Bailiff levied using another firms paperwork

[MARTIN3030]

This has come up before and it was the same companies involved -the op's did not update so there was no concluding info.

 

I have been asked to try and find out the position for a friend.

 

Briefly the position is as follows.

 

Business owner was in arrears with his rent,but on signing his lease was required to put a very large sum of money in deposit to the landlords-and this sum was really quite large -around 17k plus vat.

Having looked at the paperwork,my understanding is that this was to be used in default or else returned after 12 months.

 

Bailiff B turned up at the businessmans premises with a warrant for recovery of the unpaid rent issued by X County Court to bailiff A

 

The Businessman said he could not pay immediately and needed time.

B asked for 2k to be paid immediate which was done by Chaps and verified.

The Businessman told B that he had paid a ;most 25k in a bond but B said he knew nothing of this and proceeded to do a levy of goods.

 

Now B has his own company and is licenced by the Court on which the warrant was issued.

 

However the paperwork which he filled out and the businessman signed,was all done on Bailiff A's headed forms.

 

Bailiff A is outside this area and is a completely independent company.

 

At no stage was the businessman told or made aware that B was not in the employ of A given details of Bs company.

 

My questions are these;

 

1.My understanding is that B will be insured and bonded in their own name,and that means undertaking business in the guise of or appearing to be taking action using documentation and headed forms which are clearly not his company but Bailiff A's is deceptive practice.

 

2.Is it not the case that to be performing a levy and taking payments whilst using Bailiff As paperwork and forms throughout,that he was acting outside of the rules ?

 

Letters were sent to both A and B and both responded that all actions were performed within the law-although they were not asked about the paperwork-just if things had been done by the book.

 

Any thoughts on this from seasoned members here ?

 

The businessman decided to shut shop and removed the stock shortly after,but the levied goods were all collected from an arranged location.

 

The seized goods were logged by value of actually satisfying the arrears.

 

Correspondence to the landlords asking what happened to his bond have gone unanswered.

Details of the sale of the goods after requests to B have also been silence.

[brassnecked]

Arrears should have been deducted from the deposit, if this was a term of the lease contract on the premises imho, thus rendering bailiff action uneccesary. I consider the bailiff action dubious at least as there is deception and collusion, if bailiffs are different firms, and one uses another's trading titles. Bailiff B cannot use Bailiff A's paperwork, and vice versa. Fraudulent conversion and obtaining money by deception springs to mind. Chances are the police will say, not our remit, is civil..

Edited November 17, 2011 by brassnecked

[MARTIN3030]

Yes it is Civil IMO.

I am awaiting a response from the landlords in respect of the bond.

Given that the levied goods were Gold Silver Platinum and expensive watches (The business was a jewelers ) I doubt very much that the stock was sold at auction for 10p in the £.

 

The problem he has now is that his bank is on his case and threatening legal recovery of arrears from his account which had personal guarantees.

Had he been given time to pay,or else Bailiff B had suspended the seizure whilst they looked into the deposit of rent issues,then it is very likely the business would have still been trading today.

[seanamarts]

Have a few questions,

Was the deposit placed in a deposit protection scheme? If so then the landlord has to apply to take out monies for rent, bills etc that were not paid, but usually this only happens at the end of the tenancy. I have to say that this is for private rentals on residential properties.( I am sure that this scheme covers business premises as well but will have to look that up.)

If the deposit was not placed in a TDP then why didnt the landlord take monies owed out of that instead of sending in the bailiffs first. I find that very odd.

The least the bailiff would get for the items taken would be the weight value any less and I would be dubious that they were sold fairly.

Do you know whether they have been sold or not yet.

As for the bailiffs, I didnt think a private bailiff working on his own could work for a company unless he was bonded with them.

[seanamarts]

Have a few questions,

Was the deposit placed in a deposit protection scheme? If so then the landlord has to apply to take out monies for rent, bills etc that were not paid, but usually this only happens at the end of the tenancy. I have to say that this is for private rentals on residential properties.( I am sure that this scheme covers business premises as well but will have to look that up.)

If the deposit was not placed in a TDP then why didnt the landlord take monies owed out of that instead of sending in the bailiffs first. I find that very odd.

The least the bailiff would get for the items taken would be the weight value any less and I would be dubious that they were sold fairly.

Do you know whether they have been sold or not yet.

As for the bailiffs, I didnt think a private bailiff working on his own could work for a company unless he was bonded with them.

[brassnecked]

Martin3030, I think that they just went in for their gain, and weren't interested about any legalities around deposit and recoupment of arrears from this, which would probably render bailiff action unnecessary and possibly vexatious, due to contractural provisions in place. Begs the question ; did the bailiffs act and collude for personal gain?

[seanamarts]

Was this rental through an agents or private landlord?

[MARTIN3030]

Have a few questions,

Was the deposit placed in a deposit protection scheme?

 

It is listed as a Rent deposit deed and is Supplemental to the main lease.and actually was for £20,562,50 inc VAT.

