Rossendales Bailiff enforcement £235 charge.

[alfiemac]

Hi and thank you for taking the time to read this,

 

I have been receiving letters for my council tax arrears throughout this year from April 2014 and basically putting them in the drawer and not acting upon them.

Last week 03 Feb 2015 i came in from work and there was a hand delivered letter from Rossendales requesting £1650 within 24 hours.

I managed to get the money together and rang them the next morning as i was not happy with the amount on the FINAL NOTICE letter. They informed me they were coming that day to take my goods, i drive a nice car so i just paid it over the phone by debit card to Rossendales to get them off my back.

My question is do i have any claim against the £235 charge they added to the account for turning up at the door and is this charge not disproportionate for the activities carried out in respect of the cost, as in line with bank charges etc, or do i just have to accept being shafted to the sum of £235 and learn from experience and read my letters from now on?

 

Thank you

 

Alfie

[ploddertom]

You have said yourself you put them into a drawer. I guess the Council took you to Court and obtained a Liability Order for £xxxxx. With you not paying they have handed it to Rossendales to collect and they should have sent you a Notice of Enforcement which would have added £75 to your debt. If you did not respond to this within the times given then they appear to have correctly applied the Enforcement Fee of £235. Unless you can prove an error somewhere I don't think you have any cause for complaint. A lesson hard learned I'm afraid.

[ploddertom]

If you think of the sums you have been charged lok at it like this:

Council Tax outstanding - guess £1200

add Council Court costs - up to £150

Compliance Fee - £75

Enforcement Fee - £235

 

The example above shows by ignoring everything you have possibly been charged up to an extra £460 on top of your origina Council Tax.

[alfiemac]

Thanks so much for the reply, yes totally agree and i think your calculations are about right, it was just the astronomical fees for putting a letter through the door which must have taken them all of 10 minutes, nice work if you can get it over £1200 per hour, just would like them to justify where the £235 went and what did i receive for that amount other than a hand delivered letter.

[BornThisWay]

Totally agree alfiemac. I am amazed at just how much these bailiffs can charge - mine was £295 for putting a letter through the door. My neighbour tells me he only knocked once and then was gone.

 

 

I can't think of any profession where people take years to qualify, where they would get away with that rate of charges.

 

 

I have no idea how it is even legal!

 

 

It seems so ridiculous that if you cannot afford the debt, someone in high position has decided that in that case you have to afford the debt plus another £1,000 or so being paid to a bunch of unqualified bullies.

 

 

The world has gone mad!

[josephbloggs]

It is the law that a visit comes at a charge of £235.

The specific reg is the taking control of goods (fees) regulations 2014

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/11/made

[wonkeydonkey]

Totally agree alfiemac. I am amazed at just how much these bailiffs can charge - mine was £295 for putting a letter through the door. My neighbour tells me he only knocked once and then was gone.

 

 

I can't think of any profession where people take years to qualify, where they would get away with that rate of charges.

 

 

I have no idea how it is even legal!

 

 

It seems so ridiculous that if you cannot afford the debt, someone in high position has decided that in that case you have to afford the debt plus another £1,000 or so being paid to a bunch of unqualified bullies.

 

 

The world has gone mad!

 

Prior to the new regulation April 2014 any action involving High Court enforcement used to return the debtor with fees akin to telephone numbers, so in some respect you have got off lightly:-)

[alfiemac]

So are you saying that just because it is the law that the charges of £235 are justifiable, did they just pluck this figure out of the air, all i am asking for is a break down of where my £235 went and if they said they drove from London and needed this for petrol then i rest my case, but i know they are local, just because something is written in the terms and conditions or a recommended charge does not mean it is correct, just look at bank and credit card charges which was overturned by people making a fuss. Yes i agree if they had to take control of goods or enter the property or clamp and take my car and lift it off the drive, but come on lets be realistic a charge of £235 for 1 hand delivered letter which has got to be disproportionate, or am i missing something.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

So how much do you think they should charge?

