help with Rossendales and council tax debt

[brassnecked]

It makes me laugh, sorry, but how do you prove that you do not own something.

 

You can't so they will rely on that to coerce you into paying something you don't owe and hope no one notices

[Elliot2011]

It makes me laugh, sorry, but how do you prove that you do not own something.

 

Could i not sign a letter in front of a solicitor (a sworn declaration of something something - i forget the name) stating that I have never owned a silver mountain bike?

 

Point being im not going to waste the £10 it costs to get this, because Rossendales cant even provide a picture of the bike, or give me any other details other than it was silver?!?!?!

[brassnecked]

Could i not sign a letter in front of a solicitor (a sworn declaration of something something - i forget the name) stating that I have never owned a silver mountain bike?

 

Point being im not going to waste the £10 it costs to get this, because Rossendales cant even provide a picture of the bike, or give me any other details other than it was silver?!?!?!

 

Yes you couyld swear a Statutory Declaration, and submit it to the bailiffs witha covering letter that you now cosider the matter closed, and any further contact regarding the wrongful levy cannot legally be collected via the now satisfied and therefore defunct liability order, which off the record is as dead as the Norwegian Blue parrot in Monty Python, cannot be used to collect the now wrongful fees.

 

State that any further correspondence will be collected and collated to ground a charge of criminal harassment, and you will be retaining any text messages, and recording all calls. This may focus their tiny mindsdalong with a Formal Complaint to all tye usual suspects including your MP

[Elliot2011]

Are there any templates on this forum for a Statutory Declaration? Seems mad that i might actually have to pay to sign a piece of paper, in front of a solicitor, to prove that I do not own a bicycle , that the bailiff firm refuse to provide proof of its existence?!?!?!

 

Just out of interest how long after the levy does a balliff have/usually take to auction off the goods levied as I have not received any mention of these charges yet.

[hallowitch]

have you had any replies from the council regarding your complaint letter

[brassnecked]

Are there any templates on this forum for a Statutory Declaration? Seems mad that i might actually have to pay to sign a piece of paper, in front of a solicitor, to prove that I do not own a bicycle , that the bailiff firm refuse to provide proof of its existence?!?!?!

 

Just out of interest how long after the levy does a balliff have/usually take to auction off the goods levied as I have not received any mention of these charges yet.

 

Perhaps the bike and it's seizure was all in the mind of the bailiff, and actually was invented to create a levy, therefore can only be auctioned and charges added in their warped and twisted minds. therefore even tossendales won't be stupid enough to add charges to their dodgy levy, then again?

 

Are bailiffs all honest and trustworthy? Discuss.

 

As to the Stat Dec, others will no doubt help further but as a starting point something along these lines may be OK:

 

I Mr Elliott2011 of: 1, The Street, Anytown, Anywhere. Post Code.

 

DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE THAT:

 

 

I or other members of my family do not nor have ever owned a Silver Mountain Bike of any description.

 

I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.

 

DECLARED AT:

 

SIGNED:

 

DATE:

 

Before me:

 

 

Solicitor/Commissioner for Oaths:

 

alter and add whatever you think will suit

BN

Edited July 26, 2011 by brassnecked

[Elliot2011]

No i have not, i have just sent a new complaint by post and by email to numerous email addresses at the council I have been advised to send complaints to.

 

On a plus side I now have two emails, one letter and one recorded telephone call to/from the council confirming the liability order does not exist so I am pretty happy the bailiff firm is trying to scare me into paying, saying they can still act on the order even if its paid off - when in fact they legally cant?

[Elliot2011]

Thanks for that letter template brassnecked.

 

I just want to be left in peace from these guys so that I can focus on sorting my non priority debts !

[brassnecked]

No i have not, i have just sent a new complaint by post and by email to numerous email addresses at the council I have been advised to send complaints to.

 

On a plus side I now have two emails, one letter and one recorded telephone call to/from the council confirming the liability order does not exist so I am pretty happy the bailiff firm is trying to scare me into paying, saying they can still act on the order even if its paid off - when in fact they legally cant?

 

 

make sure tossendales know you know this, and have evidence from the council that they are cut adrift like captain Bligh, but their boat is holed and they cannot bail fast enough to keep it afloat

[Elliot2011]

I even have it in writing from rossendales themselves that the money owed to the council regarding my account has been paid and it was only their fees left outstanding.

 

Il update here when I hear back regarding my contact stating i will issue a Regulation 46 Complaint - complaints to oft, LGO ect.

[seanamarts]

exactly! the onus should be on them to prove you own it.

