I owe around £500 to my local council in council tax arrears - balliffs conduct

[The Watcher]

The Regulations state clearly that:

 

First visit...to attend to levy...but where no levy takes place £22.50 ( ie: where nobody is home)

 

Second Visit...to attend to levy where no levy takes place

£16.50 (ie: where nobody is home)

 

For ONE ATTENDANCE ONLY with a vehicle to recover goods AFTER a levy ( ie: Walking Possession) has been made.

 

Thanks - very useful.

[Wallenstein]

Herbie I have pmd with details.

 

Before Drakes became involved a firm called CCS were involved in collecting these fines which dated back to 2002 and 2004. I just used to ignore all the crap I got from them including dire warnings that I was about to be arrested.

 

One morning over a year ago some creep (not a cop) came to the door asking whether I was at home and claiming he had the right to arrest me for a fine of £165!! In the next breath he as good as invited my wife to tell him I wasn't at home which she did, and he went away.

 

Drakes are clearly a much nastier bunch. The guy who called was an intimidating looking thug.

[Bailiffchaser]

Herbie is correct in what the rules are but when you claim in a small court then all these fees have to add up infront of a judge. If you explain a point to the judge it is better than writing with legal refenrces and all that. also never ever goto small claims with a breif.

[Wallenstein]

I'll write to the court and to Drakes over the weekend, then post what they say here.

[Guest Herbie]

Because of the time that has elapsed since this court fines were first incurred, it is vital that you get details of the date of the warrant, you need to ask this question in your letter.

 

Drakes have a strict fee scale that must be adhered to when collecting Magistrate Court fines. If you have a list of the fees that they have charged, post here and I can advise further so that you can include these in your letter.

[Guest Herbie]

Sorry, I clicked the submit button too quick.....I forgot to mention that the bailiff collecting Magistrate Court Fines must be a Certificated Bailiff. This is not a legal requirement, but is a Contratual one imposed by HMCS when granting these contracts.

 

Thanks Wallenstein for the pm with the bailiffs name, I will ckeck this in the morning for you.

[Wallenstein]

Sorry Tiglet, but in certain circumstances the bailiff can FORCE ENTRY into your home.

 

The Government included a small provision within the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act in 2004 for bailiff to be given the power to force entry in the event of an UNPAID FINE from the MAGISTRATES COURT.

 

This is certainly of concern to many of us advice agancies, and frankly many bailiffs also do not like it !!

 

This right of forced entry ONLY applies to unpaid MAGISTRATE COURT FINES.

 

 

 

I found the Act online here

 

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

 

Are these the relevant sections?

 

SCHEDULE 4A

 

Section 125BA POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS EXECUTING WARRANTS Meaning of "authorised officer" etc

 

1 In this Schedule-

"authorised officer", in relation to a warrant, means a person who is entitled to execute the warrant by virtue of-

 

(a) section 125A of this Act (civilian enforcement officers); or

 

(b) section 125B of this Act (approved enforcement agencies);

 

"premises" includes any place and, in particular, includes-

 

(a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft;

 

(b) any offshore installation within the meaning of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971; and

 

© any tent or movable structure.

Entry to levy distress

 

 

3 (1) An authorised officer may enter and search any premises for the purpose of executing a warrant of distress issued under section 76 of this Act for default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.

 

(2) The power may be exercised only to the extent that it is reasonably required for that purpose.

 

Use of force

 

5 An authorised officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of a power conferred on him by this Schedule.

[Guest Herbie]

This is correct.

 

This clause was included as a last minute amendment to the Domestic Victims Crimes Act 2004.

 

There was no public consultation on this, and in fact this was not even noticed at first, because this was an amendment to a Home Office Bill.....

 

BEWARE...it is this same clause that the government are trying to now bring into the new Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Bill which will give these same powers to ALL BAILIFFS in future..........

[PizzaMaker]

sequenci,

 

I think Janet-M's comment was probably addressed at Pizzamaker who said that up to 3 van fees could be made - even though at the time Pizzamaker's comments was made there was no dispute! The dispute could only arise after someone read the post!

 

 

What i actually meant was that a bailiff can charge three fees after a levy has taken place. This is all agreed with the council.

[Wallenstein]

Right Ive got a very full response from the court and Drakes have responded to say they will write later.

 

I'll post the details here shortly

[streetgang]

Hi everyone, can someone point me in the right direction on the legal requirement for a bailiff to provide a receipt for all monies paid to them.

