Letter to council re Bailiffs levy on neighbours car

[photoman]

Hello all,

 

A bit of a lapsed member here; thankfully since the days of my bank charges claim I've had little cause to call upon the help and assistance of the good and kind members here.

 

 

Anyhow, I've recently had a bit of a run in with Equita bailiffs regarding their efforts to chase an old council tax bill.

 

Soon after the BAILIFF visit I contacted the council directly and settled my outstanding debt to them.

 

Equita have however continued to attempt to pursue their own charges, and I even had a bit of a run in with one of them in the street who was claiming to attending to collect levied items, (and also claiming an attendance fee).

 

After some research, I've discovered that a levy fee cannot be charged if one has not actually physically been done, ie: they've not acquired access to your premises, nor been able to identify a vehicle actually belonging to oneself.

 

They did however write to me with a breakdown of their charges ...... and lo and behold had included a levy fee, by claiming to have levied upon a vehicle (presumably belonging to a neighbour).

 

They even provided the name of the officer, and the registration of the vehicle !!

 

I do not own the vehicle, so their claim to have performed a levy is wrong !!!

 

(I've noticed there is a sticky in this forum dealing with such issues, and providing some very useful information from the Local Government Ombudsman).

 

 

I've today written back to Equita, and also copied the letter to my council.

 

 

I just thought I would post the letter here, as I thought others may find it useful ?

 

Also, the more people that make similar complaints to their their councils about such behaviour, then the more likely it is that councils may act on this matter.

 

 

 

 

 

So here goes [iNSERT YOUR OWN DETAILS WHERE NECESSARY] :

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear [iNSERT COUNCILLORS NAME]

,

In response to your letter of [iNSERT DATE].

 

Firstly, I would like to explain my motivations for continuing to challenge [iNSERT BAILFF COMPANIES NAME] in regards to this matter. The sums in question in this case may seem trivial, yet there are much wider implications and injustices at stake here resulting from [iNSERT BAILFF COMPANIES NAME] unconscionable behaviour and routine practices, which I feel compelled to highlight to yourselves,.

 

[iNSERT COUNCIL] have many vulnerable residents who are routinely being victimised and exploited by [iNSERT BAILFF COMPANIES NAME] in order to enable them to vastly profit from such peoples ignorance or inability to contest such practices. It is only through the protestations of people like myself that [iNSERT COUNCIL] can be made aware of such practices and hopefully may feel motivated to take actions in order to force [iNSERT BAILFF COMPANIES NAME] to unfailingly abide by the law.

 

Please find enclosed a letter I have received from [iNSERT BAILFF COMPANIES NAME] dated [iNSERT DATE], and my response.

 

[iNSERT BAILFF COMPANIES NAME] are now claiming that their enforcement officer [iNSERT BAILFFS' NAME] performed a levy on [iNSERT DATE] upon a vehicle bearing the registration number [iNSERT REGISTRATION].

 

I do not and have never actually owned nor had any association with such vehicle, and can only presume that the agent in question has randomly selected a vehicle parked nearby to my premises and decided to apportion its ownership to myself in order to serve his purpose.

 

However, by failing to determine or ignoring who the true owner may actually be, [iNSERT BAILFF COMPANIES NAME] believe this enables them to claim to have performed a levy, and claim a fee for supposedly doing so.

 

More worryingly, if such a levy is allowed to stand, it could then empower [iNSERT BAILFF COMPANIES NAME] to claim certain legal rights they do not actually possess, as well as the ability to subsequently and continually add vastly more charges for such misconduct.

 

[iNSERT BAILFF COMPANIES NAME] misleading representations are practiced purely with an aim to profit and could easily be found fraudulent and subject to criminal charges in the eyes of the law. They are also claiming to be acting with [iNSERT COUNCIL] full backing and endorsement, making you unwittingly complicit in such practices.