[Elliot2011]

Yeah its crazy - even the council are acting illusive over wether rossendales can use a LO (even though my account with the council is settled) to recover their costs

[brassnecked]

Yeah its crazy - even the council are acting illusive over wether rossendales can use a LO (even though my account with the council is settled) to recover their costs

 

Problem is councils only speak bailiff, and believe everything the bailiff tells them until the bailiff does something silly, like march a pensioner to a cash machine and the pensioner dies or otherwise meets with misfortune, or a vulnerable debtor is incorrectly harassed in breach of the 2002 guidelins whilst on benefm, and the bill keeps escalating despite inability not refusal to pay. then they backtrack, saying lessons will be learned

[Elliot2011]

So got this reply to my email to them.

 

"Thank you for your email.

 

After speaking to our Client, Forest Heath District Council, I have been advised that following a telephone call placed to the Local Authority today you have been advised that our costs are still outstanding and as such the Liability Order has not been discharged. (I was told specifically that the LO was not active as I had paid the amount the liabilty order was valid for £240 roughly. I was informed bailiff fees were still outstanding though.) This is as per Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 Regulation 52 (4) Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in accordance with this Part, any sum recovered thereby which is less than the aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges shall be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum.

 

I have attached a further copy of the levy paperwork we hold in respect of the bike, I originally sent a copy of this paperwork by email to you on 6th April 2011, if you would prefer us to print a copy off for you and send this by post please let me know. I have not signed a walking possesion order. They have not entered my fathers property. The only item on this order is a silver mountain bike they either can not, or refuse to discloser any further information on)

 

As previously advised we are Certificated Bailiff company and as such are not governed by the OFT regulations. Under National Standards for Enforcement Agencies an appointment is not needed prior to the Bailiff attending.

 

Furthermore, we are acting on the instruction of our Client, under a Liability Order granted at the Magistrates Court. (Are they really acting on behalf of their client if my account is now closed with the council in question?) Therefore the Bailiff cannot be deemed as a trespasser.

 

Until we receive proof of ownership of the bike as we have previously requested the levy and associated costs will remain on the case. If you fail to provide the requested documentation or pay in full by return then further recovery action may be taken. (How can I prove I dont own a bike when I am unaware of whom the original owner is, or even where they seized it from. I have been told I can not get a Sat Dec to say I dont own something?!?

 

Yours sincerely"

 

Feel like this is turning into a big mess again and many sleepless nights to follow

[Isiris]

Well for me, and I might be wrong here, Id say, OK, Start your recovery action?

 

1. They have the bike? Tell them to sell it.

2. The Levy is unlawful anyway

 

I think if this was me, I would file a Form 4 complaint against the Bailiff who alleges that the Levy was made as you seem to be going round in circles.

 

Why tell them to sell the bike? Because any levy is supposed to cover all the debt so if the selling of the bike wont cover the fees, the levy is unlawfull so there are no fees. If the bike sale can go ahead, as them for any surplus

[brassnecked]

Well for me, and I might be wrong here, Id say, OK, Start your recovery action?

 

1. They have the bike? Tell them to sell it.

2. The Levy is unlawful anyway

 

I think if this was me, I would file a Form 4 complaint against the Bailiff who alleges that the Levy was made as you seem to be going round in circles.

 

Why tell them to sell the bike? Because any levy is supposed to cover all the debt so if the selling of the bike wont cover the fees, the levy is unlawfull so there are no fees. If the bike sale can go ahead, as them for any surplus

 

Plus if they rely on this :

 

"Furthermore, we are acting on the instruction of our Client, under a Liability Order granted at the Magistrates Court. (Are they really acting on behalf of their client if my account is now closed with the council in question?) Therefore the Bailiff cannot be deemed as a trespasser."

 

in court the judge may well get a little annoyed, if the original liability is cleared and the council has said so imho I would wait until all other avenues of complaint are fully exhausted before going for a Form 4 though.

[Elliot2011]

I have it from the council that the LO was for £246.43 - which has been paid in full and their eyes I owe them nothing. All I owe was the bailiff fees.

 

Rossendakes are adamant that they are legally allowed to collect their fees using the LO still.

 

Do they have the bike?!? They dodge this question like the bubonic plauge - same as giving me a proper description of the bike, and also they wont tell me what they expect me to do to prove I dont own it.

 

If they finally admit they dont have a bike, but just saw one I take it that would mean the most I would be "liable" for would be a walking possesion order fee and not a levy fee or the van fee (as the levy and van happened on the same day as the WPO apparently)

[brassnecked]

I have it from the council that the LO was for £246.43 - which has been paid in full and their eyes I owe them nothing. All I owe was the bailiff fees.

 

Rossendakes are adamant that they are legally allowed to collect their fees using the LO still.

 

Do they have the bike?!? They dodge this question like the bubonic plauge - same as giving me a proper description of the bike, and also they wont tell me what they expect me to do to prove I dont own it.

