Some very questionable charging from Bailiff

[spj]

Had a polite bailiff arrive, it was all amicable but once he left I started looking into the charges he's applied and I need to know where I stand urgently.

 

First of all he has a walking possession on my car (a £700 verging-on-deaths-door) which I need for my business (as transport to clients, public transport is just not good enough in south wales), but apparently I'm not actually allowed to use it? (must not be removed from the property).

 

Secondly, I have two forms for two different debts (last year's council tax and this year's) on BOTH forms, I'm being charged the first visit fee + Levy fee + Walking possession fee...

 

These fees total £147.50!!!

 

Is it right that I've been charged for two visits in one visit? Should he be charging both visit and levy fees?

 

Now I know where I am debt-wise and that is being dealt with so forget comments about this, are they taking me to the cleaners or are all these charges completely legitimate?

[ploddertom]

Very nearly 1-0 to the Bailiff. Coming here we should be able to make this at least a comfortable draw if not a win for yourself.

 

If you have signed a Walking Possession then you have use of the goods pending payment - yes you may use them but you must not sell or dispose of them without permission. It could be that your levy may not even be valid - is the car the only item listed on the Notice of Seizure? How much do you owe in total as confirmed by the Council - don't believe the Bailiff's figures as his abacus is a few beads short?

 

If he has 2 accounts and has visited you about both at the same time he has to treat them as one and therefore you will only pay one set of fees. Please tell me he has charged you 2 levy fees after listing the same items on both levies. Shows him up for the numpty he is if he has.

 

You should send off for a breakdown of the fees that have been applied. Look at some of the other threads on this page for an example of what to use.

 

PT

[spj]

In total, before bailiff fees, I owed £1240

 

I did sign the walking possession (both) rather stupidly, but it gives me more time to put debt plans into action. only the car is on there. The breakdown I have:

 

Form 1:

Total: 966.20

Visit 1 (dated today): 22.50

Levy Fee: 51

Walking possession: 11

Total: 1050.70

 

Form 2:

Total: 274.44

Visit 1 (dated today): 22.50

Levy Fee: 30

Walking possession: 11

Total: 337.94

 

And yes, same car listed as sole item on both forms...

 

Given the short time I have and how desperately I need that car next week, I don't have much time to apply for breakdowns but this seems to be enough to show some dodgy charging. After looking through the forums, the order is still valid however I can ask for the extra charges to be removed... The printed part of the form says I have 5 days to pay in full (although I'm aware I can negotiate a payment plan with them directly as they would prefer my money rather than my car)

[tomtubby]

I have not had time to start a new sticky and will try to get this arranged later today. The STICKY will be on the subject of Local Government Ombudsman's reports and particular emphasis will be on the highly critical report dated 15th December 2010 in the case of Rossendale Borough Council ( the bailiff company was Equita Ltd).

 

In this particular complaint, the Ombudsman confirms that Rossendale Borough Council MUST NOT apply double charges for enforcing more than one Liability Order at the same time!!!!

[ploddertom]

Are you saying that this is the first visit they have made today? If so then they cannot charge you a Visit Fee if the have levied on your goods - it is either but not both . Looking at what you have listed the Fees should be in my opinion:

Levy Fee:

24.5% on the first £100 = £24-50

4% on the next £400 = £16-00

2.5% on the remaining £740-00 + £18-50

Total Levy Fee = £59-00

+ Walking Possession = £11-00

Total Fees £70-00

 

Seems as if they have some explaining to do. OPlease note I have worked this out using the English Fees, I believe Welsh fees are slightly less.

 

PT

[spj]

That's interesting, so the double charging is definitely wrong, I keep reading that the visit charge is only applied if no levy is made. As a levy was made, they shouldn't be charging both. Can't find this on official stuff. I'm already talking to the CCCS because I obviously want to wort something out so will run this all by them too.

[spj]

Got there before me, Thanks Ploddertom and Tomtubby.

 

Yes I'm in Wales, does incorrect charging render the forms (and charges) invalid? or are they still valid just at the lower rate?

[ploddertom]

The Bailiff has charged all that he can hoping you don't know and therefore will just pay up. If challenged he will will have made an error he knew about and it has already been sorted - he's good at fairy stories to.

