Philips Bailiffs

[BotB]

Just doing a bit of digging around on the net.

 

Found this on the Manchester City Council website so getting warm!

It may of course just be Manchester's own policy in relation to the bailiff firms it contracts with but I'm pretty sure there's more to it than that.

 

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/counciltax/payments/bailiff.htm

 

Where more than one Liability Order is held for a debtor, the bailiff where practicable will attend the property for all liability orders at the same time, with only one set of costs being made. 'First Call' and 'second call' visits must be made on different days.

 

Be back in a bit with more info.

[chrismc]

Very interesting, I have looked at many Council websites during this reasearch and MCC seems to have gone that extra mile and set out heir own rules.

 

I have not seen that on any other similar sites.

 

This is interesting also

If on attendance, contact is made with the debtor, the bailiff should attempt to recover the amount as quickly as possible, taking into account the circumstances of the debtor. Wherever possible, if payment is not made in full at the time of the first visit, the debtor should be given the opportunity to enter into a walking possession agreement or instalment arrangement (instalment arrangement at no cost to the debtor other than the direct cost of making a payment).

Although this next bit does not help me I am sure it would apply to many others here

The bailiff should at all times use his professional judgement to refer back to the Council if he considers that, due to the personal circumstances of the debtor, it would be inappropriate to proceed to levy distress. In particular, cases such as:

1. Appears to be over 70 years of age and it appears may be easily confused
   
2. Appears to be severely physically or mentally ill, severely disabled or suffering mental confusion
   
3. Has young children and severe social deprivation is evident
   
4. Is disputing liability or claims to have paid, applied for rebate, discount or any other relief not yet granted, recommend, levy distress and then report to the Council
   
5. Is heavily pregnant
   
6. Is in mourning due to recent bereavement (within three months)
   
7. Is having difficulty communicating due to profound deafness, blindness or language difficulties
   
8. Is unemployed and provides proof that they are in receipt of Income Support or Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based), payments from the Department of Works and Pension (DWP) and details are obtained of the debtors National Insurance number
   
9. Is consulting his or her local councillor or Member of Parliament
   
10. Long term sickness or serious illness including the terminally ill

 

 

I wonder if this is just MCC requirements ?? or does it apply to all Council Tax collections?

[chrismc]

This bit is relevant though

 

Before attending with a van in order to remove goods, the bailiff must send to the debtor, a letter warning of the intention to send a van and also warning of the costs involved in such a van attendance. However, if there are circumstances that indicate the giving of prior notice may compromise the ability to remove goods (i.e. company about to go into liquidation or debtor about to abscond) then attendance with a van can be made without a letter being issued.

 

and

 

Costs charged to the debtor should be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1993 (as amended) or the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 (as amended) as appropriate.

 

I have checked those Regulations already and I cannot find a list of fees in them!!

[chrismc]

This is something else they did not do in my case

 

Documentation must be left at the property after each visit is made and give details of the date and time of the visit the debt and charges incurred; it must give the name of the bailiffs and a contact telephone number. It must be left in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor.

 

This is very interesting....I just wish I could get some Government organisation to confirm this is the legal procedures.

 

I called National Debt Helpline this evening to go over things with them, but could not get through, I will try again this weekend.

[welly]

Someone said they were fun to get though to!! Good luck mate and let us know what they say:)

[chrismc]

Just found this on Hillendon Council site, some of this is relevant to others who have had problems here, as I lknow the bailiffs have acted outside these guidelines

 

Specific Operational Instructions

• The bailiff should withdraw from premises immediately where the only person present is, or appears to be under 18 years of age.
  
• Legal entry is to be made only after a clear verbal invitation to do so.
  
• If the defaulter is not present at the premises, documents should only be left if in a sealed envelope with the defaulters' name and address clearly marked upon it.
  
• Pre printed stationary should not be altered or added to in any way, except to advise the date of a proposed subsequent visit, or balance outstanding.
  
• A receipt must be given for all payments received at defaulter's premises.
  
• Bailiffs should act with particular caution and sensitivity where a defaulter may feel vulnerable or threatened by their presence, e.g. a lone female, or person who is frail or confused due to age or illness.
  
