Phoenix collections, jumped charges, and council tax

[simonf1975]

The same stories over and over again, isn't it about time that someone took a proper look at all this?

 

 

most definitely!!! but who?? I can quite easily see how the actions of some of these bailiffs could worry someone into the grave...I consider myself to be of a strong disposition...but all the grief and hassle I received from the bailiff's was so stressful and worrying!!

[simonf1975]

double post

[Microchip]

Done some refinements to the document - the latest version is here, which I think pretty much nails it on the dot - lettertocouncilceo-phoenix.pdf - and it'll get sent today.

 

Any other feedback is appreciated. Thanks simonf1975 for the notes you sent through, I've used them to rework the wording on the document a bit

Edited November 11, 2011 by Microchip

[hallowitch]

I apparently received

two visits from a Robert Clegg on behalf of Phoenix on the 23rd of March at 10:49 and 29th of

March at 14:48,

 

 

cant find him on the register of bailiffs did you phone Ministry of Justice Public Register of bailiffs on 020 3334 6355 to confirm he is a certificated bailiff and his employer is/was Phoenix at time the visit fees were charged

Edited November 11, 2011 by hallowitch

[wonkeydonkey]

Your letter gets your points across, however it is far to long and you risk the reader not getting to the end!!!!

Would you like help to draft it?

 

WD

[Microchip]

I'd really appreciate that if you could!

 

I'm going to make the call re Robert Clegg being on the Register when I get chance at work too.

[hallowitch]

I'd really appreciate that if you could!

 

I'm going to make the call re Robert Clegg being on the Register when I get chance at work too.

 

If Mr clegg was not a bailiff in march(certificated to phoenix) when the visit fees were charged then the fees would have to be removed It would be good if you could find out before wonkey made a final draft of your letter so she can include this

[wonkeydonkey]

I will contact by PM.

[Microchip]

I just checked - he was on the certified list on 15/06/2009 to 14/06/2011.

[wonkeydonkey]

Has his certificate been updated since the 14/06/2011,if not he had no business calling on you in the October?

 

WD

[Microchip]

It was a different bailiff who visited on the October occasions, it was him who supplied me with the information that the first chap had visited and who he was.

[Microchip]

Okay, here's the latest version - lettertocouncilceo-phoenix-v2.pdf - with the assistance provided by wonkeydonkey. Seems to look pretty reasonable, and I've incorporated a few things of my own, hopefully it'll be quite effective. If anyone has any feedback before this goes in the post to the council later, I'd appreciate it.

 

Once we get some feedback from the council, I'll post up here with the response.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Microchip
Accidentally left names in redacted PDF, added bits of text

[Microchip]

Well, it seems some feathers have been ruffled, and the complaint to the council finally got some action. Got a reply immediately from the Council telling us they were looking in to it, and they'd be in touch. Just got 2 letters from Phoenix - one by normal mail, and one by 9AM guaranteed next day special delivery!

 

The first one - phoenix-20111124-letter1.pdf - is an "if you want all personal data, send £10, but here's the statement we have to give you", with the information in the statement.

 

The second - phoenix-20111124-letter2.pdf - is a retort from Phoenix. We have no communications on 1st, 9th, 21st and 30th April which he is pointing out on the first page. I will see if there's a such letter that was sent out when the arrangement was made re the £10 broken arrangement fee - is it possible that's a binding agreement? I've been unable to locate such a document.

 

Not sure what to make of the comments about the 50p processing fees.

 

Regarding the comment about the bailiff "inadvertently entered the figures £285.50 manually and this was incorrect the figure had he acted would have been £259.50" - £259.50 being £140 above the amount currently due according to them - which doesn't seem to quite add up. Judging by their £120 van fee (if it was a second visit after a walking possession if he'd had one), where has the extra £20 come from? This seems to nicely gloss over the "error" made by the bailiff, which I think is complete rubbish.

 

They also comment about the querying or offering settlement on the debt - it was queried as mentioned earlier in this thread as soon as I became aware of it and consulted with the people on here. "Nobody was attempting to defraud you, or deceive or cheat you in any way" - sounded like the bailiff who turned up was attempting to do just that, just wish I'd recorded it now, but my phone was on the blink.