 

Turning to your levy and the seizure of your car. You say it isn't worth much - £700 at most - are you aware that if actually removed and put into auction it may only realise £100 - £150 tops. As you owe over £1k then realistically the Bailiff should be seizing goods to the value of £10k working on things only being worth 10%. As you have now caught them cheating with their fees I would go in for the kill, goods if removed must:

1 - cover all the Bailiffs Fees

2 - cover the costs of removal & storage

3 - cover the costs of the auction

4 - cover the Auctioneers fees

5 - pay a contribution to your debt.

As this is notlikely to happen you can be aggrieved by the levy and put it to them that the Bailiff only made a levy in orer to gain a financial consideration for himself and his company. As there are no other goods - do not let them in your home - the Liability Order should be returned to the Council as Nulla Bono. A copy should also be sent to the Council.

 

If they then refuse to remove the levy fee and associated charges, replacing them with a Visit Fee then you will have no option but to file a Regulation 46 Complaint naming the Council as Defendant in an action in the Magistrates Court. Light blue touch paer and retire.

 

PT

[spj]

The idea of taking advice from a person called 'Ploddertom' from 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' is scary.. perhaps I'll omit that from any official correspondence

 

Many thanks for taking the time on this, I obviously need to present it to the pros but it looks to be very helpful.

 

So if I interpret this correctly I have to do the following:

 

1) Tomorrow I deliver the Distress notice to the council and back to the bailiffs office with a cover letter firstly pointing out that the levy itself is proof that the bailiff was acting only for his and his company's own benefit and not for that of me or my creditor therefore rendering the levy invalid, and secondly that most of his charges were unlawful and should be combined into one single visit fee at £22.50 as nothing was officially levied?

 

2a) If they agree, then I'm back to square 1, my car is safe and I'm allowed to talk in plain terms and set up a fair payment plan instead of honouring the unlawful one they proposed?

 

2b) If they refuse on either ground, I file a Regulation 46 Complaint with legal backing from the CAB. What is that likely to achieve? Would my debt be back with the council or would it remain with the bailiff firm?

 

As much as I'd love my debt to be written off, I won't deny liability (unless I legally can ... which I can't). My business hit a ****ty year and so I'm behind on a few things but slowly getting back up. But I do object to bailiffs and creditors taking the mickey. When someone is in financial difficulty, adding excessive charges is counter productive... well the term 'distress' was chosen for good reason.

Edited September 19, 2011 by spj
Removed previous edit, was factually incorrect after a little research.

[spj]

Further, IF I can prove that this levy is invalid, am I able to sell the car to my wife before their return? (In fairness she has paid more for it's upkeep than I have!) Obviously while the levy exists, it would be illegal and still subject to removal.

[ploddertom]

 

The idea of taking advice from a person called 'Ploddertom' from 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' is scary.. perhaps I'll omit that from any official correspondence

 

 

[ploddertom]

 

 

1) Tomorrow I deliver the Distress notice to the council and back to the bailiffs office with a cover letter firstly pointing out that the levy itself is proof that the bailiff was acting only for his and his company's own benefit and not for that of me or my creditor therefore rendering the levy invalid, and secondly that most of his charges were unlawful and should be combined into one single visit fee at £22.50 as nothing was officially levied? Unfortunately this is not a quick process. You need to write to point out that the Bailiff is overcharging you by:

a - charging multiple fees when the LO's should be treated as one

b - levying and charging on the same goods twice

c - stating that if your vehicle was to be removed and sold it would not realise enough to:

1 - cover all the Bailiffs Fees

2 - cover the costs of removal & storage

3 - cover the costs of the auction

4 - cover the Auctioneers fees

5 - pay a contribution to your debt.

Therefore you feel aggrieved by the Levy and believe the Bailiff has made the levy solelt to make financial gain

 

A copy goes to the Council

 

2a) If they agree, then I'm back to square 1, my car is safe and I'm allowed to talk in plain terms and set up a fair payment plan instead of honouring the unlawful one they proposed? You can in the meantime pay the Council direct using online banking, the Council website or automated phone - if using these methods you may have to allow for some Bailiff Fees and should pay regularly - £10 every Thursday for example. This shows a willingness to pay.

 

2b) If they refuse on either ground, I file a Regulation 46 Complaint with legal backing from the CAB. What is that likely to achieve? Would my debt be back with the council or would it remain with the bailiff firm? You have to walk before you run, please remember that CAB advice can be variable - some are knowledgeable others will just say pay it. You are someway from filing a Complaint yet.

 

The only sure fire way of sorting this tomorrow is payment in full. Sending letters back and forth does take time and the process does not run quickly.