• If liability is disputed, the Contractor shall take immediate steps to resolve the dispute by telephone. If the dispute can not be resolved, the bailiff should withdraw from the premises and provide full written details to the council without delay.
  
• The Contractor should ensure that a certificated bailiff is in attendance when either close possession or walking possession is taken, and that two persons, one of whom is a certificated bailiff, are in attendance when the removal of goods takes place.
  
• The same goods should not be listed on an inventory in respect of more than one liability order at any one time.
  
• Only the defaulter should sign a walking possession agreement.
  
• Bailiffs should be satisfied that the defaulter has a full understanding of the consequences of signing a walking possession agreement, before a signature is obtained.
  
• Before levying distress, the bailiff should satisfy his/herself that the goods he/she proposes to distrain upon, belong either to the defaulter, or to the defaulter and another person.
  
• Any goods removed should be handled in such a way as to ensure they do not suffer damage whilst in the possession of the Contractor and should be clearly labeled.
  
• A signature should be obtained for all goods removed.

 

Funny I cannot find anything like any of these codes of practice or procedures on my councils website!!

[elsinore]

Funny I cannot find anything like any of these codes of practice or procedures on my councils website!!

 

A point which, I am sure Chris, you will be pleased to draw to their attention at some stage!

 

BotB, an excellent bit of detective work. You know we're all now feverishly scanning our LA websites, don't you, looking for a similarly responsible attitude? (don't hold your breath!)

 

Elsinore

[BotB]

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.

 

Still with me?

 

Philips however, do not agree with this and state they are "legally allowed to charge fees for each liability order issued" Now the problem is, I have searched and searched and I cannot find anything in print that states they can or cannot do this, it is always stated as "fair and reasonable" or set fees eg £11.00 £22.50 etc etc. Van fees are stated as again "fair and reasonable" which leaves it open to much interpretation.

 

The key lies in what is "reasonable" and I think this is where Phillips comes unstuck. To charge multiple seperate fees on only one visit is not reasonable.

When they left you the info. they are required by law to leave (see above) how was it presented? Seperate figures for each liability order or aggregated?

Have you done the percentage calculation to assess which is the lower amount?

[BotB]

Thank you elsinore. The more people that know the better. I think its a fact of life that if you default on Council tax, they'll come after you for the money but this outrageous mugging of people who are already in financial difficulty needs to be stopped. All local authorities should have a code of practice like Manchester.

[elsinore]

You're so right BotB. What earthly sense is there in telling someone who owes £1000 and is unable to pay it, that the debt has now become £1500, or £3000 or £10 million!!?

 

I've said before that it behoves all of us to ensure that things change.

 

Elsinore

[MARTIN3030]

Chris the reason that Manchester has gone the extra mile is probably due to some of their inner city problems with poverty and tolerance.

There are some areas in Manchester such as Hulme Salford etc where baliffs probably get danger money.

I am certain that there has been many cases where a baliff has been threatened not with court action......but with 12 bores and Rottweilers !!

[chrismc]

Thanks Guys....all this is helping, funny how you need to be like Sherlock Holmes to find out this stuff, they hide it away so people can't fight back without a lot of work.

 

Some of the above I had posted much earlier in this thread, if you read back, but you get to the point where you just cannot figure if what you have read somewhere is law or not as it is always pretty confusing or tied up in legal jargon that I am sure the Bailiffs use to their benefit.

 

Again as I have already started, I will be looking over things this weekend and then deciding what to do, but on the face of it it looks like what I have been saying all along is still true ie fees are excessive, I did look at the percentages a few weeks back and still came to the same conclusion, but I will check again before my next step.

 

Thanks

Chris

[chrismc]

See my comments and reactions at the bottom:-

 

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/POLL 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

(a) £15.00 for a first visit

(b) £12.50 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

(a) £15.00 or 15%

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

 

I posted the above earlier in this and other threads, this morning I have calculated the exact fees that I think they are allowed to charge under the above guidelines.

