Rossendales unlawful charges and sceptical actions?

[fbnts]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42619[/ATTACH]

 

Hi,[ATTACH=CONFIG]42618[/ATTACH]

 

I have recently had dealings with Rossendales collecting on behalf of the local council for unpaid council tax. From the outset, I do not dispute the council tax debt.

 

The whole problem started last year when the Natwest banking crash caused credits to my account to be delayed and bounced the DD for my Council Tax. The payment was cancelled and completely my fault, I forgot to set it back up and/or make payment.

 

A Liability Order was obtained and I made a payment arrangement with the Council to pay monthly however I was unable to do the special arrangment by DD and had to call each month to pay by card - again something I forgot to do.

 

At the end of February I was at work and my sister called me as she had just arrived home to a man leaving our property and getting back in his car. When she approached the house he got out his car and asked her if I lived there. She confirmed I did and that I was her brother. He then proceeded to tell her that he was there to collect unpaid council tax and that I need to contact him. He even provided her with the approximate balance.

 

He had posted a letter through the door (a scan is attached below).

 

I tried to call their office that evening but the automated system stated that I need to deal with the Baliff direct.

 

The following day I tried to call his mobile but it rang and then went to voicemail. I tried several more times over the next couple days but each time he wouldn't answer.

 

I then decided to simply make the payment of the debt so used their automated payment line and paid £465.40 as I was unable to ascertain his fees as he wouldn't answer my calls and had neglected to itemise them on the 1st visit letter. Oh and they charge you 80p to pay by Debit Card!

 

Last night I returned home to a hand delivered letter on the floor. (a copy attached below). It's titled Notice of Distress and he has apparantly detailed a car on the inventory. (No one was in all day so he has not had access inside the house.

 

He has now claimed that there was £24.10 outstanding on the client debt (I paid the full amount that he specified previously)

the 1st visit fee of £24.50

2nd visit fee of £18.00

levy fee of £28.50

 

He puts the total at, which is hard to read because of his handwriting, £94.60 which doesn't even add up correctly!

 

Firstly, I am going to find out what the client debt amount is, but more importantly he has charged the levy fee and 2nd visit fee at the same time but from reading on here, he cannot do this.

 

More importantly the vehicle he has listed along with registration number is driven by my sister and owned by our father and best of all, when he visited the car was 30 miles away at my sisters workplace so not sure how he has levied on it when it wasn't there. He must have taken note of it on his first visit when he saw her getting out the car.

 

I have CCTV on my house and have found the footage of him arriving at 12:07pm and sits in his car outside my house for about 5 or 6 minutes. He then gets out and approaches the front door carrying the letter. He looks through the door before sealing the envelope and appearing to put pressure on the door to see if it would open before posting the letter. The footage also shows the driveway and roadway around the house and confirms that no vehicles are parked there.

 

I did last night pay the amount he has stated to prevent any action but intend to claim back any unlawful fees.

 

1. Did the Bailiff commit an offense by discussing my personal details with my sister?

2. On his first hand delivered letter he states the amount due and simply states 'PLUS COSTS' - Doesn't he have to list the costs for it to be valid?

3. From reading the forum, they are not allowed to charge payment fees like the Debit Card Fee, is there any case law etc on this?

4. Can they levy on a car that is not even there?

5. Can they levy on a car which they have reasonable evidence that it may not belong to the debtor?

6. Has the bailiff committed any criminal offense - Was thinking fraud?

7. How best should I proceed - I submitted this to the bailliff company last night:

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges.

 

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were certificated at.

e - the date of the Certification.

f - copies of any correspondences.

 

I believe a levy fee has been charged on the above account as there has been no notice of seizure left at my property please provide me with a copy of the notice of seizure for each account where a levy fee has been charged

 

This is not a Subject access request under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Please take notice that all and any telephone calls are recorded and may be used in any legal proceedings.

 

Yours faithfully

[unclebulgaria67]

Without a correct levy, they can only charge you £42.50. For a correct levy the property must belong to you and they must provide you with details at the time the levy is done.