 

Our insurance(as you can imagine for a bailiff firm) is sky high. We have fuel, wages, wages for back office staff, building rents, rates, tax. Not only that, but although you may live in a well populated area, it might be the only call in that area for the EA and certainly in wales at least, you can have 1hr - 2hr between calls on little b roads that will rat a quarter of a tank of fuel.

You would have received a letter advising of the charges, you could have avoided them but chose to ignore them. It is people like yourself that make the system have to work this way as until you have someone threaten to take your goods, you have no incentive to pay your debts. Like you said yourself, you have a nice car so not on the breadline. You are the type of debtor that bailiffs are here for. The wont pay debtor. One of lifes lessons for you I'm afraid.

[alfiemac]

Thanks for the reply and i am not like the Government i cant pluck a figure out of the sky, is this why the seven biggest bailiff firms *generated over £100 million in turnover last year, quarter a tank of fuel must be about 25 quid, that leaves £215, you get paid a percentage from all debt recovered from the council so you are on a win win basis, don't see your argument sorry!!

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Thanks for the reply and i am not like the Government i cant pluck a figure out of the sky, is this why the seven biggest bailiff firms *generated over £100 million in turnover last year, quarter a tank of fuel must be about 25 quid, that leaves £215, you get paid a percentage from all debt recovered from the council so you are on a win win basis, don't see your argument sorry!!

 

Quarter of a tank of fuel £25 there and another £25 back.

Wages for half a day there and back £50.

Wages for office staff maybe another £20.

Van tyres, servicing, screen wash, all manner of other vehicle costs. £unknown.

Insurance. £very high.

And we do NOT get paid percentages of debt paid. The whole 100% of you council tax hot paid to the council.

 

This isn't an argument. Its just one side throwing baseless accusations around in the hope of getting hugs from someone as you feel hard done by.

I am here to help, as is everyone else, and if you had supplied(or are indeed able to supply) some information that leads us to believe you were wrongly charged, then I would help you to try and reclaim. But I dont think you have a claim here.

You didn't pay council tax.

You ignored letters.

You ignored summons.

You ignored liability order.

You ignored further steps(maybe sent maybe not)

You ignored the notice of enforcement.

You didn't ignore the bailiff and paid up.

 

You are the reason bailiffs exist.

[Bailiff Advice]

So are you saying that just because it is the law that the charges of £235 are justifiable, did they just pluck this figure out of the air, all i am asking for is a break down of where my £235 went and if they said they drove from London and needed this for petrol then i rest my case, but i know they are local, just because something is written in the terms and conditions or a recommended charge does not mean it is correct, just look at bank and credit card charges which was overturned by people making a fuss. Yes i agree if they had to take control of goods or enter the property or clamp and take my car and lift it off the drive, but come on lets be realistic a charge of £235 for 1 hand delivered letter which has got to be disproportionate, or am i missing something.

 

If you don't mind a slightly long reply I will try to explain.

 

Previously the fees for council tax had been set at £24.50 for 'attending to levy' (where no levy was made) and a second similar fee of £18.00 would be chargeable if a 2nd visit was to be necessary (total £42.50). On top of this the bailiff could then charge a 'levy' according to scale which for a debt of around £800 would be approx £50-60. On top of this would be a Walking Possession fee of £12. Therefore, roughly speaking bailiff fees could rise to £120. However, with council tax, apart from an increase around 10 years ago of £1.50 there has been no increase in fees since that times.

 

New bailiff regulations have been in discussion since 2006 and around five years ago the Ministry of Justice employed the services of an Economist to work with the industry (local authorities and bailiff companies) to work out a payment schedule. The fee scale that we have now was proposed by the economist.