 

The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) are already aware that such malpractices are endemic within the bailiff industry, have investigated several similar cases, and are now encouraging all councils to have written policies in place with all bailiffs to prevent such practices continuing. I have enclosed for your reference an article by Andrew Hobley, the Senior LGO Investigator writing on this very subject.

 

I do hope you will now act on this matter by instructing [iNSERT BAILFF COMPANIES NAME] to review not only my own case, but also all cases of any [iNSERT COUNCIL] residents similarly affected, remove or refund all unlawfully billed sums, and henceforth continue by abiding and operating within the law,

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

YOUR NAME

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEN INCLUDE COPIES OF:

 

1/ CORRESPONDANCE FROM BAILIFF COMPANY SHOWING THEIR LEVY FEE, DATE, CAR REGISTRATION, BAILIFF NAME ETC.

 

2/ ANT RESPONSE YOU MAY HAVE WRITTEN TO BAILIFF COMPANY.

 

3/ A COPY OF THE ANDREW HOBLEY ARTICLE FROM THE STICKY IN THIS FORUM.

 

 

PS: Some may claim it's a perhaps bit strong to assert that the bailiff company are committing fraud by acting in such a way?

 

However, I believe this is exactly what is happening. Look up section 2 of the "FRAUD ACT 2006" which states:

 

Fraud by false representation

 

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

 

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

 

(b)intends, by making the representation—

 

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

 

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2)A representation is false if—

 

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

 

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

 

(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

 

(a)the person making the representation, or

 

(b)any other person.

 

(4)A representation may be express or implied.

 

(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

 

 

 

 

 

PPS: PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL CAG TEMPLATE, SIMPLY MY OWN WORK I WISH TO POST UP IN THE HOPE IT MAY HELP OTHERS.

 

........ PERHAPS SOMEONE FROM CAG MAY WISH TO REVIEW, MODIFY IF NEED BE (... I'M NOT PRECIOUS ABOUT THIS), AND CREATE A STICKY ?

[outlawla]

Excellent post.

 

I hope everyone who has been sca*med by bailiffs in this way, use, adapt or use as a guide line this advice in order to emphasise to their local authorities the systematic FRAUD (apparently acceptable to the British government) committed by their appointed bailiffs.

Edited July 3, 2011 by outlawla

[photoman]

Here is the letter sent to the Bailiffs (... which I have sent along with a highlighted copy of the relevant sections from "The Fraud Act 2006" )

 

Dear Ms XXXXX,

 

In response to your letter of XX/XX/11.

 

Thank you for the information provided.

 

Your letter claims that your enforcement officer XXXX XXXXXX performed a levy on XX/XX/11 upon a vehicle bearing the registration number XXX XXXX .

 

I HAVE NEVER AT ANY TIME OWNED THAT VEHICLE.

 

I can only presume that at such time the agent in question randomly selected a vehicle parked near my home and decided to imply I own such vehicle in order to serve his purpose.

Your officer at such time (or yourselves since) will very likely have facilities to perform a rudimentary check in order to first determine ownership of the vehicle, and even if not, 
you have no other grounds to believe the vehicle at such time belonged to myself.

 

By still implying I was in fact the owner of the vehicle (in order to perform a chargeable levy) is to do so whilst either knowing or believing such a fact is or might be untrue or misleading. 
Such an action is a false representation, made in an attempt to procure a financial gain for yourselves, and so a criminal offence under section 2 of the “The Fraud Act 2006”.

 

Regarding your assertion that you have contacted your client, who you say confirmed I am liable for the fees; XXXXXXXXX Council were probably unaware at the time of making such a statement that your fees were derived as a result of unlawful false representations on your companies part. I have copied this and your recent letters to the relevant department at XXXXXXXX Council, whereon I am sure you will now find they assert otherwise.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

XXXXXX XXXXXX

[Mark&Janice]

Great post photoman, well done

[fork-it]

One line would have been enough.

 

 

 

Dear Ms XXXXX,

 

I write in reply to your letter of XX/XX/11 which the content has been noted.

 

 

Your letter says that your officer XXXX XXXXXX performed a levy on XX/XX/11 upon a vehicle registration mark XXX XXXX .

