Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

bailiff charges - lawson mclaine acting on behalf of colchester bourgh council


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6354 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just a question , i got behind with my council tax payment awhile ago and the council got the bailiffs involved (this was before i found this forum :oops: ) anyway there was £400 odd pound owing and the Bailiff got my partner while i was at work and was extremily intimerdating towards her. anyway an arrangment was made to pay £20 aweek but 1 week we were late paying them so phoned them to make payment (by the way they only excepted payment by card over the phone at a charge of 50p) they said a bloke was due to come round the same evening and take our goods, so we begged and borrowed the money and foned this bloke mobile number which we were given oh and we were told we had an hr to pay, anyway he said he could come to us that situtation didnt feel right so we met him at a local petrol station ( his choosing, also forgot to mention the company dealing with this was lawson mclaine acting on behalf of colchester bourgh council) during the call to the bailiff he said he had i removel van on its way down and we had the hour to pay. Sorry for rambling. So the end result was that we payed off a sizable wack of the debt but because of the l8 payment it went upto £478 which atlest £180 was the l8 payment charge. so my partner met him asked for id, and he proved it so i decided to make an apperence seeing as he had never met me before (im not a small bloke ) i asked for his id, asked why his signature was rubbed off, asked where the removal van was etc and he crapped himself, words were said (all from me) and 1 of the this i mentioned was that i wanted a breakdown of the account sent to me as the charges were stupid he agreed, 2wks l8r no statment so foned up lawson mclaine they said it would be in the post that was 4-5weeks ago.

LOL so my question is can i make them send me a break down of the account showing what the charges were for and the amounts?

 

sorry if this is to long and for the spelling mistakes if anyone wants to turn this into a screen play feel free :p

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are entitled to have a breakdown of their charges. Also they cannot

charge you for the removal van, since first they have to take an inventory

of your possessions they are going to take, and to do that they normally

need to have obtained walking possession.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i want to write to them and get a statmen from them is there a template on here that i can use?, does anyone have advice on what i should right or should i just go down there and throw a wobblie?

 

Scott

 

Click on the link to Philips in my signature....all the information and some template letters I drew up myself are all there, or here if you want. It is a long battle but I got some back and still fighting for the rest.

 

Chris

  • Haha 1

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott first of all DO NOT allow them into your house,tell your girlfriend this also,i think they just love it when a woman is the only one at home,they CANNOT charge you for a van without making a Levy..List...of your possessions first...and if you dont let them in they cant do this...i had the same problem as you on tuesday and after reading through this site and looking through old posts im 100% i can deal with these blokes...dont throw a wobblie and dont phone them,when you make contact always write them a letter and send it recorded delivery so they have to sign for it...it then proves you sent it...make records of times and places and photocopy all letters,cheques you send anywhere... yes you can demand a break down of charges...funny though..when i started talking like i knew what i was on about the bloke hasnt been back...good luck

 

Louise

Link to post
Share on other sites

It turns out she actually didnt let him in because she said she didnt want out greyhound biting him so he agreed straight away (our greyhound is old and probably helped him make an inventorie shes so dopey lol) anyway he asked if we had a tv, video etc she said yes he wrote them down along with something along the lines of "plus anything else of value" he asked her to sign the walking possesion form and left, crafty sod never even came in

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about all these posts but theres something else abit odd just wondered if anyone else would agree, at thetop of the piece of paper is printed in nice big letters "Notice of intention to levy distress for council tax" but hes crossed out the Intention , so it reads Notice of to levy distress for council tax also hes made another adjustment one of the lines should have said "TAKE NOTICE. That by virture of an authority given to me by the above council i have this day attemped to seize and distrain " u get the picture well hes crossed out the attemped word and added a D to the word seize ie "That by virture of an authority given to me by the above council i have this day to seized and distrain"

sorry about the length but just want to know if this is stantard practise.

tnx guys, Scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad news I 'm afraid. By signing the form, is virtually the same as letting

the bailiffs in. Next time they come, you cannot stop them entering if

they want to come in. They have the walking possesion they wanted. If

you are unable to pay them pretty immediately, they can take your goods.

