Equita baliff fees & CTAX

[brassnecked]

Looks like the council only talk bailiff in spite of all the complaints about the Capquita stitch up in Birmingham. It would be easier as PT says if you split the post down into paragraphs. Perhaps olsbill's suggestion to report them to the OFT under the head of credit fitness may also be an option.

[brassnecked]

is that any better?

Yes thanks, looks like CEO is backing Crapquita 110%

[brassnecked]

It sounds as if some more administrative errors are about to be produced.

 

Hopefully they have given themselves enough rope, no one can have an issue with legitimate charges, but Equita have shown themselves wholly incapable of operating inside the rules.

[brassnecked]

PT, the nub here is the law as "interpreted by the city council" otherwise known as ignoring the Regulations and making it up as they go along, A bailiff is a bailiff as you point out PT and they are either certificated or they are not, and if uncertificated should not be used to enforce Liability orders.

 

Code of conduct: http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2011/12/policy-on-use-of-bailiffs/

 

What Equita say: http://www.equita.co.uk/WhatOurClientsSay/tabid/203/language/en-US/Default.aspx

 

This page has many links also:

 

http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2011/12/policy-on-use-of-bailiffs/

[brassnecked]

PT, the nub here is the law as "interpreted by the city council" otherwise known as ignoring the Regulations and making it up as they go along, A bailiff is a bailiff as you point out PT and they are either certificated or they are not, and if uncertificated should not be used to enforce Liability orders.

 

Code of conduct:

 

What Equita say:

 

This page has many links also:

 

 

 

Thats interesting

oh and no he didnt include the code of conduct

 

Oops I wonder why? But seriously they are doing themselves no favours. Conflicting information, and the "aren't we great page" from Equita. they are seriously out of control, and Birmingham are on the runaway train, defending the indefensible. Does the CEO not realise they are 100% liable for any wrongful or criminal act ny Capquita. (an abbrieviation where capita run a council back office and hand bailiff functions to their subsidiary Equita)

[brassnecked]

it might be better if you rename the bailiff in the post to something like x or munter as we shouldn't name them on open forum

[brassnecked]

Could try the Daily Heil, (Mail) and the Wapping Liar (Sun) or the Express. The Mirror as it is left wing may also be worth a punt amongst the tabloids. It depends whether they have a lack of stories about celebs and twitter trolls before they may bother

[brassnecked]

the family tree of Capita equita and Ross and Robbers might be worth a mention in your emails????

 

Most defintitely as the vested interests between Capita and it's two bailiff companies could be construed as a conflict of interest when dealing with a vulnerable debtor, or a dispute.

[brassnecked]

If that letter doesn't have them taking large quantities of immodium I don't know what will. They are still clinging to the hope you will submit to their perverted version of the rules. As to a Levy Bailiff, no such animal, let them explain that one.

[brassnecked]

Got this to send in response to the Ministry of Justices nowt to do with us guvner email what do you think?

 

The reason for contacting yourselves is that the relationship between BCC, Capita and their bailiff companies results in a clear conflict of interest.

There are many individuals who have been subject to illegal workings by the bailiff company (front loading of fees, harassment of vulnerable individuals etc) this is then not robustly investigated by the council concerned as it is not in their interest to do so.

 

You could add that they are acting unlawfully in much of their enforcement activities, regarding fees, phantom visits, multiple charging on visits and that the Capita/Equita/Ross & Roberts tie up in many councils is detrimental to the public interest, and procedural fairness in enforcement, as Capita have a reason not to deal with debtors according to the regulations, but as the appointed bailiffs are part of their group of companies, they are more inclined to use legal enforcement as a first rather than last resort to aid the profitability of their bailiff arms.

[brassnecked]

Those of you following this may recall at the end of July I requested all info held on me by BCC today I received a letter asking for telephone nos cos they can't trace any calls oh how I laughed they have called me on both of the numbers I have used...