 

I write to confirm I have never owned the vehicle.

 

Yours very truly,

 

 

 

 

[photoman]

One line would have been enough.

 

Agreed, but it wouldn't bring home to them the seriousness of their offence.

 

I would very much like to see how they respond one they are aware they have committed such a serious offence !!!

[fork-it]

If they choose to ignore your letter then they commit an offence, (under the mens rea burden of proof) You must get a stamped certificate of posting at the post office counter when you send your letter. Do not use recorded delivery.

[seanamarts]

great letter!

[photoman]

SUCCESS !!

 

 

Letter from Bailiffs received today stating that they are dropping any claim for any charges on their own part.

 

They claim to be doing so as a "gesture of goodwill" (...... so nothing to do with the fact that they could face criminal charges for Fraud if they continued huh) !!

 

 

A convoluted and still defensive letter from Equita, in which they try to defend their actions by claiming that they would have actually performed relevant checks on the vehicles prior to any actual removal.

 

 

A success of sorts in that Equita have dropped any attempt to enforce their fees, but still somewhat missing the point.

 

My point was not the prevention of the bailiffs incorrectly removing a third parties property (as far as I'm concerned, they would be welcome to have still attempted to do so, and then face the legal consequences brought upon them by a neighbour).

My point was rather along the lines of the points raised by Andrew Hobley (The Local Government Ombudsman) in his article on such practices,

ie: that in the absence of actually performing a valid levy, bailiffs are contriving to invent such, so that they may then add further spurious charges for attendance, vans, storage, auction etc etc etc.

 

Without having actually crossed the crucial threshold of performing a levy then bailiffs fees and charges are capped, which is exactly why they are contriving ways to claim to have performed a levy.

 

 

Anyhow, success part 1, fees dropped by Equita.

 

I now wait to see if the Council will still respond to my complaint about Equitas' actions, and whether they will act on such matters against them, ie: actions & guidelines to make Equita to behave lawfully.

 

I also wonder if Equitas' "gesture of goodwill" was prompted solely by my letter to them? Or whether they have already had there knuckles rapped by the Council ?

 

 

Regards to you all

 

 

PM

[brassnecked]

Good result, but if the council uses Capita a back office provider, they will do a corporate keep schtum, as Capita also own Equita, so the council will beleive the party line imho

[tomtubby]

A further very important point is that the local authority are wholly responsible for ensuring that the levy undertaken by their agent is lawful and that the fees charged by them are in accordance with the statutory regulations.

[brassnecked]

Many councils that have outsourced to the Capita/equita regime still cannot grasp that they cannot divest themselves of ultimate responsibility for the actions of Capita/Equita if they stuff up, they forget they are still liable both jointly and severally for th mess.imho.

[Cyberprog]

The interesting thing here is that the Baliffs *cannot* check who the legal owner of a vehicle is. It's simply not something that the DVLA has records of, or troubles itself - indeed the latest version of the V5C says in large letters that it is not an ownership document, merely a record of the Registered Keeper.

You could, if you wished, form a Limited Company to act as a holding company as Registered Keeper, to further obstificate your liabilities from Baliffs and Private Parking Companies

[photoman]

A further very important point is that the local authority are wholly responsible for ensuring that the levy undertaken by their agent is lawful and that the fees charged by them are in accordance with the statutory regulations.

 

 

Thank you Tomtubby.

 

I've just received by email the CAG July newsletter, which focusses on exactly this matter, and has been compiled in conjunction with your good self.

 

As many on this forum may have been drawn to this thread after facing similar issues, then perhaps it may be of benefit to post here the content and advice given in the newsletter regards this subject ?

 

 

Could you do so, or would you mind if I did ?

 

regards

 

PM

[photoman]

The really crucial issue to hand here is not the small additional fee that the Bailiffs charge for performing a levy.

