Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • wont go near it with a barge pole as its ex gov't debt.  
    • Thanks, I've had my fill of this lot. What makes me so mad is that I had to take out student loan to get any DHSS help. And then when I tried to help myself and family they presented obstacles. Might be worth passing story to RIP off Britain?
    • there is NO exposure if you simple remove your name address/ref numbers etc from docs, over 10'000 pdf uploads are here. which then harvests IP addresses off of the people that then do so..which is why we do not allow hosting sites. read our rules and upload carefully thats exactly why we say capture as JPG, redact, then convert/merge to one mass PDF. then online sites to achieve that we list do not leave watermarks.  every once in a while we have a user like you that thinks they know better...we've been doing it since 2006 with not one security issue. thank you.
    • was at the time you ticked it  but now they've still not complied . if you read up, here , you'll see thats what everyone does,  
    • no they never allow the age related get out, erudio are masters at faking supposed 'arrears' fees which were levied before said date and thus null its write off. 1000's of threads here on them!! scammers untied that lot. i can almost guarantee they'll state it's not SB'd too re above, but just ignore them once sent. dx    
  • 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

Council Tax and Bailiffs ref only - NO POSTS ALLOWED


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4852 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

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Tell the bailiff that you are going to report him to the local authority and also the court that certificated him.

 

This is because you can apply for deductions to be made at a nominal rate from your income support payment to pay towards your arrears of Council Tax.

 

The amount of deduction is set by law at £2.90 per week for a single debtor and £4.55 per week for a couple. This amount is irrespective of the amount owed. The regulation for this is below.

 

• Council Tax (Deductions from Income Support) Regulations 1993 S.I. 1993/494.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

You have put this post under the sticker section it should be in the main threads. Someone will help you move it soon.

 

However to answer your question. If as you say the bailiff has not been to your home and therefore not levied on goods he can only maje the following charges which are laid down by law under what is called Statutory Regulations.

 

First visit ( ie: where nobody was in) £24.50

 

Second visit ( where nobody was in) £18.00

 

If he did call at your home, he should have left you a letter. Although as you say you have received approx: 13 letters, I am assuming that these were sent by post. For the collection of Council Tax the bailiff IS NOT ALLOWED to charge for sending any letters at all.

 

So in your case, I would argue that he can charge just the first visit fee...if that.

 

You would be well advised to write to Equita and ask for a complete breakdown of their fees and charges as allowed under Section 7 the Data Protection Act.

 

Hope the above helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Another example that just goes to prove that you must not allow a bailiff into your property .

 

Can you please send me by private message only the name of the bailiff so that I can search to ensure that she is certificated.

 

I can then advise further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The situation is this:

 

The bailiff collecting Council Tax can charge a first AND second visit fee.

 

This is described in the Statutory Regulations as a "visit to levy...(where no levy has taken place). The first visit charge is £24.50 and the second visit is £18.00.

When you received the visit where a letter was hand delivered.....this is indeed a "visit to levy (where no levy has taken place) and therefore there would be a legal right to charge you £24.50.

 

Regarding the "attending to remove".........NO.

 

There is very CLEAR case law on this which makes it very clear indeed, that BEFORE being able to "ATTEND at the property to REMOVE" the bailiff must first have "entered into the premises" and "levied upon goods".

 

I would agree that you are responsible for a charge of £24.50 and possibly also a charge of £18.00 if the bailiff can convince you that he has visited TWICE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the collection of Council Tax a bailiff is unable to charge a letter fee. Therefore the very first charge can be the:

 

First visit to levy(where no levy has taken place) ie: nobody was at home. This must have been on the 28th Feb, but the bailiff co COULD try to argue that he visited on a previous date as well. He would be hard pressed, but MAY try.

 

In any event, this would be just £24.50

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to be posting this in the main bailiff forum under a new thread. This is the sticky section which is for advice only.

 

However, in the first instance can you send me by PRIVATE MESSAGE only the name of the actual bailiff so that I can search our database to ensure that he is certificated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly I do not know the answer to this and I suspect that this is a debt relating to Scotland and the rules are very different.

 

I would suggest a google search. I will look into this anyway and post back if I can find anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The above situation is similar to many other cases that our office are hearing about so everyone must be very very careful from now on.

 

You need to remember that one a liability order has been granted the council can then legally pass the debt to bailiff's to collect. If the council wish, then yes they could take the debt back but that is not likely.....in fact it is very rare indeed.

 

Once the bailiffs are instructed unless there are special circumstances such as: serious overcharging, bailiffs behaviour problems, concerns that a bailiff is not certificated or that the debtor is in a vulnerable position etc then payments should be made to the bailiff company............and they should also have a letter sent to the council to explain.

 

What is happening otherwise is that payments made to the council are being applied to THIS years new debt.......not the old one..and the council can legally do this. BE VERY CAREFUL.

 

Everyone paying the council instead of the bailiff would be advised to either take the payment to the council or pay through the bank but to ensure that a letter is sent to the council to explain exactly why the payment is being made to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Write a Subject Access Request to ask them to provide a full and detailed breakdown of the fees and charges applied to your account.

 

The visits should be £24.50 for a first visit, £18 for a second visit. Unless they have levied upon goods they cannot charge an Attedning to Remove fee which it would appear that they have charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4852 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...