Equita + CTax. excessive fees? **WON - refunded both levy fees and ATR fee**

[CookieRocks]

Sorry about the last post, I've just re-read this thread and realised that it was already talked about.

 

I feel guilty for asking, but is there anyone who would be able to help me draft the complaint letter to the council. I know I should have done so by now and tomtubby was right to be critical. However, I had a major operation in December, and have had many hospital appointments and visits over the last two months and just haven't gotten round to doing this. I'm not trying to use it as an excuse but it does me hinder me at the best of times.

 

Thanks in advance.

[CookieRocks]

I've given it a shot. I think I might have waffled on a bit in it, but it gives all that's happened and what I disagree with.

 

If someone can look it it over I'd be grateful. If there is anything to remove, add or change, then please let me know.

 

Thanks again for everyones help so far.

 

Regards

[CookieRocks]

Hello all,

 

Just received this from Equita.

 

Just to confirm no letters were left on the 'logged' visits. Also the enforcement officer's description of the house, practically could apply to 90% of the houses on the road.

[CookieRocks]

Just an update:

 

Council's CEO office are dealing with the Formal Complaint, I should receive their reply by 11/03. I had en email from a Complaints Investigation Officer imforming me of the process of how it'll be dealt with. Apprently, in the first instance the Complaint will be dealt with by Capita. I replied with my concern that by Capita investigating, and owning Equita, that there is a conflict of interest so I wanted an independent party from the Council to deal with it. This was refused, because it is 'standard practise' for Capita to deal with it first and that if I was unhappy with their investigation findings/ reply, that I could escalate the complaint for it to be independently by a complaints officer within the Council’s Revenue and Benefits service.

 

However, I still think that it is a conflict of interest.

 

I'm assuming this is okay and I should let the process continue until I hear back from them?

 

I sent a copy of the Formal Complaint to Council CEO, Equita Ltd, MP and Local Councillor.

 

Disappointed that I've heard nothing back from the MP at all, not even an acknowledgement, but the Councillor seems to have taken an interest and seems willing to help in anyway she can, even as far as to tell me that she will support an appeal if I'm remain unhappy with the Council's reply.

 

In the meanwhile, I looked at the online Certfied Bailiffs Register and saw that the Bailiffs 'Emaploer' section was blank. I understand that the Register is not always up to date. So I emailed HMCTS and got a reply the next day saying that they don't hold any employer information for the bailiff in question, so therefore he is likely to be self-employed.

 

I've also emailed the Court where the bailiff was certified to see if they hold any employer information, still awaiting a reply.

 

One question if I may, if it turns out that that the bailiff is not employed by Equita Ltd, are they allowed to 'outsource' debt collection to a 3rd party?

 

Thanks for all the advice so far.

 

Regards

[matt v atos]

Hello all,

 

Just received this from Equita.

 

Just to confirm no letters were left on the 'logged' visits. Also the enforcement officer's description of the house, practically could apply to 90% of the houses on the road.

 

Yes the front door from Google maps

What happened to the GPS they have.

Edited March 1, 2013 by matt v atos

[matt v atos]

Just an update:

 

Council's CEO office are dealing with the Formal Complaint, I should receive their reply by 11/03. I had en email from a Complaints Investigation Officer imforming me of the process of how it'll be dealt with. Apprently, in the first instance the Complaint will be dealt with by Capita. I replied with my concern that by Capita investigating, and owning Equita, that there is a conflict of interest so I wanted an independent party from the Council to deal with it. This was refused, because it is 'standard practise' for Capita to deal with it first and that if I was unhappy with their investigation findings/ reply, that I could escalate the complaint for it to be independently by a complaints officer within the Council’s Revenue and Benefits service.

 

However, I still think that it is a conflict of interest.

 

I'm assuming this is okay and I should let the process continue until I hear back from them?

 

I sent a copy of the Formal Complaint to Council CEO, Equita Ltd, MP and Local Councillor.

 

Disappointed that I've heard nothing back from the MP at all, not even an acknowledgement, but the Councillor seems to have taken an interest and seems willing to help in anyway she can, even as far as to tell me that she will support an appeal if I'm remain unhappy with the Council's reply.

