is a levy Transferable?

[NiteHawk2003]

Long running situation with the local council regarding council tax.

 

Bristow and Sutor entered the debtors home unlawfully and got her to sign a walking possession on items that that they should not have.

 

The levy is unlawful IMO as the Bailiffs at the time entered the premises when the debtors son answered the door. At the time he was off school sick , 12 years old and she was out getting his medication. She returned to find the bailiffs in her house listing items.

 

A complaint was raised with the council who claim no letter was received , a further letter was sent out by letter and email and the council unsuprisingly replied that the original bailiffs were no longer at the company so they couldn't investigate the matter...as such the levy stands...

 

This is complete rubbish and is being dealt with at the moment.

 

yesterday though there was a small twist.

 

Recently the local council have given the contract to Rundles.

 

A Rundles bailiff attended the premises and put a hand delivered letter through the door basically saying the debt needs paying and some thing about "Although we have been unable to enter the premises this does not mean we will not be able to in the future"

 

So last week they had Bailiffs from Bristow and Suitor repeatedly turning up and putting on van fee's each visit on an unlawful levy and then all of a sudden a bailiff from Rundles appears as if he had been there before...

 

My question is. Can rundles use the Levy that Bristow & Suitor made ?

if an Agreement is made with Rundles can Bristow & Suitor still act upon there own Levy ?

 

It is Worth pointing out that the value of the original Levy made by B&S would not even cover their fee's , storage , auction etc

[dx100uk]

council ceo complaint first thing tomorrow me thinks.

 

the levy is not sufficient to cover the debt and fees so' is invalid.

 

don't gree anything with any bailiff

 

pay the council direct.

 

are they both chasing the same debt? / lo number?

 

dx

[NiteHawk2003]

council ceo complaint first thing tomorrow me thinks.

 

the levy is not sufficient to cover the debt and fees so' is invalid.?

 

don't agree anything with any bailiff

 

pay the council direct.

 

are they both chasing the same debt? / lo number?

 

dx

 

I really do not know. Usually you get the initial letter from the Bailiffs , then the visits etc. The letter from Rundles looks like the one they send out after they have done many visits and go upset because they have not got access. But this is the very first contact from Rundles.

 

A major complaint is going in , in the morning. The original Levy is flawed to hell

 

1) They got access when the debtor was not in and her 12 year old boy answered the door

2) The levy is mostly made up of broken furniture of no value at all

3) They have put on Fees that are wrong , the infamous redemption fee for example

4) the put both her Sofa's on the ley (old broken) which if taken would leave her with nothing to sit on.

 

The Debt is about £550 , The items would not even come close to covering the Bailiffs fees

 

The one thing i am unsure about is the Levy. Can Rundles enforce the levy that B&S made putting aside for the moment it is invalid

[Ian olney]

Are Rundles actually acting on the levy though?

 

As usual, the letter that they have left is just a clever play with words. I would write to Rundles, copying in the council, explaining that you have already incurred the maximum of 2 visit fees for this debt, you are paying the council direct and that any subsequent visits will not be chargeable under the prescribed fee schedule of the relevant legislation.

 

With regards the levy, it is 100% invalid and contravenes guidelines set out in the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

[brassnecked]

I would argue the levy is vexatious and challengeable.

 

1: It was obtained by a bailiff from a "previous" contractor, who entered the premises peacefully BUT with only a minor viz a 12 year old present, therefore I would contend the bailiff should NOT have come in, so maybe levy invalid then on two heads.

 

1:Whilst a bailiff can enter premises though unlocked door, with no one present and levy, the presence of the child on theitr own puts a different slant on things. I know if I were that bailiff I would have gone away for fear of being accused of abusing the child in some way, and bailiffs apparently don't need enhanced CRB. In any case it is clear that if there is only a minor present the bailiff must withdraw, and it is totally invalid on that alone.

 

2: Insufficient goods, so levy solely to garner fees for Bonkers & Sadists as it was on items of such low value. Now Bumbles & Co are involved I think they would need their own levy, so all the fees from them are dodgy, apart from any visit fees.

 

Tomtubby, would be a good one to advise on this case imho.

Edited December 3, 2013 by brassnecked
tcorrect typos

[NiteHawk2003]

I know and fully understand the original Levy is Invalid. This is being dealt with at the moment.

 

The Question i am posing is putting aside the fact that the Levy is Invalid, Can Rundles act upon a Levy originaly made by B&S ?

[sequenci]

If there was a gap between the two bailiffs visits you can probably argue abandonment too - that is if they can argue the original levy WAS valid, of course.

[lamma]

If the original levy was invalid then transfer cannot make it valid.

Is there a copy of the warrant available - unlikely, I know.

[NiteHawk2003]

If the original levy was invalid then transfer cannot make it valid.

Is there a copy of the warrant available - unlikely, I know.

 

But the question still stands.....Can the levy be transferred ?

[Ian olney]

you've answered your own question-Your friend signed an agreement with B&S. He/she did not agree for the this agreement to be passed on to a 3rd party.

 

As I said previously, Rundles aren't attempting to act on the previous levy. They have just left you a letter saying what they "MAY" be able to do at a later date.

[brassnecked]

As had been pointed out by Lamma and Ian Olney, Bumbles & Co need a levy of their own, the original invalid levy by Bonkers & stupid died when they lost the case, Bumbles cannot ressurrect it or rely on it. SO KEEP 'EM OUT.