[alfiemac]

Never once had any problem of paying what i owed in council tax and don't need hugs honestly, not looking for sympathy just thoughts on being legally ripped off, poor postmen trudge through snow and rain to deliver letters day in and day out at 7am and get a measly £235 per week for 40 hours work delivering thousands of letters a day by hand so what makes a bailiff unique in the fact his company gets £235 for one delivered letter, they have not done anything to justify this cost as the outstanding bill was paid. Where has a weeks work been done to justify the amount of £235? it hasn't!! , a fair days work for a fair days pay is what i was always told to believe.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Never once had any problem of paying what i owed in council tax and don't need hugs honestly, not looking for sympathy just thoughts on being legally ripped off, poor postmen trudge through snow and rain to deliver letters day in and day out at 7am and get a measly £235 per week for 40 hours work delivering thousands of letters a day by hand so what makes a bailiff unique in the fact his company gets £235 for one delivered letter, they have not done anything to justify this cost as the outstanding bill was paid. Where has a weeks work been done to justify the amount of £235? it hasn't!! , a fair days work for a fair days pay is what i was always told to believe.

postie delivers to 300 house in one go across ten streets. Each letter costs a pound or so, maybe 60p, maybe £1.50. 2 or 3 letter to each if the 300 houses. £900 for the day dropping letters in letter boxes. Another pint falling flat on it's face.

This has all already been explained already. Please read again. Myself and BA have tried to explain.

 

If you feel its unfair or excessive still, then maybe you can look to take it to taxation. But I would STRONGLY suggest independent legal advice is sought before you do that.

[alfiemac]

Yes thanks for that and might just do it, will probably pay the 100 pounds to apply to the court to enable the court to make a detailed assessment of the bailiffs costs and allow Rossendales to explain the charges and also ask a court to decide if the costs were legal, reasonable and applied correctly, that is once i have spoken to the council to ensure that debt recovery action was reasonable, legal and proportionate, good practice was maintained, and as that the bailiff is acting for the council, and that the council have agreed with their enforcement agencies reasonable fees.

 

Thanks again

[ploddertom]

The only thing detailed assesment will get you is a large bill for Rossendales costs as the £235 is set down in Legislation. Your request would be dismissed without a glance.

[brassnecked]

Sorry alfiemac, but you still don't get it even after Grumpy and BA along with ploddertom have explained, the £235 is a legitimate fee, it is set down in law as £75 for the initial Compliance Stage fee, which becomes payable as soon as the account is passed over to the EA for enforcement, a letter then should give 7 clear days for the debtor to respond. If nothing heard as you didn't contact during Compliance Stage, they visit and at that point the £235 can be added. so at that point a total of £310 in fees are legitimately applied.

 

It could be worse under the old system if the bailiff was from Equita, they could have added around £700 worth of fees most unlawful in spurious aborted van fees, visit fees, failed removal fees, electrician to disconnect your cooker fee, or anything else they think they could get away with, fraud yes, but many would pay up. The new system isn't perfect but it avoids what Equita, Rossendales, Bristols & Stupor and the others used to try to pull previously.

 

You might even get a good affordable arrangement in place if you have an EA like Grumpy, or HCEOs, on the case who act fairly and to the book.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

It could be worse under the old system if the bailiff was from Equita, they could have added around £700 worth of fees most unlawful in spurious aborted van fees, visit fees, failed removal fees, electrician to disconnect your cooker fee, or anything else they think they could get away with, fraud yes, but many would pay up. The new system isn't perfect but it avoids what Equita, Rossendales, Bristols & Stupor and the others used to try to pull previously.

 

You are forgetting the 'debtor enquiry' fee of £5 that I have seen in hundreds of cases prior to the new regs and the 'closing fee' of £5 applied on EVERY case with two particular enforcement companies.

[brassnecked]

You are forgetting the 'debtor enquiry' fee of £5 that I have seen in hundreds of cases prior to the new regs and the 'closing fee' of £5 applied on EVERY case with two particular enforcement companies.