I sent £140 for council tax payments to my bailiff on 24th March and as of today, 31st havent received a receipt by post. My payment was sent registered with a copy of the letter sent to the council involved.

I know that the letter was delivered as I was able to track it on royal mail website.

Thanks, Harry

[Wallenstein]

FROM MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

 

These fines were imposed on 16 May 2002 and 9 January 2004 for the sums of £165 and £110 respectively. These are the sums of money that Drakes Bailiffs are required to collect on our behalf. The archived paperwork which I hold for these cases indicates that the address provided to the Court at the time was (my old address, vacated August 2004)

 

For this reason a fine notice was dispatched to this address on 19 August 2002 when the matter was transferred to us from Dorset Magistrates’ Court and 9 January 2004, subsequently a reminder letter was dispatched on 27 September 2002 and 20 February 2004. When no contact was received from you, a warrant without bail was issued by the Magistrates on 17 April 2003 and 12 March 2004. Two visits were made to the (former) address and three visits to your current address by a Warrant Officer around this time. Contact was made with your wife on two of those occasions at your current address but no contact with you. As the court had been unsuccessful in executing the warrants without bail in your name an alternative method of enforcement was chosen and the two outstanding maters were passed to Drakes Bailiffs for collection.

 

I enclose a copy of the table of fees that Drakes have provided to me.

 

 

Case 1

 

Fine amount

£165

 

Warrant put on system 24/11/06

£50

 

Letter Sent

NIL

 

Enforcement Officer left letter 27/2/07

£100

 

Bailiff left letter 27/2/07

NIL

 

Van Fee 16/3/07

£100

 

Surcharge 16/3/07

£1

 

TOTAL £416

 

 

Case 2

 

Fine amount

£110

 

Warrant put on system 24/11/06

£50

 

Letter Sent

NIL

 

Enforcement Officer left letter 14/2/07

NIL

 

Enforcement Officer left letter 27/2/07

NIL

 

TOTAL £160

[streetgang]

Hi everyone, please can you give me advice on the following.

 

My original debt to the bailiff was: £607.09

After 2 visits this has gone up to: £646.19

I understand this bit as I know the charge is £39

 

I paid the bailiff £140 by registered post, but when I then agreed to a payment reschedule their bill included £53 for levy charges.

Now if my sums are correct, the levy they can charge is 22.5% for the first £100, 4% for the next £400 and 2.5% for the next £1000+.

I calculate this as a maximum levy of £42.20p but even that would be based on applying the levy to the bill and costs (without costs I calculate it would be £41.20p

 

Can someone clarify this for me ? I want to write to the bailiffs and the council querying this but want to make sure i am correct first so a link to anything with the correct Act information would be great too.

 

Finally, their bill also includes £11 for an additional 5 day possession fee and £22.50 for a fee under heading H of schedule 5 !!

Total is around £700+ pounds, which still doesnt come close to calculating a levy of £53

 

Any help gratefully received.

Thanks, Harry.

[TheRealAvengers]

There is an increase in charges as of the 1st of April.

 

Link here - for the statutory instrument

 

Levying Distress Charges

a) where the sum due at the time of levy does not exceed £100 - £25

b) where the sum due at the time of levy exceeds £100 -

22.5% on the first £100 of the sum due.

4% on the next $400

2.5% on the next £1500.00

1% on the next £8,000

0.25% on any additional sums

 

I will try and find you a link to the statutory instrument that you can refer to, however the above is the charges prior to 1st of April.

 

Hope this helps.

[catchthescum]

Sorry, I clicked the submit button too quick.....I forgot to mention that the bailiff collecting Magistrate Court Fines must be a Certificated Bailiff. This is not a legal requirement, but is a Contratual one imposed by HMCS when granting these contracts.

 

Thanks Wallenstein for the pm with the bailiffs name, I will ckeck this in the morning for you.

nnn

[Guest Herbie]

HMCS awarded contracts in April 2006 to a number of companies, including Drakes Group for the collection of Magistrate Court FINES . As you are working for them I am surprised that you have not been told this important piece of information, in particulart as you could be providing the wrong information to debtors

 

It is a sad fact that there are just over 1500 actual Certificated Bailiffs legally registered with the courts, and for you to be giving the impression that you do not need to be Certificated is wrong. I have pm'd you with full details so that you may talk this through with your employers tomorrow.

