Ross and roberts CTAX debt and fees

[gramtrad2]

I mentioned this in another thread that I had started and was advised that it was worthy of raising as a separate issue in this section.

 

Ross and Roberts debt for council tax.

 

I gave them a walking possession last year,

 

plus £300 up front and agreed to pay £150 a month, which I can afford.

 

However, I paid it via the Internet (their web site) and was a couple of days late.

 

About a week after that payment, they turned up and said that even though I was up to date ,

they were terminating the agreement and now wanted £1,600 odd or they would take away my car

and some of my furniture; they then put the wind up me further by setting out the extra costs that this would involve.

 

I had £1.000 clear in my bank account, paid that , and after the usual threats and posturing ,

they agreed to accept a cheque for £624.30 for the balance.

 

The cheque for the balance bounced and I immediately called the bailiff and gave him my card details to pay the £624 that was due. I later noticed that they only taken £505.80 which included a £30 fee for the cheque bouncing.

 

I have now got a full statement from them, which I have uploaded. Clearly the explanation is that they got their figures wrong when they called to enforce the warrant. They had not taken into account the last £150 which I had paid, although I did make it crystal clear to them that I had paid it (via the Internet). So, they were after me for too much anyway !

 

Paying that money left me totally broke and unable to pay my bills or mortgage this month. Consequently I have had to ask a relative to lend me money.

 

I am annoyed that this has happened and feel that they have been most unreasonable. They came out to collect the balance of the money, even though I was up to date with payments (just that I had paid a couple of days late). In doing do, the bailiff earned and extra £178 (see statement). Although technically correct (they do say that if you pay late a further visit may occur with minimum costs of £178), I do feel that in my case it was purely enrichment on their part. And the fact that they did not care about leaving me destitute, sticks in teeth.

 

Is there anything that I can do to get some of my money back? Advice/ help much appreciated,

[outlawla]

Enforcement fee £178 x 2

 

Waiting time £60 x 2

 

There are no such prescribed fees for these.

 

They've also charged a visit fee along side a levy fee (same day). As far as I know they can't do this. It should only be a levy charge, assuming he did levy and only if it was legitimate and correct amount.

 

For making a visit to premises with a view to levying distress (where no levy is made)—

(i) where the visit is the first or only such visit: £24.50

 

(ii) where the visit is the second such visit: £18

 

 

Edit: The levy fee (£74) is about right for the outstanding debt to council

 

Edit again: I think you are due a big refund

Edited February 26, 2013 by outlawla

[gramtrad2]

Enforcement fee £178 x 2

 

Waiting time £60 x 2

 

There are no such prescribed fees for these.

 

They've also charged a visit fee along side a levy fee (same day). As far as I know they can't do this. It should only be a levy charge, assuming he did levy and only if it was legitimate and correct amount.

 

 

 

 

Edit: The levy fee (£74) is about right for the outstanding debt to council

 

Thanks.

 

From what you say it looks as though they have overcharged me for £60 x 2 for waiting time and £22.50 for the visit fee.

 

As for the levy, they seized my car which is a 59 plated mini one ( plus keys and log book ),worth about £5.5k - against a debt of £1.9k.

 

Any more input would be appreciated.

 

And how do I go about challenging them?

[outlawla]

...From what you say it looks as though they have overcharged me for £60 x 2 for waiting time and £22.50 for the visit fee....

 

 

Add on one of the £178 fees for definite (only allowed to charge for one attendance where no removal). And the other one possibly, unless they turned up with a tow-truck and could justify incurred costs.

 

 

For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed):

Reasonable costs and fees incurred.

[brassnecked]

Have they been in your house, or listed goods? If they have a levy, what goods were listed on the Notice Of Seizure (the walking possession)?

[gramtrad2]

Have they been in your house, or listed goods? If they have a levy, what goods were listed on the Notice Of Seizure (the walking possession)?

 

I signed a walking possession order which listed only the car - my 59 plate mini one. I did that, sitting in the bailiff's van. That said, when they came to visit a second time, I did let them in to do paperwork after I had agreed to pay £1,000 and give them a cheque for the balance.

[brassnecked]

I signed a walking possession order which listed only the car - my 59 plate mini one. I did that, sitting in the bailiff's van. That said, when they came to visit a second time, I did let them in to do paperwork after I had agreed to pay £1,000 and give them a cheque for the balance.

Is the car on finance, or lease, by Finance I mean HP?, or a personal contract?

[gramtrad2]

Is the car on finance, or lease, by Finance I mean HP?, or a personal contract?

 

No. It is owned outright.