Yes the final insult a tenner total for diddly squat. Thankfully that little earner is finished.

[outlawla]

This is all a bit too late, but in my opinion it would have been better not to have paid the bailiff fees. The bailiff is effectively taking a risk incurring any expenditure in the hope that the individual owing the Council Tax falls for believing that he has some legal obligation to pay the council's contractor.

 

Applying the same logic as when police ignore complaints about bailiffs defrauding the debtor by dismissing them as civil matters, then not paying the bailiff should be viewed equally by the law.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

This is all a bit too late, but in my opinion it would have been better not to have paid the bailiff fees. The bailiff is effectively taking a risk incurring any expenditure in the hope that the individual owing the Council Tax falls for believing that he has some legal obligation to pay the council's contractor.

 

 

 

 

 

Applying the same logic as when police ignore complaints about bailiffs defrauding the debtor by dismissing them as civil matters, then not paying the bailiff should be viewed equally by the law.

 

The EA would just have returned and taken the car to clear the remaining balance. Adding a further £110 in the process. The ea WILL remove for his fees alone.

 

And not paying the EA is a civil matter. The same as EA's fees are a civil matter unless taken to court and proved to be fraudulent. The police wont arrest you for not paying an EA, the same as the police wont arrest an EA for collecting his fee. A fee that was agreed with the industry, government and charities like CAB.

[HCEOs]

It must be remembered that the cost of attending a debtors address is not just fuel and some blokes time.

 

The back office, rent, systems, insurances, vehicles and salaries etc. etc. soon eat well into the £235 quoted.

 

From experience a 10-15% profit margin is what is left at the end of the year.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

It must be remembered that the cost of attending a debtors address is not just fuel and some blokes time.

 

 

 

The back office, rent, systems, insurances, vehicles and salaries etc. etc. soon eat well into the £235 quoted.

 

 

 

From experience a 10-15% profit margin is what is left at the end of the year.

 

See post 11. He doesn't agree though.

[lookinforinfo]

Ok Outlawla you can take your tongue out of your cheek now!

 

 

Alfiemac the Law does allow bailiffs who have sent out a Notice of Enforcement and not received a reply to come to your property to collect the amount outstanding

often by taking control of your goods. Had you read the letters from the enforcement company it would have explained the fees already charged and advised you

that should you not contact the company they will visit you and that cost will be £235. At that point you coughed up which makes one wonder why you didn't pay

earlier and save a heap of money. It is usually the can't afford to pays that put final demand letters away without reading them.

 

Had you not paid and were not in a position to make an acceptable repayment plan then the EA had he been able to enter your property would have taken

enough of your goods under their control which would be sold off at auction were you not able to make regular payments to pay off the debt. As the new rules on

taking control of goods make it inevitable that the listing of goods plus using serial numbers on the goods to properly identify them as well as putting sme sort of

valuation on them takes time, it was for that reason that a figure of £235 was plucked from the sky.

 

I personally believe that to charge £235 just to stuff an envelope through the door is obscene and I get the impression [though I am prepared to be corrected] that bailiffs now appear to enter property a lot less than under the previous regulations because of the time involved in filling out the inventory. Much quicker to

clamp a car or put the fear of God into people by frightening them with how the fees escalate.

[alfiemac]

Thanks to everyone for their input, a lot of people are saying i don't get it, but i do get it and understand charges and the fact that it is legislation and charges need to be applied and don't mind paying charges, the point is, the amount for one hand delivered letter, Thats what i don't get!!!.

I challenge my local council after they charged me £125 for a covenant letter, which was a standard letter, which i had to have to sell my house so i paid it, they told me the same that it was legislation and the law tells them to charge this amount, when my house was sold i challenged the£125 as being an unreasonable reflection on the costs incurred to the council to produce the letter, and i received a cheque for £75 a couple of weeks later, which meant i paid £50, which i thought was a reasonable amount.