[Spandavia]

for your information i got my certificate at Southampton County Court Jan 7th 2007 and it is not a contractual agreement that all bailiffs have certification Check your facts. Like most posts on this site they are done by people who think they know but dont really!!

 

 

Hi catchthescum (nice name),

 

I'd like to ask you a question (three actaully). You're obviously a bailiff and a disgruntled one at that for alleged abusive language from people you collect from. But your contempt for anyone you consider a debtor appears to be apparent even from the name you are giving yourself for this site. So my questions are: given that anything to do with bailiffs and the collection of goods or money from someone with an apparent debt (and I say apparent becuse it is not always the case that the debt exists) is a very emotive and potentially volatile situation - do you, as a bailiff, think it's a good idea that bailiffs should be given the powers to break into people's houses? Don't you think people will retaliate to the invasion of their property and that this will cause considerable violence? And do you, as a citizen, think it's right for this government to overturn a right the British people have had for over 700 years, to be safe and protected in their own homes?

I'm not asking this to be facetious or confrontational, I'm genuinely curious. Every one has an opinion on this matter and, as a bailiff, I wonder if you would give yours. Other side of the coin so to speak. I've only seen one other posting on this site from a bailiff (of course I haven't read every single posting on every thread) and he was an ex-bailiff and very detrimental about your profession. He confirmed what the majority of people on this site are disputing i.e. phantom visits, overcharging and menacing conduct. Is your view different?

Regards

Spandavia

[Guest ChloeJane]

I am not here to defend Bailiff actions but did want to add to this post.

 

A Bailiff (Enforcement Officer) like it or not, has a job to do. Collect monies with certain powers granted to them, as other methods have failed.

 

I noted the Bailiffs posts and think it took some thought to come on here and defend himself. We had all pre judged him prior to the post and the name he chose while not well thought out perhaps, I don't blame him a little as his name was branded here before he has a right to put his version of events across.

 

Their story will always be different, their recollection of the events will often be in contradiction to the poster, bailiff Companies come here and often view the posts.

 

If I came here and posted your name and a version of events that were different what would you do?

 

They have a job to do rightly or wrongly. Objectivity and thought and reading between the lines for posts is important. Innocent till proven guilty, yet here at times on the forum, a Bailiff named is a condemned man and guilty without a fair trial.

 

So in closing - No I am not a Bailiff - I do however know too well that there is always, two sides to every story and that the subject of bailiffs is a highly emotive subject, but does need objectivity from us as readers.

[streetgang]

Dear Wallenstein,

 

While I understand your anger in dealing with this particular bailiff, I dont think you serve yourself any justice by calling him ****, that is a very harsh word and tends to assume that you are better than he is. Whilst you undoubtedly believe in your case, others will feel it is you who are in the wrong by not paying the fine / tax (or whatever the problem in your case is - sorry i dont know).

 

I am dealing with a bailiff at the moment too, and whilst their bully boy tactics are extremely upsetting, i dont think that descending into name calling does anyone favours.

 

Also, if someone has a criminal record it is between them, the court and their employeer and certainly shouldnt be highlighted or outed in an internet forum.

 

Just thought i would voice my concern.

[The Watcher]

I am not here to defend Bailiff actions but did want to add to this post.

 

A Bailiff (Enforcement Officer) like it or not, has a job to do. Collect monies with certain powers granted to them, as other methods have failed.

 

I noted the Bailiffs posts and think it took some thought to come on here and defend himself. We had all pre judged him prior to the post and the name he chose while not well thought out perhaps, I don't blame him a little as his name was branded here before he has a right to put his version of events across.

 

Their story will always be different, their recollection of the events will often be in contradiction to the poster, bailiff Companies come here and often view the posts.

 

If I came here and posted your name and a version of events that were different what would you do?

 

They have a job to do rightly or wrongly. Objectivity and thought and reading between the lines for posts is important. Innocent till proven guilty, yet here at times on the forum, a Bailiff named is a condemned man and guilty without a fair trial.

 

So in closing - No I am not a Bailiff - I do however know too well that there is always, two sides to every story and that the subject of bailiffs is a highly emotive subject, but does need objectivity from us as readers.

