Will The Bailiffs Return My Car, now?

[Thegreenpimpernel]

HW, You should consider concentrating on the fact that the balance was payable, were it not for the illegal "enforcement fee" which subsequently created a snowball effect accruing all further actions and fees.

 

(didn't take long for curiosity to get the better of me!!!)

[reallyhardup]

LR say there is an expiration date which the rules say must be adhered to.

Phoned CCC spoke to Ms C on her direct line - she first of all wrongly said there was no one by that name, then I insisted and she came back with confirmation that his certificate was granted on 16th November 2009 - application being applied for on 8th September - she said it was down to the Judge to decide whether he could continue working without a certificate in the interim - possibly not, if it was a new certificate but if it was just a renewal then, "maybe". From the information I have, this was a renewal.

[reallyhardup]

bless you for helping me out.

[reallyhardup]

if I dont manage to get my car back (and I will give it one last attempt with hallowwitch's help) can't I sue them on the grounds "proportionality" because their fees are disproportionate to the original amount owed?

[hallowitch]

25 Jan - Notice of bailiffs attendance - amount now £866.19

 

was this broken down into

liability order amount + bailiff fees to date + cost if further action

[hallowitch]

I owed £250 but bailiffs costs ran it up to £700 - they put a notice of seizure on my 9 year old car and that was in December.

 

going back through your first thread

 

are you saying that there is 2 notice of seizure on this car one in DEC (do you have the date/ figure's for this the notice of seizure)

[reallyhardup]

hallowitch - the answer to you first question is No, it was not broken down and makes no mention of further costs - just to remind you..

 

1. Notice of Seizure of Goods and Inventory - dated 3rd November 2010 for an amount of £696.19 (as mentioned in my earlier post made up of £24.50 first attendance; £35 stat levy fee; £270 enforcement costs)

2. Notice Not To Move dated 3rd November for an amount £696.19.

3. Notice of Bailiffs Attendance - dated 25 january 2011 £866.19 with hand written note saying please ring me asap within 24 hours to stop tow truck and additional costs"

4. Notice of Bailiffs Attendance No. 2 dated 25th January 2011 £866.19 including costs of £170.00 with a hand written note saying your car has been immobilised (clamped) and will be removed by 10am today unless amount paid in full"

5. Removal Note - dated 2nd February Pursuant to Order the items listed below have today been seized uand will be sold by Public Auction witho payment includin all csts are paid into ofice by 7 Feb 2011.

6. Notice of Bailiffs Attendance dated 2nd February for an amount £866.19 saying Alexanders "have attended your premises today with transport for the purpose of removing goods in execution on behalf of Waverley Council. If you do not contct me to make arrangements to pay the amount specified below i shall return with the intention to remove goods. This will incur substantial further costs as teh law directs and removal m ay take place even in your absence. Amount outstanding £866.19 ... within 24 hours to stop additional costs - PS we have photographic evidence that car was seized and immobilized"

 

Hope this answers your question hallowitch

[hallowitch]

how does that look amend tweek as you want and send it to the leader of the council i don't know if it will help but it might

 

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Dear Sir,

 

As of the date of this e-mail my car is due go for sale at auction Liability order amount £354.69

I have had several e-mail and telephone conversations with your Mr Simon Piper and Alexander’s Bailiffs’ between 25/01/11 and the date of removal (02/02/11)

During these phone and e-mail conversations Mr Piper could/would not explain why my debt had increased to £1036.19 telling me he would not look into it and I should get in touch with Alexander’s also informing me If you wish to challenge the fees i may apply at your own expense to have them taxed in the county court

Neither replies being helpful leaving me in the position of paying a huge amount of fees with no expiation as to why the fees are being charged to stop my car being removed unfortunately more than I could raise

When I offered Mr Piper allow me to set up a payment plan he laughed at me and said I would not pay it he told me to get in touch with Alexanders

Alexander’s bailiffs would/could explain to me why my debt had increase to £1036.19 and would only discuss when I was going to make full payment

On the 25/01/11 A Notice of Bailiffs Attendance For the amount of - £866.19 a with hand written note saying please ring me asap within 24 hours to stop tow truck and additional costs amount of £ £354.69 was delivered by bailiff Mr xxxxxx

On the 25/01/11 A Notice of Bailiffs Attendance No. 2 For the amount of £866.19 including costs of £170.00 because my car had been immobilised and would be removed by 10am today unless amount was paid in paid in full"

May I draw your Attention to The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992(amended)

Using the formula provided in regulation 45 schedule 5 charges connected with distress before removal of goods the outstanding amount could be no more that £414.19 this does not include a van fee as there was no payment agreement in place with Alexander’s therefore there was no default on payment