[tomtubby]

Firstly, you need to ascertain whether the visit was a 1st , 2nd visit or 3rd VISIT.

 

What is CLEAR from the charges is that ACCORDING TO THE BAILIFF the visit was the 3rd visit!! This could be most interesting.

 

I am really pushed for time at the moment but will explain more laster this morning.

[fbnts]

Thanks for the reply. I have been in touch with the Council, Rossendales and the Bailiff today - Luckily all my calls are recorded and I think they knew it.

 

The Bailiff wouldn't confirm anything about his visit; He couldn't remember what time and what vehicles were there. Clearly the office had briefed him not to confirm anything. All he kept saying was to deal with the office as he has passed the case back to them!

 

He refused to give me his full name, just [edit] - Clever as the Bailiff Register has two [edit] working for Rossendales. His office also refused to give me his name just the court and the dates it was granted which quickly identifies which one it was from that! Can they withhold their name?

 

What would my next step be? I have sent the email as above so should I just sit tight and wait for them to respond to that? Also in regards to the fictitious levy does that amount to criminal fraud and should I be involving the Police?

 

Tom

Edited March 22, 2013 by seanamarts
removed bailiff name

[tomtubby]

The statutory fee scale provides that a bailiff may charge a fee of £24.50 for "attending to levy" (where no levy was made)....(for instance...where a bailiff attends your home and nobody is at home and where he is unable to "levy" upon goods).

 

The statutory fee scale also provides that a bailiff may charge a 2nd similar fee of £18.00 for making a second visit to "attend to levy" (where no levy was made).

 

The bailiff can if he wishes make further visits BUT ( and this is important) unless he actually "levies" upon goods he cannot charge any more that £42.50 ( which is £24.50 for the 1st visit and £18.00 for the 2nd visit).

 

If your case.... the bailiff has charged £24.50 , £18....AND £28.50 which means that he must have made 3 visits !!!!

 

But....there again.....he may be telling "porkies".

Edited March 22, 2013 by tomtubby

[fbnts]

Thanks Tomtubby,

 

I will await their response to the breakdown that I requested.

 

So would the levy against the car that a) does not belong to me & b) was not even anywhere near the premises be unlawful?

 

Tom

[brassnecked]

Thanks Tomtubby,

 

I will await their response to the breakdown that I requested.

 

So would the levy against the car that a) does not belong to me & b) was not even anywhere near the premises be unlawful?

 

Tom

Yes it would be unlawful, and they know it, remind them about the findings by the LGO in the Blaby Council and rossendales report

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2012/jul/blaby-council-criticised-bailiff-charges/

[fbnts]

I had read that report last night. Was the bailiffs in that case Rossendales as well?

 

In regards to the levy on the car that was not there, am I looking too much into it? Surely he has committed criminal fraud as he has stated that he has levied on the vehicle however I was under the impression that they had to be able to physically touch the property they are levying on? He has done this to a) increase the charge to include the levy fee b) intimidated me into making payment in full or risk having the car seized.

 

I was also surprised that he blatantly refused to provide his full name when I called him so that I could check his certification. Is he allowed to do this?

[brassnecked]

I had read that report last night. Was the bailiffs in that case Rossendales as well?

 

In regards to the levy on the car that was not there, am I looking too much into it? Surely he has committed criminal fraud as he has stated that he has levied on the vehicle however I was under the impression that they had to be able to physically touch the property they are levying on? He has done this to a) increase the charge to include the levy fee b) intimidated me into making payment in full or risk having the car seized.

 

I was also surprised that he blatantly refused to provide his full name when I called him so that I could check his certification. Is he allowed to do this?

 

Yes it was Rossendales, they are cruising between jack and carp, and jack has left town

[tomtubby]

The highly critical LGO Report against Blaby District Council related to the LA and their bailiff provider.....Rossendales Ltd.

[fbnts]

well I have just fired this over to Rossendales and copied in the Council Recovery Section:

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Re: xxxxxx Client reference xxxxxxx

 

I would like to make you aware that I am fully aware of my rights and I know the fees allowed under statute and when these fees can be applied.

