Chandlers bailiffs

[nohope]

Just got a letter from my local MP and there has been a letter sent to the Chief Exec of the council to ask him to comment on whats been going on.

Lets see what sort of a response i get from the council now..

[nohope]

Now got a letter from the Cheif Exec and the head of complaints at the council saying they are looking into everything i've sent them and will respond within 10 days or if they need more time then they will write to me and let me no what they have done so far.

So with any luck i mite actually get somewhere with the council and get them to back of a bit.

 

Thanks to everyone on here and all the posts i've read, without all the help i'd still be hiding behind a closed door all the time..

[seanamarts]

Keep us informed

[brassnecked]

Yes keep us informed, I hope the council look closely at their agent, the bailiffs action, in view of their liability for his deeds or misdeeds.

[nohope]

Mp has sent me another letter saying the council have been in touch with them and will let them no the outcome after there investigation is complete..

[nohope]

Got my complaint reply from the council.

They have pretty much shot themselves in the foot and contradicted themselves in there official reply.

 

I made it quite clear that when they left the levy for my car there was no one at home at the time and they put it through the door but in there reply they say the bailiff says i refused to sign a walking possession order or discuss the account anymore so he levied my car against the debt owed.

Very clever, so, somehow he had a conversation with me at my house while i was out and during this conversation i refused to sign a walking possession or talk about the account anymore, That would be very sodding clever of me seeing as i was out at the time and they even have the email i sent them letting them no i had just come home and found the paperwork put through my door.

 

Don't no who's worse, the bailiff for talking utter c**p or the council for thinking they can talk utter c**p to back up the bailiff.

They say as far as they are concerned there was no maladministration made by the bailiffs yet i have a letter from the bailiffs saying the fees charged were an admin error.

I now need to take this to stage 2 of there complaints but that means more thinking and writing.

[brassnecked]

Got my complaint reply from the council.

They have pretty much shot themselves in the foot and contradicted themselves in there official reply.

 

I made it quite clear that when they left the levy for my car there was no one at home at the time and they put it through the door but in there reply they say the bailiff says i refused to sign a walking possession order or discuss the account anymore so he levied my car against the debt owed.

Very clever, so, somehow he had a conversation with me at my house while i was out and during this conversation i refused to sign a walking possession or talk about the account anymore, That would be very sodding clever of me seeing as i was out at the time and they even have the email i sent them letting them no i had just come home and found the paperwork put through my door.

 

Don't no who's worse, the bailiff for talking utter c**p or the council for thinking they can talk utter c**p to back up the bailiff.

They say as far as they are concerned there was no maladministration made by the bailiffs yet i have a letter from the bailiffs saying the fees charged were an admin error.

I now need to take this to stage 2 of there complaints but that means more thinking and writing.

Just escalate this to stage two, remember, when you have exhausted their complaints procedure, you can go to the Ombudsman with it.

[hallowitch]

they even have the email i sent them letting them no i had just come home and found the paperwork put through my door.

 

Ask them to produce a copy of this e-mail as you don't want to have to pay £10 to recover it under the data protection act

[nohope]

I have all the emails i've sent to them, not that i'm going to need them as i have enough with the councils reply to argue the fact that one hand has no idea what the other is doing apart from saying anything the bailiff told them to.

[ploddertom]

I now need to take this to stage 2 of there complaints but that means more thinking and writing.

 

Nothing happens overnight and you must be prepared for the long haul. The more mistakes they all make the better it is for you.

 

PT

[nohope]

I no but trying to read and think and type all at the same time confuses me at the best of times. Got to do a seperate letter for my Mp to highlight the mistakes that the council made in there reply so she's up to speed without her having to try and work it out. If i do all the leg work then she's more willing to follow me and help when needed..

[bankonthis]

Have hope, it sounds like you're in a good position!

[nohope]

I've just been doing some reading on the word unlawfulness as this was one of the words used to describe the bailiff and his actions.

After looking up the full meaning of the word i'm trying to use what the meaning of the word is in my reply letter but the words illegitimate and ba***rd and born out of wedlock i think would be classed as slander or something like that lol. (sitting here wetting myself now)

[nohope]

Yet another question just to clear this up in my head.

 

can a bailiff leave a notice of distress and inventory (with my car listed) and charge a levy fee and return the same day to remove said car?

Edited January 19, 2012 by nohope

[seanamarts]

Yet another question just to clear this up in my head.