 

(In my own case it was only an additional £29 levy fee they were trying to claim). Although such sums may seem trivial, imagine that they are routinely adding such fees to thousands and thousands of cases, so adding up to many thousand (if not millions) of pounds, and you start to see their motivation.

 

 

 

However, the real and more worrying issue is the progression of fees and charges that may then be incurred, and also the escalation in legal rights of the bailiffs.

 

This is when bailiff companies can really start to make serious money.

 

 

 

 

IN ALL CASES Bailiffs fees are capped under law at £24.50 for their first visit, and £18 for their next.

 

The crucial obstacle that the bailiffs then face, is that under law, they CANNOT then charge anything further.

 

NOTHING more for any further visits.

 

NOTHING more for any attendance fees, van fees, removal fees, auction, storage, etc etc

 

 

It is ONLY after having ACTUALLY performed a levy that the bailiffs can really begin to profit.

 

ONLY once they HAVE ACTUALLY performed a levy, they can then start to charge attendance fees.

 

ONLY once they HAVE ACTUALLY performed a levy can they later remove or seize any items.

 

ONLY once they HAVE ACTUALLY performed a levy can they charge additional costs: removal, storage, auction etc.

 

 

ACTUALLY PERFORMING A LEVY IS THE CRUCIAL TIPPING POINT, AND SO A MAJOR OBSTACLE TO THE BAILIFFS CHARGING ANYTHING MORE.

 

 

 

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THEY ARE OFTEN CONTRIVING TO CLAIM A LEVY HAS BEEN PERFORMED WHEN ONE MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN DONE.

 

 

Another crucial point for all to remember is: BAILIFFS CANNOT LEVY UPON ANY ITEMS THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE PHYSICAL ACCESS TO.

 

 

If they just view an item through a window, they CANNOT place such item upon a levy.

 

 

AND REMEMBER. BAILIFFS (APART FROM THOSE ACTING FOR CUSTOMS AND REVENUE OR THOSE ENFORCING COURT FINES) HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO YOUR HOME.

 

EVEN IF THEY (OR YOU) CALL THE POLICE, THE POLICE WOULD ONLY ATTEND TO ENSURE THAT THE PEACE IS KEPT, AND CANNOT FORCE YOU TO GRANT ACCESS TO THE BAILIFFS.

 

 

 

 

IF A BAILIFF COMPANY ATTEMPTS TO CHARGE YOU MORE THAN THE £42.50 STATUTORY MAXIMUM, THEN PRESUME THET THEY MUST ALSO BE ATTEMPTING TO CHARGE A LEVY FEE.

 

If you have not given them access, and do not believe they have actually performed a levy, then DO NOT simply pay their demand.

 

ASK TO SEE THEIR LEVY.

 

 

IF THE LEVY IS WRONG OR HAS BEEN PERFORMED UNLAWFULLY, THEN CONTEST IT.

 

 

DO NOT simply just pay their levy demand, as doing so is your tacit acceptance that they have actually performed one, and then they can add... and add... and add more charges.

[ShinySheen]

An excellent post

The thing that still confuses me though ….can bailiffs charge multiple statutory 1st and 2nd visit fees IE if more than 1 liability order is held

The case of Throssel v Leeds appears only to relate to multiple levy fees which is a NO NO as it is covered in regulation 45 (2) schedule 5 head B

[brassnecked]

The interesting thing here is that the Baliffs *cannot* check who the legal owner of a vehicle is. It's simply not something that the DVLA has records of, or troubles itself - indeed the latest version of the V5C says in large letters that it is not an ownership document, merely a record of the Registered Keeper.

You could, if you wished, form a Limited Company to act as a holding company as Registered Keeper, to further obstificate your liabilities from Baliffs and Private Parking Companies

 

so long as you post the annual accounts in to companies house that is, so invoice yourself for the VED, insurance and running costs, and put them on the company accounts, then HMRC will come knocking for a return LOL

[photoman]

By the way.

 

Not sure if it was clear form my "success" post that the bailiffs actually dropped ALL their fees in my case.