 

If they finally admit they dont have a bike, but just saw one I take it that would mean the most I would be "liable" for would be a walking possesion order fee and not a levy fee or the van fee (as the levy and van happened on the same day as the WPO apparently)

 

First and second visit fees at most if at all £42.50 in all

[ploddertom]

So got this reply to my email to them.

 

"Thank you for your email.

 

After speaking to our Client, Forest Heath District Council, I have been advised that following a telephone call placed to the Local Authority today you have been advised that our costs are still outstanding and as such the Liability Order has not been discharged. (I was told specifically that the LO was not active as I had paid the amount the liabilty order was valid for £240 roughly. I was informed bailiff fees were still outstanding though.) This is as per Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 Regulation 52 (4) Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in accordance with this Part, any sum recovered - did Rottendales actually recover anything themselves - thereby which is less than the aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges shall be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum. In that case why haven't the Council forwarded the monies on.

 

I have attached a further copy of the levy paperwork we hold in respect of the bike, I originally sent a copy of this paperwork by email to you on 6th April 2011, - and on what date did they levy and at that time did they leave a Notice of Seizure - if you would prefer us to print a copy off for you and send this by post please let me know. I have not signed a walking possesion order. - only necessary for them to charge a Walking Possession Fee - They have not entered my fathers property. The only item on this order is a silver mountain bike they either can not, or refuse to discloser any further information on)

 

As previously advised we are Certificated Bailiff company and as such are not governed by the OFT regulations. Under National Standards for Enforcement Agencies an appointment is not needed prior to the Bailiff attending. - fair comment

 

Furthermore, we are acting on the instruction of our Client, under a Liability Order granted at the Magistrates Court. (Are they really acting on behalf of their client if my account is now closed with the council in question?) Therefore the Bailiff cannot be deemed as a trespasser.

 

Until we receive proof of ownership of the bike as we have previously requested the levy and associated costs will remain on the case. If you fail to provide the requested documentation or pay in full by return then further recovery action may be taken. (How can I prove I dont own a bike when I am unaware of whom the original owner is, or even where they seized it from. I have been told I can not get a Sat Dec to say I dont own something?!? - as I have said previously a Reg 46 Complaint against the Council

 

Yours sincerely"

 

Feel like this is turning into a big mess again and many sleepless nights to follow

 

Be back later

 

PT

[Elliot2011]

Thanks for the reply PT - no they did not recover a single penny themselves.

 

and on what date did they levy and at that time did they leave a Notice of Seizure - the date of the WPO is 15/03 - the date of the levy/van fee is 16/03 although in another letter from them they say this all took place on one day. No notice of seizure was left just the WPO that I have an email copy of only. This was def not left at my address.

 

Im waiting for a response from the council but rossendales are threatening to take further action and have said they wont wait for a response from the council regarding the matter

[hallowitch]

A notice of seizure of goods and inventory and a walking possession agreement is the same document

 

at one time these were 2 docs a form 7 and a form 8

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/schedule/2/made

[brassnecked]

If rossendales went to court using the now discharged liability order, with the letters they sent Op, a stat dec regarding ownership of the illusive bike and other documents used as a defence, what are their prospects I wonder?

 

Eliott2011 time to do what ploddertom suggests and go for a Regulation 46 complaint against the council, as they are wholly liable for rossendales and their vexatious claims, and the possibly ficticiuos bike. I wonder if they are hoping to badger you into paying, and really want to scare you to avoid court; as if they were put on Strict Proof of the existence of the bike, by a judge, and they cannot prove it as the bike was a figment of the bailiffs imagination to ground a levy and it's associated fees they, may well come unstuck. Just like a council worker booking phantom hours on a timesheet to garner extra overtime. both examples are fraud.

[Elliot2011]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/98/53684781.jpg/

 

this is the only form I have from them regarding the bike - and thats all the info iv ever been given.

 

Do I have to wait for the reply from the new Formal complaint before doing the Reg 46 Complaint?

[brassnecked]

I don't think so but PT will know more, I would contend that the levy is invalid also as the bike (if it existed), as unless it's description and make was put down exactly and the frame number quoted, which if the bike was helpfully registered on one of the police anti-theft cycle marking scheme would then be traceable regarding ownership, would not raise sufficient money on sale to cover the costs involved nor pay off any of the debt, as a new one is less than 80 quid in Asda We know bikes can be expensive but with the description given silver mountain bike it would be lucky to raise a tenner at auction.

[ploddertom]

What date was this form left with you?

Is there anything written on the reverse of the form?

Have they ever clarified what the £110-00 charge is on the Form?

 

Am I right in thinking you have paid the Council what you owed + Visit Fees of £42-50?

If so who did you pay the £42-50 to?

 

PT