rossendales

[ploddertom]

Did you pay in instalments at all between the levy 11 August - being made & them applying the van/attendance fee - 12 February.?

 

PT

[thewakers7]

yes i did ploddertom paid them 100 straight off when they came then installments totalling 430.00 they wanted too much money they wanted a ridiculous amount each month they totally ignored income/expenditure and my vunerable status then came with the van to speak to my Oh who also listed trying to get at him but i was told after they did this the vunerable status applies to the household and not just an individual who works there the liability is all paid off in my eyes just the fees outstanding of 110.+ 60 thats what im trying to establish whether the council have paid them off first and i still have liability left with the council they wouldnt tell me yesterday

[thewakers7]

*lives

[ploddertom]

Shame on the payments as I was trying to see if by leaving it so long they would then have abandoned their levy!

[ploddertom]

In answer to your question about the Waiting Fee, remind the Council that the Bailiff can only charge fees as in The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and specifically Schedule 5 Charges connected with distress, the current structure is in the link below - might be an idea to print and take a copy with you. In particular you will notice there is no reference to either a Waiting Fee or a Credit/Debit Card Transaction Fee.

 

http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/docs/Enforcement_Agent_Charges.pdf

 

Also you should argue your point over the levy as to its validity as you believe the items therein contained do not meet the following conditions because of their low value:

Items which removed for sale must:

1 - Cover all Bailiff Fees

2 - Cover all removal and storage costs

3 - Cover all charges of the auction

4 - Cover all the Auctioneers costs

5 - Pay an amount to the debt owing

As your original LO was in excess of £1300 then the levy he took only had a nominal value - say £100 max - and you therefore beilieve the Bailiff only made a levy to gain a financial advantage for himself & his Company. As you are aggrieved by this levy you are intending to file a Regulation 46 Complaint at the local Magistrates Court and will name the Council as Defendant unless the levy and all associated fees - Walking Possession & Van Fee - are removed within the next 7 days.

 

If I remember rightly the link below might give an inkling of the Councils Code of Practice for their Bailiffs. Read & absorb.

 

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/3470/bailiff_code_of_practice

 

PT

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Card transaction fees.. mmmmmmmm...

 

Often wondered about that one.

 

I want them to be unlawful, and yes there's no reg. that specifies them, but then again, don't you 'agree' to them at the time of the transaction?

 

I like arguing with myself.

 

I always win.

[ploddertom]

As the only means of getting the arrogant b off the doorstep one has to accept under protest + can nearly guarantee nothing was said at the time. 80p in this case is cheap there are instances of others being charged much more. Like everything with these parasites why give them a penny more than they may be due!

 

PT

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Door step transaction, nothing said at the time...

 

You might have hit on something there.

 

Do you remember a brief fiasco where supermarkets had to 'discount' the card fee off your grocery total then add it back specifically as a card fee? (even though they didn't actually charge you for it)

 

It was / is a legal technicality relating to card fees and detailed breakdowns on invoices.

 

Since bailiffs rarely, if ever give proper receipts on the spot - there might an avenue to explore.

 

I'll get googling.....

[thewakers7]

thanks you two great stuff gonna print it off in the morning might even get a refund

[thewakers7]

update... just got back from the council to give my statement regarding said council employee and his work ethics.. and apparantly its a very serious matter and will be dealt with accordingly, then a helpful lady head of revenues came and sat with me and went through the account... the council have already paid the bailiff fees as i feared rossers invoiced them and council have paid.. However they want a comprimise and want me to pay half towards and they will swallow half of the costs, i basically said i will go away and have a think..

 

basically she was telling me there are guidelines in place for levy/wpo 1st visit 2nd visit and removal, but nothing in place for bailiff waiting fees thats up to the bailiff companies discretion "apparantly" so my questions are ....

 

1. can i go and sit outside rossendales office and charge £60 waiting fee

2.does half sound fair or shall i go the whole hog

3.where do i stand with rossendales now as they have been paid off? can i reclaim anything off them?

 

 

 

any help appreciated many thanks

[hallowitch]

basically she was telling me there are guidelines in place for levy/wpo 1st visit 2nd visit and removal, but nothing in place for bailiff waiting fees thats up to the bailiff companies discretion "apparently" so my questions are ....

 

bailiffs can only charge fees set out in legislation there is noting in place for this because there is no such fee

bailiffs are governed by the distress for rent rules its actually very worrying that the council are allowing bailiffs to charge fees that are not set out in legislation and i personally would take this as far as the ombudsman if necessary

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/contents/made

Fees, Charges and Expenses

 

10. No person shall be entitled to charge, or recover from, a tenant any fees, charges or expenses for levying a distress, or for doing any act or thing in relation thereto, other than those authorised by the tables in Appendix 1 to these Rules.

