Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3355 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Today my partner had a letter hand delivered from a Rossendale employee for non -domestic rates. The section where it says balance due in full is empty. I got a call at approx 6pm from the very same bailiff to discuss the arreas.

 

He said that the total outstanding was £356.06.

The Liability order is for £154.56. The rest is made up of fee's.

 

They have never entered our property. The liability order is for our previous shop address which suffered a fire and has not been opened since the fire. The address they have sent the 'final notice' to is our home address which they have visited.

 

He explained that the fee's were made up from a levy on a car (not our's but some random one on the street) and some other van fee's and waiting time etc. I explained that as far as i was aware they could only charge a 1st and 2nd visit fee?

 

Am i right in thinking that the liability order is for a particular address? and that this isnt instantly transferable as he told me it is. (he claimed that its a digital document that they can alter and print out)

 

What do i do now. Im happy to pay the Liability order and the 1st and 2nd visit fee's but I dont see how i can be charged £200 in fee's.

 

Any help would be much appreciated. I have had a look on our local councils website but i cant find an online payment section.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the only letter we have is a 'final notice' with a blank figure next to it at our home address.

 

the liability order was for a few weeks prior to the fire. Since we have not had access to the shop since any paperwork etc have been returned to sender from postman/woman, that is why they have started to contact us at home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your post has been going to the shop & returned I'd be tempted to ring the Council in the morning, explain what has happened & see if they will accept what you owe & tell the Bailiffs to off. You could argue the point you were not aware of any of this until the Bailiff called.

 

If they are having none of it then yes I would pay as you stated earlier including an extra £42-50 for lawful fees and tell them to sort it with the Bailiffs. If you have not had a NoS left that's their problem - it is a legal requireemnt this is left at the time of seizure. If they have levied on someones else goods and refuse to listen to reason then tell them to remove the goods - then there will be some fun 7 games.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think to be honest PT im just going to pay the liability. Our Council are at best 'jobsworths' and useless and at least this puts an end to it (from our point of view) im sure the bailiff will argue the toss with regards to fee's etc.

 

So just to clarify,

Pay £154.56 Liability

And Pay £42.50 for the fee's.

 

Then Tell Bailiff to deal with council and Vice Versa?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have just recieved another letter from the Bailiff. I would presume this is to add another attendance fee and van fee to the account.

 

If I Pay ONLY whats on the liability order direct to the council. What can Rossers do about the Fee's? Iv got arguments to come with them weather i pay only the 1st and 2nd visit fee's now or not. I get the impression he is just out to get what Fee's he can and is still going to imply that he has some power once i have paid the council.

 

Thanks for the help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today i have returned home to find a notice of distress and another letter entitled 'bailiff remooval'

 

on the notice of distress is says under The Inventory...

 

1 x Toyota Avensis (Green) YK54 *** - Not ours, we dont own a car!

1 x Office Chair (Green Gold) - Ours but next to the wheely bin as its no longer any good!

 

I have paid the council the ammount on the liability order and have sent a letter to Rossers asking for the fee's, dates, etc etc.

 

The bailif who i spoke to yesterday rang me expecting to make the payment with him. I explained that I had paid the council direct and they would get what Fee's they were entitled to when they prove what they had done etc.

 

He said its upto me to prove the avensis isnt mine and that he has made levy on items and he can charge for that.

 

He was then going to return to remove goods for his fee's and that would incur more costs.

 

He did say that he was going to return tonight to remove these goods! I said that the liability order had been fulfilled and that he had no legal right to attend, so far he hasnt been but i suspect that this wont be the last i hear from him!

 

Can he return and remove goods? do i have to send anything else in particular to them?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have notified them and the Council the car does not belong to you and you have paid the Council in full along with the lawful fees for work carried out by the bailiff ie; 1st & 2nd Visits then I would say ...... job done?

 

Invite him to collect the chair at his own convenience or suggest you are happy to send it to his office using 'dispatch fee paid on delivery by recipient'

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another of this Company's absolutely useless employees that doesn't know his a**e from his elbow. Honestly since Mr Boast was sacked their training has gone from bad to diabolical. How many times have we heard on here that someone has to prove they do not own something - particularly a car. They have access to the DVLA so let them find out, let them remove the vehicle without doing any checks and see where that lands not just him but his Company as well. The seizing of the chair is akin to the classic seizing of a doormat - it's about time this lot either got real or were put out to grass.

 

More letter writing I'm afraid but you do need to make a Formal Complaint to the CEO of the Council and should copy in the Leader of the Council and his opposite number alongwith your local Councillor(s) just so that they know what kind of idiots their Council are employing.