So anything you don't want them to take, apart from what is already on their list since that would be a serious offence, get those things out of your house.

 

But if you can make some arrangement with them, it would be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

as in my original post i said i was waiting for a break down for charges from lawson mcclain, well i got it only after speak to a nice young lady who must have just started the job, anyway £160 for visiting my house for installment arrears, they never came here a second time only the first time when the arrangment was made, anyway can i do any thing about this £160 for the phantom second visit??

 

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, if you look on the first "sticky" [posted by Zooman] in the debts and

bailiffs section, you will find a bit on the fees that bailiffs can charge for

council tax. If you don't know how much you owe the Council ring and ask

them, so that you can work out how much the bailiffs have added.

 

Do you have written down on one of their forms how much they are claiming?

 

You will be unlikely to receive a response about their charges until you

write to them, and probably advisable to back this up with a copy to your

Council. Don't forget to ask for proof that the furniture removal van was

included [if they had been, there would be a receipt for payment of their

call out charge]. Also ask for a complete breakdown of all their charges.

 

BTW did he say why he had wiped his signature off his id card?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi i have been reading thios with interest as a friend is in a dilemna with council tax! he owes council £229 but the total comes to £419 with equiat bailiffs costs..2 diff bailiffs told me 2 diffeent breakdowns of cost but essentailly thay said they charged :1st letter £22.50 then 2nd letter £18.50 then 3rd £120 for a van and £28 for levy?? but they only went to my frinds house this morning and the bailiff only dropped a letter through! I can understand the first 2 costs but whats the £120 and the £28 for? Are they not supposed to do a walking possesion or something before they bring a van??

 

What is your advice as to what to tell them if they turn up tomorrow? Who else can we contact to get the charges sorted? thnx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed I am in a similar situation for them quite simply sticking a letter through the door - funny thing is I was even in at the time and they didn't even ring the doorbell! (ok, glad they didn;t as I would have opened the door and let the vampires enter!).

 

They've added £202.50 on top of the debt - I spoke to the council, however they have farmed it out to Capita (aka Crapita) who actually own Equita, and they were no help at all.

 

I phoned the council again who said they had nothing to do with the bailiffs - even when I mentioned about "Duty of Care" - they also refused to send a letter detailing the advice given, or to give me his name.

 

So I phoned ACEA to ask about complaints procedure, and guess what - a peach - I told them Equita had not been into the property and guess what he said "They can charge Levy fees if they INTENDED to enter the property" - which shows you that it's a self-serving organisation.

 

So the council has told me to naff off, Equita put the phone down on you when you ask for details of charges and they aren;t even regulated by law.

 

License to print money!

 

Again anyone who can give nay advice - it would be much appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed I am in a similar situation for them quite simply sticking a letter through the door - funny thing is I was even in at the time and they didn't even ring the doorbell! (ok, glad they didn;t as I would have opened the door and let the vampires enter!).

 

They've added £202.50 on top of the debt - I spoke to the council, however they have farmed it out to Capita (aka Crapita) who actually own Equita, and they were no help at all.

 

I phoned the council again who said they had nothing to do with the bailiffs - even when I mentioned about "Duty of Care" - they also refused to send a letter detailing the advice given, or to give me his name.

 

So I phoned ACEA to ask about complaints procedure, and guess what - a peach - I told them Equita had not been into the property and guess what he said "They can charge Levy fees if they INTENDED to enter the property" - which shows you that it's a self-serving organisation.

 

So the council has told me to naff off, Equita put the phone down on you when you ask for details of charges and they aren;t even regulated by law.

 

License to print money!

 

Again anyone who can give nay advice - it would be much appreciated!

 

The facts are these. Bailiffs pursuing council tax cannot charge any fee for sending a letter in the post.

