Triple Fees for One Visit from Rundle & Co??

[tazzamaraz]

I've had a visit from Rundle & Co unfortunately the front door was unlocked and them came in. They had been instructed with 3 separate years of liability orders and even though they attended only once they charged 3 x £42.50 for attendance to attempt to levy distress3 x £12 walking possession fees3 x levy fees1 x £100 for attendance removal.Please can someone tell me if this is correct? Many thanks

[hallowitch]

no it is not correct

1st visit (if the visit actually took place)

1 second visit

1 levy

1 walking possession fee

 

an attendance removal fee can only be charged after a valid levy not the same day

 

What goods did the bailiff levy?

 

you are going to have to write/e-mail your council regarding the unlawful fees your council will side with the bailiff if they do you have to go the formal complaints procedure (takes 12 weeks) then complain to the local government ombudsman

 

while you are doing this keep rigidly to the payment plan that has been set up remember if your payment has to reach them by xx date of each month pay it 7 days beforehand so it reaches your account by clear funds on the day its due (e-mail rundle & co and get this payment plan agreement in writing if they don't send conformation in 7 days complain to your council )

 

anything you send rundle& co copy to the council and ask them to put it on file for further reference if required

 

you will have

[brassnecked]

They can ONLY charge one set of fees as per Leeds CC V Throssel:

 

"Detailed Assessment Judgment of Throssell v Leeds City Council where the District Judge ruled as follows:

“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 the attending to remove fee of £100, as they attended to levy, which is what they did, they cannot have it both ways and they can only charge one fee for all

[hallowitch]

contained in Schedule 5 paragraph 2 (1) (b) of the Regulations”

 

http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/docs/Enforcement_Agent_Charges.pdf

[brassnecked]

When the bailiff walked in, did he list goods and leave you a list of what he had seized? this would be the levy, if he did did he give you 3 separate, lists? if he did did they list the same goods?

 

If he did leave a notice of seizure only one levy can be valid, as he takes ownership with the first and any subsequent levy would be effectively against HIS property so he can only charge one anyway.

[wonkeydonkey]

Oh I do like a good laugh and these bailiff companies never fail to provide one..........Rudles bailiff is obvious trying to shop early for Xmas and hopes you will pay up without question to his three charges, as has been said by others NO he cannot make these charges.

 

 

WD

[brassnecked]

Oh I do like a good laugh and these bailiff companies never fail to provide one..........Rudles bailiff is obvious trying to shop early for Xmas and hopes you will pay up without question to his three charges, as has been said by others NO he cannot make these charges.

 

 

WD

 

Yes it is hilarious how their notices of seizure read like an Enid Blyton novel in their creativity

[tomtubby]

Immediate complaint is needed to the Local Authority who are WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE for the levy and FEES charged by their agents.

 

You will need to send them a copy of the following from the LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN.

 

I calculate that you need to have £109 removed from the account and another fee of £100 for the "enforcement fee". This is really an "attending to remove" fee and can only be charge FOLLOWING a previous levy.

 

.

.

.

Local Government Ombudsman’s Report:

 

 

Local Authority: Rossendale Borough Council

 

 

Bailiff Company: Equita Ltd

 

 

Date: 15th December 2010

 

 

 

Approximately 25% of complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman are resolved though a “local settlement”. This is where an “agreement” is reached between the LGO and the relevant Local Authority and nearly always, is on the basis that the local authority agrees to the recommendation of the Ombudsman by agreeing to change the practice that had been the subject of the complaint to the LGO.

 

Although Local Settlements made by the LGO are not legally binding, it is important to be aware that according to the LGO, 99% of all “local settlements” are complied with in full.

 

 

For the above reason, “Local settlements” do not result in a public report or a formal finding of maladministration. Accordingly, a copy will not be made available on the LGO website.

 

On 15th December 2010 the LGO provided their final written report regarding a complaint made to them concerning Rossendale Borough Council and their agent; Equita Ltd. This particular complaint resulted in a “local settlement” and as mentioned above, a public report is not published.

 

 

I have a copy of the full report and permission from the complainant (Mr H) to provide the following details. Please note that the underlining is not from the LGO report.

 

 

The Complaint by Mr H concerns the following:

 

 

· Charging “multiple” fees to Mr H’s account for enforcing two Liability Orders

· Charging for visits that Mr H disputes ever took place

· Levying upon a vehicle that did not belong to Mr H and failing to provide a Notice of Seizure.