 

In the meanwhile, I looked at the online Certfied Bailiffs Register and saw that the Bailiffs 'Emaploer' section was blank. I understand that the Register is not always up to date. So I emailed HMCTS and got a reply the next day saying that they don't hold any employer information for the bailiff in question, so therefore he is likely to be self-employed.

 

I've also emailed the Court where the bailiff was certified to see if they hold any employer information, still awaiting a reply.

 

One question if I may, if it turns out that that the bailiff is not employed by Equita Ltd, are they allowed to 'outsource' debt collection to a 3rd party?

 

Thanks for all the advice so far.

 

Regards

 

Think the answer may be yes far as i understand letter posters work for the baliffes

[wonkeydonkey]

Just an update:

 

Council's CEO office are dealing with the Formal Complaint, I should receive their reply by 11/03. I had en email from a Complaints Investigation Officer imforming me of the process of how it'll be dealt with. Apprently, in the first instance the Complaint will be dealt with by Capita. I replied with my concern that by Capita investigating, and owning Equita, that there is a conflict of interest so I wanted an independent party from the Council to deal with it. This was refused, because it is 'standard practise' for Capita to deal with it first and that if I was unhappy with their investigation findings/ reply, that I could escalate the complaint for it to be independently by a complaints officer within the Council’s Revenue and Benefits service.

 

However, I still think that it is a conflict of interest.

 

I'm assuming this is okay and I should let the process continue until I hear back from them?

 

I sent a copy of the Formal Complaint to Council CEO, Equita Ltd, MP and Local Councillor.

 

Disappointed that I've heard nothing back from the MP at all, not even an acknowledgement, but the Councillor seems to have taken an interest and seems willing to help in anyway she can, even as far as to tell me that she will support an appeal if I'm remain unhappy with the Council's reply.

 

In the meanwhile, I looked at the online Certfied Bailiffs Register and saw that the Bailiffs 'Emaploer' section was blank. I understand that the Register is not always up to date. So I emailed HMCTS and got a reply the next day saying that they don't hold any employer information for the bailiff in question, so therefore he is likely to be self-employed.

 

I've also emailed the Court where the bailiff was certified to see if they hold any employer information, still awaiting a reply.

 

One question if I may, if it turns out that that the bailiff is not employed by Equita Ltd, are they allowed to 'outsource' debt collection to a 3rd party?

 

Thanks for all the advice so far.

 

Regards

The answer to that will be found in the service level agreement the council have with their appointed agents, you can send a FOI request to the Council for a copy of that,it carries no charge and they have to reply to your request. Councils that have replied to similar FOI's can be seen NOT to permit their agents to 'outsource ' their collection sevices.

 

WD

[CookieRocks]

Thanks for that wonkeydonkey. Is there any particular way to word the request?

[wonkeydonkey]

Thanks for that wonkeydonkey. Is there any particular way to word the request?

 

There a quite a few of these 'floating' around the forum, Look at posts by outlawla he has made many an FOI request and you could probably use them as a guide..sorry I can't be of more help but my workload for caggers is very heavy at the moment and I just don't have time to conduct a search..others may be able to take you straight there. Good Luck

 

WD

[ploddertom]

The quickest way is to ring and ask the Council, might save a bit of time. Of course if they are evasive or unsure then you will have to ask formally. A simple FOI request would be along these lines:

 

Dear Sir

 

Please find the following Freedom of Information request(s). If you are not the appointed person that deals with this can you please pass this to the person who is authorised to do so.

 

Please provide a copy of the Service level Agreement the Council has with their appointed Bailiffs - Equita. Are your appointed Bailiffs - Equita - allowed to sub-contract to a third party.

 

Send to the Council Compliance Officer

[matt v atos]

sorry wrong forum

[CookieRocks]

Thanks for the info and suggestion for the FOI Request, which I sent on Friday.

 

I still haven't got a reply yet to my formal complaint, however, I was CC'd into a question regarding bailiff complaints/ car levies, that the locally councillor had asked the CEO's office, here's an interesting extract from it:

 

' With regards to levying on cars the bailiff only has to reasonably suspect that the car maybe owned by the debtor, should they actually “remove” the car it is at that stage that they will check vehicle ownership with DVLC.

