Chandlers bailiffs

[outlawla]

....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.

 

I'd say this is as good as a signed confession!

 

I would quote what your council have said in any further correspondence. Why don't you ask them for a recording of the conversation?

[tomtubby]

The most important thing to remember is that the bailiff is merely acting in the capacity of AGENT to the lcoal authority.

 

The local authority are wholly responsible for the LEVY AND FEES charged by THEIR agents.

 

The bucks stops with the LOCAL AUTHORITY !!!

[nohope]

And when i pointed out that i had a letter from the bailiffs saying about an admin error yet they have said to the council they removed charges as they could see there was no gain for them trying to charge me as they could see i couldn't afford them so it was a sort of good will gesture from them. Now the council complaints person has said they will take it to stage 2 for me as they can see there is still some issues.

 

I jave proof that the bailiff firm has lied on 3 parts of the response to my complaint and now the council are also asking me what i'd like done about it. Do you think a milliom pound in an off shore bank would be pushing it a bit lol:whoo:

[nohope]

I've already made it very clear to the council in my complaint that i am holding them responsable for anything and everything.

[nohope]

Here's a strange one. I've just found out that i now have 2 different accounts for 1 years council tax.

One part of it is with bailiffs which i'm still trying to get taken back by the council and the other part is still with the council.

 

Can they seperate it like that or is this there way of being able to get another LO and more costs to me but still for the same years CT, also they have added my partners name to the account which they have never done for the last 3 years that she's lived here, and yes they knew from day one that she's here.

 

Could they be adding her name to it and using a new account number so they can go for an attachment to her wages?

 

So i've got a LO for just over 500 which i'm paying online to the council at £10pm and now i have the remainder of 300 that they seem to be playing about with the names and account numbers, seems a bit fishy to me.

I thought that wen it got to the court stage and LO they just put the whole years worth or what was left owing onto the LO and not seperate it like this. To me its just one debt so can't see how they have made 2 out of it..

 

Edited February 6, 2012 by nohope

[outlawla]

Here's a strange one. I've just found out that i now have 2 different accounts for 1 years council tax.

One part of it is with bailiffs which i'm still trying to get taken back by the council and the other part is still with the council.

 

Can they seperate it like that or is this there way of being able to get another LO and more costs to me but still for the same years CT,......

 

I read something on another thread about having two liability orders for the same year. Different circumstances but might be some help. Council Tax Liability Orders

[nohope]

From what i've now been told they have taken the bit that was left over that was on a summons and given it a new account number and added a second name to it so it will stop it going to court for a LO while we wait for the outcome of my complaint.

They are actually doing it to help me plus because its a smaller amount there's more chance of a lower payment plan to be accepted if i choose to give them the option to tell me what i can pay, which is very unlickly lol...

[nohope]

And stage 2 of the complaint is sent. Even my MP picked up on a couple of points where what the council have said does not ring true, MP has now sent a letter to CEO of the council asking him to explain why my complaint has not been investigated properly.

I also have a dirct number for someone at the council who is the only person that is allowed to deal with me if i ring and if i send anything in the post its getting picked up straight away and dealt with, First time i've even known the council to complete an assesment and get the paperwork back in 9 days when there actually working 3 postal weeks behind.

 

I picked there response to bits, and i mean bits, pretty much every paragraph was a lie of some sorts. They now have a 5 page arguement back from me asking them to explaine themselves and the utter bull they sent to me as a response.

I'm expecting something back from them along the lines of "we need more time to look into this properly as fobbing you off didnt seem to work" lol:lol:

[nohope]

Could someone put in plain english/laymans terms exactly what is ment by the below.

I was under the assumption it ment if they levied then it should cover there fee's plus a proportion of the debt owed?

 

Distress45.—(1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.(2) The appropriate amount for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the aggregate of—

(a)an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

(b)a sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connected with the distress.

[outlawla]

Could someone put in plain english/laymans terms exactly what is ment by the below.

I was under the assumption it ment if they levied then it should cover there fee's plus a proportion of the debt owed?

 

Distress45.—(1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.(2) The appropriate amount for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the aggregate of—

(a)an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

(b)a sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connected with the distress.

 

Part (a) refers to the outstanding debt (the amount stated on the Liability Order obtained from the Magistrates' court.

 

Part (b) is this:

 

For levying distress:

 

The lesser of

 

(i) the amount of the costs and fees reasonably incurred: and

 

(ii) where the sum due at the time of the levy does not exceed £100, £24.50;

 

(iii) where the sum due at the time of the levy exceeds £100,

 

24.5% on the first £100 of the sum due,

4% on the next £400,

2.5% on the next £1,500,

1% on the next £8,000 and

0.25% on any additional sum;

 

The sum due at any time for these purposes means so much of the amount in respect of which the liability order concerned was made as is outstanding at the time.

 

An example:

 

If a bailiff levied on an outstanding debt of £1,300

 

Then his levy fee would be as follows:

 

First £100 @24.5% = £24.50

Next £400 @4% = £16

Next £800 @2.5% = £20

 

Total £60.50

 

Of course if a debtor signed a walk in possession agreement then the bailiff could add another £12, so long as he hadn't also charged a visit fee.

Edited February 14, 2012 by outlawla

[nohope]

I thought no mata how much the debt was for it was 24.50 first then 18 second then no more unless a levy has taken place. This is for council tax by the way.

