Swift Bailiffs - multiple fees and van fees

[1970]

Regarding your unlawful "Header H fee", I am attempting to collect a number of cases where such fraudulent attempts have been made by bailiffs collecting for councils. If you feel like contributing evidence please donate here.

 

Also, I have a response from the bailiff in writing explaining their use of the fee.

[ploddertom]

When you paid by card were you advised there was a fee to pay, how much it was and did you agree? Did they advise on any "free" ways to pay?

 

PT

[1970]

May be me but I don't see if you have listed the goods seized exactly as described on the Notice of Seizure?

 

PT

 

Sorry about that, here are the goods:

 

Microwave

Dining table

Dining chairs

TV

3 seat sofa

2 seat sofa

arm chair

washing machine

[1970]

When you paid by card were you advised there was a fee to pay, how much it was and did you agree? Did they advise on any "free" ways to pay?

 

PT

 

I was informed there was a fee of £20 but I disputed it. The bailiff took the charge anyway and wrote on the form "c/p disputes bailiff fees"

 

I was at work at the time and my wife was at home with the bailiff so over the phone I sorted it just to get him out of the house for my wifes sake.

[tomtubby]

If you were to go back on posts from around 2-3 years ago (before the recession really took hold) you will see that bailiffs very rarely ever charged a "van attendance" at the same time as an initial visit. In the past 6-9 months, so many of them are doing so on a routine basis.

 

I quite agree that a bailiff cannot make a living by charging £24.50 ( or £18.00) and that the fees should have been increased years ago. However, that is the fault of the government. What is clear is that a bailiff knows that in taking on this job that he MUST abide by the fee scale as laid down by Parliament. If he can make a living by charging the statutory fees then there is a simple solution. DONT TAKE THE JOB!!!

 

With council tax, the purpose of the visit is to "levy upon goods". A bailiff can make such a visit in his vehicle without any problem at all. If he is able to levy, then goods would be recorded on a walking possession and this allows the bailiff to give the debtor a short "breathing space" of 5 days ( or however many days is agreed between the bailiff and the debtor) in which to raise the money ( or set up a payment plan).

 

If the debtor allows the bailiff entry into the house (NEVER recommended) then he will look around the property to see if there are any goods worth levying upon. It may be that all of the goods are of little value.......could possibly be from Brighthouse etc ( on HP)....... or may belong to the Landlord and included in the tenancy..............IT IS PRECISELY FOR THIS REASON THAT A BAILIFF CANNOT CHARGE a fee for "attending with a view to the removal of goods" !!!

 

The bailiff would need to FIRSTLY establish if there were any goods on which to levy. If so, they cant be removed in any event for at least 5 days !!!!

 

I am sorry to say, but as far as I can see, the charging of a fee for "attending with a vehicles with view to the removal of goods" is a SHOCKING ABUSE by local authorities and bailiff companies.

[impecunious]

Sorry about that, here are the goods:

 

Microwave

Dining table

Dining chairs

TV

3 seat sofa

2 seat sofa

arm chair

washing machine

 

 

They can only levy on the microwave if you have another source of cooking (cooker) in good working order -- HEY, my cooker's broken, so I have to use the microwave for cooking/heating food. Possibly exempt item.

 

By levying on your dining chairs AND sofas, does that mean they will leave you with no seating for the family? That's a definite No No! Exempt items - Refer to Ambrose case.

 

Washing machine: exempt item - they can't levy on goods required to clean or mend clothes.

 

Unless the tv is new, flat screen -- little value.

 

Looks like an invalid levy to me - with so many exempt items and what's left - if anything - won't go anywhere towards reducing your indebtedness or covering cost of auction charges or bailiffs charges.

 

Naughty bailiffs, you'd really think they'd have learned by now!

 

 

Impecunious!

[hallowitch]

Irregular Distress (Levy) by bailiffs

With thanks to Tomtubby

[edit]MRS AMBROSE v NOTTINHGAM CITY COUNCIL

This is another well known legal cases that has been relied upon many times when either issuing proceedings, or one that can be referred to when writing a letter of complaint. This case concerns a lady by the name of Mrs Ambrose who claimed that a levy (distress) was irregular as bailiffs had removed goods from the home that were necessary for “providing the basic domestic needs of the family”

Background:

Mrs Ambrose and her husband had an unpaid Council Tax bill for £851.00 owing to Nottingham City Council. In September 2003, Rossendale’s bailiffs attended at their home to levy distress on goods. Rossendale’s had entered the property, where they identified items that were listed on a Walking Possession. Next to those items listed, the bailiff wrote the words: “and all other goods on the premises unless exempt or specially exempt by statute.” The bailiff had not looked around the house; he had merely entered one room and was therefore unable to see which items were “exempt”

Regulation 45 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 lists the following items as being exempt from seizure:

"Such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary for use personally in employment, business or vocation"

"Such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying basic domestic needs of the person and family".