 

Ie: the £24.50, the £18 and the £29.50 levy fee.

 

 

 

Strictly speaking I could actually have still been held liable for the legit 1st and 2nd visit fees.

 

However, I sort of had them by the short and curlies here:

If in response to my letter they'd written back, insisting the levy was proper and lawfully done, then they would have needed to go on and provide evidence of the grounds used to imply the vehicle was mine.... of which there is obviously none. If they then attempted to legally enforce the whole claim, their unlawful act would have come to the courts attention.

 

If on the other hand, they wrote simply admitting that the levy was incorrect, and so would drop only such sum, then that's clear written evidence of an unlawful act, which becomes actionable in law.

 

So, they couldn't have pursued the full sum, without having each part subjected to legal scrutiny. Nor could they just drop the levy part, as this would require admiting the levy was unlawful,

 

In either case, the most they could have hoped to enforce would have been their visit fees...... but at the same time have their actions brought to the attention of the courts.

 

 

So, they probably just thought the best approach was to fudge a bit in a letter about acting in good faith etc (without actually admit any wrongdoing), and offer as "a gesture of goodwill" to write off their total claim (about £72).

 

 

 

........ but just think how many times they probably DO get away this, and "customers" just cough up the whole sum ?

 

.... better from a commercial point of view for them to just drop the occasional claim such as mine, rather than face a full inquiry, and lose a whole income stream !!

[brassnecked]

All in all a good success photoman, and some good pointers in the thread about how the levy is crucial to the bailiffs ability to screw you over.

[tomtubby]

The thing that still confuses me though ….can bailiffs charge multiple statutory 1st and 2nd visit fees IE if more than 1 liability order is held

 

The case of Throssel v Leeds appears only to relate to multiple levy fees which is a NO NO as it is covered in regulation 45 (2) schedule 5.

 

 

It is important to be aware that in the THROSSELL case, the Judge also TAXED the charges. This is now referred to as Detailed Assement and is where a Costs Judge examines the charges and applies the statutory regulations and relevant case law to establish the correct fees that should be charged.

 

The following is the wording from the Judgment.

 

 

 

 

On the facts as I have found them I am satisfied that the Applicant is entitled to have the charges taxed by this Court.

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 bailiff 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.

This I now do:

Amount of total under liability orders and costs: £610.10

12.5% on 1st £100.00 £12.50

4% on next £400 £16.20

2.5%on £110.10 £2.75

£31.25

It is further argued that this is a maximum and not necessarily reasonable per se. I have considered that a bailiff would need to consider the matter and to make a trip across the city and to be engaged at the Applicants house for some time thereafter to return to the Respondents offices and make his report. Taking those circumstances into account I am satisfied that £31.25 is a reasonable charge and I tax and allow it accordingly.

[Cyberprog]

so long as you post the annual accounts in to companies house that is, so invoice yourself for the VED, insurance and running costs, and put them on the company accounts, then HMRC will come knocking for a return LOL

 

Nope, no need to invoice anything actually - you'd be using it for your own purposes the Limited Company is merely the registered keeper - you can in fact just file non-trading accounts with companies house which is about £25 a year. Pretty simple really

[brassnecked]

Nope, no need to invoice anything actually - you'd be using it for your own purposes the Limited Company is merely the registered keeper - you can in fact just file non-trading accounts with companies house which is about £25 a year. Pretty simple really

 

Fair enough and true but I was having a jest....

[Cyberprog]

Fair enough and true but I was having a jest....

I should have added it on my post TBH, it's a common misconception regarding this particular dodge. If the new legislation comes in, then the RK will be responsible for any private parking fines if they decline to name the driver. If the RK is a valueless LTD Company.... boo hoo PPC!

[tomtubby]

Thank you Tomtubby.

 

I've just received by email the CAG July newsletter, which focusses on exactly this matter, and has been compiled in conjunction with your good self.

 

As many on this forum may have been drawn to this thread after facing similar issues, then perhaps it may be of benefit to post here the content and advice given in the newsletter regards this subject ?