 

"There has been no case law on whether bailiff levy fees should be cancelled should it subsequently be found that the vehicles were not in the debtor’s ownership. One of our bailiff companies did seek counsels’ opinion on this and they were of the view that the levy fees should not be refunded, however this was probably the outcome they were looking for! In this particular case [Name] will be responding and will be speaking to Equita about the levy on the vehicle and whether or not the levy fees should be refunded."

 

"We have also noticed that the public seems to be far more aware of some recent LGO cases and case law, whether they are getting advice from organisations or the internet I am not too sure but nevertheless this is further reason why bailiffs need to ensure that their practices and behaviour comply with the legislation and both ours and Civil Enforcement Agency guidelines."

Once I get the reply to my complaint, or anything pertaining to it, I'll post back.

 

Regards

[brassnecked]

Thanks for the info and suggestion for the FOI Request, which I sent on Friday.

 

I still haven't got a reply yet to my formal complaint, however, I was CC'd into a question regarding bailiff complaints/ car levies, that the locally councillor had asked the CEO's office, here's an interesting extract from it:

 

' With regards to levying on cars the bailiff only has to reasonably suspect that the car maybe owned by the debtor, should they actually “remove” the car it is at that stage that they will check vehicle ownership with DVLC.

 

"There has been no case law on whether bailiff levy fees should be cancelled should it subsequently be found that the vehicles were not in the debtor’s ownership. One of our bailiff companies did seek counsels’ opinion on this and they were of the view that the levy fees should not be refunded, however this was probably the outcome they were looking for! In this particular case [Name] will be responding and will be speaking to Equita about the levy on the vehicle and whether or not the levy fees should be refunded." ??????? Warning Extreme muppetry alert, see the quotation from the LGO report removing wrongly applied levy fees on third party motors:mad2:

"We have also noticed that the public seems to be far more aware of some recent LGO cases and case law, whether they are getting advice from organisations or the internet I am not too sure tough get used to it and control your bailiffs correctly, but nevertheless this is further reason why bailiffs need to ensure that their practices and behaviour comply with the legislation and both ours and Civil Enforcement Agency guidelines."

Once I get the reply to my complaint, or anything pertaining to it, I'll post back.

 

Regards

Point them in the direction of the LGO report into Blaby Council and Rossendales bailiffs, http://www.lgo.org.uk/complaint-outcomes/benefits-and-tax/benefits-and-tax-archive-2005-to-date/blaby-district-council-11-007-684/

Once the Ombudsman became involved the Council:

 

• reduced the fees charged by £630.50
  
• carried out DVLA checks on the vehicles, which showed they did not belong either to Mrs S or her partner, so removed the remaining levies and associated fees, and
  
• negotiated a new contract with its bailiffs only allowing one fee to be charged for one visit even where multiple accounts are involved." quoted from the link above
  

and no it is not lawful to collect the fees on a wrongly levied third party motor, all charges asasociated with the levy MUST be removed, whatever the bailiffs counsel claimed.

[CookieRocks]

Hi,

 

Here's the Council's reply in regards to the Formal Complaint regarding Bailiff Charges.

 

I'm still confused as to why the Attendance Charge is justifiable.

 

Once proof of ownership is sent and the levy fee refunded, surely the Attendance Charge, being associated costs, should be returned aswell? Unless I'm reading it all wrong.

 

Any advise would be appreciated on where we stand now.

 

Thanks in advance.

[brassnecked]

Hi,

 

Here's the Council's reply in regards to the Formal Complaint regarding Bailiff Charges.

 

I'm still confused as to why the Attendance Charge is justifiable.

 

Once proof of ownership is sent and the levy fee refunded, surely the Attendance Charge, being associated costs, should be returned aswell? Unless I'm reading it all wrong.

 

Any advise would be appreciated on where we stand now.

 

Thanks in advance.

The attendance fee and van fee must be removed, the bailiff should have taken due diligence before attending to remove and incurring the cost, by checking ownership before levying imho

[hallowitch]

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-!!!!(1-Viewing)-nbsp

April 2010 Insight – Local Government Ombudsman

 

 

As it has become increasingly difficult for bailiffs to gain access to debtors’ homes for the purpose of taking goods for council tax, the practice of levying on vehicles in the absence of the debtor has grown. These vehicles may be parked on the debtor’s property or in the road outside. This practice, if abused, can lead to the Local Government Ombudsman finding fault with the bailiffs and the council employing them.

