Radio 5 Live: Last night's discussion on Equita/Bailiffs/Complaints

[impecunious]

Did anyone else laugh out loud when listening to BBC Radio 5 Live last night .... discussion surrounding complaints about Rossendale's council's use of bailiffs, Equita staff and claims of excessive over-charging??

 

I was driving back from London on the M6 at the time - thank goodness there wasn't much traffic .. I was laughing so much I almost had to park-up on the hard shoulder! Surely Equita would never use bullying tactics or excessive charging .... complaints received were negligible.

 

 

Impecunious!

[wonkeydonkey]

Damnnnn I was in need of a good laugh last night having spent several hours helping a cagger with equita problems ...does this mean all my efforts were a waste of time and she will in a day or so get a letter in reply to the 7 she has already sent without having had the basic courtesy of an acknowledgement to any, that will say

 

Dear Mrs xxxx

 

We have looked at our records and have been able to establish our bailiff did indeed lie and mislead you to his powers, we also see you have been overcharged and the sum of £612 demanded from you by way of our fees, should have read £24.50 in respect of his single visit on xxx

 

We at Equita trust you will accept our sincere apologies to these illegal threats of intimidation and that you will overlook the administrative errors arising to your account.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Don E. Good

[impecunious]

Only in your dreams!!

 

I think there's going to be some official enquiry into Equita - didn't quite catch it all - reception wasn't great! Was hoping fellow CAGgers heard it too .....

 

Impecunious!

[brassnecked]

Only in your dreams!!

 

I think there's going to be some official enquiry into Equita - didn't quite catch it all - reception wasn't great! Was hoping fellow CAGgers heard it too .....

 

Impecunious!

 

Damn missed it will there be a podcast of it? I'm in need of a good laugh

[tonycee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/5linvestigates

[ploddertom]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/5linvestigates

5LI: Olympic Brand Police: 25 Mar 12

 

Sun, 25 Mar 12

Duration:

47 mins

The 'draconian'rules controlling use of Olympic brand and date 2012:banned sausages in shape of Olympic rings, and exhibition celebrating best of British which had to fight off 7 lawyers. Also, how heart attack care has improved but heart failure care hasn't. And the bailiff company being investigated by trading standards for unjustified payments.

 

 

You may have to listen to the whole hour as it is included with other stuff about the Olympics etc

[brassnecked]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/5linvestigates

5LI: Olympic Brand Police: 25 Mar 12

 

Sun, 25 Mar 12

Duration:

47 mins

The 'draconian'rules controlling use of Olympic brand and date 2012:banned sausages in shape of Olympic rings, and exhibition celebrating best of British which had to fight off 7 lawyers. Also, how heart attack care has improved but heart failure care hasn't. And the bailiff company being investigated by trading standards for unjustified payments.

 

 

You may have to listen to the whole hour as it is included with other stuff about the Olympics etc

 

Thanks PT and tonycee.

[brassnecked]

Bailiff bit is after 39 minutes 15 seconds on the podcast. looks a bit grim for C®apquita Trading standards in Northampton home of the Kangaroo Bulk County Court Clearing Centre are investigating Equita so it says. CIVEA don't accept allegations, saying bailiff action is not inherently aggressive .It is well worth a download and listen

Edited March 26, 2012 by brassnecked

[tomtubby]

THank you for the link. Too late tonight but will certainly listen in the morning.

VERY INTERESTED indeed to hear that this programme is about Rossendale Borough Council and Equita. SURELY NOT......

 

This is therefore the very SAME local authority AND bailiff provider who are the subject of a highly critical Local Government Ombudsman's report !!!!

[tomtubby]

.

Local Government Ombudsman’sReport:

 

 

Local Authority: Rossendale Borough Council

 

 

Bailiff Company: Equita Ltd

 

 

Date: 15th December 2010

 

 

 

Approximately 25% of complaints to the Local Government Ombudsmanare 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 Ombudsmanby 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 bailiffs levied on a vehicle parked in the street which did not belong to Mr H. The bailiffs 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 bailiffs 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

[brassnecked]

The very same ones TT

[tomtubby]

UNBELIEVABLE !!!!