There is no fee for immobilising a vehicle in the above regulations

A payment of £251.69 was made to WBC on the 30 this leaving an outstanding balance of £162.50 against the liability order and lawful fees to date

Unfortunately this payment did not stop the removal of my car and Alexander’s bailiffs removed my car on 02/02/11 these are the demands let at the time of removal

03 Nov 2010 - "Notice Not to Move" from Alexander’s saying this vehicle is now seized AND "Notice of Seizure of Goods and Inventory" also dated 3rd Nov (stating the LO costs; costs of 1st attendance as £25.00; levy fee £35.00; Enforcement costs £270 - total due if paid immediately £696.19)

 

02/02/11 Alexander’s bailiffs removed my car and left this Removal Note - dated 2nd February Pursuant to Order the items listed below have today been seized and will be sold by Public auction without payment including all costs is paid into office by 7 Feb 2011.

.I also received dated 03 Nov 2010 - "Notice Not to Move” saying this vehicle is now seized "Notice of Seizure of Goods and Inventory" stating the LO costs; costs of 1st attendance as £25.00; levy fee £35.00; Enforcement costs £270 - total due if paid immediately £696.19)

Clearly the above information confirms that the amount demanded for immediate payment as of 25/01/11/ included removal costs payments that should not have been demanded before removal

The value of the car (make model reg) will not cover all bailiff fees removal fees storage fees auction fees Vat and outstanding council tax

 

I fully intend to pursue this matter to its end conclusion including the local government ombudsman

Once the car been sold i intend to send a subject access to Alexander and put all account details in the hands of my solicitor the outcome of this will determine what action if any I will take any

[reallyhardup]

thanks hallowitch - I am going to send this and tweek it a little - frankly, i don't think Peter Piper and Alexanders have the intellectual capacity to understand it but i will send it nonetheless tomorrow after I have had time to sleep on it.

 

Your input has been so very helpful I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.

 

thanks.

 

I wonder what our other comrades think about it?

[Thegreenpimpernel]

RHU - Sorry, wasn't around this morning.

 

The PM was just about the deletions, the rest is fine for the forum.

 

Anyone know how to edit old posts for sensitive info?

 

Can't seem to find the edit button anymore.

[ploddertom]

 

Anyone know how to edit old posts for sensitive info?

 

Can't seem to find the edit button anymore.

 

Only the person who posted can edit!

 

PT

[Surfer01]

Hope things work out for you.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Its my own post.

 

I've done it lots of times, but the button isn't there any more.

 

Must be a browser problem or something.

[reallyhardup]

In case anyone is interested - looks like I won't get my car back and I have until midday today to come up with the money - I won't be doing that..... here is the correspondence passing between us. Even the Director of Finance has responded with incorrect facts - the general consenus of opinion is that my advice on the law is out of date.

 

From: [email protected]

 

Subject: Waverley Borough Council - Outstanding Council Tax

 

 

Dear Ms

 

I am writing regarding the vehicle EU02 LCP Renault Megane, which our bailiff Mr T Cooper had removed. It is now with the Auctioneers and will be sold in the next auction as a non runner, as it does not have the keys or log book with it. This will result in a low sale price. However, if you send us the keys and the log book, the vehicle will sell for considerably more. Thus reducing your debt further with Waverley Borough Council and ourselves. Clearly getting the best price for the vehicle would be to your advantage.

 

If you would like to discuss the matter further, please do not hesitate to contact our office on 020 8661 2515 between the hours of 10am - 4pm .

 

Kind Regards

Deborah Harding

Administrator

 

Contact telephone number

020 8661 2122

9am - 5pm

 

Alexander's Commercial Services Limited

 

 

Dear Ms Harding

 

I am in receipt of your email sent this morning at 05.03 a.m.

 

I would reply as follows:

 

Dear Sirs

 

With reference to the above account I see that both Mr Piper of Waverley and Alexander's bailiffs are still denying me the right and opportunity to settle "the full amount due under the regulations".

 

Alexander's email from Debbie today says that the car is now with the auctioneers and implies that the car will not fetch the required amount to cover their own fees (given that the council tax due was settled in full at the end of January).

 

As you must doubtless be aware that the "regulations" state that any goods levied and seized for sale at auction must cover the cost of the debt. You have failed to consider this. The value of the car if sold at auction would not raise the amount demanded, such amount I will deal with in my next paragraph. In the meantime, I would refer you to the Judgment of Throssell and Leeds City Council where the Judge states : "as for your car, how old is it? i.e. would the sale of it actually cover the cost 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 pay the debt" . As the sale of my car will not cover all these costs, I put it to you that your Bailiff has acted outside "the regulations".

