Jump to content


Some very questionable charging from Bailiff


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4538 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Looks good but I personally think you’re babbling on too much in the paragraph about car prices e-bay Rolls Royce silver Shadow & the coffee maker ….it needs to be factual and straight to the point …..I’m not criticizing in any way it’s just my opinion…. when I did my formal complaint I needed a lot of help too

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SS, like I said critique away.

 

I did struggle with that part. I need to show the court that there is no way any rational person would believe my car was worth £7000k+ Sitting it next to the RR was an attempt at showing how ridiculous their claim that they believed it to be valuable enough is. I'll rework it later tonight. I'm assuming you mean the bit between 'according to ebay' and 'pushed to the sides'... I'll have a look.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically what I mean is the bailiffs obviously did the levy so he could start piling on the fees ….he is not stupid..But the problem is especially when doing any sort of complaint against the Bailiffs is all parties act stupid to defend bailiffs to the hilt ! And the only way to beat them or try to beat them is to prove they have done wrong with throwing the legislation at them. Witch (I’m sure we all appreciate) is what you are doing

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok I have a response, it came direct from the council and I'm not sure if the magistrates are in or out of the loop.

 

Response letter

 

They seem to have tracked me back here! Either way Throssell v Leeds text I actually did qualify as it is available on Rossendales website (not the bailiff in this case, but another popular bailiff firm with council contracts). What do you think about the rest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I have a response, it came direct from the council and I'm not sure if the magistrates are in or out of the loop.

 

Response letter

 

They seem to have tracked me back here! Either way Throssell v Leeds text I actually did qualify as it is available on Rossendales website (not the bailiff in this case, but another popular bailiff firm with council contracts). What do you think about the rest?

 

They KNOW they cannot apply a separate charge to each LO if called for on same day so are toughing it out, with regard to the value of the motor merely covering the bailiffs costs in removing it, i think they are talking wombat excrement, Refer back to tomtubby's post #4 on this thread about the charging, and I think the council and the excerable Andrew James seem to have their own off kilter interpretation of the regulations.

 

there is also an air of desperation in their attempts to impune the advice given on CAG, I mean it is almost challenging the knowledge of professionals who also post advice on here.

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

They also assume I'm taking the advice here and not checking things out. I've heard nothing from the court, have thy just forwarded my complaint on without a glance or is the ball rolling and I should wait to hear from them? As the council and I do not agree, I can only assume the next step is to meet their rep in front of a judge, are they right about the additional charges?

 

I know the prison threat is relatively groundless as they have to prove that I am unwilling to pay whereas I can prove it's actually inability not lack of will.

 

*Edit to avoid creating a new post*

 

I've made a payment proposal to the council from which I have not heard. I can definitely make my first payment this Thursday and continue thereafter and have included attachment of earnings and necessary expenditure to show that my offer is actually in excess of affordability so I am trying. The trouble is that the 21 days the council bought for me from the bailiffs is up tomorrow. In my email to the council (to an address I've always had a good response from) I have explained this and asked for this 21 days to be extended until Friday. My default action failing any advice here is to phone the bailiffs office first thing Monday with the same offer. I don't want to pay the selectively innumerate, profit-making company, but this is probably the only way to protect my car at this stage...?

Edited by spj
Link to post
Share on other sites

They also assume I'm taking the advice here and not checking things out. I've heard nothing from the court, have thy just forwarded my complaint on without a glance or is the ball rolling and I should wait to hear from them? As the council and I do not agree, I can only assume the next step is to meet their rep in front of a judge, are they right about the additional charges?

 

I know the prison threat is relatively groundless as they have to prove that I am unwilling to pay whereas I can prove it's actually inability not lack of will.

 

Making assumptions could cost them dearly...

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

As many people on here are aware, I have a commercial business advising the public with regards to a bailiff visit.

 

I have read the response from the local authority and I cannot comment on it until later today as I am SO ANGRY!!!! It is an utterly appalling response and if this case was mine, I would be responding back to the Chief Executive. The final sentence is most serious indeed where it is stated IN WRITING that if the case is referred back to the council that they can seek your committal.

 

The council will surely know that the legal position is that, in order to seek committal the LOCAL AUTHORITY would need to demonstrate to the court that the debtor is either "willfully refusing" to pay the council tax or that "culpable neglect" is proveable. Neither would appear to be the case. If a payment proposal is made, it is CLEAR that you cannot in a million years be guilty of "willfully refusing" to pay !!!

 

I AM SO ANGRY !!!!!!

 

My response will be worth it......

Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on your reply is that I doubt it was written by someone at the Council, more likely written by the Bailiffs and someone has foolishly signed their name to it. Here's something of interest that you should maybe ask the Council for their comments

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?321380-Multiple-Levy%E2%80%99s-.im-confused&p=3569585#post3569585

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks TT,

 

Don't get too wound up, if we're right and they're wrong, this is obviously an attempt to dissuade me from pursuing this further.

 

On the plus side, my money cleared sooner than I thought so I can actually make my first payment at 9am on Monday. I will do it by phone and speak directly to someone who can call off the wolves in return.

 

I'm also seeing some advice sending me to complain to the Magistrates court, and others to the Local Government Ombudsman... should I be complaining through both or have procedures changed?

Edited by spj
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think their response letter is now evidence to support your in any complaints you wish to make to whichever authority you decide. It shows a flagrant disregard as to what is allowed, and also has the manner of a veiled threat. Whatever TT's response will be worth waiting for. My take is that they are desperately trying to save face and not back down.

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

Just had a read through the LGO report TT. The council's response is correct and would continue to be correct in terms of the fact that these judgements are not part of a legal precedence, but as we have evidence of two judges and one LGO report saying that double charging does not fall into the 'reasonable costs' bracket, there is a certain amount of clout for this particular case when it too goes in front of a judge and the LGO.

 

The letter also provides evidence that the removal and sale of my car was only intended to cover their fees and not my debt, this is a plain admission. However, they're also right in that there is no law or regulation stating they have to cover any of my debt at all. I think as a 'debt recovery' method, nobody thought it necessary to add this clause.

 

As for these charges if I take my complaint through the courts and lose, what fees am I likely to e charged? If I win, can I also claim compensation for the time spent by myself and others on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The letter also provides evidence that the removal and sale of my car was only intended to cover their fees and not my debt, this is a plain admission. However, they're also right in that there is no law or regulation stating they have to cover any of my debt at all. I think as a 'debt recovery' method, nobody thought it necessary to add this clause.

 

As for these charges if I take my complaint through the courts and lose, what fees am I likely to e charged? If I win, can I also claim compensation for the time spent by myself and others on this?

 

I think there is something in the regulations that stipulates the goods must cover all fees, cost of removal, and a proportion of the debt, as otherwise a levy on property that is insufficient could be seen as one soley for the purpose of garnering fees for the bailiff and this is fraudulent, as in debt £600 goods seized would have to be worth £6,000 at least as goods at auction from a bailiff removal often only realise 10% of their value. The letter you have actually admits that the levy was soley to cover fees, so we will see what other Caggers make of this.

 

Others will be along soon. I will be watching with interest for Tomtubby's response to this one.

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

I am new to all this and I am learning as I go along, I tried to copy the bit I am going to make my point about but I can't do it! it does say that if you START a Court action you WILL incur considerable costs against you, they forgot to say ONLY IF YOU LOSE! If they think the Law needs clarifying perhaps they would welcome the opportunity to get it sorted out once and for all. I would be great if you could do this they do seem to need it in black and white, but it is a huge burden on you.

 

Incidently does this letter imply that Council staff spend all day playing on the internet, perhaps there should be some sort of inquiry into this!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that not only are the Councils strapped for cash but also some of the Bailiff firms also. Sites like this I believe are having an effect on their incomes. No one minds paying the correct and legal fees but many of them are making it up as they go along in the hope that the debtor doesn't know what can or cannot be charged. There is one firm that has its HQ in Lancashire who if you look at what all the complaints are about follow a similar pattern - they are obviously being trained to extract as much as they can get away with - if the rot starts at the top then it therefore carries all the way down to the foot soldiers who think it permissible to carry out what may be illegal acts & charges - surely if we can see that pattern then the management of that Company must see it also unless of course they are going to condone it. In their case they need a good clear out & start again. Maybe it's nearly time to make an example of not only a Bailiff but also the Company he works for.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the Councils is that to my mind they are so hand in hand with the Bailiff Companies who have them believe they are whiter than white. Some of them need to wake up and see what is really happening.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The time is not nearly here PT it's overdue to make an example of them

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

The problem with the Councils is that to my mind they are so hand in hand with the Bailiff Companies who have them believe they are whiter than white. Some of them need to wake up and see what is really happening.