 

can a bailiff leave a notice of distress and inventory (with my car listed) and charge a levy fee and return the same day to remove said car?

From what I am led to believe the answer is yes, the bailiff can come back at any time to remove the car after a levy has been made.

[nohope]

I thought he had to give notice to remove goods he had levied upon. Sure i read somewhere it was 7 days or 14 days notice but cant find it now.

[hallowitch]

Yet another question just to clear this up in my head.

 

can a bailiff leave a notice of distress and inventory (with my car listed) and charge a levy fee and return the same day to remove said car?

 

no

 

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

 

 

In the Central London County Court - Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). Before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008

 

Mr Culligan challenged the bailiffs fees & charges imposed by Mr Simkin and Marstons when levying distress and seeking to remove Mr Culligans car for non-payment of a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Camden.

 

The Judgment goes a long way to clarify exactly what a Bailiff can charge for levying distress. Bailiffs have always sought to charge for fixing an immobilisation device by clamping a vehicle, and an attendance to remove. These charges in Anthony Culligan's case were £200 (£100 for the clamp and £100 for attendance to remove). The Bailiffs have argued that the Fee Regulations permit them to make a charge for levying distress (that is 28% on the first £200 demanded, and for removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods are removed, reasonable costs and charges). Bailiffs have claimed that the costs of putting on a clamp, etc. are costs to be included in attending to remove where no goods are removed, if payment is made before the vehicle concerned is removed.

 

DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:-

 

1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods.

 

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

 

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:-

 

"Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so I cannot see that Form 7 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7".

 

The District Judge went on to find that the application of the clamp falls within the act of levying distress and does not form part of the removal process, whatever the Bailiff's Contract with Camden says.

 

The Bailiff also charged Anthony Culligan £100 for the " reasonable costs " of removing the vehicle (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at Anthony Culligan's home. Because the Bailiff produced no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived at he was unable to show that it was reasonable.

 

The District Judge in his conclusion says:

 

"I am also conscious that my findings in this case ... may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress. To do otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful... I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgment now continued to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be unlawful....".

 

What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed.

 

You should know however that Marstons obtained permission to appeal from the District Judge. His reasons for granting the permission were :

 

"The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheelclamping before.

My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking.

 

Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard"

 

Finally, Camden now as a matter of urgency, need to revise their Contract with Bailiffs such as Marston, to take account of the District Judge's Judgment generally, and in particular to remove the authority to charge a fee for an immobilisation device over and above that provided for in the Statutory Fee Regulations.

[seanamarts]

Hallowitch is correct when stating that levying on goods gives the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure.

However the argument could be that the bailiff had reasonable grounds to take the car as he believed the debtor was not interested in setting up a payment plan or refused to deal with the bailiff all together, after the levy took place.

[hallowitch]

However the argument could be that the bailiff had reasonable grounds to take the car as he believed the debtor was not interested in setting up a payment plan or refused to deal with the bailiff all together, after the levy took place.

 

seanamarts good point there

[nohope]

But if the debtor was out at the time of leaving the levy then the bailiff would have no idea if the debtor was interested in making a payment plan.

[seanamarts]

But if the debtor was out at the time of leaving the levy then the bailiff would have no idea if the debtor was interested in making a payment plan.

No you are right he wouldnt, are we talking about a PCN or council tax scenario here though.

[nohope]

Council tax.

[seanamarts]

Then I agree the bailiff should give you a chance to pay or agree to some sort of payment plan before taking the car away. Its a good argument to put across when complaining about the bailiffs actions.

[nohope]

And on the levy form it says pay in full or make arrangement to pay within 5 days or the goods will be removed but on the notice of bailiffs attendance it says return TODAY and may remove your goods, this was all on the same day.

 

How can i use this as part of my complaint? I really want to dig out the smallest of things and blow them up a bit just to make as many points as possible.

[nohope]

Heres a good one. I emailed the council and asked the person that sent me the response to my formal complaint if they would put there name to there reply and agree that after there investigation that there findings were true and they were happy with what they had come up with.

Sort of like a signed agreement stating its true to the best of there knowledge sort of thing.

 

I got a phone call from them about an hour after i sent them email saying that they would not put there name to it as they do not no how true it is as they only have the word of the bailiffs firm as to what happened. Now, does that seem like they no bailiffs tend to lie to cover themselves and thats why they will not put there name to it.

Edited January 24, 2012 by nohope