 

Your bailiff Mr [edit] has made a charge for a levy fee which concerns a vehicle that is neither my property nor is it registered to me; it is the property of my sister and performing a basic DVLA check would confirm that I indeed am not the owner. Mr [edit] would also have had reasonable knowledge or in the alternate, reasonable doubt that the vehicle did not belong to me as he saw that my sister was driving the vehicle when he confronted her and discussed my private financial affairs with her on his first visit on xxxx.

 

That aside, I am most concerned that the Bailiff notes on the Notice of Distress the vehicle which would give the assumption that the vehicle is there and he has physical access to it. Unfortunately the vehicle was in xxxxx at my sister’s workplace all day and luckily I have CCTV installed on my house so please find attached screenshots from the footage showing your Bailiff coming to my door and also other angles which clearly show the driveway empty of the vehicle. I can only assume that he took note of the make, model and registration number on his first visit on xxxx.

 

I would appreciate if you could confirm that this is indeed your bailiff and is Mr [edit] who was certified in Burnley Combined Court Centre on 5th November 2012 as there is still some uncertainty to his identify as he has refused to confirm which Mr[edit] he was on the phone call earlier today which leads me to think that person attending my property may be neither.

 

I would appreciate your urgent attention to this matter as I am in the process of completing a form 4 complaint along with seeking legal advice as to whether the Bailiff and/or Rossendales and/or Chesterfield Borough Council have committed an offence under various sections but specifically Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

For your information I have also attached a scan of the document that he posted through my door on that visit.

 

Please understand that at no time have I refused to pay my Council Tax arrears. I have copied in Chesterfield Borough Council Recovery Section as your company and your bailiffs are working under their direct control and instruction.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

xxxx

 

It may not be correct but want to see what they say!

Edited March 22, 2013 by seanamarts
removed names

[brassnecked]

Your bailiff Mr XXX has made a charge for a levy fee which concerns a vehicle that is neither my property nor is it registered to me; it is the property of my sister and performing a basic DVLA check would confirm that I indeed am not the owner. Mr xxxx would also have had reasonable knowledge or in the alternate, reasonable doubt that the vehicle did not belong to me as he saw that my sister was driving the vehicle when he confronted her and discussed my private financial affairs with her on his first visit on xxxx. Complaint to Information Commissioner for breach of DPA also

 

well I have just fired this over to Rossendales and copied in the Council Recovery Section:

 

It may not be correct but want to see what they say!

 

You may also add in another email that you are reporting the bailiff and Ms Julie Green-Jones as CEO of tossendales along with the council as they are vicariously liable for their bailiffs wrongful breach of DPA to add to his muppetry, to the Information Commissioner, for breach of DPA in discussing your debt with a third party, your sister.

[tomtubby]

You may wish to include the following sentence ( many local authorities have no idea that Rossendales were the bailiff company involved in the Blaby report.

 

 

It would seem from this "levy" that your bailiff is ignoring the highly critical LGO report issued against Blaby District Council which as you well know, related to the activities of Rossendales Ltd.

[brassnecked]

You may wish to include the following sentence ( many local authorities have no idea that Rossendales were the bailiff company involved in the Blaby report.

 

 

It would seem from this "levy" that your bailiff is ignoring the highly critical LGO report issued against Blaby District Council which as you well know, related to the activities of Rossendales Ltd.

 

Nicely put TT, also do you think a complaint under DPA has legs also?

[tomtubby]

Best to wait to see the response.

[outlawla]

That aside, I am most concerned that the Bailiff notes on the Notice of distress the vehicle which would give the assumption that the vehicle is there and he has physical access to it. Unfortunately the vehicle was in xxxxx at my sister’s workplace all day and luckily I have CCTV installed on my house so please find attached screenshots from the footage showing your Bailiff coming to my door and also other angles which clearly show the driveway empty of the vehicle. I can only assume that he took note of the make, model and registration number on his first visit on xxxx.

