Chandlers bailiffs

[brassnecked]

They might reply especially if they think it will make them look good at a later date ....... standing up in Court to explain to a Judge?

 

WD

 

With extremely red faces hopefully. They have been very naughty indeed imho

[ploddertom]

My understanding is that if the Bailiff was working without a Certificate he may be fined and any levy made would also be a trespass under s.7 LDAA 1888 (Hogarth v Jennings) 1892 1 QB 907. He may not be answerable to a Form 4 Complaint but his employer maybe. If this is what has happened then you must bring it to the attention of the Council as there may be others affected by this. The Council in turn should also submit a Complaint.

 

PT

[nohope]

The only levy he made was on my car but only had that on the back of the notice of distress that he left me, he didnt take the car. Think he only listed it to get me to ring him and agree to something i wouldnt be able to afford.

But as i stated earlyer on today, they have said the levy si now void and the fee's they were charging were a mistake.

Didnt get an email back from the courts as yet so will give them till about 11am in the morning then it would have been 24 hours and for me i think thats more than enough time to send me a few details that would take someone 2 mins to find and 30 seconds to copy and past in an email..

[nohope]

Got a reply from the court finally.

 

Re your enquiry, Mr X's certificate was issued at Southend County Court on 12th September 2011 when his employers were Philips Collection Services Ltd. *He has changed employers to Chandlers, but his certificate will still show the previous employer. *Bailiff certificates are not changed upon a change of employment.

 

So now I've got to email them back as they left of when he applied for change of employer.

[nohope]

Is there a time limit on how long it should take for a change of bailiffs employent. the previuos firm he worked for have just got back to me and said he left mid octobert the moj people when i rang them said he is still down as working for them and they also said they had only just had an update to there list of bailiffs and employers.

 

There still seems to be something not quite tying it all together but i think thats just the date of change of employment that i'm waiting for..

[hallowitch]

there was a post by tomtubby about this a while ago

 

from memory its more about the bond the bailiff pays to the court 10k as this is usually paid by the firm that employs the bailiff by way of an insurance policy when a bailiff leave the firm this bond is cancelled the new employer then pays the bond to the court

 

If i find the thread i will post it for you

[nohope]

Got it in writing now about there mistake with the oops £300 charge saying they have removed it.

It seems there is 2 bailiffs that have attended on seperate occasions, i got the breakdown of who and when but i do no on the first visit there was 2 of them at my door yet there saying bailiff Mr X attended on said date, nothing about his pitbull he had in tow (was 5ft tall with a muscular build standing with his arms folded and the look on his face made it look like he could chew a rugby ball up without breaking a sweat lol)..

 

Now, after there opps, mistake, which they only done anything about after they received the letter asking for a breakdown of charges (they didnt mention it before hand) and the levy which would not have covered there so called fee's let alone anything else, is this worthy of a formal letter of complaint to the bailiffs, MP and Ce of the council.

 

Already complained to the head of revenues at the council and waiting for a reply.

 

And i've offered £10 a month for now direct to the council as we can't afford anymore at the moment and all they said back was, yes we can make an arrangement with the bailiffs for you to accept 10 a month then if you pay us £75 a month for the other 380 odd, i already gave them a IE so they no we are living on a shartfall of over 30 quid a month yet they seem to think we can find another 75 on top of the 10 i said i could afford. No matter how i work it out, 10 plus 75 is not even close to 10, i've tried every way possible to work it out but i guess you need to be a council employee to be able to do diffecult sums like that.

[nohope]

I'm in need of a bit of info. I need to no where i can find the details of levy and what it must cover, Ie the charges, auction fee, storage and so on. Been looking about on the net but cant quite find what i need

[nohope]

Also. when baliff x visited on the first visit, bailiff x had pitbull 1 with him.

Now, where they have said who visited they have no mention of pitbull 1 with bailiff x on first visit so i emailed them and asked them to clarify if bailiff x was on his own or with someone on his visit (pitbull 1) and they said he was on his own.

Do they also have to say who was with bailiff x if he was working with someone or do they not need to say if he was working with someone. From what i can tell from the letter i sent asking for breakdown of fee's and dates of visits and who visited it states quite clearly

"c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged." yet they are syill saying it was bailiff x on his own.

[seanamarts]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/45/made

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/enforcement/agents02.htm#part9

 

The above links should help, any questions please ask

 

It is possible that the bailiff had a trainee in tow this is why they state that only one bailiff was in attendance.

 

I cannot see why you cannot start paying the council online via their online payment facility, it would certainly go in your favour that you are willing to pay. You would however need the account that the debt has accrued from.

[nohope]

I emailed the council explaning that the offer of 10 a month was the maximum i could do at this present monent in time and that paying 10 to the baliffs and 75 to the council each month is not possible as i'd sent them a I/E breakdown that showed even if i cut everything back to the point of not being able to afford to have the heating on for more than 2 hours a day i'm still short by 36pm of what i'm paying out in the first place.

 

This is there reply

 

Thank you for your email.

With regards to the £75.00pm arrangement there is no way I can reduce this, I have given you 2 months into the next financial year to clear the balance and this is already stretching my powers as it is supposed to be resolved by 31.03.12

With regards to the balance currently with the bailiff, any issues of how the bailiffs have conducted themselves need to be directed to the manager.

Unfortunately I will not be able to return the account to the Council as requested and you will have to continue to pay the bailiff as directed, the arrangement I have given you is a gesture of goodwill to help you get things in order, usually the council expects the bailiff to recover the debt in 3 months through any means.