 

They can only charge £22.50 for a first attendance to levy where a levy does not take place (e.g. no one's in) or, alternatively, they can charge a levy fee according to the scale fees if they levy - they cannot charge both (on the same occasion).

 

They can charge £16.50 for a second attendance to levy where a levy does not take place (e.g. no one's in) or did not take place on the first visit, or, alternatively, they can charge a levy fee according to the scale fees if they levy - they cannot charge both (on the same occasion).

 

They can, of course charge the levy fee on any occasion they attend and complete a levy.

 

They can charge an attending to remove fee where a removal does not take place which must be reasonable (this of course depends on your point of view and has nothing to do with the actual cost of hiring a van by the way!). However, this can only be charged if a levy has previously been undertaken. In theory, this could be charged a minute after levying goods as the levy is required in order to remove goods and you may decide to enter into an arrangement to pay after the levy but before the actual removal.

 

This 'abortive' removal fee can only be charged once. If any further removal related fees are applied, goods must actually be removed. This also means that you cannot pay a bailiff once he starts removing (if he previously charged an abortive removal fee) as he will not be able to charge the another abortive removal fee half way through the process. This is not in your favour but we don't make the rules!

 

Regarding the interesting comment, "They can charge Levy fees if they INTENDED to enter the property." This is NOT the case as a levy fee for council tax can only charged if a levy is actually undertaken. Perhaps they meant to indicate that attending to levy fees can be charged (£22.50 and £16.50) for attending with intent to levy but levy fees are often much higher than these sums, so such a response is confusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi i have been reading thios with interest as a friend is in a dilemna with council tax! he owes council £229 but the total comes to £419 with equiat bailiffs costs..2 diff bailiffs told me 2 diffeent breakdowns of cost but essentailly thay said they charged :1st letter £22.50 then 2nd letter £18.50 then 3rd £120 for a van and £28 for levy?? but they only went to my frinds house this morning and the bailiff only dropped a letter through! I can understand the first 2 costs but whats the £120 and the £28 for? Are they not supposed to do a walking possesion or something before they bring a van??

 

What is your advice as to what to tell them if they turn up tomorrow? Who else can we contact to get the charges sorted? thnx

 

This is in case you have never let them in or signed anything, if you have ignore my advice as unfortunately you will have to continue paying or come to an arrangement with them:-

 

Yes they are, but NEVER let them in, and NEVER sign anything no matter what they say or threaten. Write to them Recorded Delivery under the Data Protection Act/S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and request a full breakdown of their charges.

 

If you can afford to, make a payment if due, direct to the council, they won't accept it over the counter as they will say it is in the hands of the bailiffs, but you can get round this by paying through the councils website that way you are seen to be paying and they cannot use the argument you have refused to pay, also in effect the council will then by default have allowed you to start paying them directly again, the bailiffs won't like this but there is sod all they can do.

 

Read my thread on Philips in my signature, all the answers are there.

Chris

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Popsy and Gruffy

 

This is the fee scale they can charge:

 

Fees charged by Certificated Bailiffs

  • Certificated Bailiffs are entitled to charge fees and add them to the money you owe.
  • When the certificated bailiff levies on your goods, he/she will give you or leave at your premises a form which sets out the amount you owe and the fees, charges and expenses authorised in the rules.
  • Certificated bailiffs are not allowed to charge you for anything not in the scale of fees.
  • If your goods are removed the bailiff will give you a form, which sets out the expenses the bailiff is entitled to charge you for removing your goods.

Source: http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/bailiff/bannd2fr.htm

Department for Constitutional Affairs

 

 

BAILIFFS CHARGES FOR COUNCIL TAX FROM OCTOBER 2003

 

COUNCIL TAX CHARGES

For a visit to your home where no entry is made and a list of goods is not made (i.e. a levy is not made)

(a) £22.50 for a first visit

(b) £16.50 for a second visit

© No further charges for further visits

For making a levy (i.e. where the bailiffs gain peaceful entry and make a list of goods)

(a) £22.50 for the first £100 or less

(b) 4% for the next £400

© 2.5% for the next £1,500

For entering into a "Walking Possession" agreement

Flat fee of £11.00

10p per day

For a "Close Possession" agreement (e.g. bailiff stays with the goods)

£14.00 per day

10p per day

For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to recover goods after the levy has been made under this heading

Reasonable costs incurred (N.B only one charge can be made.)