 

On a separate, but related issue, I have just been doing some more research - the original bailiff who set up the Walking Possession order appears to be registered, but the second one, who called to enforce it, does not! I wonder if that makes any sort of difference?

Edited February 26, 2013 by gramtrad2

[ploddertom]

I'll concur with a lot of what has been said above. On their 1st Visit they levied goods which you signed - therefore the levy fee & WPA fee are correct the Visit Fee of £22-50 must be refunded. They claim an Enforcement Fee on 04/09/2012, the assumption is this is actually an Attending to Remove Fee - as they knew the goods they were going to remove did he come complete with car trailer or tow truck, if not then this must be reimbursed also, the same applies for the next Visit made on 08/02/2013. They have also charged Waiting Fees which are not allowed . there are also 2 other fees they cannot claim - card Fee of £9 & Bounced Cheque Fee of £30. If they insist they can ask which Rule/Regulation allows them to do so. Day v Davies 1938 is the authority to quote as they may only charge those fees allowed by the Regulations.

[ploddertom]

No. It is owned outright.

 

On a separate, but related issue, I have just been doing some more research - the original bailiff who set up the Walking Possession order appears to be registered, but the second one, who called to enforce it, does not! I wonder if that makes any sort of difference?

 

The Register is not always up to date, you should query this with the Court where he says his Certificate was granted.

[gramtrad2]

I'll concur with a lot of what has been said above. On their 1st Visit they levied goods which you signed - therefore the levy fee & WPA fee are correct the Visit Fee of £22-50 must be refunded. They claim an Enforcement Fee on 04/09/2012, the assumption is this is actually an Attending to Remove Fee - as they knew the goods they were going to remove did he come complete with car trailer or tow truck, if not then this must be reimbursed also, the same applies for the next Visit made on 08/02/2013. They have also charged Waiting Fees which are not allowed . there are also 2 other fees they cannot claim - card Fee of £9 & Bounced Cheque Fee of £30. If they insist they can ask which Rule/Regulation allows them to do so. Day v Davies 1938 is the authority to quote as they may only charge those fees allowed by the Regulations.

 

Thanks. This is most welcome and useful information. These guys have left me without any money this month and I do feel that should not be allowed to get away with it.

 

I had a feeling that they were ripping me off and now I have the ammunition to pull them up on this.

 

I will double check the second bailiff to ensure that I am correct about his status before throwing that one at them.

 

The next step, I guess, is to put my complaint in writing. Can anyone say who I should go for - The local council or Ross and Roberts first ?

[brassnecked]

Thanks. This is most welcome and useful information. These guys have left me without any money this month and I do feel that should not be allowed to get away with it.

 

I had a feeling that they were ripping me off and now I have the ammunition to pull them up on this.

 

I will double check the second bailiff to ensure that I am correct about his status before throwing that one at them.

 

The next step, I guess, is to put my complaint in writing. Can anyone say who I should go for - The local council or Ross and Roberts first ?

a Formal Complaint marked clearly as such to the Head of revenues, copied to the Council CEO, and Elected Leader, your local member and MP. The council is wholly liable for any wrongdoing by their appointed agents Ross 'n Robbers, so they are the target, as no matter what they claim they remain at all times in charge of the account and cannot absolve themselves of any liability if their bailiffs are silly.

[ploddertom]

The Council are 100% liable for the fees & actions of their Bailiffs. Any letter written to the Council should be addressed to the CEO and a copy sent to the Bailiffs.

[gramtrad2]

I'll concur with a lot of what has been said above. On their 1st Visit they levied goods which you signed - therefore the levy fee & WPA fee are correct the Visit Fee of £22-50 must be refunded. They claim an Enforcement Fee on 04/09/2012, the assumption is this is actually an Attending to Remove Fee - as they knew the goods they were going to remove did he come complete with car trailer or tow truck, if not then this must be reimbursed also, the same applies for the next Visit made on 08/02/2013. They have also charged Waiting Fees which are not allowed . there are also 2 other fees they cannot claim - card Fee of £9 & Bounced Cheque Fee of £30. If they insist they can ask which Rule/Regulation allows them to do so. Day v Davies 1938 is the authority to quote as they may only charge those fees allowed by the Regulations.

 

Just a quick clarification here, please.

 

Regarding the Enforcement fee on 4/9/12, this must relate to the first visit that they made to me to enforce the levy as I only recall them calling once; not sure why they listed it as 4/9 as the actual levy was a few days earlier on 28/8. They would not have known what goods they were levying on at that point. They turned up in a small van and the visit resulted in me paying £300 and signing a walking possession order with my car listed as being seized. In the circumstances, is it correct for me to try to claim this fee back. Clearly from what has been said, I can. Claim back the £22.50 as they should not have charged both fees on that day.

