troll posts

[Guest alreadyexists]

mabski

 

Given your on going concerns, the importance of this subject and not wishing to detract from your main issues, I have given a more detailed explanation regarding forced entry on the relevant discussion thread here;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?479121-Threatening-County-Court-Bailiffs..can-they-force-entry-into-a-residential-property&p=5040974#post5040974

[Guest alreadyexists]

Thank you Dodgeball

 

If you read the thread in its entirety, you will see that the full regulation number and SI is given in post #3.

 

It would appear that not everyone is aware of the legislation regarding forced entry and indeed, only this morning a debtor has visited the forum expressing concern and indeed fear regarding forced entry, due in part because of misinformation he had been told on here.

 

There is no need whatsoever to apologise for not agreeing with my last statement. It was a topic that I discussed at great length with a highly respected authority on bailiff law, earlier on this year (as i did regarding forced entry to residential business premises). He has formed the same opinion as me but please feel free to prove us wrong - It can only help the overall quality of advice that debtors are given moving forward - Both here and elsewhere.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Can I just add that whilst I think it is best to pay this debt, including the compliance fee (as suggested in post #7)

 

You must be very clear that the compliance period can NOT expire currently as you have not received notice as prescribed in legislation (see also post #7)

 

Provided that no visit has taken place at the old address, it may be still at compliance stage. However, it is very often the case that accounts are passed onto individual bailiffs when the compliance stage has elapsed. It is likely that Task are thinking that your compliance stage began on 22 June, in which case, your account is very likely with an individual bailiff now.

 

If Task allow you to settle in full (£278) then that is fantastic and that is the end of the matter. If Task tell you that you have to contact the individual bailiff then you have a problem as he will probably tell you that he needs to visit you (which will add £235 to the bill) Do not allow him to do this and under no circumstances should you give them your current address. End the call immediately and email the council recovery department. Head the email "Formal Complaint - Stage 1". Explain the situation in detail as you have done on here ensuring that all relevant dates of when the council were informed of your new address were made. Ask that you may be permitted to settle the debt at compliance stage on the grounds that you have not been given notice in accordance with legislation and that enforcement be placed on hold whilst your complaint is being investigated. If you can't find an email address for the recovery dept, I normally send my complaints directly to the CEO. They are then usually filtered down to the relevant person to deal with the matter.

[Guest alreadyexists]

TT Just to keep you in the loop.

 

The HCEOA are not independent. They are made up of HCEOs

 

The chairman is Andrew Wilson of Andrew Wilson & Co Enforcement. He's not too bad as it goes in all fairness. However, I wouldn't trust the complaints officer (another HCEO) as far as I could throw him and I've seen quotes of his that clearly show him struggling to understand legislation (or possibly bending it to suit the HCEOs).

 

If your only issue is the double charging of the execution fee then it should be pretty straightforward to resolve.

 

I have a good deal of experience of being involved in complaints procedures and my overriding feeling is that when a business pays to join a trade organisation, that business becomes a customer of the trade organisation. It then becomes very difficult for the trade organisation to remain neutral in any subsequent dispute because they risk losing business if they upset their customer and even more so if other customers discover the outcome of the complaint.

 

I would be very interested to read their comments and/or observations on the alleged delay between dating the NoE and you actually receiving it and what, if any evidence is provided to show a recording of the time that it was posted.

[Guest alreadyexists]

If you have 2 notices with 2 separate dates on them, there is a possibility that they are enforcing 2 different warrants.

 

Make sure that you check on Monday exactly how many warrants they have against you.

 

If there is more than one then you have the right to fill out an OOT for the second one. This time you can fill it out to provide a stronger argument.

 

Did you notify the council of a change of address before the account was passed to Task? If so, can you prove this?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Well done TT - I have to say that in the absence of any documentation (for us to view), it did cross my mind that you may have been mis-reading something. However, you were bang on the money and I applaud you for being vigilant and persistent.

 

Regarding the ability to add the % to the debt, it may be added to the sum to be recovered (over the first £1000), pursuant to Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This sum will include (in high court enforcement cases) any judgement costs, interest and of course the execution fee.

 

TT has rightly pointed out that not only was the execution cost incorrectly added a second time but also the % was added a second time. TT is claiming a refund of the second execution fee of £117.50 and a recalculation of ES1 which will have had an extra £8.81 plus VAT added to it.

[Guest alreadyexists]

If they accept the £278 then there is no issue in them having your current address. You definitely need to get the first one out of the way asap as it will save further letter writing and hassle.

 

Which contravention is which?

 

Currently, one warrant is at enforcement stage (22 June) and one is still at compliance stage (30 June) Which one relates to your failed OOT?

[Guest alreadyexists]

OK - A pity it is not the other way round but not the end of the world.

 

 

Get onto Task asap and see if they will accept payment in full for EAxxxxx440. If they won't, post back.