 

 

 

 

Could you do so, or would you mind if I did ?

 

regards

 

PM

 

 

I will see what I can do to get the Newsletter widely published on the bailiff section.

 

Please do check back later today on the forum as I will be posting details of a recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsman concerning a complaint that was made The basis of the complaint was that:

 

The bailiff was charging "multiple fees" for enforcing more than one Liability Order.

 

He charged for visits that the claimant state did not take place.

 

Levied upon a vehicle that was not owned by the debtor

 

Failed to leave a Notice of Seizure.

 

The local authority is Rossendale Borough Council and the bailiff company is EQUITA LTD.

[photoman]

Hi Tom,

 

Thanks, I very much look forward to seeing you post on the LGO action.

 

 

 

 

 

The complaints made to the LGO seem to be pretty common; ie claiming fees for supposed visits, and levying upon vehicles not owned by debtor.

 

I've been thinking about this, and come to the conclusion that the motivations for the bailiff companies for undertaking such actions (which are indeed misrepresentations) are pretty obvious.

 

PROFIT !!

 

This is out and out FRAUD as defined by The Fraud act 2006, and the LGO, the government and the courts should be laying down the law and prosecuting these companies under such act.

 

 

 

Consider for a moment the options available to a bailiff company:

 

Their task: The bailiff company is passed a pile of debts to enforce on behalf of their client (lets say 50).

They are asked to collect the outstanding sums, and for doing such they can add their own fees for the work required to enforce.

Note, that they are collecting the clients money, which they must pass on, so it is only their own fees they get to keep.

 

Option 1:

 

The bailiff company send out their agents to collect. The bailiff calls upon each of the debtors, knocks on their door, informs them of the debt, and informs them that they need to pay such sum, plus a fee of £24.50 for that visit.

The bailiff company collects the debts and makes £24.50 in fees for each successful collection, and perhaps, allowing for travel to each premise, time spent explaining and collecting etc manages to make say 20 visits in a day. Thus is takes 2 and a half days to collect the 50 debts, and bringing in. £1225 in fees.

(from which must be deducted the agents wages for 2 and a half days work, commission, back office costs etc)

 

Option 2:

 

The bailiff company send out their agents, who waste no time in actually knocking on the doors or talking to anyone, and simply slip a letter through the letterbox informing the debtor of the visit.

Because of time saved, they can make say 50 such visits in a day. INTERIM FEES TO COMPANY (50 x £24.50): £1225.

 

THEN, 7 days later they visit each premise again, again not actually knocking, but simply slipping letters through each letterbox.

This time they may also make a quick scan of the locale, and choose a nearby vehicle, note it's reg and mark it down on a levy form.

INTERIM FEES TO COMPANY (50 X £18 FOR 2ND VISIT + 50 X £29.50 FOR A LEVY FEE): £900 + £1475 = £2357

 

THEN, 7 days later they visit each premise again, again, simply slipping letters through letterboxes.

NOW, although they can't charge anything more for simply another visit, as they claim to have performed a levy, they instead add a £60 attendance fee onto each debt.

INTERIM FEES TO COMPANY (50 X £60): £3000.

 

THEN, 7 days later, they start to actually try to collect.

This may take a bit longer, so they visit say 20 premises in a day, informing each debtor that they have already made 3 prior visits, the first two of which they were unable to make contact, but managed on the 2nd to make a levy. On the third visit they attended with the intent to collect, which incurs an attendance fee, and today they are doing likewise, which incurs another attendance fee.

EACH DEBT IS NOW: £24.50 (first visit) + £18.00 (2nd visit) + £29.50 (levy) + £60 (1st attendance) + £60 (current attendance) TOTAL FEES: £192.00

 

 

 

So, if they have contacted and collected each debt on their 1st visit, the gross total in fees (before wages and costs) to the company for 50 debtors = £1225

 

 

If however they follow the pattern of option 2, the total gross fees (before wages and costs) for the same 50 debtors = £8350.