 

The Ombudsman has dealt with at least four unreported complaints when cars parked in the road were levied on, but did not belong to the debtor. In each case the bailiffs assumed that the vehicle belonged to the debtor, but did not check ownership before making the levy. In one case, having levied on the car, a notice was put through the debtor’s letterbox including the fees. As the debtor did not respond, the bailiffs returned to remove the car, but found it was no longer there. Despite not being able to levy on the goods the bailiffs charged a “van fee” (under head C of Schedule 5 of the 1992 Administration and Enforcement Regulations, as amended) of £105, and posted a further notice through the letterbox to advise the debtor of the new, higher debt.

 

In three other complaints, involving a different authority, the same thing happened – with levy and van fees being charged for cars not owned by the debtors. In those cases the debtors contacted the bailiffs to say that they did not own the cars. The bailiffs acknowledged this, but still insisted that the levy and van fees were payable. When our investigator queried this with the council, they were told that the bailiffs would have checked with the DVLA before moving the car, but even if the debtor did not own the car the levy fees would not have been removed.

 

These practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman. There is no question that when bailiffs have carried out a relevant action, they are entitled to the fees the law allows them to charge. However in these cases the levy and van fees were being charged for goods that the bailiff would not have removed - had the car been found and the bailiffs checked before removal, it would have been found they belonged to a third party.

 

A council may say that a check would be made before any removal, but this does not prevent possible fault. Some debtors will pay when they receive the levy or other notices, and will pay fees that should not have been charged to them. Levying on a car parked on someone’s drive may appear less problematic as it is more likely to belong to the debtor. But if it does not, and levy and van fees are charged and paid, then the debtor has suffered the injustice of paying fees that were not due.

 

In all four cases the Ombudsman recommended the same remedy. The levy and van fees should be refunded and the council should ensure their bailiffs check ownership of vehicles with the DVLA before levying on them. Debtors should pay what they owe, and if a vehicle belongs to the debtor (and any levy would not be excessive) then levying and charging reasonable fees would not be questioned by the Ombudsman.

 

All councils are encouraged to ensure their written policies say that bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership. Failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be the subject of a public report against the authority.

 

 

Andrew Hobley is Senior Investigator with the Local Government Ombudsman.

[ploddertom]

I can guarantee that letter was never written by the Council. Your complaint will have been passed to the Bailiffs for comment & that will be their response. Observer v Gordon is quite an old case now and should not be relied on by them as it has been superseded by others - as well they now.

[CookieRocks]

The attendance fee and van fee must be removed, the bailiff should have taken due diligence before attending to remove and incurring the cost, by checking ownership before levying imho

 

Absolutely agree with this brassnecked. I came across an LGO Report which says pretty much the same thing.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42359[/ATTACH]

 

Pages 6, 7 and 11 are relevant.

 

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-!!!!(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

April 2010 Insight – Local Government Ombudsman

 

 

As it has become increasingly difficult for bailiffs to gain access to debtors’ homes for the purpose of taking goods for council tax, the practice of levying on vehicles in the absence of the debtor has grown. These vehicles may be parked on the debtor’s property or in the road outside. This practice, if abused, can lead to the Local Government Ombudsman finding fault with the bailiffs and the council employing them.

 

The Ombudsman has dealt with at least four unreported complaints when cars parked in the road were levied on, but did not belong to the debtor. In each case the bailiffs assumed that the vehicle belonged to the debtor, but did not check ownership before making the levy. In one case, having levied on the car, a notice was put through the debtor’s letterbox including the fees. As the debtor did not respond, the bailiffs returned to remove the car, but found it was no longer there. Despite not being able to levy on the goods the bailiffs charged a “van fee” (under head C of Schedule 5 of the 1992 Administration and Enforcement Regulations, as amended) of £105, and posted a further notice through the letterbox to advise the debtor of the new, higher debt.

 

In three other complaints, involving a different authority, the same thing happened – with levy and van fees being charged for cars not owned by the debtors. In those cases the debtors contacted the bailiffs to say that they did not own the cars. The bailiffs acknowledged this, but still insisted that the levy and van fees were payable. When our investigator queried this with the council, they were told that the bailiffs would have checked with the DVLA before moving the car, but even if the debtor did not own the car the levy fees would not have been removed.

