the debtor premises (walking possession )

if a bailiff is collecting more than one liability order they can only charge 1 set of visit fees

Detailed Assessment Judgement of Throssell v Leeds City Council where the District Judge ruled as follows:

“Turning to the taxation it seems to me that notwithstanding the fact that there were three liability orders but one visit was made by one bailifflink3.giflink3.gif and the maximum that the Council’s reasonable charges can be is the result of applying the formula contained in Schedule 5 paragraph 2 (1) (b) of the Regulations”

 

they cannot charge so many fees if only one visit is made

as for your car how old is it? I.E. would the sale of it actually cover a large percentage of the bill anyway?

a vehicle should only be removed if the proceeds of sale provide that there would be a surplus available to the liability order after deductions for the bailifflink3.giflink3.gif fees, , removal storages and auctioneers fees.

for the levy fee both liability orders should be added together and the levy should be work out on the total amount

 

have a read of the notice of seizure down the bottom the walking possession agreement part it

 

Jacobs are very good at doing this they done it to my daughter she also signed the wap (i did get the charges removed)

 

what other goods have they levied

what is the total amount of the debt

 

copy of Jacobs notice of seizure in post 151 of this thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241840-Bailliff-seized-company-car-Help!/page8

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently dealing with Jacobs too. This is the letter I sent them last week:

 

Notice of Rejection and Return of Unrecognised Paperwork

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Dear Jacobs Certified Bailiffs,

Your paperwork dated 10.08.2010 and 11.08.2010 is returned not recognised. The reasons for which are as follows:

1. Your paperwork appears to be indicating that some sort of contract exists between ‘Jacobs Certified Bailiffs’ and a STRAWMAN, legal fiction PERSONality referred to in your paperwork as ‘MISS (NAME HERE)’, not me.

2. It appears ‘Jacobs Certified Bailiffs’ is acting as 3rd party interloper for the Magistrates Court.

3. Your paperwork is signed with an electronically generated image.

In order for me to act lawfully and consent to be compelled to perform in any alleged contract I must ask you to provide the following clarification and reserve all my rights not to be bound by any unrevealed contracts.

a) Proof of a valid signed contract between ‘Jacobs Certified Bailiffs’ and MISS (NAME HERE).

b) Proof that I ever gave consent to stand under any assumed authority of ‘Jacobs Certified Bailiffs’.

c) Proof which demonstrates that your signatureis real and written by human hand. Not a copy of a signature re created electronically on paper which invalidates a commercial instrument.

d) Proof of a written order placed upon you by me which requires payment for services rendered.

e) Proof of a signed Bill for your services duly presented by ‘Jacobs Certified Bailiffs’ written out to me.

f) Proof of your implied authority over me gained knowingly and willingly from me.

Unless the proofs requested herein are forthcoming not later than 17/08/2010 I will take the knowing that you cannot provide the necessary proofs and that by your failure to provide proof you agree that no contract exists and the matter is considered closed.

All responses must be delivered by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery or will not be recognised. Any paperwork sent by you in response to this Notice which does not contain the specific details requested will be returned to you clearly marked REFUSED FOR CAUSE: NO CONTRACT.

Sincerely, without ill will, vexation or frivolity,

Me of the family Me

All Rights Reserved - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit

Errors & Omissions Excepted

Enc: Your Original paperwork

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, Hallowitch, in answer to your question, total of both debts is just over £1000. They have also written down on the wap, 32" flat screen TV, Microwave, 3 piece leather suite and a coffee table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, Hallowitch, in answer to your question, total of both debts is just over £1000. They have also written down on the wap, 32" flat screen TV, Microwave, 3 piece leather suite and a coffee table.

 

Of course, the levy would indeed be invalid if your cooker wasn't in working order and you relied on your microwave for all your cooking! Nod, nod, wink, wink!

 

Impecunious!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had an e-mail back from Jacobs, with screen shot of charges and explanation of the walking posession:

 

With reference to your allegations that the levy and Walking Possession is invalid, we confirm that we have spoken to our Bailiff, Mr Conwell and he maintains that was allowed entry to your clients property and he only completes a levy on items that he can see. This may be from the hallway or by investigating the whole property. He also states that he explains the procedure fully to all debtors so they understand what they are signing.

We note your comments regarding two items on the inventory and advise that should the account reach enforcement stage, our Bailiff would assess the situation accordingly. We also advise that as there are other items listed on the inventory the document remains valid.

We are satisfied with the actions of our bailiff and as such confirm that all costs incurred are in accordance with legislation and your client remains liable for them.

Is it just me or are they wrong, I feel like have hit a brick wall now, how do I argue this one? Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...