 

For the removal and storage of goods

Reasonable costs incurred

 

For various items relating to sale or proposed sale of the goods (e.g. auctioneers fees etc)

Various fees and expenses

 

 

 

Source: http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=02_bailiffs_and_council_tax National Debt Helpline

 

also take note of this

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

45 (5) The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority, which he shall show to the debtor if so requested; and he shall hand to the debtor or leave at the premises where the distress is levied a copy of this regulation and Schedule 5 and a memorandum setting out the appropriate amount, and shall hand to the debtor a copy of any close or walking possession agreement entered into.

 

The "appropriate amount" is the total of the sum outstanding plus the charges that are set out in Schedule 5.

 

The fees for levying distress are the lesser of reasonable costs and fees incurred or:

(a) where the sum due at the time of the levy does not exceed £100, £22.50;

(b) where the sum due at the time of the levy exceeds £100, 22.5% on the first £100 of the sum due, 4% on the next £400, 2.5% on the next £1,500, 1% on the next £8,000 and 0.25% on any additional sum;

and the sum due at any time for these purposes means so much of the amount in respect of which the liability order concerned was made as is outstanding at the time.

 

 

Again read my thread on Philips in my signature, all the answers are there.

 

Chris

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this guys, I am still waiting for Equita to come back me so i wil wait and see!

 

Basically they never got to Levy, therefore they should have not stuck any charges on (apart from first visit fee).

 

Seeing that it looks like "the fees" are the same on every debt (from other examples I have seen) regardless of size, it seems that they are basically just trying to make as much money as they can.

 

Plus I am bit fed up - I have £700 to them so far and only £349 has ended up at the council. Worst of all is that Westminster Council's Tax is run by Crapita - who are are as aggressive and dismissive as Equita themselves!

 

Thanks again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have told him to take chrismc's advice and to pay the £229 he owes direct thru the city council website which eh ahs done.Also he has written to the equita and sent a copy tro the council re chrges breakdown and ive told him to not let then in as they cannot charge any more after the first 2 visits! ie 22.50 then 16.50 and as long as they dont enter the premises they cannot charge anymore correct??? gruffy hope you get it sorted to!

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they attended today again and dropped another letter thru the door..the 4th one with an increase of £120 again. They have never entered the property so i assume thay cannot levy if im correct?

 

Also just to clear things up and this may help everyone else in this situation..they can charge 1st 2visits but cannot charge anymore unless they actually enter the propert is that correct????

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they attended today again and dropped another letter thru the door..the 4th one with an increase of £120 again. They have never entered the property so i assume thay cannot levy if im correct?

 

Also just to clear things up and this may help everyone else in this situation..they can charge 1st 2visits but cannot charge anymore unless they actually enter the propert is that correct????

 

A bailiff does not necessarily need to enter a property in order to find goods on which to levy...... but yes, a levy needs to exist before charges beyond the first two visits can be added.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have told him to take chrismc's advice and to pay the £229 he owes direct thru the city council website which eh ahs done.Also he has written to the equita and sent a copy tro the council re chrges breakdown and ive told him to not let then in as they cannot charge any more after the first 2 visits! ie 22.50 then 16.50 and as long as they dont enter the premises they cannot charge anymore correct??? gruffy hope you get it sorted to!

 

Well done, now you can just ignore them, but make sure if they come back and threaten you for their charges etc you tell them you hgave already paid the amount owed to the council in FULL and direct. They may say you owe them their charges and fees but they annot do anything about it. Again DO NOT let them in and DO NOT sign anything.

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...