 

Paragraph 21 of the Ombudsman’s report states:

 

 

· “I am also concerned that there are fees charged to both of Mr H’s accounts in relation to one visit on 2nd July 2009. Although there were two Liability Orders in place, I do not consider it reasonable to charge twice for one physical visit”

 

Paragraph 23 states:

 

 

Thirdly, I am concerned that the bailiffs levied on a vehicle parked in the street which did not belong to Mr H. The bailiffs are required to leave an inventory of the goods seized with the customer at the time of the levy and the Council confirmed that the bailiffs will check the ownership of a vehicle with the DVLA before seizing it.

 

 

Legally, bailiffs can distrain on goods in a public place (in this case a vehicle parked in the street) if they have reasonable cause to believe that the goods belong to the debtor and are not needed for the debtor's work.

 

 

I do not consider the fact that a vehicle is parked in the street outside someone's home to be sufficient evidence of the bailiff to have reasonable cause to believe the vehicle is owed by the occupier of the house. It is recognised that there is some onus on the customer to advise the bailiffs if the vehicle listed on the inventory does not belong to them. However there is also some onus on the bailiffs to take reasonable steps to check the vehicle's ownership.

 

 

Paragraph 24:

 

 

I have consulted the Ombudsman and it is her view that although contacting the DVLA would be the most effective way to check ownership of the vehicle, she would accept other documented or supporting evidence such as the bailiff having witnessed the customer using the vehicle regularly

 

 

 

Paragraph 25:

 

 

There is no evidence to show that letters were left with Mr H on 4th and 12th June 2008 and so I consider that Mr H should not have been charged for these visits.

 

 

Paragraph 26:

 

To remedy this injustice it is recommended that the bailiff’s charges of these dates are removed from Mr H's account.

 

 

Paragraph 27:

 

 

I have additional concerns about the way this case was handled by the bailiffs. There is no evidence that an inventory was left with Mr H when the levy was made on a vehicle. In addition, the vehicle levied against was not his and the notes recorded by the bailiff are insufficient to show when visits were actually made what information was left with the customer.

 

 

Paragraph 29:

 

 

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2 July 2008.

 

 

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.

 

 

Paragraph 30:

 

 

The vehicle levied on does not belong to Mr H and he was not required to pay the costs associated with the levy visit.

 

 

Paragraph 34:

 

 

I remain of the view that bailiffs should make reasonable enquiries to establish the ownership of a vehicle before levying against it.

 

 

The person receiving the levy must accept some responsibility for advising the council or bailiff if the vehicle levied upon does not belong to them.

 

 

Paragraph 42:

 

 

The council has stated that a levy form was supplied. The Council has never produced a copy of the levy inventory.

 

 

The Council's complaint response to Mr H advised that the bailiff has not retained a copy of the levy form. Surely this document is essential if the bailiff were ever to proceed to seizing a vehicle? Mr H was not aware of what had been levied against until he received the Council's response to his complaint which commented on a levy having taken place, in relation to the silver Audi. At this point he was able to advise the Council we did not own such a car. I therefore remain of the view that there is no evidence of the levy inventory was left at the property.

 

Paragraph 53:

 

 

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2nd July 2008.

 

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.

 

 

Paragraph 54:

 

The council has accepted the recommendations and has agreed to apologise to Mr H for any procedural errors the bailiffs have made. I consider this a satisfactory way to resolve this complaint and so I have discontinued the investigation and closed the complaint.

 

XXXX

 

Investigator, on behalf of the Ombudsman

[Dippyprincess]

Or simply just contact the council and ask them if they could possibly look at this for you.

 

They will then contact the Bailiff and check the fees.

 

No point involving the Ombudsman because you HAVE to make representation to the council first. They will just dismiss it unless you can provide a response from the council.

[ploddertom]

 

They will then contact the Bailiff and check the fees. Are you seriously suggesting the Council have any idea what the charges should be - if so you are living in a different world. Most Councils haven't a clue and ask their "friendly" Bailiff for advice and help.

 

 

PT

[wonkeydonkey]

Or simply just contact the council and ask them if they could possibly look at this for you.

 

They will then contact the Bailiff and check the fees.

 

No point involving the Ombudsman because you HAVE to make representation to the council first. They will just dismiss it unless you can provide a response from the council.

 

If you want to help caggers,(thats what we do here by the way) then wave your wand and 'poof' with any luck you wil be gone......get real pet Council's know as much about bailiffs and the law as I do about astrophysics ...................absolutely nowt, zilch. zero, nothing.

 

WD

[brassnecked]

Or simply just contact the council and ask them if they could possibly look at this for you.

 

They will then contact the Bailiff and check the fees.

 

No point involving the Ombudsman because you HAVE to make representation to the council first. They will just dismiss it unless you can provide a response from the council.

 

The council will possibly say, can't help you contact the bailiffs, they are above any God and know it all, and are allowed to make it up as they go along because we don't.....

[Dippyprincess]

Well thanks for all the comments.