As the Council Tax remained unpaid, the bailiff returned with a van to seize furniture that included a sofa, footstool and two dining chairs.

District Judge Cooper agreed that the seizure was irregular as the bailiff had removed furniture that was necessary for “satisfying the basic domestic needs of Mrs Ambrose and her family” This was because, amongst other items removed, the bailiffs had removed 2 dining chairs. They left behind the table and the remaining two chairs. As the family consisted of Mrs & Mrs Ambrose and one child, the bailiffs should have left seating for 3 people, not two.

Nottingham City Council had argued that there could not be any irregularity as Mrs Ambrose had signed the Walking Possession. This was rejected by Judge Cooper who agreed that Mrs Ambrose was faced with the prospect of having her goods removed unless she signed the Walking Possession.

As important as the above is, the Judge also agreed that the wording on the Walking Possession was deficient in that the reference to “all other goods on the premises unless exempt” did not specify what those other goods were, and which ones were exempt. The Judge agreed that the levy was also irregular for this reason.

 

List A

 

1) The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from distress at the instance of a creditor in respect of a debt due to him by the debtor-

a) clothing reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household;

b) implements, tools of trade, books or other equipment including a car or van reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household in the practice of the debtor's or such member's profession, trade or business, not exceeding in aggregate value £1,000 or such amount as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;

c) medical aids or medical equipment reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of his household;

d) books or other articles including a computer reasonably required for the education or training of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household not exceeding in aggregate value £1,000 or such amount as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;

e) toys for the use of any child who is a member of the debtor's household;

f) articles reasonably required for the care or upbringing of a child who is a member of the debtor's household.

 

2) The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from distress if they are at the time of the distress in a dwellinghouse and are reasonably required for the use in the dwellinghouse of the person residing there or a member of the household-

a) beds or bedding;

b) household linen;

c) chairs or settees;

d) tables;

e) food;

f) lights or light fittings;

g) heating appliances;

h) curtains;

i) floor coverings;

j) furniture, equipment or utensils used for cooking storing or eating food;

k) refrigerators;

l) articles used for cleaning, mending, or pressing clothes;

m) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse;

n) furniture used for storing-

(i) clothing, bedding or household linen;

(ii) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse; or

(iii) utensils used for cooking or eating food;

 

o) articles used for safety in the dwellinghouse or of household articles

3) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations add to the list set out in subsection (2) above, or delete or vary any of the items contained in that list.

We consider that under 1(b) and 1(d) the preferable aggregate value might be £1500.

 

List B

 

Such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary for use personally by the tenant in their employment, business or vocation and such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions are as necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the debtor and his family.

[brassnecked]

That levy would fail imho, as it wouldn't cover the debt fees removal and fees at auction

Even a flat screen TV would be of no use on a levy these days, as a 42" TV is around £400, and an entry level 32" below £200 The only one worth seizing would be a top of the range Panasonic or Sony at £2000

[1970]

Ok, all looking good with my supporting information. This is very likely to go to the LGO so I am also in the process if obtaining further info from other councils that have stopped their contractors charging the head H fee etc.via FOI.

 

Another matter which came up during my investigations is that a bailiff that called on my was certificated but for a different comapny. He started working for swift and had asked the court to change his certificate but began acting for swift before the court had made the changes.

 

Does this have any implications? Would his bond have been invalid at the time? Worth adding to the complaint?

 

1970

[outlawla]

.....This is very likely to go to the LGO so I am also in the process if obtaining further info from other councils that have stopped their contractors charging the head H fee etc.via FOI....

 

Have you read this? Freedom of Information Reply – Head H fee.doc

 

Where no sale takes place because the debt has been paid and goods returned to the debtor.

 

The statutory fees specified under Header H of Schedule 5 of SI 1992/613

 

i) Charges to be made per LO, not per case

 

ii) Only to be charged where goods have been physically removed from the debtor’s premises and then payment in full is received.

 

iii) Must not be charged where no goods are removed.

 

 

 

NOTE:

 

The statutory fees specified under Header H of Schedule 5 of SI 1992/613 were introduced here, SI 1993/773, with the most recent amendment being SI 2006/3395

Edited January 25, 2012 by outlawla