[Guest alreadyexists]

OK, regarding the first contravention.

 

You should now instigate a complaint to the council as I outlined in post #16

 

Inform the council how you moved in the first week of December and did not receive any notices regarding this penalty. State that you certainly didn't receive a notice of enforcement from Task. State that such a notice should be sent to an address that you usually live. State that you have advised the council of your new address and enclose a copy of the letter that they have sent you there. There is no excuse not to have updated their system. It is simply not possible to escalate enforcement to the enforcement stage until the compliance stage has been completed in accordance with legislation. You are entitled to 7 clear days notice (in order to settle the debt or enter into a repayment plan) before a bailiff visits you and you have not been given this.

 

You have not been afforded an opportunity to settle this debt at compliance stage, pursuant to legislation and you ask the council to ensure that you are given this opportunity. You are happy to pay the debt (including the compliance fee) Ask the council to suspend enforcement action whilst your complaint is being investigated.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Cancel my above post.

 

Phone them back and tell them that you are not obliged to settle the second account until 13 July and that you only wish to settle the other account at this stage.

[Guest alreadyexists]

In addition to the advice given by UB, I would add the following:

 

Firstly,

unlike money that is collected by the bailiff (that councils may insist is paid to them rather than split), the proceeds from any goods sold at auction must be split pro-rata.

 

 

This includes ensuring that auctioneers fees and compliance fees (£75) are paid first before any money goes towards paying off the debt.

This makes the argument in favour of leaving the car stronger.

 

 

What is possible is that the bailiff will clamp your car and use this as a bargaining tool to force you to pay.

 

 

I would be inclined to write to the council and remind them of this and also informing them of the dependence on the car to gett your children to school (this is not a reason for the bailiff not to take away a car, except if the car is displaying a blue badge)

 

Secondly, I would ask the council how many liability orders are with the bailiffs and how much is outstanding on each account. I would guess that given an amount of £3,000, that this covers more than one year.

 

Finally,

a bailiff may only add one fee of £235,

no matter how many times he visits

and no matter how many liability orders that he has been given

(there will also have been an additional £75 added for every liability order held).

It is very difficult for him to "bump up" his charges.

 

 

Make sure that your doors remain locked (front and back) and provided that the car is not taken/clamped, there will be very little that the bailiff can do, other than to accept your offer to repay at £20 per month.

 

 

It may well be the case that the council would also consider an attachment of earnings order which should be fairly low but could be more than £20 per month.

 

 

If after deductions your net earnings are less than £740 per month, the council will deduct 5% of what you take home. You need to consider this when making your offer of repayment.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I did tell them when I phoned to try and get my payments back on track but the woman I spoke was completely disinterested and said there was nothing she could do as it was with the Bailiffs now.

 

It is unlikely that the condition of your sons would affect a bailiffs ability to enforce a debt that is owed by yourself. However, it is important to get over the fact that the car is needed to transport the children to school.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I am personally very concerned that this "mistake" has been made.

 

The fact that you appear to have had to go out of your way to obtain the writ of control (which shows clearly that the execution cost has been added to the judgement debt) is also cause for concern. How very convenient that you weren't left with a copy of the writ - A document that would show clearly that the execution cost has already been included. It begs the question - How many debtors never chase up a copy of the writ from this company?

 

Initially, one would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the company and point the finger of blame at the individual EA. It still doesn't explain why the company did not pick up and rectify the glaring mistake as soon as it was made aware and why the HCEOA had to intervene.

 

In an ideal world, an independent regulating body would be in place to investigate this. It is potentially extremely serious if it has been carried out on a wide scale. An independent organisation could look into how many times this "error" has occurred and also to what extent the individual EA benefits financially by adding this cost twice.

 

Over the years, I have experienced several occasions when "human error" by bailiff companies has resulted in overcharging. Strangely enough, I cannot remember one single instance when someone has been undercharged.

[Guest alreadyexists]

A layout for a writ of control may be viewed here:

 

http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=696

 

Just looking at the schedule, the amount of judgement or order is entered at 2. Any fixed costs are entered at 3 and assessed costs at 4. The cost of execution is entered ad 7. The total of all these items is ADDED (not recovered) and that total is the debt (sum outstanding)

 

As TT stated in post #1, the execution cost was added to the debt AND to the bailiff companies charges (despite it not being a charge made by the bailiff company)

 

I see little point in asking to see paperwork. TT has confirmed that the company have admitted to double charging and I think that most of us take his word on this.

 

The 2 documents that TT has that furnish figures are the writ and the breakdown given to him after he made payment. Clearly, the breakdown listed the sum outstanding (which already included the cost of execution) and then listed it as a separate item as well.

[Guest alreadyexists]

TT - My point was that if a regulatory body existed, they would have the ability to inspect previous accounts.