 

This person asked for help, not for help to make her situation worse and being dragged down by everyone else hatred for Bailiffs.

 

YES the council do know what the fees should be, they are set in regulation and the Bailiff is acting illegally if they charge an amount that isnt 'reasonable' to perform an act.

 

They cannot charge unless they have visited the property and if they have then you need to come back at them like you know what your talking about! The responses to my comment would suggest that you dont.

A debtor is expected to foot the bill for every time a bailiff visits when nobody is at home. Fees are as follows:

1st visit - &24.50

2nd visit - &18.00

For debt less than £100, the bailiff will charge £24.50.

Where the debt is over £100 it is calculated as follows:

22.5% on the first £100

4% on the next £400

2.5% on the next £1,500

1% on the next £8000

0.25% on any additional sum.

Hope this helps....but please please please....ask the council and the Bailiff for a breakdown of fees. That way it will force the council to look at the account and if the Bailiff has acted incorrectly bring their attention to it.

Remember to keep calm and just advise of what you need....that way you will find that help should be forthcoming.

[brassnecked]

My final offer @ dippyprincess, i agree with tomtubby's advice to the OP on this one, you are correct regarding charges and legislation, but in the really real world bailiffs and councils ignore, and do not follow the rules they do seem to make it up as they go along, as in adding fees to each levy, the subsequent two which literally if you follow are on the bailiffs property, he had seized it with the first levy after all.. As to hating bailiffs, wait until you are affected personally as people on here have been, then what will your opinion be,. To know someone you have to walk many miles in their moccasins (ancient Native American proverb)

 

The help and advice is as much psychological and supportive, as it is practical, a shared experience can help resolve a situation as much as interpretation of black letter law, especially when the opponent isn't playing by those rules.

[wonkeydonkey]

Perhaps you can follow up on your "advice" to caggers that they should contact the Council when questioning improper charges by their bailiffs and tell then how they get these Coucils to actually reply without the "you must take it up with bailiff" "contact the bailiff " "if the bailiff says the charges are correct then they are" "the Council cannot become involved" "your dispute is with the bailiff" Read the threads if you need more evidence to the Councils negativity.

 

As BN says above "The help and advice is as much psychological and supportive, as it is practical, a shared experience can help resolve a situation as much as interpretation of black letter law, especially when the opponent isn't playing by those rules."

 

 

WD

[tazzamaraz]

When the bailiff walked in, did he list goods and leave you a list of what he had seized? this would be the levy, if he did did he give you 3 separate, lists? if he did did they list the same goods?

 

If he did leave a notice of seizure only one levy can be valid, as he takes ownership with the first and any subsequent levy would be effectively against HIS property so he can only charge one anyway.

 

Hi, thanks for your response - yes, three separate lists with the same things listed on each.

[tazzamaraz]

Thanks everyone for the responses, I will make an official complaint to the Council as I definitely want to deal with the Organ Grinder not the monkey! If their response is not adequate I will escalate to the Ombudsman.

[hallowitch]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?212401

 

It must be remembered that a bailiff enforcing a debt for council tax, National Non Domestic Rates (NNDR) or an unpaid parking ticket is working as a agent/contractor for the local authority.

 

In this, the local authority cannot simply abdicate responsibility for the actions of their agent/contractor as ultimately, it is the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that a levy is carried out in a lawful manner and that the fees charged by their agents are in accordance with statutory regulations.

 

Following a discussion with the Local Government Ombudsman's Office (LGO) they have advised that if you have a Compliant for the Council about their bailiff's then you MUST do the following:

 

.

 

You must ENSURE that you mark your letter to the local authority as a : FORMAL COMPLAINT.

 

Your letter should be addressed to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE and should be COPIED to the COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT ( this will ensure that it is registered as a formal complaint).

 

It must be understood that under the 1974 Local Government Act the Local Government Ombudsman only has jurisdication to investigate a complaint if the matter had first been brought to the attention of the local authority and that they had been given the opportunity to respond.

 

If you are unsatisfied with your response from the local authority then you can take your complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman but they will want to see that you have gone through the councils COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE first and that you have allowed the local authority a maximum period of 12 weeks to respond.

 

The Local Government Ombudsman's office will need to satisy themselves that you have made it CLEAR to the Local Authority that you are making a FORMAL COMPLAINT.

 

.

[brassnecked]

Hi, thanks for your response - yes, three separate lists with the same things listed on each.

 

The second and third levies are invalid then imho, next step is to follow the advice of hallowitch at 11:02 today, as the council are as already stated WHOLLY LIABLE for the actions and or misdeeds of their agent the bailiff, they cannot wash their hands of it, or abdicate any corporate liability, if bailiff acts fraudulently, council should be in the dock with the bailiff