 

PT

[spj]

I knew it wouldn't be as simple as you made it sound. Perhaps a visit to the office, with letter but include verbal communication to get some form of agreement at least to investigate prior to seizure if not complete admittance. This couldn't have come at a worse time, my dad's just booked us a ferry trip to see him in France next week... I won't be too upset about losing the car generally but the timing couldn't be worse. I cannot afford to lose it before that trip! I have several clients owing, I just need enough payments to come in to make a monthly offer, we can argue over the charges later. If the debt belongs to the bailiffs however, would paying the council direct not just be paying off the current and future bills rather than past and present?

 

I'll speak in depth to the CCCS first as I've already been dealing with them on my general financial issues and so far they've been relatively helpful. The CAB I've had issues before but they're always the go-to*

 

*One of the reasons I'm in this situation is when I sold my first ever car and bought my second ever car. I went to a dealer because I knew I was protected by law whereas buying from an individual I get whatever I buy. It failed it's first MOT within one month of purchase with three pages of problems (and another three in welsh) including all 4 brakes dangerously unsafe, the handbrake unusable (try hill starting with no handbrake... it's scary! I live in Wales!). I went back to the dealer as he had sold me a legally unroadworthy vehicle and all he would do is offer to quote me on the repairs (which he never got round to). I then went to the CAB who told me word for word 'Buyer beware' and that there was nothing I could do. I realised either this 'consumer protection' is on paper but doesn't really exist, or the CAB are useless because they legally should have received huge fines from the consumer protection guys and a court order from myself... Today they're still trading, I wrote a blog with my SEO skills but they keep changing their company name, still their customers find me, email me and tell me how they're in the same situation because of this [problem] artist. Anyway the repairs to this monster have cost well in excess of the vehicle cost by month 2... let alone the last mot which was another couple of hundred so when the bailiffs say they'll take it away, part of me is elated! The other part says it's worth far more to me than anyone else because of how much blood, sweat and tears have gone into making it roadworthy, meanwhile my wife was paying £30 per day in taxis to work. That was the thing which started this whole thing off, we've been in debt ever since. Anyway that was completely off-topic, but it was my topic so there :-p

 

I already have a contact at the council, I will speak to the CCCS to verify your advice and if you're right (which i strongly suspect you are) see if there's anything they can do to protect the car quickly without having to physically hide it.

 

I hate it when people are given some powers and then abuse it so. Meanwhile us normal people have to dance to their tune.

[spj]

I have spoken to my contact at the council (I already have a reasonably good relationship with him after previous difficulties and payment arrangements) and they've instructed the bailiffs to hold off for 21 days pending investigation.

 

I have sent my full list of grievances and awaiting a reply. They confirm in terms of costs that you are correct and that these two bills have grossly inflated what should have been a legally enforced 'reasonable' charge. Will update as things progress. Meanwhile a difficult paying client seems to be shifting his feet so I can start making a decent offer of payment shortly.

[ploddertom]

Payments

If you look at your CT bill you will note you have a Property No & an Account No - these never change. However each year you should also have a Reference No which does change each year and it is by using this number you ensure it is paid correctly. The Debt always belongs to the Council, the Bailiffs are only employed by them for collection purposes and as such are ultimately responsible for the actions of their contractor.

 

Read Post 17 in this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?319349-Jacobs-Bailiffs for further advice about paying different years.

 

Regardless of what the Council may say or do if you take a payment directly to them they must accept it, if they do refuse then you ask politely for the name of the employee and explain you will be making a Formal Complaint both to the Council CEO and the LGO about their refusal to accept a legitimate payment.

 

PT

[spj]

I've had a reply from the bailiffs. They have removed the 2 first visit fees as they must have been added due to 'human error'... twice

 

They still insist they can charge twice for the levy as it was on two liability orders. I found one case Throssell V Leeds City Council where the judge declared that despite three orders, bailiffs could only charge for one visit. So I have them on that.

 

They will not accept my car as a 'tool of the trade' this is difficult ground as I keep finding conflicting information. It is also a personal motorcar but removal would impact my business and leave me unable to provide some of the services I have been and would lose income. Any advice on here would be appreciated.

 

They also claim that they don't charge storage costs and removal would only be £65.

With the new charges of £103 + the £65 only totals £168.... taking into account 15% auction fees, is there anyway to show what my car is likely to attract by way of evidence?