 

I wonder if Trading Standards are aware of the report from the LGO ?????

 

Maybe they should be sent a copy ASAP !!!

[tomtubby]

The following thread makes VERY interesting reading indeed !!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?319073-PRESS-ARTICLE.-Re-Rossendale-Borough-Council-and-Equita-Ltd

[brassnecked]

Perhaps it is time Capita was investigated, for any improprieties, and their relationship with council revenue and their almost guaranteed seeking of liability orders as a first solution, even where a debt is negligible, then passing it to their own bailiff company, for enforcement, in a never wending revenue stream, is abhorrent.

[ploddertom]

Perhaps it is time Capita was investigated, for any improprieties, and their relationship with council revenue and their almost guaranteed seeking of liability orders as a first solution, even where a debt is negligible, then passing it to their own bailiff company, for enforcement, in a never wending revenue stream, is abhorrent.

 

Birmingham City Council & Plymouth City Council are a couple that come to mind plus others in the SW where R&R are involved.

 

PT

[wonkeydonkey]

Would they not be fearful to investigate? if it is found they have indeed put residents to a risk of being unjustly and illegal charged by their appointment bailiffs and that we already know they are responsible for the actions of the bailifs, the buck definately stops with themand it will be a costly exercise for them to right the wrongdoings.

 

WD

[ploddertom]

It would be in their own interests to sort it as otherwise maybe we could see a Panorama Special or similar.

 

PT

[brassnecked]

It would be in their own interests to sort it as otherwise maybe we could see a Panorama Special or similar.

 

PT

Perhaps Dominic Littlewood would be the one, to do an investigation, and treat them like the cowboy builders he exposes, He would be scary enough to frighten bully bailiffs. Panorama, or Watchdog are too close to the "Man" aka system to be effective imho

Edited March 27, 2012 by brassnecked

[tomtubby]

Just listened.....not happy at all !!!

 

More later.......Trying to find out which Trading Standards Office are looking into these complaints ....

[brassnecked]

Just listened.....not happy at all !!!

 

More later.......Trying to find out which Trading Standards Office are looking into these complaints ....

Says TS at Northampton on the podcast TT, but an all too real issue inherent in all this, is the concept of a "Capquita" stitch up Capita run office, Equita, or Ross 'n Robbers are preferred bailiffs = kerching for Capita PLC

[Annette1973]

Perhaps Dominic Littlewood would be the one, to do an investigation, and treat them like the cowboy builders he exposes, He would be scary enough to frighten bully bailiffs. Panorama, or Watchdog are too close to the "Man" aka system to be effective imho

 

That's funny because I am always commenting to my husband that Dom reminds me of a bailiff.

[ploddertom]

I think Dom & Clive Holland would make a good team.

 

PT

[brassnecked]

I think Dom & Clive Holland would make a good team.

 

PT

Wonder how it would go with Equita, or if they cornered Mrs Green-Jones of rossers?

[tomtubby]

Capita have a Contract with Rossendale Council which I believe expires in 2016. Once again....no surprise.......the PREFERRED bailiff provider is non other than EQUITA Ltd.

 

Any who owns Equita??????

 

 

CAPITA OF COURSE !!!!!

 

You couldn't make it up .......

[brassnecked]

Capita have a Contract with Rossendale Council which I believe expires in 2016. Once again....no surprise.......the PREFERRED bailiff provider is non other than EQUITA Ltd.

 

Any who owns Equita??????

 

CAPITA OF COURSE !!!!!

 

You couldn't make it up .......

 

I suggest we refer to council and bailiffs where there is a Capita/Equita cosy arrangement in place as a "Capqauita" situation, and maybe note it somewhere with details of council involved to collate how many debtors are adversely affected by this arrangement, where the council who are Capita obfuscate, and simply refer all enquiries/complaints to their partner company Equita. This could then be used in any complaints to higher authority.