[thewakers7]

well i thought i was strange coz i sat there and said so basically your telling me other than the guidlelines they can charge whatever they want and she said yes lol, she even said your husband is not vunerable thats why they came... my answer what twice?? so i laid it down that the "household" is vunerable and she went aah yes thats where the confusion come from???? ah well anyway ive sent an email off to rossers entailing invalid levy etc etc because the bailiff only levied to seek financial gain for himself and company, given them 7 days to refund or threatened to file a regulation 46 complaint at local magistrate court... lets see where that gets me, on a misson now not going to stop untill i get full refund:|

[ploddertom]

I think it is an absolute disgrace what you have witnessed this morning. Rottendales having billed the Council is not your problem. They have overcharged you and the Council are ppearing to condone this. Simple way of getting it all back is to submitan N1 in the County Court nmaing both Rottendales & Council as Co-defendnts.

 

A Formal Complaint should be addressed to the CEO of the Council alleging their employees do not know what they are doing or saying and should be retrained in the laws surrounding the Administration & Enforcement of Council Tax.

 

PT

[thewakers7]

well im going to enjoy my weekend knowing i have the upper hand on the council and rotters as now i call them lol then full steam ahead monday thanks everyone

[Thegreenpimpernel]

So Rossers are even prepared, and able, to rip the council off with illegal fees.

 

Sometimes i feel sorry for revenues dept. staff, being placed in a confrontational job with no appropriate training. I hope some of them turn round and sue the councils for stress, and of course being complicit in fraud.

[thewakers7]

seems that way you have actually put it in a very good way il approach the council monday and put it forward that only were they trying to rip me off but the council again tut tut cheers pimpernel:jaw:

[thewakers7]

hi all an update i complained to rossers and this is the response i recieved good reading in my opinion

 

YOUR COMPLAINT

Having read your complaint, i have highlighted the issues i believe you would like us to investigate..

 

1. You state the levy is invalid

2. You state the visit on the 12th february 2010 was a fee gaining exercise

2. You state a waiting fee cannot be charged.

4. You state the bailiff humiliated you in front of neighbours

5. You state the bailiff did not withdraw from the property even though the company was aware of a vunerable status within the household.

 

MY INVESTIGATION

 

I have reviewed our records and i have spoken to the bailiff in relation to the visit to your property on the 25th november 2010.

Please note that the levy was completed by a first call bailiff, as rossendales work on a two tier basis, the first call bailiff will NOT in practise make a thorough diligent search of the property, confining there enquiries to around the area the meeting took place. In this scenario the goods listed may well appear to be inadequate, however if installments are not maintained at an agreed level, the case is issued to an enforcement bailiff who would make a thorough diligent search, and able to list goods NOT previously listed by the first call bailiff.

 

Our records show on the 16th February 2010 we received a complaint from you concerning our bailiffs attendance on the 12th of febuary 2010. This matter was investigated and a response sent to you on the 1st march 2010 concluding rossendales had acted correctly. as advised in our response when we received your letter where you confirmed Mrs ****** was taking **** tablets we contacted our client *** mbc for there instructions on this matter. The council advised us as the account was in joint names we were to proceed.

 

In regard to the attendance fee and waiting fee incurres on your account, only one attendance fee is incurred on an account at the standard rate agreed by our clients, this was charged to your account 12th february 2010. Please notew when the bailiff subsequently attended on the 25th november 2011, as the bailiff was in attendance for over an hour, a waiting fee was incurred for the additional time in attendance.

 

I have spoken to the enforcement bailiff, who attended at your address on the 25th november 2010, unfortunately due to the time lapse she is unable to recall the details of her visit, the bailiff however stated if a third party was present she would ask to speak to you in private, if there is a situation where you were outside when she was speaking, she would speak at a level which would not be heard by neighbours.

 

As the bailiff is unable to recall the details of the visit, i have reviewed the attendance notes made by the bailiff at the time of her visit, in these notes it has stated you advised mrs **** was a vunerable person, the bailiff rang the office and was advised our client had recently advised us to continue with action on your account, the bailiff states she asked for proof of mrs **** vunerability which you were unable to provide.

 

MY FINDINGS

After reviewing your account, i note the levy is valid and the fees on your account have been legally incurred and stand

The bailiffs notes at the time of the visit refers to mrs **** stating she was vunerable, however the notes provided also refer to mr ****being present at the time of the visit.