 

These practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman. There is no question that when bailiffs have carried out a relevant action, they are entitled to the fees the law allows them to charge. However in these cases the levy and van fees were being charged for goods that the bailiff would not have removed - had the car been found and the bailiffs checked before removal, it would have been found they belonged to a third party.

 

A council may say that a check would be made before any removal, but this does not prevent possible fault. Some debtors will pay when they receive the levy or other notices, and will pay fees that should not have been charged to them. Levying on a car parked on someone’s drive may appear less problematic as it is more likely to belong to the debtor. But if it does not, and levy and van fees are charged and paid, then the debtor has suffered the injustice of paying fees that were not due.

 

In all four cases the Ombudsman recommended the same remedy. The levy and van fees should be refunded and the council should ensure their bailiffs check ownership of vehicles with the DVLA before levying on them. Debtors should pay what they owe, and if a vehicle belongs to the debtor (and any levy would not be excessive) then levying and charging reasonable fees would not be questioned by the Ombudsman.

 

All councils are encouraged to ensure their written policies say that bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership. Failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be the subject of a public report against the authority.

 

 

Andrew Hobley is Senior Investigator with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Thanks for this Hallowitch. Before the complaint was fully investigated, I did come across this and in an email conversation with the councils Revenues and IT Manager, I did send a copy of the last paragraph of this article aswell as the relevant paragraphs from the the LGO's report of Blaby Council.

 

His reply was:

 

"We are well aware of LGO advice and guidance and we have to counter these against legislation and case law. With regards to the Blaby case I would also point you to para 45 which needs to be read in conjunction with para 44.

 

When responding to your complaint I can assure you we will be having regard to the particular circumstances of your case, together with the legislation which will include both case law and LGO guidance."

 

Obviously having received their reply, I really don't think they have even taken into account the LGO's guidance from the article itself, the LGO Report attached above or the LGO Report Blaby Council.

 

One quick question, are any of the reports findings simply guidance/ advice from the LGO or is what they say binding on other/ all councils?

 

I can guarantee that letter was never written by the Council. Your complaint will have been passed to the Bailiffs for comment & that will be their response. Observer v Gordon is quite an old case now and should not be relied on by them as it has been superseded by others - as well they now.

 

It was definitely not the Council who sent the reply. From the off I was informed by the Council that the complaint will be investigated by Capita. I immediately replied that I was not comfortable with Capita themselves dealing with it as I saw there was a conflict of interest.

 

The Council replied stating that this is the process of their complaint handling, and if I was not happy with their findings/ reply that only then will I be able to escalate the complaint. It will then be independently investigated by a complaints officer within the Council’s Revenue and Benefits service.

 

You mention that Observer v Gordon has been superseded, is there any particular Case Law you can point me in the direction of which I can counter the Council with?

 

Even in the LGO Report Blaby Council, Paragraph 8 alludes to the fact that Observer v Gordon is case specific, so from that I would assume it shouldn't be used as a general rule of thumb as it seems the council are using to justify levying on the vehicle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From the council reply attached in post #39 they say that they will return the levy fee once proof of ownership is sent, however, they then go on to state that the attendance charge is justified.

 

Am I missing something? Surely there is no need for an attendance charge if the levy charge is unlawful and thus returned?

 

In their reply the Council state 'The attendance charges relate to both the bailiff time and van costs. It is evident from the facts that the bailiff did indeed attend at your property with a van. If the bailiff had

considered that a bigger van/lorry was required, he would have called for one. I find nothing

illegal about the attendance and I consider the attendance charges justifiable.'

 

Is that right?

 

Another thing, Equita have only provided a list of charges (no dates or times for when this charges were made), and only given dates when they supposedly visited (apparently they have no times logged on their system). They claim that the bailiff would have left a letter, but there have been no letters left at all, it's only on the third visit did my friend actually speak to anyone in regards to the issue. On the dates they logged as visits, there was always someone at home, who would have answered the door if they had rung the bell. Do they have to attempt to contact/ notify the debtor by actually trying to find out if someone is at the property or can they just pass by post a letter and bugger off? Thus increasing their charges.