 

On the question of Alexander's costs. You are fully aware that your costs are exhorbitant in the extreme. They are not only illegal and disproportioinate to the £259.61 council tax owed and already paid, but wholly unreasonable by anyone's reasonable standards, such standards judged by the standards of the ordinary man (Hart, Law, Liberty and Morality) and as such I now insist these costs be taxed by the County Court.

 

Additionally, I have today spoken with Croydon County Court with a view to registering a formal complaint about Alexander's. I intend also to request that they issue a Summons against Waverley Borough Council by virtue of Regulation 46 Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992 as a matter of urgency because my complaints about the levy to both Alexander's bailliffs and Mr Piper acting on behalf of Waverley have been ignored. This is evidenced, inter alia, by my own recordings of various conversations, one, on my doorstep with your Mr O'Neill (who was an uncertified bailiff and without valid certification at the time of his visit); telephone conversations with Mr Piper of Waverley, emails and correspondence.

 

However, in one final attempt to resolve this matter and prevent further legal action being taken (and I fully intend to pursue this matter to its end conclusion including the local government Ombudsman notwithstanding the intention of sending a subject access to Alexander's via my own solicitors) I would invite you to reconsider your costs to a more realistic amount to bring this matter to an end. Your fees stand short of a thousand pounds.

 

I trust you are able to revert back to me as a matter of urgency.

 

c.c. Simon Piper, Waverley Borough Council

Sue Petzold - please forward to Mary Orton and confirm receipt.

 

 

I am writing to follow up your telephone conversations last week with our Customer Relations Officer, Sue Petzold, and your correspondence with our Principal Revenues Officer, Simon Piper, regarding the problems you have experienced with Alexander’s the bailiffs. I understand you are concerned in particular about the level of fees charged by the bailiffs and the fact that they have taken away your car. I have investigated your concerns under Level 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure and would like to make the following comments.

First, I should explain that you initially incurred bailiff fees because the liability order granted to the Council on 22 July 2010 for your outstanding council tax of £251.69 plus £103.00 costs was not paid in full before the bailiff attended your property on 2 and 3 November 2010 to enforce payment. Unfortunately you offered no payment towards your debt and it was necessary for the bailiffs to make a third visit to your property 25 January this year, as a result of which the bailiff fees now amount to a total of £749.50.

I have looked at the bailiff fees you have incurred, and I believe these to be reasonable given that it has been necessary for the bailiffs to attend your property on four occasions. Had you made an arrangement with the bailiffs to pay your outstanding debt when they first visited you in November last year, the costs would have been much lower. However, it is open to you to challenge the level of fees charged by our bailiffs by making an application to the County Court for the fees to be assess. I understand that your nearest County Court is Aldershot and Farnham County Court at 78-82 Victoria Road, Aldershot, GU11 1SS. I would suggest that if you are still concerned about the fees, this is the most appropriate course of action for you to take.

It seems that the bailiff’s third visit prompted you to pay your outstanding council tax, but unfortunately you did not pay the Council’s costs or the bailiff costs. As a result, and as Simon Piper has already explained to you, your payment of £251.69 was credited to the enforcement fees in accordance with regulation 52(4) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations. This means that your outstanding debt is as follows:

Council tax debt £354.69 (including costs of £103.00)

Bailiff fees £497.81 (ie £749.50 less payment of £251.69)

Total £852.50

I hope you now understand why your debt has increased. It is likely that the bailiffs will be arranging to sell you car in the very near future, and I would therefore urge you to contact the bailiff as soon as possible to pay this outstanding amount.

If you feel unhappy with my response, please write again as soon as possible to the Chief Executive, Mary Orton. Please explain why you remain dissatisfied with my response and ask her to look at the matter again under Level 3 of the Waverley’s complaints procedure.

Yours sincerely

Graeme Clark

Head of Finance and Performance

 

 

Dear Mr Clarke

 

Re: Council Tax

 

I am afraid you are misinformed on a number of issues, namely:

 

1. I have no recollection of Alexander's attending on 2nd and 3rd November. I do however have a notice of seizure dated 11th November wihch I found on the grass outside my house.

 

1. I wrote to your Mr Simon Piper on 24th January saying that I paid the full council tax owed.

 

2. The visit by baillifs on 25th January was therefore unwarranted and I emailed both Simon Piper and Alexander's bailiffs copies of my letter to this effect.