The £10pm arrangement I have made for you needs to be adhered to, if defaulted, I will not be able to step in to solve this issue again and you will have to negotiate with the bailiff yourself.

I only work in the office on Wednesday & Thursday and sometimes it will take me a week to reply to your emails, I suggest if you need to discuss this any further, you call the office on *********** as I wont be returning until 04.01.12 at the earliest.

Kind Regards

 

I must admite the bloke i'm dealing with is sort of trying a little bit to help but maths don't seem to be his strong point.

I have not agreed to the 75pm as i made it quite clear i couldn't afford it but he has still sent me a letter saying the agreement is in place and when they want payments by.

He may of rung the bailiffs and sorted out the 10pm payment but i've heard nothing from them and had no letter from the council to confirm the payment to the bailiffs or when its ment to be paid.

 

[wonkeydonkey]

Pay them online what YOU can afford, simply by showing you are willing to pay and not refusing to pay means there is little they can do. If you have only had 1 visit by bailiff then you owe him £24.50 but, as he will undoubtedly call again to justify a further fee of £18 make sure you allow for this when paying the Council direct.

 

WD

[nohope]

I take it there is nothing left for them to do other than accept the amount i pay each month.

 

What about my car if the bailiff does decide to come back. I'm sort of in the sticks so parking it a couple of roads away is a bit of a mission but as my car is worth no more than maybe 150/200 max at auction would it really be worth them trying to take it as it wouldn't cover there fee's let alone auction cost or part of the debt.

 

Does the below mean that what they take must cover costs and part of the debt. They did put a levy on my car but have since said they will not carry it out and have removed charges as explained a few posts up.

 

Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods impounded in satisfaction of the judgement is proportional to the value of the debt and charges owed.

 

taking a 150 car and adding charges of 300 does not sound reasonable at all!!

[wonkeydonkey]

If your OH is not on the CT bill and as they have withdrawn the levy, it gives you the right to transfer the ownership of the car to OH or anyone else you can trust.

 

Send the V5 to DVLA and advise your insurance company you are no longer the registered keeper!!

 

WD

[hallowitch]

I take it there is nothing left for them to do other than accept the amount i pay each month.

 

What about my car if the bailiff does decide to come back. I'm sort of in the sticks so parking it a couple of roads away is a bit of a mission but as my car is worth no more than maybe 150/200 max at auction would it really be worth them trying to take it as it wouldn't cover there fee's let alone auction cost or part of the debt.

 

Does the below mean that what they take must cover costs and part of the debt. They did put a levy on my car but have since said they will not carry it out and have removed charges as explained a few posts up.

 

Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods impounded in satisfaction of the judgement is proportional to the value of the debt and charges owed.

 

taking a 150 car and adding charges of 300 does not sound reasonable at all!!

 

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 so many fees if only one visit is made

as for your car how old is it? I.E. would the sale of it actually cover a large percentage of the bill anyway?

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.

[nohope]

"as for your car how old is it? I.E. would the sale of it actually cover a large percentage of the bill anyway?"

 

The car is just coming up to 17 years old, its an old peugeot 306, nothing special, not a collectors item. Cost me £700 to buy private about 4 years ago and now its worth maybe £200/250 if sold privately. At auction it would probably go for £120/150 max. just the fee's to have a flat bed pick it up and take it to where ever they would store it would cost more than the cars worth..

[seanamarts]

I hate to say this but I doubt if your car would even go for that at auction. A 17 year old car at auction, wouldnt budge unless it was for scrap or parts. Its totally worthless to the bailiffs. It wouldnt cover any costs or charges let alone the out standing debt/s.

[brassnecked]

I hate to say this but I doubt if your car would even go for that at auction. A 17 year old car at auction, wouldnt budge unless it was for scrap or parts. Its totally worthless to the bailiffs. It wouldnt cover any costs or charges let alone the out standing debt/s.

 

Which could constitute grounds for being aggrieved by the levy, as it could be argued it is primarily for the bailiffs financial gain. Regulation 46 with council as defendant?

[nohope]

So am i safe to assume even if they put a levy on it again theres no chance they would take it cos it wont cover anything there likely to charge.

 

Would they not just take it out of spite and then add charges again that are more than the cars worth of can they deffonatly not warrent even taking it and trying to charge me for it..

[brassnecked]

So am i safe to assume even if they put a levy on it again theres no chance they would take it cos it wont cover anything there likely to charge.

 

Would they not just take it out of spite and then add charges again that are more than the cars worth of can they deffonatly not warrent even taking it and trying to charge me for it..

 

If they did take it in full knowledge that it wouldn't even cover a fraction of the levy and removal fees and no chance of even a penny off the debt , it would be an unlawful levy, and a Regulation 46 complaint may be an option, but others will know more.

[nohope]

Where do you get the details for regulations and the like. I keep looking for bits like that but can never find them..

[hallowitch]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/contents/made

[nohope]

Anyone got a link to details of "Regulation 46 with council as defendant"

 

Looked all over the place but cant find any details of it.

[outlawla]

Is this what you're looking for? Regulation 46, from the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

This may be useful for reference..... Levy and removal, from The Distress for Rent Rules 1988

Edited January 1, 2012 by outlawla

[nohope]

Yep, that looks like it. I skipped through that last night and didnt even notice it was what i was looking at lol..

 

Thanks.