Your accoount has at this time been passed to **** mbc to allow to pay them directly.

 

I can confirm this complaint has been recorded at stage 1 of the rossendales complaint proceedure, if you are unsatisfied with the way your complaint has been handled you may take your complaint to stage 2 of rossensales complaint proceedure, which will be addressed by a team leader or manager, please provide written response specifying your areas of concern in order a full review can be conducted.

 

your sincerley

******

complaints officer

rossendales ltd

 

 

loads wrong with has made me chuckle a little, please let me know your thoughts

[ploddertom]

 

Sorry I thought you had posted the opening of a new story by Enid Blyton. Are these people that thick to believe this is actually how this is done.I imagine that because of all the cock ups that Rottendales make they have employed mainly "1st Call Bailiffs" and in actual fact must only have 1 "enforcement Bailiff" withing the whole Company. Training Procedures are obviously conducted by the induction class at Rottendales Nursery School but they have invested in the new turbo charged abacus which which is presently under investigation for advising 2 + 2 = 5 or any other number but 4.

 

Frankly what they have written in unbelievable and is so full of holes & inaccuracies that an Eddie Stobart truck could be driven through it.

 

PT

[wonkeydonkey]

My 12 year old grandaughter could write a better essay than this feeble attempt by Rottendales, while my 6 year old grandson can spin a yarn that has at least a small enough element of truth to keep you guessing.

 

"Oh what a tangled web is weaved when spun on threads to deceive"

Edited March 8, 2011 by wonkeydonkey

[thewakers7]

PT you had me roling l on the floor laughing haha did you note the typist wasnt that great either (was typed word for word by me) on one part they put 25th nov 2011, i didnt invite the bailiff to stop for over an hour in fact she wasnt here 30 mins because she was stopping me from picking my kids up from school (which i now understand as another bailiff ploy) pity the last "2nd tier enforcement agents" memory is that poor whens shes adding ficticious fees on to her account, i have of course asked for this to be esculated to level 2 complaints proceedure where im sure Lynda la plant will be drafting her novel up pretty soon lol.

 

WD i no my 6 yr old is good at telling stories and white lies too but normally when i tell him il be contacting chief inspector dufus i get the truth out lol

[thewakers7]

i could be wrong but i dint think you could add more items to an already established levy?? someone correct me if i am wrong... iok so this raises another query they have just admitted first call bailiff generally doesnt do a mine sweep of the house and everything is done in the one room where discussions are being taken place so they more or less have stated he didnt clap his eyes on anything and i could have listed a whole load of tosh that i dont actually own

[wonkeydonkey]

PT you had me roling l on the floor laughing haha did you note the typist wasnt that great either (was typed word for word by me) on one part they put 25th nov 2011, i didnt invite the bailiff to stop for over an hour in fact she wasnt here 30 mins because she was stopping me from picking my kids up from school (which i now understand as another bailiff ploy) pity the last "2nd tier enforcement agents" memory is that poor whens shes adding ficticious fees on to her account, i have of course asked for this to be esculated to level 2 complaints proceedure where im sure Lynda la plant will be drafting her novel up pretty soon lol.

 

WD i no my 6 yr old is good at telling stories and white lies too but normally when i tell him il be contacting chief inspector dufus i get the truth out lol

Wouldn't you think that as Rottendales know that ultimately their "chief inspector dufus" is likely to be at best a magistrate and possibly a County Court Judge they would take the lead from a 6 year old and tell the truth??

[thewakers7]

my thoughts prescisly WD

[ploddertom]

OK now down to the serious stuff.

 

I appreciate you may well have answered most of this previously but I just want to get an accurate picture.

 

1 - do you still owe the Council? If so how much? If the answer is £0 have the Council confirmed the LO is discharged.

2 - do you still owe Bailiff Fees? If so how much? If the answer is yes do you have to pay through the Council or direct to Bailiff?

 

PT

[thewakers7]

PD as it stood 2 weeks ago i owd £567.00 i paid off £400 then and there as i said i wouldnt pay rossers fees because i am querying them and i wanted the liabilty cleared,... whilst i was paying i had an unfortunate dealing with a council worker who said some not so nice things i made a complaint about him and i got to have a meeting with top dog of council where i gave a statement in this meeting because of the seriousness of my complaint they tried to come to a comprimise they offered to pay off £100 off the £167 remaining. so as of last week i have a ct liabilty/demand thingy saying i owe £67

 

if your still following lol the council had already paid rossers there fees and i have to pay the council so all that is remaining sof ar is £67.00