 

I think everything has to be seen in context. The CAB has a wealth of evidence and concludes -

 

CAB evidence shows that bailiffs often:

• Misrepresent their powers
  
• Are abusive and aggressive
  
• Lie and cheat their way into people’s homes
  
• Use threats of violence and prison to pressurise people into paying lump sums they cannot afford
  
• Impose fees that can double, treble or increase the original debt many times over
  
• Take away or threaten to seize essential household equipment such as kettles, hoovers, fridges and washing machines
  
• Remove property from the wrong person or take goods not owned by the person in debt

If the VAST MAJORITY of cases produce evidence like this it is hardly surprising that everyone gets tarnished with the same brush - especially when the person who is trying to pretend to be a nice upstanding citizen calls himself "catchthescum" (a slight indication, maybe, of what he thinks of the people that he is dealing with, and a reflection of the way in which he will deal with them?)

[The Watcher]

Also, if someone has a criminal record it is between them, the court and their employeer and certainly shouldnt be highlighted or outed in an internet forum.

 

If a person has a criminal record - especially for violence - then they certainly SHOULD be outed - and certainly not in a job where the opportunity for violence conduct is available.

 

Their claims - and their actions HAVE to be seen in the context that they ARE violent people !

[demon_x_slash]

'Catchthescum' - (ha!) - do you have permission from the moderators to post on this site?

[Guest Herbie]

I do not think it is right to name any bailiff on this site. If there is an issue then anyone can pm with queries.

 

Could this please not happen in future.

 

It would be adviseable also to think about a sign in name more carefully as the name CATCHTHESCUM would cleary achieve the response that it has done here today.

 

This choice of name, in particular coming from a bailiff is was not very well thought out and I hope lessons have been learnt from it. Could everyone now please calm down.

[Spandavia]

I am not here to defend Bailiff actions but did want to add to this post.

 

A Bailiff (Enforcement Officer) like it or not, has a job to do. Collect monies with certain powers granted to them, as other methods have failed.

 

I noted the Bailiffs posts and think it took some thought to come on here and defend himself. We had all pre judged him prior to the post and the name he chose while not well thought out perhaps, I don't blame him a little as his name was branded here before he has a right to put his version of events across.

 

Their story will always be different, their recollection of the events will often be in contradiction to the poster, bailiff Companies come here and often view the posts.

 

If I came here and posted your name and a version of events that were different what would you do?

 

They have a job to do rightly or wrongly. Objectivity and thought and reading between the lines for posts is important. Innocent till proven guilty, yet here at times on the forum, a Bailiff named is a condemned man and guilty without a fair trial.

 

So in closing - No I am not a Bailiff - I do however know too well that there is always, two sides to every story and that the subject of bailiffs is a highly emotive subject, but does need objectivity from us as readers.

 

 

This is such a disappointing post. The great thing about this site is that what ever views people have, they are genuine! They're not just obvious spin or damage limitation. Personally I think it's quite insulting and very obvious what is going on here and it's a waste of everyone's time!

 

I posted questions to Catchthescum because I thought, at the very least, he would answer them himself and answer honestly precisely because this is a forum and an excellent place to put all genuine thoughts or comments. I've heard that there are many bailiffs who don't want the extra powers proposed in the TC&E Bill because they feel they will be putting themselves at risk (in the same way that many of us feel the Bill will be putting the public at risk). So I hoped I would get a genuine response.

 

Instead we got ChloeJane! Hey Ho.

Span.

[Wallenstein]

If Chloe Jane cared to read this bailiff's post (now removed) she would find nothing that contradicted anything I said previously.

The bailiff threatened (in a note pushed through my door) to bring a locksmith and violate the sanctity of my home. I phoned him to explain, no doubt in more direct language, the glorious principle of English law enshrined in Lord Denning's judgement in Southam v Snout in 1964, in which he quoted William Pitt the Elder.

Denning said it was the "classic passage" on the principle that an Englishman's house is his Castle; William Pitt said in 1767 "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King cannot enter - all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement".

I had not uttered a sentence before the bailiff who calls himself 'Catchthescum' repeatedly interrupted me. It is quite possible that in my frustration at his arrogance I may have told him exactly what I thought of him before slamming the phone down.

All this would be totally irrelevant to his appalling subsequent actions except for one fact. He informed my wife that he had decided to teach me a lesson for daring to speak to him with disrespect. That may not be the exact phrase he used. I will find out later when she returns.

Chloe Jane informs me that she is a well-meaning person who works to assist the victims of bailiffs. No doubt she may mean well, but on this occasion her energies are totally misdirected.