 

Sorry if I am being a bit thick here. I just want to have all my ducks in a row when I go after these people.

Edited February 27, 2013 by gramtrad2

[outlawla]

....Regarding the Enforcement fee on 4/9/12, this must relate to the first visit that they made to me to enforce the levy as I only recall them calling once; not sure why they listed it as 4/9 as the actual levy was a few days earlier on 28/8. They would not have known what goods they were levying on at that point. They turned up in a small van and the visit resulted in me paying £300 and signing a walking possession order with my car listed as being seized....

 

By the same token then, I assume the bailiff should have itemised the £60 waiting fee along side the charges for 28/08/2012 (first visit) and there was 'NO' visit in relation to 4/9/2012?

 

With this in mind you should also push your complaint in the direction of the bailiff falsifying dates to justify unlawful charges, albeit done incompetently because they are still unlawful whilst falsified.

 

In regards charging an enforcement fee (attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods), on the first visit, local authorities generally do not allow this and is often written into their contracts.

 

It still remains the bailiff was charging speculatively by imposing an 'attendance with a vehicle fee' on the first visit because, like you say, they would not have known what goods they were levying on at that point and would needed to have turned up with all manner of vehicle types to cover all possibilities.

 

EDIT:

 

I forgot to mention this Local Government Ombudsman's Report.

 

Report on an investigation into complaint nos 95A01890 & 95A04826 against London Borough of Ealing

 

Page 10 of the report

.......

 

32

. The Secretary of the Certificated bailiffs Association says that where there has been no levy there is, in his view, no doubt that a van charge cannot be made.

 

33

. The Head of Revenue at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy also says that in his view the law is quite clear, and that van charges cannot be made unless distress has first been levied.

 

34

. The Department of the Environment says it does not believe that there can be any interpretation of the regulations other than that no charge can be made for a van unless distress has been levied. Any charges for visits when distress has not been levied are limited to £27.50 (

£42.50 in today's money or £39 for Welsh authorities

) for two visits.

 

35

The Council initially took the view that the bailiffs could charge for attendance with a vehicle even if distress had not been levied, but now agrees that no charge can be made for a van unless distress has been levied.

.......

 

Page 15

 

60

. The bailiffs point out that, although they acknowledge that the regulations do not permit the charging of van fees where distress has not been levied, this creates an anomaly. They say that if a debtor prevents the bailiffs from entering the premises, the bailiffs are prevented from charging for expenses actually incurred. Nonetheless, they accept that van charges cannot be made if distress is not levied, and say that the error in Mr Martin’s case was an isolated one.

.......

 

Page 16

 

62

. The evidence from this investigation is that there were irregularities in the charges the bailiffs imposed on Mr Martin’s accounts.

 

• There is a conflict of evidence as to whether the bailiffs visited Mr Martin on 3 November 1994. I conclude on balance that they did not visit, but that they sought to charge a £15 (

£24.50 or £22.50 for Welsh authorities

) first visit fee, which they termed an ‘administration fee’ and recorded on the computer as ‘other costs’ (see paragraph 15).

 

• The bailiffs visited Mr Martin on 20 January 1995 and at first sought to charge a total of £122.50, which bore no relation at all to the sums allowed under the regulations. They said subsequently that they had made an arithmetical error.

 

• The bailiffs made two visits to Mr Martin on his 1993/94 account, and were entitled to charge a total of £27.50 (

£42.50 / £39

). On the second visit the bailiffs also charged £80 for the costs of attending with a van. But no distress had been levied, and

they were not entitled to make a van charge

.

..........

 

Page 17

 

67

. There were also irregularities in the charges the bailiffs imposed on Mr Taylor’s account. The bailiffs made two visits and were entitled to charge a total of £27.50 (

£42.50 / £39

). They also charged Mr Taylor £100 for the costs of attending with a van. But no distress had been levied, and

they were not entitled to make a van charge

.

.......

Edited February 27, 2013 by outlawla

[gramtrad2]

"By the same token then, I assume the bailiff should have itemised the £60 waiting fee along side the charges for 28/08/2012 (first visit) and there was 'NO' visit in relation to 4/9/2012?"

 

Correct, there was no visit on that date.

 

Thanks for the other information.

 

I am going to put a formal complaint in to the Council.

Edited February 27, 2013 by gramtrad2

[brassnecked]

Where in the permitted fees are they allowed to charge "waiting time"?