 

I'm also curious as to why "You, or rather a person identifying themselves as your friend, have since contacted our office and they were advised to deal with the bailiff as they in their conversation stated quite categorically you would not be paying the debt" - where at any point in the documentation was this stated? I suspect they're watching this thread themselves. (For the record, while I've helped her get the documentation she needs together to sort this out, and get the assistance we need to make sure she pays the fair legal amount, as I've said all along, but she's sent all the documentation off herself.)

 

I'd appreciate any feedback anyone has, I'm not sure exactly where to take this now.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Microchip
Clarified amounts

[Psy71]

"The bailiff inadvertantly entered the wrong figure..."

Yes of course he did. How else do they pocket themselves nice little bonuses.

[Psy71]

...and I still don't understand where they get the £259.50 from... could anyone explain?

...and it was queried which is the whole point of these threads!

[Psy71]

It clearly stated on one of the letters from the bailiff "I have called today to collect the sum of £285.50 being the amount now due in respect of Council Tax owing to.... As yet I have not removed any goods. I will however be returning on or after the 14th/10 when I will expect to collect the sum quoted above"

 

Phoenix are now trying to say that this figure is what the bailiff COULD have increased it to. The actual money owing being £119.50.

 

I'm sick and tired of it now. How do they get away with this rubbish? It clearly states he want £285.50 from me. No? This is this them clearly trying to backtrack isn't it? Throwing in a few clever words that they think will confuse me?

 

Every time I read the words Phoenix Collections, I just get frustrated and wound up. They KNOW their bailiff was trying to pull a fast one. Infuriates me.

 

I will have the money tomorrow to pay the council directly. I will not be sad to see the back of these idiots.

[wonkeydonkey]

This is indeed a case of "you have been a naughty person by not paying so don't complain" what it fails to do is answer questions. Clearly they state "if you don't agree to our terms then we won't allow you to pay", this is confirmed by having to agree a "broken agreement fee" for the right to pay? It must be noted they are also saying the fees demanded by the Bailiff would not have been taken had you "paid up" yet the evidence shows these were the fees the bailiff wanted 'like it or lump it'

 

Sorry but to me this is a totally unacceptable reply. Should you wish to pay the £10 for the SAR, they are wrong to suggest they do have to provide screen shots under the Data Protection Act as they well know, simply put if it is data they hold on the subject, then it is data they must release. I have the right to feel confident in this field for having actually taken a claimant to court for failure to comply in full with a Subject Access Request, their own Barrister acknowledged screen shots of the account was infact data that must be given under the act and the Court ruled that to be the case.

 

There is a need to reply and should you wish further help I will be happy to draft it for you.

 

WD

[Microchip]

This is indeed a case of "you have been a naughty person by not paying so don't complain" what it fails to do is answer questions. Clearly they state "if you don't agree to our terms then we won't allow you to pay", this is confirmed by having to agree a "broken agreement fee" for the right to pay? It must be noted they are also saying the fees demanded by the Bailiff would not have been taken had you "paid up" yet the evidence shows these were the fees the bailiff wanted 'like it or lump it'

 

Sorry but to me this is a totally unacceptable reply. Should you wish to pay the £10 for the SAR, they are wrong to suggest they do have to provide screen shots under the Data Protection Act as they well know, simply put if it is data they hold on the subject, then it is data they must release. I have the right to feel confident in this field for having actually taken a claimant to court for failure to comply in full with a Subject Access Request, their own Barrister acknowledged screen shots of the account was infact data that must be given under the act and the Court ruled that to be the case.

 

There is a need to reply and should you wish further help I will be happy to draft it for you.

 

WD

 

Again, I'd appreciate the assistance if you wouldn't mind!

[wonkeydonkey]

No probs....good for you for keeping the pressure up with Phoenix they might eventually learn peeps will not just roll over or walk away when they get a load of waffling in reply to valid points raised.

 

Will get back to you asap, but ready to send by Monday at the latest.

 

 

WD