 

Here is one thread you should read:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262730-Has-a-bailiff-quot-levied-quot-upon-a-car-that-is-NOT-owned-by-you-...-LOCAL-GOVERNMENT-OMBUDSMAN-S-Report-!!!!

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the matter of levying upon a car, please see the following:

 

Local Government Ombudsmanlink3.gif’s Report:

 

 

Local Authority: Rossendale Borough Council

 

 

Bailiff Company: Equita Ltd

 

 

Date: 15th December 2010

 

 

 

Approximately 25% of complaints to the Local Government Ombudsmanlink3.gif are resolved though a “local settlement”. This is where an “agreement” is reached between the LGO and the relevant Local Authority and nearly always, is on the basis that the local authority agrees to the recommendation of the Ombudsmanlink3.gif by agreeing to change the practice that had been the subject of the complaint to the LGO.

 

Although Local Settlements made by the LGO are not legally binding, it is important to be aware that according to the LGO, 99% of all “local settlements” are complied with in full.

 

 

For the above reason, “Local settlements” do not result in a public report or a formal finding of maladministration. Accordingly, a copy will not be made available on the LGO website.

 

On 15th December 2010 the LGO provided their final written report regarding a complaint made to them concerning Rossendale Borough Council and their agent; Equita Ltd. This particular complaint resulted in a “local settlement” and as mentioned above, a public report is not published.

 

 

I have a copy of the full report and permission from the complainant (Mr H) to provide the following details. Please note that the underlining is not from the LGO report.

 

 

The Complaint by Mr H concerns the following:

 

 

· Charging “multiple” fees to Mr H’s account for enforcing two Liability Orders

· Charging for visits that Mr H disputes ever took place

· Levying upon a vehicle that did not belong to Mr H and failing to provide a Notice of Seizure.

 

Paragraph 21 of the Ombudsman’s report states:

 

 

· “I am also concerned that there are fees charged to both of Mr H’s accounts in relation to one visit on 2nd July 2009. Although there were two Liability Orders in place, I do not consider it reasonable to charge twice for one physical visit”

 

Paragraph 23 states:

 

 

Thirdly, I am concerned that the bailiffslink3.gif levied on a vehicle parked in the street which did not belong to Mr H. The bailiffslink3.gif are required to leave an inventory of the goods seized with the customer at the time of the levy and the Council confirmed that the bailiffslink3.gif will check the ownership of a vehicle with the DVLA before seizing it.

 

 

Legally, bailiffs can distrain on goods in a public place (in this case a vehicle parked in the street) if they have reasonable cause to believe that the goods belong to the debtor and are not needed for the debtor's work.

 

 

I do not consider the fact that a vehicle is parked in the street outside someone's home to be sufficient evidence of the bailiff to have reasonable cause to believe the vehicle is owed by the occupier of the house. It is recognised that there is some onus on the customer to advise the bailiffs if the vehicle listed on the inventory does not belong to them. However there is also some onus on the bailiffs to take reasonable steps to check the vehicle's ownership.

 

 

Paragraph 24:

 

 

I have consulted the Ombudsman and it is her view that although contacting the DVLA would be the most effective way to check ownership of the vehicle, she would accept other documented or supporting evidence such as the bailiff having witnessed the customer using the vehicle regularly

 

 

 

Paragraph 25:

 

 

There is no evidence to show that letters were left with Mr H on 4th and 12th June 2008 and so I consider that Mr H should not have been charged for these visits.

 

 

Paragraph 26:

 

To remedy this injustice it is recommended that the bailiff’s charges of these dates are removed from Mr H's account.

 

 

Paragraph 27:

 

 

I have additional concerns about the way this case was handled by the bailiffs. There is no evidence that an inventory was left with Mr H when the levy was made on a vehicle. In addition, the vehicle levied against was not his and the notes recorded by the bailiff are insufficient to show when visits were actually made what information was left with the customer.

 

 

Paragraph 29:

 

 

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2 July 2008.

 

 

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.

 

 

Paragraph 30:

 

 

The vehicle levied on does not belong to Mr H and he was not required to pay the costs associated with the levy visit.

 

 

Paragraph 34:

 

 

I remain of the view that bailiffs should make reasonable enquiries to establish the ownership of a vehicle before levying against it.

 

 

The person receiving the levy must accept some responsibility for advising the council or bailiff if the vehicle levied upon does not belong to them.

 

 

Paragraph 42:

 

 

The council has stated that a levy form was supplied. The Council has never produced a copy of the levy inventory.

