Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • Hi,   I sent the email to both my local councillor and the leader of my local council yesterday evening. I didn't receive an acknowledgement email. Do you know if I should have, as I know that if you ever email an MP you always receive a acknowledgement email?   Walshy
    • Can I ask how your taking him to court with just his a trade name ?  Yes I notice hes still trading on ebay.   
    • Very good finds indeed which help to undermine their case.. And to strengthen your case take a look  look at a thread by Tom Price also at Southend airport which is several threads below yours and you will see that he won his case on the fact that he was stopped rather than parked. On top of that he had the Airports Act  1986 to quote. The relevant section is no 63 " Byelaws are covered at S.63  (2)Any such byelaws may, in particular, include byelaws— (d)for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;" That confirms that the roads at the airport are either covered by the Road Traffic Act or Byelaws neither of which is relevant land therefore  PoFA cannot apply. And  VCS should be aware of that. Another thing is that when you posted their WS you didn't include their contract which I missed at the time. However Tom Price included it in his. And guess what-the  alleged offence they are pursuing you for, No Stopping, is not included in their contract. If you look at the end of their Service Agreement [aka contract] you will a list of contravention on Scedule 1 [7] (46) PARKING/WAITING ON A ROADWAY WHERE STOPPING IS PROHIBITTED That is the nearest to what you did. But you were not parking nor waiting -you were stopped so there was no reason to issue you with a PCN as you never broke any of their contraventions. Looks like they breached your GDPR and you should include that as it carries a hefty charge £750 is not unheard of.   Have a read of his WS too which may give you further ideas even possibly to rebut some of the points VCS  make.
    • Lawrence Stroll, executive chairman of Aston Martin, told the BBC he wants to build a firm with a "luxury profile". View the full article
    • Tax rises and an extension of Covid support are both tipped to be announced in this week’s Budget. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3456 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Right, I'll try and make this short for now.

My wife is a full time student at university receiving student finance.

 

Last year we were having real problems with SF(student finance) not making payment till months after due date, which had a knock on effect with paying bills. one of these being council tax. We contacted council to explain, but they would not give any leeway for delays with SF, and it was already in the hands of Rossendales.

 

Shortly afterwards we had a 1st visit, not let in, he refused to listen, said pay up or we'll be back.

 

Numerous calls to SF got us nowhere, then second visit appeared on 5th November when I was out, my daughter(18) let him in, I arrived home shortly after while he was still here and he said that he was levying goods.

 

He then gave me a notice of distress with inventory which he alone signed, stating charges:

 

Client debt................£905

First visit fee..............Blank

Second visit fee...........Blank

Levy fee...................£51.06

Walking possession.......Blank

Other..(Van)..............£130.00

 

Hand written at the top by the bailiff "to be paid by 19/11/10 in full" (14 days), at this point the bailiff told me if I paid the van fee, as a favor he would waive the other fees. I told him I could pay neither.

 

At this point I watched the bailiff get back in his van, the van was the size of the citreon saxo it was parked next to, and I took a foto of this. My wife's finance came through about a week and a half later, and at that point I went to the council offices to pay my council tax debt, and I paid by direct debit £956.06, alongside I put a letter explaining how this was split £905 client debt, £51,06 fees, but I was refusing to pay for the van.

 

The council accepted this as a disagreement between me and Rossendales.

 

Fast forward to July this year.

 

Rossendales write informing me of outstanding van costs of £130.00, and give me 14 days, or they will take things further. Ignored.

 

Another letter stating they will act upon the warrant unless payment made 14 days, van £130.00.

 

Most recent letter said "debt outstanding council tax band c £154.00, unless paid in full warrant will be executed.

 

I phoned council next day to ask if anything was outstanding for that year, and they said no, but said that they could give me no other advice than to pay up then complain later.

 

Sorry to go on so long, but I don't think that is right.

 

Any advice would be most welcome thankyou. T.O.T.N.

Never mind, it could be raining!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying the Levy fee & "Other" Fee were both charged at the same time? If so this is a no no and Tosserdales well know this. If you list the goods levied we can have a look to see if they can even justify the levy fee itself!.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

go away off me thinks

 

warrant my foot!

 

why is it ALWAY rossers! that try it on

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello PT,

Goods levied were:

A 12 year old 32in TV

A 6 foot by 4 foot solid wood kitchen table & 4 chairs

A 4 year old laptop that i'm writing this from

A microwave that doesn't work and my lass has been on to me to get rid of

and a dishwasher that is actually a tumble dryer.

 

Does that make a difference ?

Never mind, it could be raining!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the fees are as per post #1 then i don't think they can charge a van fee, as he was levying goods and applying a walking posession even though he has left the charge blank, so perhaps the levy is invalid, and tossendales can go whistle.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello PT,

Goods levied were:

A 12 year old 32in TV

A 6 foot by 4 foot solid wood kitchen table & 4 chairs

A 4 year old laptop that i'm writing this from

A microwave that doesn't work and my lass has been on to me to get rid of

and a dishwasher that is actually a tumble dryer.

 

Does that make a difference ?

 

No disrespect intended but these items would not cover the cost of removal, auction fees, bailiff fees and a proportion of the debt, so may not stand up to scrutiny, Ploddertom is the one on this I think

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
No disrespect intended but these items would not cover the cost of removal, auction fees, bailiff fees and a proportion of the debt, so may not stand up to scrutiny, Ploddertom is the one on this I think

 

No disrespect taken, he was only allowed in the kitchen and no other rooms.