 

To be honest, a "whiter than white" bailiff company would probably fail within weeks. I saw a comment in relation to various LGO rulings which say more or less "Well how else are we supposed to recover this debt?" - Ok so a bailiff has bent the rules, possibly broken them to pressure me into paying. Let's be honest with each other, it's worked. It was a debt I wasn't doing much about until his arrival, now I'm spending almost every waking moment (a) trying to clear it and (b) fighting for my rights to be treated fairly. Michaels are being taken, and as I said in my letter TO the magistrates court, there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence saying that this is not an isolated case. I would like to take this as far as possible, my dream perhaps is to force an overhaul of the entire bailiff system, I doubt I'll get much further than quashing fees against me personally, and even that looks like it will be a struggle.

 

If I can get a judge and the LGO to agree that these charges should not be doubled, I would like to take this to the police as a fraud case. I would like to find other 'victims' of this particular firm to also take them to court based on the same judgement. If this works and AJ are forced out of business (or to rename as is more likely), then this will go to the national press urging people country wide to take action against their own.

 

This isn't my first dealings with bailiffs, my first was when my girlfriend and I moved into a flat. It was our first and I went straight to the council for a bill. They told me one would be in the post but despite reminders, it never arrived. 6 months later, my gf cheated on me and moved out forcing me out also. I had to move into the YMCA out of desperation and no sooner had I left there and moved into an HMO, a bailiff arrived. (apparently the 4th visit or so, each one had been charged for though despite me being jobless and constantly at home, I never heard a knock or even received a council tax bill). I took a small loan and paid up. I had to pay £250 of bailiff fees on top of the actual council tax bill. Nothing was levied (I had nothing at the time as the evil one took everything) and paid up within 1 month of the first actual visit. This was Rossendales acting on behalf of Watford Borough Council. My second dealings with bailiffs and they're trying all the same tactics. The industry need to be hit hard. I don't know if I'm the one to do it but I'll do whatever I can without losing my relationship and my car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that letter from the Council quite creepy and threatening, I have been thinking about it all afternoon, they are actually telling you where to go for advice, they are trying to send you to the CAB who although they try to be helpful your Council know that they simply do not have the knowledge to help you properly. It is awful that they come on here and not just to spy but to try to find out what is going on but have found you personally and then further their bad behaviour and wrong advice and try and steer you away from finding out what your rights are. That is subversive. This is more than dishonest it is really underhand and planned and contrived. They do know they are wrong and are trying to stop you from getting information about your legal your rights real threats and lies. This is really a step too far. I can hardly believe, but of course I do, that there is this planned action to try and not only cover their criminal activities, both the council who should know better and the bailiffs who never will but to also prevent you by threats and intimidation from even finding out what your rights are. Every day now I am getting more and more angry and I realise that whatever we do individually is not going to stop this problem it will take an organised action, like we have been discussing and everyone, MP police etc must be told and made to understand what is happening and they need to deal with it, nothing new they just have to deal with the criminal activities that is, after all, their job!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1Loretta - Well it all depends on who's right and who's wrong. The trouble is the fact this debt has gone to bailiffs sets me off in the wrong. I should have sorted this long ago but I kept putting it off out of fear and lack of control. I run a small business and taking this to national papers, even local papers could be business suicide. If my clients knew I was in financial trouble, their trust would drop.

 

However depending on how these next steps go, I would like to see how far I can take this, and I will need other victims behind me. I will need Mr H referred to above and anyone here who has received the same treatment, or better the same judgement. They were legally entitled to levy my car, however they're also legally entitled to levy my doormat (as has happened in another case) and even legally entitled to levy my dogs! (In the eyes of the law, these are property, not living things unless made to suffer in some way)... the latter would be thrown out by any reasonable judge but the line MUST lie somewhere, and this needs to be put into bailiff regulations in black and white for all to see. This is what I want to fight for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know nothing as I have said before but a couple of points, in their letter if you disregard all the threats and bullying, they do say contact the Council to make an arrangements for payment, they haven't said as they usually do that they won't accept payments you have to pay the bailiffs, have caught on a bit? They also say about the bailiff's 'mistake' with the charges that they have changed procedures so that this doesn't happen again it would be really good if someone came on here about this same company showing that they have done it again after the date of the Council's letter, we all know that they can't help themselves but to do it again!

 

I think your next step is sending all this to the CEO, MP etc not the Courts yet. You don't want to be proving your point in Court you need to wait until you have all the facts and proof and an admission from them that they have done wrong and then just confirm it in Court. I understand what you mean about making a stand once and for all about all this, I think the same, but the bailiffs and Councils depend on you not wanting the publicity involved, thy don't realise that the publicity they would receive for seeming to support not just inefficiency and actual criminal activities for them would have far greater consequences, I don't suppose the numpties who write these letters could understand that but I bet the CEO and MP would!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...