 

If I am right in points 1 at least, do I have grounds for a regulation 46 complaint? I've given them a chance to rectify their errors. What about 2 and 3?

[ploddertom]

I've had a reply from the bailiffs. They have removed the 2 first visit fees as they must have been added due to 'human error'... twice - what a surprise

 

They still insist they can charge twice for the levy as it was on two liability orders. I found one case Throssell V Leeds City Council where the judge declared that despite three orders, bailiffs could only charge for one visit. So I have them on that. Throssell v Leeds is a parking matter I believe but the same still holds true for Council Tax + there was a LGO report last year that was highly critical of Rossendale Borough Council & Equita doing something similar.

 

They will not accept my car as a 'tool of the trade' this is difficult ground as I keep finding conflicting information. It is also a personal motorcar but removal would impact my business and leave me unable to provide some of the services I have been and would lose income. Any advice on here would be appreciated. How is it insured? Is anyone else insured to drive it? What sort of business to you do?

 

They also claim that they don't charge storage costs and removal would only be £65.

With the new charges of £103 + the £65 only totals £168.... taking into account 15% auction fees, is there anyway to show what my car is likely to attract by way of evidence? If your car is removed, at auction they will tell the crowd that it is a Bailiff removal which does affect the price. Many are removed without keys or V5 which depresses the price even further. To get an approx value have a look at similar types of vehicle being sold locally and allow approx 10% of that average for what yours may acheive at auction. If the average value is £800 then you could be looking at just £80 although £150 may be nearer the mark. Other factors governing price will be age, condition etc.

 

If I am right in points 1 at least, do I have grounds for a regulation 46 complaint? I've given them a chance to rectify their errors. What about 2 and 3?

As you owe over £1200 in CT then the Bailiff should have been looking for goods to seize of a value in excess of £10k, in my view you would be justified in making the complaint after you have confirmation they refuse to remove the levy and all associated charges.

 

PT

[spj]

Thanks again.

 

The car is insured as SDP :-/ I run a web design and IT business. Most often it's travel to clients which technically could be done by bus (but down here a 20 minute car journey could take 90 minutes by bus. More for some remote locations. I do also attend some clients as IT support and have to transport PC equipment and monitors around which definitely could NOT be done by bus. I would have to dismiss a few client as I would no longer be able to service them.

 

The only cars of my type I can see being sold at about £1000 on ebay and the likes, but these always have much lower mileage, and usually some service history. Mine has no service history as I'm a DIY amateur hobbyist mechanic... and like to save a few bob.

 

My wife is insured to drive it on a provisional licence but only because it brings the premiums down.

 

Throssell Vs Leeds is a Poll tax with multiple liability orders. Mishcon v Marston Group was parking fines but the same rules apply; although I can't find enough information to verify this case.

[ShinySheen]

This is just my opinion about multiple fees by reading the appropriate legislation maybe others will back my theory up ?

Regulation 45(1) – where a liability order has been made to the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of goods of the debtor against whom the order was made

Regulation 45(2) – the appropriate amount for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the aggregate of –

a) An amount equal to any outstanding sum which forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

b) A sum determined in accordance with schedule 5 in respect of charges connected with distress

Schedule 5 Head B – for levying distress –

The lesser of -

i) The amount of the cost and fees reasonably incurred: and

ii) The relevant amount calculated under paragraph 2(1) with respect to the levy

Schedule 5 paragraph (2)(1) – in Head B of the table to paragraph 1’ “the relevant amount” with respect to the levy means –

a)where the sum due at the time of the levy does not exceed £100 , £24.50

b) Where the sum due at the time of the levy exceeds £100 24.5 percent on the first £100 of the sum due. 4 percent on the next £400. 2.5 percent on the next £1.500. 1 percent on the next £8.000 and 0.25 percent on any additional sum

And sum due at any time for these purposes means so much of the amount in respect of which the liability order concerned was made as is outstanding at the time

The wording of the regulations refers to “the lesser of The amount of the costs reasonably incurred and” “The relevant amount calculated under paragraph 2(1) with respect to the levy” paragraph 2(1) is providing a formula for the calculation of large fees Head B does not state each liability order is to be levied separately it states Where the sum due at the time of the levy, suggests aggregated liability orders as the most expensive council tax in England & Wales been well under £4,000 pounds , provision is given in 2(1) to calculate fees of over £8.000 again suggests aggregated liability orders,

[spj]

Thanks ShinySheen, certainly looks right, it doesn't.