 

 

The Council's complaint response to Mr H advised that the bailiff has not retained a copy of the levy form. Surely this document is essential if the bailiff were ever to proceed to seizing a vehicle? Mr H was not aware of what had been levied against until he received the Council's response to his complaint which commented on a levy having taken place, in relation to the silver Audi. At this point he was able to advise the Council we did not own such a car. I therefore remain of the view that there is no evidence of the levy inventory was left at the property.

 

Paragraph 53:

 

 

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2nd July 2008.

 

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.

 

 

Paragraph 54:

 

The council has accepted the recommendations and has agreed to apologise to Mr H for any procedural errors the bailiffs have made. I consider this a satisfactory way to resolve this complaint and so I have discontinued the investigation and closed the complaint.

 

XXXX

 

Investigator, on behalf of the Ombudsman

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has become even more interesting. The notice of distress that was posted yesterday is very very interesting!

 

The date reads 31/08/2012 - And again at the bottom, both hand writted on the form.

The Item on the inventory ' 1 x office Chair (green Gold) I got on the 15th of December from a local school closing down day. With the intention of re-trimming in leather just for the practise and never actually got round to do it. So in August, the chair was simply not at the back of my house as per the inventory. We all know they falsify documents and i think this has them over a barrell.

 

How do i go about explaining this to the council and making a formal complaint. This is disgusting and done intentionaly to cost us a lot more in Fee's.

 

They have been caught AGAIN cheating with thier fee's. What more evidence do the council want to act upon it.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would i be able to write to the council and ask for all the info they hold about my council tax bills and previous address's.

 

I had a case about three years ago where my address was number 11 and they sent a summons etc to the address at number 1. in the end i paid it within 14 days but after reading on this site I would have been able to do a stat dec and just pay what i owed. Would i be able to challenge this so far on?

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bailiff has just Rang me from a withheld number about the account. He says he is returning tonight to collect Fee's of £201.50 on the account and that he will remove goods to satisfy this.

 

What can I do? My partner is going to be alone in the house tonight and I dont want this idiot coming round and trying to force his way in and make it uncomfortable for her. Should i ring the council?

 

Im getting stressed out with it now. He says that the notice of distress is correct and that im lying about the dates. He wrote it yesterday 31/01/2012 and not 31/08/2012. i have a copy in front of me.

 

Any urgent help would be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only goods he can remove are those he has previously seized. If he does call then do NOT open the door, preferably ignore him or go out until after 9pm. He cannot force entry regardless of what he says.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If as you say in post #8 you have paid the liability order and the true fee's (£42.50) then debt is satisfied.....the end.

 

Should Mrs Green Jones attention be brought to this thread, :roll: then perhaps she would like to join us and explain where yet another 'rogue' bailiff in her employ gets the notion he is allowed to seize goods for imaginary fee's and issue threats

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the numpty comes around whilst you are in film him even through the letterbox issuing his unlawfulthreats, then call the police, he HAS NO RIGHT to force entry, as previously explained by WD and PT among others, as per post #8 the debt is settled the liability order is satisfies, the bailiff is enforcing pie in the sky.

 

Mrs Green Jones must admit she has more bad apples in her barrel, most likely trained up by Mr Boast.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have today recieved a phonecall from the head of collections from our local council appologising on behalf of Rossendales and has confirmed that they have removed the charges for the incorrect levy. She said that she was disgusted in the attitude of Rossendales and is going to voice her concerns higher up in the chain of command.

 

Yesterday we went out for the evening and returned home after 9pm so that if the Bailiff in question had attended we wouldnt have been there.

 

Rossendales are going to write to us now to confirm the charges have been removed and that our account is now settled.

 

Thank you all ever so much for the help and advice that has been given. Im just currently writing out some letters of complaint to make my voice heard and hopefully this will make the council listen to people a little more.

 

My real question is, how many times have Rossendales charged this exact fee and bullied people into paying it that isnt as persistant as i am and that have let them get away with it! Will we ever find out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My real question is, how many times have Rossendales charged this exact fee and bullied people into paying it that isnt as persistant as i am and that have let them get away with it! Will we ever find out?

 

Judging by what is posted on here , a significant number of people have been financially disadvantaged by Rossers bailiffs and dodgy fees imho

 

But great result for you congratulations :whoo:

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about how close you came to caving in. It's great you stood your ground and refused to be intimidated by these people. As has been mentioned on many an occasion since 31 October last year - nothing has changed with Rossendales despite what their CEO has tried to have everyone believe. I don't doubt it will have been an admin error.

 

Well done & enjoy the weekend to come.

 

PT

Edited by ploddertom

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...