Help - baliffs sent pre removal notice

[jerrymouse]

Hope some one can help as we are totally unsure what to do next , sorry if this is long winded but its a long story

 

I originally had a fine through Harrogate court which got into arrears of £5 ( this is honestly genuine ) so they sent it to collectica

When it went to collectica I owed £170 , Collectica ( then Phillps ) added their fees so it went back up to £265. I agreed payments with them of £20 a fortnight . These were paid fortnightly as agreed . Then however I missed a payment on 24/1/13 due to non receipt of benefits but I did pay the £20 on 31/1/13 leaving a balance to pay of £65

 

Then out of the blue on the 4/2/13 a bailiff attended my house with a 'Notice of Attendance' stating I had a balance outstanding of £300

On 5/1/13 I wrote a letter to them ( see below) and paid the £65 outstanding

 

However today I have received a 'pre-removal notice' from them stating I still owe £215 or they will attend my premises and seize goods for the arrears

 

I am self employed so I dont think they can take my car but please what can I do to stop this happening and prevent them from pursuing this added fees that they had no right to do

 

I paid each payment on 19/9/12, 28/9/12,5/10/12, 17/10/12, 1/11/12, 16/11/12. 29/11/12, 14/12/12, 28/12/12, 12/1/13, 31/1/13 and £65 on 5/2/13 so they were made fully yet they still say I was in arrears . I have all receipts and sent copies with the letter

 

Thank you

 

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to your visit to my premises this evening and also my telephone conversation with Carl this evening regarding my payments being allegedly in arrears

Your letter of 4/1/2013 ( copy attached) states that I had a balance of £105.00 yet was in arrears . However as you can see from the attached receipts on sheets numbers 1 & 2 this is not the case.

Further more your letter of 18/1/2013 ( copy attached) shows a balance of £85.00 and again states that I am in arrears . That is also incorrect as I made the fortnightly payments on 12/1/2013 & 31/1/2013. Leaving a balance owing of £65.00. As shows on the copy of receipts on attached sheet number 3 .

However this evening one of your collectors attended stating that I was in arrears and the amount owed had now risen to £300.00. Thus it appears that you have increased the balance by fees of £215.00

Please note the original fine was £260.00 of which I paid through the court £90.00 ( of which I hold receipts) leaving a balance of £170.00 . However your letter dated 10/9/2012 stated that the outstanding amount was £270.00. Therefore it appears you have once again added “fee’s” which I was never advised of and have never had any break down in writing.

Please provide a written explanation of your fees you initially added and give evidence of your disbursements “costs” you claimed because I now have reason to believe they are not compliant with regulations and your disbursements are not genuine

I have taken legal advice and I am reliably informed that you cannot state that I HAVE to pay fees , should you do so then this commits an offence under sections 1 to 5 of thefraud act and Section 40 of the

Please also note does not apply as no bailiff has taken control of my goods. Also as none of your documents name a bailiff in charge, then it proves there no valid levy over any goods which is required before a bailiff can take control of them.

The balance owing is £65.00 and this was paid today ( see attached copy 4)Therefore as I was not in arrears you had no justification to visit and then charge £215.00 ‘fees’ so the bill with yourselves is now PAID IN FULL. Should you pursue this matter further I shall have no alternative but to take the matter to the courts and my local MP

[Conniff]

Is your car registered in the business name and does it have business class insurance ?

[jerrymouse]

No the car is registered in my name as it was bought previously to becoming self employed

[Conniff]

If it's not registered to a business, then it's fair game for them. If it worries you, either lock it in a garage or hide it away somewhere else.

[jerrymouse]

I have read on debt wizard site that

 

If the bailiff is acting on behalf of the Magistrates' Court then he/she cannot seize the following goods:

 

• Clothing, beds and tools of the trade.
  

[Conniff]

But the car isn't registered to the business so isn't a tool of the trade. If you are using for other than to travel to and from work it should be covered by a business insurance policy.

[ploddertom]

Can you tell us what you do for self employment?

[sgtbush]

unfortunatly you have admitted to missing a payment, therefore the arrangement was broken, it was then allocated out and a visit preformed, in line with magistrates guidelines

the fees added will have been told to you in the letter you recieved by post, ie £85 admin fees when the courts issue the warrant and £215 attendance fees if someone visits your property,

you defaulted so the costs are added

 

regarding the car, its fair game as far as i can tell by the infomation provided, it would help if you told us the nature of your job weather you have business insurance etcetc

[jerrymouse]

Well guys I have spent hours today researching this matter and speaking to a solicitor and it turns out I am totally in the right not to pay these illegal fees . it wont go to court for the fees.

 

There is no court procedure for it in the magistrates' court, and it will never succeed in the county court - JBW vs. Westminster.

 

Warrants for distress for unpaid court fines are issued under Section 76 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 only provided for the recovery of the sum I was adjudged to pay.

 

Court records show no evidence of an order made against me for the costs of the enforcement officer or his company.

 

All monetary fines are set by the Sentencing Council and there is no legislation that enables a fines officer, HM Court and Tribunals Service or an enforcement contractor company to increase the sum I am adjudged to pay and your attention is respectfully drawn to Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Ac t 1970

 

No distress has been made on my goods and no goods or property of mine have been lawfully taken into the control of the enforcement contractor therefore, Part 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011 does not apply in this case and no further money is due from me.

 

The HMCTS enforcement services contract does not place any requirement on me, the defaulter to pay the fees of the enforcement contractor or any other company, and your attention is duly drawn to the terms spelled out in clauses 10 and 13 of that contract.

 

There is no “common law” obligation on me to pay the fees of the enforcement contractor because there is no contract for which I have agreed or become obliged to pay them.

They are not legally allowed to attend my property to levy any of my belongings purely for their own fees. To clarify the advice given via my Solicitor and Citizens Advice Bureau that any attempt to levy any goods or removal would not be lawful, and would end up with action being taken against them. Basically the warrant does not mean that they can act upon it purely for the pursuit of their fees.

[brassnecked]

Well guys I have spent hours today researching this matter and speaking to a solicitor and it turns out I am totally in the right not to pay these illegal fees . it wont go to court for the fees.

 

There is no court procedure for it in the magistrates' court, and it will never succeed in the county court - JBW vs. Westminster.

 

They are not legally allowed to attend my property to levy any of my belongings purely for their own fees. To clarify the advice given via my Solicitor and Citizens Advice Bureau that any attempt to levy any goods or removal would not be lawful, and would end up with action being taken against them. Basically the warrant does not mean that they can act upon it purely for the pursuit of their fees.

 

They will still persist for their fees whatever you say to them. Perhaps your solicitor or CAB could send a letter outlining this to the court and Collectica, as there is much disagreement over these "fees" that are not set down as such in Statute, but are terms of a contract between the bailiffco, and HMCS, marstons are also part of this. and enforce for fees using a home made warrant with extreme vigour. Collectica are no different and will enforce anyway