 

Sadly, I doubt we will ever get to discover whether this was a one off or not. It is certainly a new one on me and the more that I think about it, the more I am becoming convinced that it could not have been made by accident. In the absence of evidence, we have to give the company the benefit of the doubt and hopefully, now that the HCEOA have been made aware, the company will be keen to ensure that the same "mistake" is not repeated.

 

Moving forward and for the benefit of future debtors, the situation is this:

 

1. Firstly, always ensure that you are left with a copy of the writ of control.

2. Be aware that the execution cost is ALWAYS included in the debt/sum outstanding figure

3. If the execution cost appears again in with the bailiff fees (or elsewhere), alarm bells should ring out and a quick calculation should be made by totting up the figures to check whether it has been added twice.

[Guest alreadyexists]

As per post #14, provided that a bailiff uses a NoE that's layout satisfies legislation, there is no ability to include the execution fee twice.

 

The problem appears to have risen when it came to charging at ES1 stage, where the debtor was under pressure and did not have the time or means to sit back and check the figures.

[Guest alreadyexists]

There are a few things to confirm here.

 

Firstly, did she sign an agreement when the bailiff entered her home. Secondly does she work at all or does she live solely on benefits? Finally, was her partner also named on the bill and if so, does she know where he lives now.

 

In her shoes, I would also contact the council asap and enquire if an attachment was considered in this case and if not, why not?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Excellent.

 

As she did not sign anything, the bailiff cannot enter the home without her permission. Under no circumstances should she grant permission to enter. In fact, she would be best off not even opening the door to him. She should also ensure all external doors remain locked at all times.

 

Get onto the council asap and ask about an attachment as mentioned earlier. It will mean that £300 of bailiff fees are removed. Explain that it's not in her interest to allow the bailiff into her home and she will not be doing so.

 

See what they say and post back.

 

Do you know whether the council had all up to date information on her? Income etc?

[Guest alreadyexists]

There is no need whatsoever to complain to the bailiff company as they have done nothing wrong. The complaint (if there is need to complain) should be to the council, pending the outcome of what happens today. I would add that it's pointless speaking with anyone on the help desk as they won't be able to tell you anything. You need to speak directly with the recovery department and preferably the manager there.

[Guest alreadyexists]

A bailiff essentially lying to get money is the problem of the bailiff company... AND the council

 

I agree. However the bailiff has not lied. He is simply doing the job he's paid to do.

 

Provided that the council had all up to date information on the debtor then they are at fault for using bailiffs when there was the more sensible option of an attachment.

 

There is no point in contacting the bailiff or their welfare department. Efforts need to be focused on ensuring that the account is returned and an AOB is set up.

[Guest alreadyexists]

We don't know this. Did they make a search or did they just enter and discuss the matter with the debtor?

 

It is not unusual for bailiffs to give a debtor the opportunity to find funds before returning.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Ensure that the council are made aware of the vulnerability and offer to provide evidence if required. Also ask that enforcement be placed on hold whilst this matter is being considered.

 

Your argument is that an AOB is far more suitable in this instance

[Guest alreadyexists]

Vulnerability for the purpose of enforcement would mean that a person is not able to manage their own financial affairs. Simply being depressed would not usually place a person in the vulnerable category.

 

What we need to ascertain is whether an AOB was considered and if not, why not? There is no logic whatsoever in sending bailiffs to collect a debt from a single mother, living on benefits. If the council cannot provide an explanation then a formal complaint should be given serious consideration. The bailiff company are hardly likely to want to administer the account for a measly £3.50 per week/£14 per month so the probability is that they wouldn't object to the account being taken back.

[Guest alreadyexists]

If you read the NS, you will see examples of cases where people MAY be classed vulnerable.

 

Simply being unemployed, depressed or even wheelchair bound does not excuse a debtor a bailiff visit

[Guest alreadyexists]

He has a right to enter your house only if you let him in or he walks through an unlocked door. Under no circumstances should you allow him entry or leave any doors unlocked.

 

You should asap email the council. Head the email "formal complaint stage 1". Send it to the recovery manager. If you cannot obtain an email address, send it to the CEO.

 

Explain what has happened exactly as you have done in your post.

Stress that you settled the one account straight away and that you have no accessible funds or savings left to pay the second account in full.

 

 

State that you have no way of borrowing the money either.

Explain that the bailiff is point blank refusing to allow payments and is insisting that he visits (for which he can charge £235).

 

Ask that the council intervene and allow you to enter into an affordable and sustainable repayment plan.

 

Copy Rossendales in on the email.

Text the bailiff and tell him that a formal complaint has now been lodged with the council and that he should not return until the complaint has been concluded.

Tell him he will not be allowed inside and there are no vehicles outside either.

 

Moving forward, you may wish to check the bailiff fees at some point.

 

Sorry also ask that enforcement be suspended until your complaint is resolved