 

Excellent! Go for it.

 

Reading about the CCTV reminded me of that Family Guy sketch where Chris Griffin set up a camera in his room to prove the existence of the Evil Monkey, only to reveal each members of his family abusing him in some way while sleeping; his mother for example, stealing from his wallet. Ironically not that different to a Rossendale's visit.

 

Watch Chris Griffin's

.

[fbnts]

Regarding the DPA I was going to wait and just stick that in at the end. From previous dealings with the ICO it probably wouldn't go anywhere other than generate a letter to Rossendales to ensure they don't do it again. It could however be useful in my Form 4 complaint and possibly in county court if it gets that far.

 

Elaberating on the DPA issue, before my sister returned on his 1st visit his banging on my door caused my neighbour to come outside. Now she happens to be my grandma and he proceded to tell her who he was and what he was doing here. This did 'shake' her up and she called me at work worried about it, followed a few minutes by my sister after her return and 'run in' with said Bailiff.

 

The main issue I would suspect is proving what he said and what breaches he made. The only firm evidence I have is the phonecall recording of my sister phoning me to tell me who had just visited and a brief overview of what he wanted.

 

For me, this is not so much about claiming back the £75ish in over charges its the principle that I have been in the position some years ago when I had to deal with these people and didn't have the knowledge that I do now. Plus if he had got away with it with me, how many others is he doing this to in one day? Not many people have CCTV on their house to capture the Bailiff pulling up, sitting in his car completing the false paperwork, posting it through a letterbox and then driving off. Surely if he's going to trying and extort extra money out of someone then at least invest in a calculator and get his sums correct!

 

Here's to waiting for their response....

[fbnts]

Well the council has replied quickly with the requested details of my account followed by:

 

I have queried the matter of public policies in relation to Bailiffs, and I am advised by my manager that there are no public policies. However, any complaints in regard to the action of bailiffs is taken very seriously and always investigated.

 

As I explained over the telephone, your complaint must be made direct to Rossendales in the first instance. As I am now aware that you are in communication with them, the Recovery Section will not be intervening at this stage.

 

However, after giving Rossendales the opportunity to deal with your complaint should you wish to proceed with a complaint to xxxxx Council about Messrs Rossendales please put your complaint in writing.

 

Please contact me should you require further assistance/clarification.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mrs xxxx

 

Assistant Recovery Officer

 

I'm still trying to work out why the Bailiff is refusing to provide his full name unless he has something to hide!?

 

No word from Rossendales - maybe their office staff are just as inept as their Bailiffs? I can't wait for their calculations as non add up on their paperwork.... I wonder if I send the Bailiff a gift of a calculator he may appreciate it?

[zydeco]

The cctv of "the bailiff calls" would look good on youtube.

[fbnts]

Haha! well technically I could as I am not a company and not governed by the DPA but think I will refrain for now! It's not that interesting, just a balding old man in a posh car walking down the path and an empty drive where apparently there is a Freelander parked (the freelander is playing 'hide and seek' in the CCTV though cos I have looked for hours and simply cannot see it but according the Bailiff it is there....)

[zydeco]

Alternate title, "spot the Freelander"

still would look good with explanation.

[brassnecked]

Stat dec, from father, should put them in their place along with a "go check DVLA before you levy" remark.

 

Incidentally has the bailiff considered he is a Freeloader" with his unlawful fees, now the levy is proved to be faulty?

 

A Freelander: 4x4 vehicle and juicy levy fodder.

 

a Freeloader: bailiff applying fees later shown to be invalid.

[ploddertom]

The cctv of "the bailiff calls" would look good on youtube.

 

I wonder if they could get enough clips for a series of You've Been Framed/Had

[brassnecked]

I wonder if they could get enough clips for a series of You've Been Framed/Had

 

Now there's a thought! My little project is progressing, i will have to put the first part of the draft on Celtx, once i have checked the legislation

[Clunks]

Any update on this one?Been waiting to see what the reply from Rossendales was.