 

3. By January 31st payment had been made.

 

4. On 2nd February Alexander's bailiffs towed my car.

 

5. On 2nd February I sent copies of my bank account to Simon Piper to this effect.

 

If this cannot be resolved civilly and promptly I shall enlist the services offered to me as a student of the College of Law.

..........................

 

MEANWHILE,

Thank you for your email dated 9 February 2011.

 

I would like to state that at every stage from the initial bill to after the removal of your vehicle, all notifications have been left at your property as per the regulations.

 

The email Deborah sent you clearly states that the vehicle will raise more if sold with the keys and the log book. The vehicle is valued at approximately £1000, but we are unable to ascertain exactly how much it will sell for as it is an auction sale. Please note that neither of our bailiffs that attended your premises acted outside regulations at any time. All actions taken were perfectly legal.

 

Your email states that you now insist that the costs be taxed by the County Court. You should know that costs are assessed and no longer taxed. As with the many comments in your various communications your advice is out of date.

 

At every stage, from the summons and initial bill onwards, it has been made clear what costs have been and would be incurred if you failed to comply with your legal requirements. All our actions have been legal and it is you that has acted illegally by refusing to pay.

 

It is your right to make a formal complaint to Croydon County Court against Alexanders and Waverley Borough Council, but please be informed that we will make a claim against you for any costs which we duly incur as a result of your actions.

 

Your email clearly states that Mr O'Neill was an uncertified bailiff, again your information is incorrect. Mr O'Neill was a Certificated Bailiff and still is. The online registration of Certificated Bailiffs is a Government initiative and it is their responsibility to maintain.

 

 

You would not now be in this position had you used the money you intend to use on a solicitor to pay your Council Tax or had should spent as much energy trying to resolve this before it went to court, as you are now trying to justify not paying the legally incurred costs and charges, either the councils or the bailiffs.

 

 

You have until 12 noon tomorrow to pay £972.50 in full or your car will be sold, please note that there is a 5% service charge for payments by card.

 

 

Yours sincerely

For and Behalf of

Alexander's

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Such a masterpiece of crap deserves a reply.

 

Too much work on tonight.

 

But when someone stoops to semantics as a core piece of their argument "You should know that costs are assessed and no longer taxed." You know they have little substance to their argument.

[reallyhardup]

Oh my goodness, for a moment there I thought you were referring to MY letter... how upset I was about to be.....

 

Today is saturday, its 10.10a.m. and I am giving serious consideration as to whether I shall pursue this. After all, I have just lost the long - term temp booking I had hoped to start and I suppose my car is now gone forever - the family and I are all pretty cheesed off generally and my son started a paper round this morning and said "well mum, we've always got MY money now!" and I've said that he can open up a children's iSA with his £110 per month until he knows his Lalique from his Ming.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

RHU.

 

I can understand if you've had enough for now. But if the worst happens, i.e. they sell your car, you have six years to revisit it and reclaim unlawful fees.

 

And yes, the masterpiece of crap was their reply to you!

[reallyhardup]

The Final Countdown.

 

Here's Waverley's reply to my earlier letter for those who may be interested...... I have every intention of seeing this through to the end...

 

Dear Ms

Thank you for your response to my e-mail. I have noted the points that you

make. Waverley is not disputing that you made a payment on the 24th.

However this payment did not cover the full amount owing including costs.

The Council only instructs bailiffs to take over the recovery of unpaid

council tax as a last resort. Before this action is taken, Waverley sends

reminders to prompt the council taxpayer to take action to avoid costs

being incurred and passed on to them. My letter set out the Council's

position in detail.

 

The bailiff has advised us that you will need to pay them the outstanding

amount in full midday on the 17th February to avoid your car being sold at

auction. Clearly I would urge you to do this to avoid this action being

taken.

 

If you feel unhappy with my response, please write again as soon as

possible to the Chief Executive, Mary Orton. Please explain why you remain

dissatisfied with my response and ask her to look at the matter again under

Level 3 of the Waverley’s complaints procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Graeme Clark

Head of Finance

Waverley Borough Council

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Clark

 

Firstly, I deny ever having received any reminders by Waverley (they may have been sent to my old address to which this council tax refers).

 

You are referring to £100 being your costs under the Liability Order that were sufficient enough for you to instruct bailiffs.

 

Bailiffs costs to date, which you consider as being reasonable, are in excess of £1000 for what can only be your £100 costs. I most certainly am dissatisfied with your response and extremely aggrieved by the amount of bailiffs costs and I repeat they are wholly disproporitionate to the amount owed and I am already advised they are illegal.

 

I strongly urge you to please re-read my letter as to my intended action should my car not be returned forthwith.

 

Yours sincerely