[outlawla]

£24.50 is the first visit fee, £18 is the second visit. They can't charge any more visit fees, but there are other fees, i.e, the levy fee wich goes on a percentage of the outstanding debt.

 

Some confusion may arise, as this figure crops up 3 times in the schedule of fees (schedule 5).

 

1) First visit

2) Levy for an amount £100 and under

2) Head H fee

[nohope]

This is what i'm getting at

 

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

“a vehicle should only be removed if the proceeds of sale provide that there would be a surplus available to the liability order after deductions for the bailiff fees, removal ,storages and auctioneers fees.”

is the above only this one case or is there something that states that a levy must cover all of the above?

[outlawla]

I don't know if there's legislation stating that the proceeds from a levy must cover all fees, costs and debt.

 

But I found this Manchester City Council report, with the following:

 

From page 30

 

The bailiff should not remove goods for sale unless it is anticipated that the sum realised will be sufficient to settle a reasonable proportion of the account outstanding to the Council (30% to 50%), including costs. As a general rule, the value of the goods can be divided by 5 to give an approximate value if auctioned.

 

Could be worth obtaining a copy of your council's service level agreement with their bailiff contractor to find out what their policy is.

Edited February 14, 2012 by outlawla

[nohope]

Now thats what i need for my local council. They have tried telling me that the levy against my car thats worth sod all was fine and dandy, even though it all got dropped and written off. just got a reply to my stage 2 complaint and i'm still not happy with there reply's

[nohope]

Is that something that the council should freely hand over or do i need to jump through hoops to get it from them?

[ploddertom]

If they won't give it to you on request then submit a FOI request for it.

 

PT

[nohope]

Here's a good one for you all to read. Part of my stage 2 complaint outlined the fact that i was not at home when said bailiff called and put paperwork through my letterbox and at no time did i have a conversation with him as i was not at home which is how my first stage of the complaint started (i'd made it clear i came home to find bailiffs letters posted through my door) so its been a big part of the complaint as the bailiff lied and said he had a conversation with me. Think i put it earlyer on in the thread when i get my first response back from the council.

 

This is what they have said----

As you will be aware a representative from ********** Council was not present when the bailiff from Chandlers called at your home on * December 2011, however they have provided us with a print out from the vehicle’s tracking system (please see enclosed) which shows that they attended your property from *.00am to *.25am on the * December 2011. This would indicate that due to the length of time spent at your property, contact was made with you. Had they attended and just left a letter, the time spent at the property would be reflected as with other similar calls that day.

So because he spent 25 mins here it proves he spent the time talking to me even when i was not here at the time.

I mean, come on, surely the council are not as thick as there making out.

 

Given that the first sentence of my formal complaint started "when i got home i found said paperwork" it kinda gives some inkling that i was out at the time he called, but oh no, his tracking system said he was here for 25 mins and god help us if he was just sitting there having a break...............................

[outlawla]

These bailiffs have a lot of paperwork due to targets imposed on them by councils (no doubt detailed in their Service Level Agreements). They are hardly office based, i.e, their vehicles are their offices. Maybe 25 minutes was what this bailiff needed to catch up with these duties?

[nohope]

All i no is he was not talking to me during this time as i was 20 miles away from home and still asleep. i can get a signed statement from the person who's house i'd crashed at to say i was there untill they dropped me of home about 10.30/10.45 that morning.

[seanamarts]

That is no proof to say he spoke with you, he could have been waiting to see if you turned up, he could have been having a coffee/fag break. he could have been looking at the paperwork for his next job. The council are just clutching at straws, they know full well that they cannot prove he spoke with you.

[nohope]

Well they have said if i'm not happy with there reply then to contact the ombudsman. I'm not happy just for the fact that a bailiff can lie and his word is worth more than mine just because he says so..

[nohope]

Finally got the service agreement between my counciland the bailiffs but its got bits missing. Paragraphs have been removed so it goes 1,2,3,5,6,8 and so on, then theres one part where a whole page is missing cos it jumps from para 15 to para 6 for a different section.

Not long picked my emails up so going to have to wait till monday for them to read my email and send me the full document that i orginaly asked for. MUPPETS:-x

[billsters]

I had Chandlers do the sly visit thing again for the second time - crept up and put a notice through the wrong letterbox (the main building, rather than my flat which he wouldhave found was downstairs had he looked for a doorbell) demanding 240 for "unpaid council tax".

 

rang the council - there was 78 pounds owing in penalty charges (not actual tax) for last year. they sent out a pre-bailiff notice in November, after which I got bailiff "visit" number one. Called the council, paid outstanding c tax and set up direct debit for this year. Didn't get any communication re the 78 pounds.

 

Have just paid hackney the 78 but they say they will instruct bailiffs to chase for fees, including for "visits". Surely this is fraudulent?

 

just spoke to hackney again, and they said they hadn't updated the bailiffs on the amount I paid to clear the actual council tax so they were chasing for an additional 114. This looks like negligence on the part of the council to me.

Edited June 14, 2012 by billsters

[billsters]

after a conversation with the bailiff, and my pointing out I could prove the phantom visits (my neighbour saw him creeping up the steps on this "visit", and had redirected both notices), the charges have been cancelled.

 

Could hear him squirming.

 

I will complain to both Council and Chandlers. Due to their respective incompetence and dishonesty I was slapped with a demand for 240 (when I owed 78 but wasn't aware of this). Lucky my heart is strong.