 

In clause 3 it states;

 

THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT

The landlord;

 

a acknowledges the receipt of the deposit

 

b shall as soon as practicable place the deposit in the deposit account until withdrawal or repayment of the deposit in accordance with the terms of this deed and

 

c Shall credit to the deposit account any sums subsequently paid to it for such purpose by the tenant under any other provisions of this deed.

 

Clause 4

 

WITHDRAWALS FROM THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT

 

4.1 The landlord (without prior reference to the tenant and without predjudice to any other right or remedy the landlord may have under this deed or the lease )

may,but shall not be obliged to,withdraw from time to time the sums specified below which shall thereupon become the absolute property of the landlord;

 

a Any sum (including interest and whether rent or otherwise and whether or not any formal demand has been made which is due to the landlord from the tenant in respect of the lease and which is unpaid for a period of fourteen days after the due date.

 

b any loss expense cost claim, liability or damage suffered or incurred by the landlord as a result of any breach of the tenants obligations.

 

c.any damages costs and losses owed to or incurred by the landlord as a result of the forfeiture disxclaimer or other determination of the lease.

 

d any payment due to the landlord as a result of the valid exercise of an option to determine.

 

e Any VAT chargeable in respect of any of the sums which the landlord withdraws pursuant to this calause 4.1 and;

 

f any bank charges levied in respect of the deposit account.

 

4.2 The landlord shall notify the tenant in writing within fourteen days of any withdrawal of any sum from the deposit and the reason for such withdrawal and the tenant shall immediately on such notification pay to the landlord such further sum as shall restore the deposit to its balance prior to such withdrawal.

 

 

I have got the original client copies of the notice of seizure which shows the warrant was with authority of the landlord not any agent.

 

The warrant shows the amount being required as £23,882 45

This is for rent due up to the 15th June 2011 and is listed as being due to the agents xxxxxx

 

The date of bailiff B attendance being 16th June 2011-so actually 1 day after the rent became in arrears (I have checked this and for commercial rent arrears enforcement can be acted upon one day after )

 

The notice of seizure form which is headed with bailiff A's details lists the inventory of goods

 

in the totals colum rent total excluding costs £23882.45

costs £242.53

total amount £24814.98

additional days at 0.96p day £4.80

 

Now above the rent total sum is written bailiff fees £690.00

 

What is amazing is that the £690.00 is broken down on a sep removal expenses form on Bailiff A's headed form.

 

It lists 1xVan £275

1xBailifff £300.00

total £575

 

vat £115

 

total £690

 

Now bailiff b lists 5 hours 20 minutes in attendance with the businessman says is right.

 

But no van was used since the businessman arranged a 2k chaps transfer which was made to bailiff As account and confirmed as being made in 1 hour.

 

 

Was this rental through an agents or private landlord?

 

The lease was made between the owners of the property but a management firm was used for the rent.

The owners initiated the bailiff action.

 

 

 

 

 

[MARTIN3030]

Looking at the old thread I referred to earlier-the op posted up the paperwork and it is clear that these 2 firms do appear to work together for commercial rent.

The OP even posted an attendance notice put through his door by bailiff b using bailiff As headed paperwork-no name there just his mobile number-which is known to be bailiff B's.-yet the letter ends with Bailiff A's name.

[MARTIN3030]

I have written to the home Court of Bailiff B asking if they have any comment on the actions performed.

I have also written to the landlords asking them to confirm why the deposit was not used,and whether they were informed that their client had raised it with the bailiff.

I have also written to bailiff A asking for details of the sale of the seized stock-they say it is not yet complete-which I do not believe.

 

Would it be worth writing to the MOJ ?

 

I think that a complaint is probably the only way to find out if there is any recourse against these 2 bailiff firms.

[seanamarts]

Was this rental through an agents or private landlord?

 

The lease was made between the owners of the property but a management firm was used for the rent.

The owners initiated the bailiff action.

So basically the agents were used to do the advertising and collect rents etc. which means they would of possibly handled the deposit as well. If that is so then I dont think the owner would be able to apply for any monies. Just muddies water really when owner acts on one thing and the agents act on something else.

If the agents are collecting the rents on behalf of the owner then the onus is on the agent to deal with any rent arrears. I dont understand why this has not been done by the agents, unless the contract between the agents and owner stipulates that the owner has to chase any rents due. If that is the case then why is an agent involved at all?

[seanamarts]

I would certainly query it, Why get two bailiffs involved? Unless its for monetary gain. Do we know if the owner or the bailiff company hired out the private bailiff? Just finding this very confusing indeed. too many fingers in one pie comes to mind.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes you actually was active on the earlier thread.

I will pm you the link as I dont want to give any heads up to the 2 firms involved.

[seanamarts]

Yes you actually was active on the earlier thread.

I will pm you the link as I dont want to give any heads up to the 2 firms involved.

I was? Ive read so much over the past few days my head is all over the place

I will wait for the pm