 

As always any advice on what to do and/ or say/ write is appreciated. Thanks.

[brassnecked]

"In their reply the Council state 'The attendance charges relate to both the bailiff time and van costs. It is evident from the facts that the bailiff did indeed attend at your property with a van. If the bailiff had

considered that a bigger van/lorry was required, he would have called for one. I find nothing

illegal about the attendance and I consider the attendance charges justifiable.'

 

The council are talking from their rectal trumpet, The levy was invalid, the bailiff should have checked before incurring cost to carry out what is in effect theft of a motor vehicle, for which the council would be equally complicit due to their vicarious joint and several liability with their appointed agents, Equita and Crapita. Does this official want to spend a holiday in jail?

 

The Blaby findings are clear, levy fees and all fess associated and raised from it must be removed, including the van fees for turning up to in effect steal an innocents third parties car. If the bailiff KNEW it was not the debtors car, then we can add fraud to the crime list for that bailiff and ultimately the council.

 

Incidentally was the reply justifying the fees actually a council official, or a Crapita apparatchik posing as one with a fancy title?

[CookieRocks]

"In their reply the Council state 'The attendance charges relate to both the bailiff time and van costs. It is evident from the facts that the bailiff did indeed attend at your property with a van. If the bailiff had

considered that a bigger van/lorry was required, he would have called for one. I find nothing

illegal about the attendance and I consider the attendance charges justifiable.'

 

The council are talking from their rectal trumpet, The levy was invalid, the bailiff should have checked before incurring cost to carry out what is in effect theft of a motor vehicle, for which the council would be equally complicit due to their vicarious joint and several liability with their appointed agents, Equita and Crapita. Does this official want to spend a holiday in jail?

 

The Blaby findings are clear, levy fees and all fess associated and raised from it must be removed, including the van fees for turning up to in effect steal an innocents third parties car. If the bailiff KNEW it was not the debtors car, then we can add fraud to the crime list for that bailiff and ultimately the council.

 

Incidentally was the reply justifying the fees actually a council official, or a Crapita apparatchik posing as one with a fancy title?

 

The reply was from Crapita themselves, as mentioned in my reply to PT, the Council made it clear that Capita themselves would investigate in the first instance before they would consider an independent council official to investigate it.

 

Luckily, it seems the local councillor is happy to get her hands dirty and get involved to progress the complaint further.

 

I'm just on a mission to gather all info, legislation and case law to be to able to reply back with a tight killer response to their stupidity.

[brassnecked]

The reply was from Crapita themselves, as mentioned in my reply to PT, the Council made it clear that Capita themselves would investigate in the first instance before they would consider an independent council official to investigate it.

 

Luckily, it seems the local councillor is happy to get her hands dirty and get involved to progress the complaint further.

 

I'm just on a mission to gather all info, legislation and case law to be to able to reply back with a tight killer response to their stupidity.

 

I think Crapquita, are a bit knackerd then.

[CookieRocks]

Hi,

 

A quick question, can a levy fee and an attendance fee be charged on the same day?

 

Thanks

[brassnecked]

Hi,

 

A quick question, can a levy fee and an attendance fee be charged on the same day?

 

Thanks

No I don't think so, as they need a valid prior levy to ground an attendance to remove, so usually not on same day.

[ploddertom]

After a levy is made on any goods you should be allowed a period of time to either gather the funds together or make payment. Clearly doing an ATR at the same time does not allow this.

[CookieRocks]

Hi guys.

 

Firstly thanks to brassnecked and ploddertom for clarifying in regards to ATR.

 

I'm awaiting information from Reading County Court regarding the employer status of the Bailiff. Until now the employer field is blank on the Certified register online, although I understand it's not always up to date. I did email HMCTS and they don't hold any employer information for the bailiff, so its most likely he is self employed. Hopefully the certifying court will be able to tell me what the case is, I don't feel confident of a reply fro them though, as they apparently can't divulge such information over the phone.

 

In the meantime, I've tried to counter the Councils/ Crapitas reply to the complaint. My points are in blue and their comment in black. If anyone has time to go through it, I'd be grateful. If I've gone wrong anywhere or have used something incorrectly please let me know.

 

Thanks once again for all the help and advice.

 

Regards

Edited March 22, 2013 by CookieRocks
Removing names from pdf