Equita/CT Removing Goods in my Absence

[tomtubby]

There is so much wrong here that it is difficult to know where to start.

 

Firstly, you must either go to the council or call them as there is a LEGAL obligation to send a summons. Next, once the Liability Order has been obtained there is LEGAL obligation for the council to WRITE to you to give you 14 days notice that they have obtained a Liability Order and that if not paid it will be sent to a bailiff.

 

Next, you should be WRITING to the bailiff to outline a payment proposal. I would NEVER suggest that a payment arrangement is made by damed mobile phone !!!

 

If you live in a flat or house there is NO legal basis whereby you have to let a bailiff into your home. The problem that this poses for the bailiff is very serious indeed. The statutory fees scale provides that a bailiff can only charge a fee of £24.50 for "attending to levy" (where no levy was made). He can charge a further such visit at the fee is £18.00 UNLESS the bailiff is able to levy...there can be NO further fees charged. The bailiff would not earn any money at all UNLESS he was bale to levy upon goods . He knows that the ONLY way for this to be achieved to to EITHER be allowed into the property or more simply...to "levy" upon a car OUTSIDE.

 

If you do not allow the bailiff into your home and do not have a car, then the fees that he can charge are "CAPPED" at £42.50

 

Finally, many people receiving these REMOVAL LETTERS wrongly believe that it means that they can be walking around the supermarket and that the bailiff has emptied their home "in their absence". Unless the door was left unlocked.... this CANNOT HAPPEN.

 

Instead, the letter means that if the bailiff attends when the debtor is not at home he can remove goods from the garden etc. This could include an expensive teak table and chairs, expensive BBQ, caravan etc.

[tomtubby]

mickeymack I have doubt that your intentions are good but the advice that you are giving in a lot of other threads as well is not correct. As I have also said in response to a post on another thread I am a little bemused as to why you have decided to make posts on threads where there has been no further comments ( in some cases for nearly one month).

 

It is all to easy to buy a legal book and then use a small sentence from that book as justification that "apparently" the bailiff has acted illegally etc. In the case of John Kruse's book (as an example) it will be the case that anyone taking legal action etc should obtain a copy of the full judgment.

 

This is a common situation and in fact is the case on another forum which constantly refers to a case of Bernie Loynes as supposed "justification" that "apparently" the bailiff must obtain prior authority of the court for adding a fee to an account that is not provided in the regulations ( in other words...an additional fee...otherwise not provided for.

 

The person posting this INCORRECT information on that forum even uses the Loynes case to support his statement that fees cannot be applied to debtors when enforcing a Magistrates Court FINE.

 

If the person on that forum had actually read the Judgment in FULL he would have known of at least 2 vital points.

 

One: Bernie Loynes case was in relation ONLY to fees charged under the High Court Enforcement Officers regulations and in particular: Fee 12.

 

Secondly, Bernie Loynes actually LOST his case when he appealed !!!

 

As I have said very often, if you read a legal book this does not make you a lawyer in the same way that by building an Airfix model you will not become a Pilot....