 

I've given them the chance to fix their mistakes and they haven't so I'm going for a full complaint. I've also contacted the council and said I would be paying them directly and will provide a full statement of accounts and the best I can offer. This is the only big debt I have so they can't refuse the best I can do.

 

So far in my complaint.

 

1) Charges: I will mention the charges they've since removed but the fact they still believe they can charge double and that in their explanation to me, "this is common practice in the industry". This complaint appears valid with cases mentioned and their rulings.

 

2) Seizure of a car I need for my business. Grey area but I think I have to concede here. I need the car for a part of my business but it's more a personal vehicle. If they do remove it, I will lose a few clients, but the majority of my business can be operated by bus and train.

 

3) Whether they levied enough to cover a proportion of my debt, and whether this matters. I found a case where the bailiff levied a doormat and applied £200 worth of charges which was thrown out because it was obvious a ridiculous money making [problem]. But as their charges are down to £168 and the car is probably worth £700, it's hard to find anything to prove that it would sell for PT's estimated £80-150. If PT is right, I can't find any legislation to prove that this is a problem :-/ I'd like to hit with this if it's true especially given that argument 2 appears to be fading fast.

[ShinySheen]

In my experience they will deny as much as they can and their bailiffs can and will have done NO wrong

The answers you were given sound very similar to mine

(1) Unfortunately it is common practice …..i would be asking were in the legislation is says that it can be done ……..theiving and drug dealing is common practice but is illegal

(2) Deff grey area unless you can get a sworn affidavit saying it’s not yours from your local solicitor or it’s a Taxi

(3) 3 is difficult it says somewhere in the regs about Levying to high by levying to low in their eyes they would come back and levy something else

[ploddertom]

Knew I had this somewhere just couldn't figure out where it was.

 

"From:

My Name

My Address

 

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: Account No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account. I note your Bailiff has made a Levy on a Ford Dipstick, Reg No: Z999 CAR. However I wish you to note that the value of this car if taken for sale at auction would raise at most £2-50. As you doubtless know any goods seized for sale at auction must cover the bailiff costs, removal costs, all auction costs and a proprtion of the debt I owe.

 

The above being confirmed by the Judgement of Throssell v Leeds City Council where the judge states:

"as for your car how old is it? I.E. would the sale of it actually cover a large percentage 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 liability order after deductions for the bailiff fees, , removal storages and auctioneers fees."

As this clearly does not cover all these costs I put it to you that your Bailiff has a Levy that makes a financial gain for both him/herself and your Company.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Ripped off customer"

 

PT

[spj]

Ah the classic Ford Dipstick, I remember it well.

 

Do you have access to detailed case notes from Throssell v Leeds? I've Googled 'as for your car how old is it' in this regards and only this forum comes up (with you pasting the info) and moneysavingexpert with another user.

 

We'll forget complaint 2, but I can release my car still if the above is the case. It would essentially set the bailiff up to take the car, pay off his charges, come back, levy another £150 worth of stuff, charge £150 and continue with no respect to the actual debt. Nearly as bad as the bailiff who levied the doormat and charged £200 odd... but his was much more obvious.

 

More of the detailed assessment below from the other site for others' benefit:

 

"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" they cannot charge so many fees if only one visit is made

as for your car how old is it? I.E. would the sale of it actually cover a large percentage 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 liability order after deductions for the bailiff fees, , removal storages and auctioneers fees. "

[ShinySheen]

I just love Plodder Tom's letters ....straight to the point ....but witha sense of humour thrown in

[spj]

Ok I think it's time to take proper legal advice to see how to proceed. I was just going to go to the magistrates court and do it myself however I've seen mention of the word 'fraud' in relation to cases like this and fraud is much bigger than bailiff law. The bailiff trying to charge me more than he should is more than just 'common practice' and 'human error' - it potentially amounts to fraud. I would also like to make the biggest impact I can because we all know bailiffs add these charges because 9 times in 10 they probably get away with it. As self-employed bailiffs earning commission, it doubles his take home pay. I would like to take this further ideally to the point that the bailiff's company is ordered to stop chasing all debts pending an investigation into their practices, they have themselves admitted to me in writing that charging per liability order is common-place in the industry and I think that warrants a criminal investigation rather than just a civil one. But everything needs to be done properly and in the right order so I will speak to the legal team at the CAB and see what they advise.