 

If they phoned a mobile you will have the date and time of the call in your call log on the phone, so that would be proof of call, were the calls recorded?

[brassnecked]

Thanks both, will put that in the email. I called from work and home unfortunately, the mobile was used for the text convo with the bailiff. BCC states that all calls are recorded so they should have copies I'm less interested in those though because I make notes it's the info they hold on my account written by them and Equita I want.

 

Keep and archive the texts you had from the bailiff

[brassnecked]

So got it this morning nothing showing the communication between bcc and Equita hmmmm

Well further grounds for complaint, destroying or witholding evidence?

[brassnecked]

I would let them incriminate themselves further, and put them on strict proof that the vehicle levied was yours, as in DVLA check.

[brassnecked]

Obvious application of copious quantities of Blanco on the coal by Crapquita/BCC. GRRRRRRR:-x

[brassnecked]

but im interested in the fact that now there is no SLA does that mean that Equita can do what they like?

Means that a savvy aggrieved debtor, can take them to the cleaners if they play their cards right, a SLA is usually a pre-requisite in any arrangement to set boundaries and performance levels. lack of this leaves them wide open.

[brassnecked]

Im biased but I also believe it verrrry clearly shows that the link is too close

 

Crapquita, are too entrenched in fact if they were a city conglomerate, it could be insider trading, capita obtain LO for BCC, then pass to oppo's in Equita. If they were bankers they would be locked up.

[brassnecked]

another thing there is no way they werent tracking complaints previously it would have formed part of the SLA so where are they?

Lost down the toilet probably, or conveniently deleted in a server outage.

[brassnecked]

once I have had my response to the next bit, I might pass it on to the next level to force that info out of them

Just make sure you follow the procedure to the letter so that you give them no wriggle room.

[brassnecked]

I have serious doubts as to whether a Crapita employee has the necessary authority to obtain a Liability Order under the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended).

The system is now so automated that human intervention may not happen until a debtor challenges the LO obtained for a quid or 50 pence as highlighted in FOI requests to NELC by outlawla. This means that the authority is there by default if Crapita run the entire Revenue Office. Wonder if this counts as ultra vires, as Crapita are a service provider or agent, not a public body, and do the powers and duties of the contracting public authority therefore devolve to Crapita under whatever contract or SLA they are bound by?

[brassnecked]

"Bailiffs will comply with the law as interpreted by the City Council at all times. Any doubt over interpretation of the law shall be referred to the relevant City Council department’s staff for clarification and instruction."

 

From the linked Code Of Conduct, but the problem here is in the "as interpreted by the City Council at all times" The council's own "interpretation" of the law may be fundamentally at variance with what is actually "The Law" especially regarding multiple charging on Liability Orders, and certain fees like head h.

[brassnecked]

@ oldbill, what a can of worms lieth before us with BCC and Crapita. that code of conduct could well be repugnant to the law, by providing prima facie that BCC will apply their interpretation as the de-facto truth, allowing Crapquita to make it up as they go along.

[brassnecked]

At the end of the day, BN, it is the courts who ultimately rule as to how the law is to be interpreted, not the silly burghers of Birmingham and Crapita. I find that once you start quoting from legislation, these "contractors" get very agitated, especially when they realise you have caught them out. They operate under the misconception that the law doesn't apply to them. Unfortunately, it does and what really comes as an awful shock to them is when they find out that they are subject to the Human Rights Act and can be sued in their own right without the taxpayer indemnifying them. they forget this at their peril

 

BN

[brassnecked]

If they think writing off fees that weren't owed anyway gets me to go away they are in for a small shock! Don't worry like it or not you lot are stuck with me I want to do my best to ensure they don't [problem] anyone else!

It is people like you who won't lie down and be ripped off by bully bailiffs and unlawful fees that will be their undoing. Perhaps the late Lord Denning will get his wish to bin the bailiff before too long,