What I was concerned about was the fact they had changed the debt from van fees, to outstanding council tax debt.

Never mind, it could be raining!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello PT,

Goods levied were:

A 12 year old 32in TV - worthless

A 6 foot by 4 foot solid wood kitchen table & 4 chairs - may have some value

A 4 year old laptop that i'm writing this from - very little value

A microwave that doesn't work and my lass has been on to me to get rid of - no value

and a dishwasher that is actually a tumble dryer. - possibly could be exempt but if not no value

Does that make a difference ?

 

I'm not trying to demean your goods but to make an honest opinion of their worth at auction. On average items for sale at auction may only realise 10% of their true worth, as your alleged debt was £905 then they should have seized goods to the value of approx £9k. The whole object of seizing goods is if they were to be removed and sold at auction the price obtained overall must:

1 - cover all Bailiff fees

2 - cover all storage & removal costs

3 - cover the costs of the auction

4 - cover the Auctioneers fees

5 - cover a contribution to the debt outstanding

In my view if this had happened then the realisation would have been lucky to come to £100/£150 in total. Therefore I would use the argument that the Baiiff only made a levy in order to gain a financial advantage for himself and his Company, the fees should be removed and replaced with either a 1st or 2nd Visit Fee as applicable.

 

To move forward you must ask the Bailiffs for a breakdown of all the charges they applied to you. Here's a sample of what you could use, adapt as you see fit and send initially by email followed with a copy in the post.

 

"From:

My Name

My Address

 

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: Account No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges.

 

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were Certificated at.

e - the date of the Certification.

 

This is not a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Ripped off customer"

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing you must remember, Bailiffs & their employers often read these forums and I don't doubt they can identify each case that crops up. The reasons for writing to them is to get them to admit in B&W that they state all their fees are charged in accordance with blah blah and are therefore correct. Second is to then get the Council to admit they back their Bailiff 100%. You can then dismantle all that with the relevant details and it is surprising how quickly somethings get turned around, others do take a bit longer however. There is no simple overnight fix and if you read some threads here will see some have battled for a year or more.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, I sent off letter asking for breakdown of fees, and I received a reply earlier this week with a breakdown as follows:

 

bailiff visit date, time, name visit fee £24.50

bailiff visit date, time, name visit fee £18.00

bailiff visit date, time, name attendance fee £110.00 and levy fee £51.00

 

below that was information on both bailiffs certificates, then below that again it states;

 

" All of our fees are charged in accordance with the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement regulations and are clearly outlined on the instruction sheet that was left with the request for installments form by the first call bailiff. We can therefore confirm that all fees on your account have been applied lawfully. "

 

It seems strange that our van fees have gone from £130.00 on the levy form, and the first two letters,

then went up to £154.50 unpaid council tax with a warrant outstanding,

and now it is £110.00 attendance fee.

 

At least they aren't trying to confuse things !!

 

Any advice on where I go next ?

 

Thanks T.O.T.N.

Never mind, it could be raining!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks PT ,

 

yes your are right in thinking that.

No entry was made prior to the 3rd visit, at which time attendance and levy fees were charged.

T.O.T.N.

Never mind, it could be raining!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that 1st & 2nd Visit fees are OK = £42-50 total. I would contest the levy on the principle that they have seized worthless goods, the Bailiff must surely have realised at the time there were not enough goods to satisfy the debt and if they were to be removed and sold at auction they would realise very little - not even covering any of the costs involved. This is something you need to put to them - a copy should also be sent to the Council - I don't doubt they will refute this and trot out the usual claptrap. If they do then it will be time to force the Council's hand by threatening to issue a Complaint in the Magistrates Court as an aggrieved party of the levy.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

OK, I cobbled together, and sent off a letter to tossendales saying I dispute the levy fee for the reason goods value wouldn't cover costs, and their dog should have realised that at the time.

I also told them that I wish repayment of the levy fee (£51.00) within 14 days or I would be forced to take the matter further, and that I had sent a copy of the letter to council.

I then went on to argue the van fees they were chasing, quoting the different amounts and descriptions for the fees. Then at the end I informed them that any further letters sent by me would cost them £25 admin charge.

I took the council's copy to them by hand, so that I could speak to someone face to face, but the woman at the council tax counter could offer no help at all, didn't know what to advise and after an age trying to explain to her, finally I got to speak to someone who could help. As soon as I started explaining my situation, he could see that I had a good point, and even seemed to reel back the more I explained.

Result is that he phoned tossendales and told them to cancel all outstanding fees, a return of fees to me, and he even removed the court costs that had been added prior to bailiff action. and all the time he was showing me on his pc that all these actions had taken place. It is a around £350 in fees and costs, so at least I can take that off next bill.

I must thank ploddertom for the fine advice, and if there are any further updates I shall post them.

T.O.T.N.

Never mind, it could be raining!

Link to post
Share on other sites

great news well done

 

can i mark this thread won!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A most marvellous result and on the plus side there are others here who are having similar issues with the same Bailiff Company - I think I feel an attack coming on.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

superb result, they had been caught bang to rights adding dodgy fees.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...