Subject Access Request overdue?

[Dhimmiwit]

Oh no! it was my fault! I wasn't in when the postman tried to deliver my SAR from Rossendales by recorded delivery and I must have lost the 'missed delivery note' that postie must have posted in my absence.

 

Just received this email from the council after asking the whereabouts of my SAR-

Dear Mr ********,

Rossendales sent this information by recorded delivery on 9th August 2010. As the delivery was not called for, the Royal Mail returned it to Rossendales some weeks later.

I have now asked Rossendales to resend the information again, by recorded delivery.

I should be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of the same, via e-mail, or contact me in 7 days time if there is a further problem.

Thanks

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My response-

 

 

 

Thank you for your response,

 

Normally when I have not received a recorded delivery the postman puts a collection or delivery notice through the door to confirm that the item is at the RM collection point.

I may have overlooked this on this occasion as the post has recently been delivered rather carelessly folded inside advertisment 'junk' leaflets from supermarkets.

 

In track and trace / recorded deliveries, I believe that a delivery reference number will be issued to the sender. Please would you ask Rossendales if they would confirm the delivery reference number of the item that they sent on the 9th of August 2010 so that I can contact royalmail.com with queries concerning the item.

 

Also, I have requested that Rossendales send any recorded telephone conversations that took place between myself and them (the one that they made reference to and used in their first letter to me dated 10th May 2010 in particular) in written transcript and WAV file.

 

There may have been a problem with delivery of the WAV file also, as I do not appear to have received the email as yet (I presume that the WAV file was posted via email on the same day that the rest of the SAR was dispatched. Please can you confirm this with Rossendales.

 

Again, thank you for your assistance I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours sincerely,

[tomtubby]

:whoo:well well well there goes £42.50 that they cant charge

 

I would send a letter to chief executive and ask him if he is aware that rossendales employed a miss xxxxx in the capacity of a certificated bailiff when she has never held a bailiff certificate provide the info supplied by the ministry (and the phone number)

say that you have been charged visit fees by rossendales for visits from miss xxxxx and you don't think for one minute that you will be the only person that rosssendales have charged fees for miss xxxxx visiting there property

remind him that xxx council employ rossendales and are full responsible for the actions of there employee

 

ask what he is going to do about his tenants being charged illegal fees as he has a duty of care to his tenants

 

and if he is going to investigate the matter and return/remove any fees his tenants have charged by rossendales that were added by miss xxxxx

 

This is VERY SERIOUS because it would appear to be CLEAR that even in March 2010 this bailiff was NOT CERTIFICATED and may well have been working even before this date. No doubt she would have "levied" upon goods or vehicles and each levy and all charges associated with it are ILLEGAL. As the council are wholly responsible for any levy and the fees charged by their bailiffs they must act upon this information.

[Dhimmiwit]

Tomtubby, Hallowitch and all,

 

Well it's finally arrived! There's a big pile of stuff to get through.

 

One thing that's caught my eye though the last paragraph of a reply to some of the questions I posed concerning the certification of the "first call bailiff" Ms C ;-

 

"I can confirm that Ms C was awaiting certification at the time of her attendance, however this does not impede on validity of visits undertaken by her. Should Ms C have established contact with you, thereby requiring a levy to be undertaken,she would have been required to call upon the services of a certificated bailiff."

 

 

 

The reply could have read ;-

 

"I can confirm that Ms C was not a bailiff and we are perfectly within our rights to send any Tom, Dick or Harriet around to victims houses to maximize our fees as long as they have the phone number of a certificated bailiff to hand in case of contact"

 

As you can see, it would appear that it is not necessary for a 'bailiff' to call to incur 1st and 2nd visit fees. As long as somebody calls on their behalf (ie hairdresser, accountant as long as they have the phone number of a certificated bailiff on them).

If you catch the errand runner posting their 'visit with a view to seizing goods' (before they run away), they would have to call for a certificated bailiff to meet them to levy on goods.

I suppose that would make it okay for Ms C or any other uncertificated person to arrive in a van to attend to remove and incur further charges after a levy had been undertaken as long as they have the telephone number of a certificated bailiff.?

Edited September 15, 2010 by Dhimmiwit
grammar and spelling

[hallowitch]

"I can confirm that Ms C was awaiting certification at the time of her attendance, however this does not impede on validity of visits undertaken by her. Should Ms C have established contact with you, thereby requiring a levy to be undertaken,she would have been required to call upon the services of a certificated bailiff."

 

 

 

well thats a load of xxxxxx this employee should never have been sent to your house in the first place and rossendales should not have charged a fee for this visit

 

The Ministry of Justice Public Register of bailiffs and they confirmed that she applied to Burnley Combined Court on the 18th May for certification but did not hold a certificate before this date, and considering her visits to my house were on the 16th of March 2010

 

I can confirm that Ms C was awaiting certification at the time of her attendance,

 

i do hope you have a hand delivered letter from Ms C dated the 16march

[Dhimmiwit]

 

i do hope you have a hand delivered letter from Ms C dated the 16march

 

Oh I do indeed, signed at the bottom "Ms C Bailiff of Rossendales Ltd." and another on the 18th.

 

Plus the numerous occasions in correspondence that the complaints team referred to Ms C as their "bailiff" or "first call bailiff".

 

Just a reminder Hallowitch, Ms C never attended her certification hearing and therefore never became a bailiff. She has never held a bailiffs certificate (unless of course it belonged to somebody else).

[lizziekwitta]

We had many of the same issues regarding an SAR, first letters ignored, then asked for £10, then not sent and claimed it must have been lost ...etc etc etc... When it did arive they refused to put anything other than a screen shot which didn`t even show finnancial figures on. Upshot of it is we tackled it from another angle and would recomend 110% for others to do, and that is an SAR to the council. They provided everything down to recordings of telephone calls etc. which has given us enough evidence to show what has gone on.

[Pendle_dad]

Dhimmi... have you, at this stage, made a formal complaint to Pendle Council and, in particular, is Mr Barnes, the CEO, aware of your problem ?

 

I am updating Mr B. regularly on the (lack of) progress in my case, in particular the lack of a reply that he promised me 2 weeks + ago...