[sgtbush]

discussion on the fees, ill leave that to others!

levy on the car, if this was the only item available to levy then it is permitted, it cannot be classed as exessive levy as only one item is listed, if the bailiff has or had access to your home and listed or had the oppertunity to list personal assets then the levy will be deemend as excessive

[kcdhs9878b]

what regulation is that?

[sgtbush]

the laws of distress

What is excessive distress?

This offence occurs where more goods have been taken than are “reasonably required” to clear both the debt and the bailiff’s costs”. There are a number of points that should be made clear on this section before considering whether you have grounds for complaint.

Firstly, it is very rare that goods actually get taken…it is the threat of the goods being removed that the bailiff relies upon for his payment. In fact, goods are removed in just one case in every hundred.

The next important point concerns the value of the goods removed. Although a sofa may well have cost you many hundreds of pounds, at auction it could sell for just 10% of that price. Televisions and electrical items sell for just nominal amounts….if at all.

But, by far the most important point here, and one that has caused many problems is where one particular item, (normally a motor vehicle) worth a lot of money, has been taken by the bailiff to satisfy a small debt.

However, if this was the only item available, then the bailiff would not be seen to have committed this offence. This would normally apply if you had refused the bailiff entry into your home where he would have been able to levy on domestic items: and instead, he has had to levy on the motor vehicle that was parked outside.

Note: Please remember that a bailiff cannot levy on a motor vehicle if it is kept in a locked garage, not parked nearby, or not in your own name!!!

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sOo1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=excessive+distress+law&source=bl&ots=a_6xBL47GS&sig=sgGwLKIRnD6cFVflW6oRkSm19dI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FVIuUcz8I5Cr0AWVtICwBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=excessive%20distress%20law&f=false

[tomtubby]

Post 15 by Outlawla is spot on.

 

I will only add a few points myself.

 

The statutory fee scale relating to the enforcement of council tax arrears is a lot easier to understand than for other forms of enforcement. The first point to take into consideration is that there is no such fee as an "Enforcement fee". In reality ,this is an "attending to remove fee".

 

The fee scale allows for ONLY ONE "attending to remove (ATR) fee" and such a fee may ONLY be charged FOLLOWING a levy. Some bailiff companies attempt to charge this fee AT THE SAME TIME as a levy.......but they should NOT be doing this.

 

An "ATR" fee can be charged if the debtor defaults on his payment plan BUT......and this very important:

 

Remember.....the title of the fee is "ATTENDING TO REMOVE".

 

The bailiff has already been to your property and "seized' and "impounding" (by way of a walking possession agreement) a 59 plate Mini

 

He can only charge an ATR fee if the INTENTION IS REAL.

 

Accordingly, the 1st ATR fee may ONLY be charged if the bailiff attended on that particular day with a LOW LOADER to remove the 59 plate Mini.

 

The above has taken care of the first "Enforcement fee"

 

As mentioned, the statutory regulations as laid down by Parliament only allows for ONE "Attending to remove" fee.

 

The statutory regs also allow for a REMOVAL FEE. However, this fee may ONLY BE CHARGED IF GOODS ARE ACTUALLY REMOVED.

 

The statutory fee scale does NOT allow for "waiting time".

 

The statutory fee scale does NOT allow for a "bounced cheque fee"

 

As a regular posters on here know I have rarely said the following:

 

The Bailiff has charged ILLEGAL fees.

 

The LOCAL AUTHORITY are responsible for refunding you.

 

The refund should consist of two "enforcement fees"

 

Both "waiting time" fees and

 

Bounced cheque fee.

[kcdhs9878b]

...

 

That is an interesting book but it doesnt contain the text you quoted in your post, I was hoping there was a regulation that either enabled or prohibits excessive levy apart from know case law but the book passage you quoted cites a case of Moore v Munday a known case the plaintiff successfuly sued for excessive distress.

[tomtubby]

Quoting case law from the 1700's is rarely ever of use when writing to a local authority and would only apply if a person was issuing court proccedings. Even then most Judges would know the case as being MOIR v MUNDAY.

 

I could be wrong.....

[kcdhs9878b]

the logic is sound but the case of Moir v Munday 1 Burr. 582 drawn from Butterworths makes no mention about quoting case law from 1700's to a local authority.

[tomtubby]

kcdhs9878b

 

Butterworths is only a Publisher. The case of Moir v Munday is from the 1700's and why on earth anyone would even mention this case in a letter to an LA is beyond me. Can you imagine a local authority (or bailiff company) even being able to access a copy of this Judgment. Not impossible.....but very difficult.

 

Even the case itself, started life as Moir v Munday and over the hundreds of years since it was law it has managed to be wrongly mis-spelt ( and was the case in your post today).