Chandler and Swale Council **Now Sorted Successfully**

[brassnecked]

As they are likely reading this, send a Formal Complaint to the council viz the irregular fees as per the ATR and levy at the same time and the application of fees for visiting the wrong address when the council had the correct informationas per ploddertom above, copy to Head of Revenues council CEO, and elected leader, your local councillor, and MP.

[joe7175]

I have received a response from Chandlers so can provide some more information.

 

The council claim Chandlers first visited us on the 21/06/2012, Chandlers have stated in their letter that their first visit was on the 29/06/2012. As I have previously stated, we moved from the property on the 25th June 2012 and the council have confirmed they have this date on record already as the day we moved as our landlord informed them. It therefore appears Chandlers a) visited our old address, even though the council had the new info and b) told the council they visited on the 21/06/2012 but have told me in writing it was in fact the 29/06/2012/

 

We were charged a first visit fee of £24.50.

 

The second visit, according to the council was on 24/07/2012, Chandlers in their letter state it was on the 17/07/2012. Again, someone has something very wrong.

 

I have spoken to our landlord, who also happened to be our landlord at the previous property, and he has said that a bailiff did in fact attend AFTER we had left and a new tenant had moved in. This would make sense as to why we have not received any paperwork.

 

We were charged a fee of £18.00 for this visit.

 

On the 20/12/2012 the bailiff attended our actual address and according to their letter 'levied on goods' - this resulted in £40.00 being added to our account.

 

Because the bailiff attended with a van with the intention to remove assets and therefore an attendance fee of £125.00 was added to our account, hence the total new charge of £165.00

 

I believe the first two visits and charges (which we have already paid for) are invalid as they visited the wrong address even though the council had the correct information. This therefore must make the third visit invalid as it was actually their first visit to our actual address.

Edited January 19, 2013 by joe7175

[i hate bailiffs]

 

On the 20/12/2012 the bailiff attended our actual address and according to their letter 'levied on goods' - this resulted in £40.00 being added to our account.

 

Because the bailiff attended with a van with the intention to remove assets and therefore an attendance fee of £125.00 was added to our account, hence the total new charge of £165.00

 

.

That is wrong

because the bailiff attended in a van did the council expect him to walk!!

[i hate bailiffs]

Having had a quick read back they are claiming a levy on a car

 

but charging for the attendance of a van to remove a car

 

I knew bailiffs not the brightest spark but that says it all

Invite bailiffs to take you to court for there fees they wont be able to explain that

 

I would go with invalid fees as wrong address get back on to the council head it formal complaint copy in your local MP and Councillors

[brassnecked]

If they are attending to remove a car they need a suitable towtruck or trailer, a Berlingo which many bailiffs use for daily work transport just won't hack it, so charging the ATR and coming in a Berlingo is not on, as they have not come properly equipped to remove the levied item (s) imho

[ploddertom]

If they are attending to remove a car they need a suitable towtruck or trailer, a Berlingo which many bailiffs use for daily work transport just won't hack it, so charging the ATR and coming in a Berlingo is not on, as they have not come properly equipped to remove the levied item (s) imho

 

The thing is at the time there was no levy in place but as he says he intended to remove "goods" which he did not know what they would have been he should have attended with a pantechion & a tow truck. As he levied on the car why didn't he then remove it.

[brassnecked]

The thing is at the time there was no levy in place but as he says he intended to remove "goods" which he did not know what they would have been he should have attended with a pantechion & a tow truck. As he levied on the car why didn't he then remove it.

Because he subsvribes to the Brothers Grimm Book Of Charges possibly.

[joe7175]

I sent a copy of the bailiffs letter to the council and I have just had an email confirming the case is now closed, no fees to pay! A massive Thank you to everyone on here for your advice and guidance. Another victory for CAG!!

[brassnecked]

Excellent result well done

[ploddertom]

Good to hear. Have changed your title to reflect this.