 

Original Debt ..................................£1604.36

First visit .......................................£22.50

Second visit ...................................£16.50

Levy fee for first £100.00 .................£22.50

Fee of 4% for next £400 ..................£16.00

Fee of 2.5% for next £1104.36 ..........£27.60

Walking Possession ..........................£11.00

 

Van fees (I am not allowing these, see reasons in my post above and two they have agreed to refund anyway)

 

Total fees I say they can legally charge £116.10

 

They charged me £816.83 therefore an overcharge of £700.73 this is it then, top and bottom of it they have ripped me off to the tune of £700.73 + interest he he

 

Also I have letters from both the Council and Philips stating they have charged me £788.80 in fees when they are only legally allowed to have charged me £116.10 on these accounts. The discprepency will be to do with credit card fees eg 5% on npayments etc.

 

I don’t think it needs any more thinking about does it……I hear a Money Claim coming on!!

 

Any comments guys before I put the wheels in motion.

 

Chris

[chrismc]

Just after making my post above the mail came and a cheque from Philips for £160.00 was enclosed. I must be the first person ever to get the Bailiffs to pay something back....now for the rest of what they owe.

 

Chris

[BotB]

Chris

 

Do not bank the cheque if the covering letter offers it as full and final settlement. Only do so if it is clear on both sides that the matter is still in dispute.

 

If it was me, I would actually take the Council up on their offer to go through the charges with you - take your paperwork and the Schedule 5 charges, go through how you have worked them out and let them explain why they think the bailiffs figures are correct. The advantage to you is that if they can't justify the bailiff's charges, ball is back in their Court.

 

Was there more than one account with the Bailiffs? If so, should they argue that the bailiffs are entitled to charge seperately for each account even though they did no more work than would be involved in collecting one set of fees, ask them to show you the legal authority for that. If they can come up with a previous reported case where a Court allowed bailiff's "reasonable" charges on that basis, ok you will still have time to consider matters.

If they can't demonstrate any legal basis for it other than that's how its always been done, you can point out that the regulations do not provide for charges to be added in that way. The regs. actually cap the maximum amount that can be charged. Bailiffs can only charge whichever is less for levying distress- "reasonable" fees or the percentages set out in Schedule 5 of the regs.

[chrismc]

Chris

 

Do not bank the cheque if the covering letter offers it as full and final settlement. Only do so if it is clear on both sides that the matter is still in dispute.

 

The letter says 'please find enclosed cheque for overpayment on your account' that is it, I already posted here that they were not clever enough to word their last letters as 'Full and Final' and in my last letter to them I did make it clear that even though they had agreed to the repayment I would accept it 'on account' and this was clearly not the end of the matter. My letters to both Philips and the Council have been very clear on this. But it is obvious they are both thinking this repayment will shut me up!!

 

If it was me, I would actually take the Council up on their offer to go through the charges with you - take your paperwork and the Schedule 5 charges, go through how you have worked them out and let them explain why they think the bailiffs figures are correct. The advantage to you is that if they can't justify the bailiff's charges, ball is back in their Court.

I could do this, but they have clearly stated indirectly that they believe everything the bailiffs tell them! I am sure they don't really undrerstand the legalities in these matters and what and what not bailiffs are supposed to charge. It is clear they have never been questioned on this before by anyone!

 

If I do go down that route, I suppose it wouldn't do any harm and may get the council to fight them for me, but!! it could drag on and on.

 

Was there more than one account with the Bailiffs? If so, should they argue that the bailiffs are entitled to charge seperately for each account even though they did no more work than would be involved in collecting one set of fees, ask them to show you the legal authority for that. If they can come up with a previous reported case where a Court allowed bailiff's "reasonable" charges on that basis, ok you will still have time to consider matters.

If they can't demonstrate any legal basis for it other than that's how its always been done, you can point out that the regulations do not provide for charges to be added in that way. The regs. actually cap the maximum amount that can be charged. Bailiffs can only charge whichever is less for levying distress- "reasonable" fees or the percentages set out in Schedule 5 of the regs.

 

There were 2 accounts from the council but Philips acted on them as though there were 4. They have already argued they can charge for each account, but they cannot!! Again the council probably believe that they can? as stated I don't think the council really know.

 

Asking for legal authority may be the answer? if they cannot come up with another case where a legal basis has been set then they are snookered and would have to agree I was correct in my assumptions that the fees are excessive.

 

If you read above what I think the fees should be, you will see we are way way short of what they have charged.

 

So that is where we are at, I either arrange a meeting with the council and see what they say or go straight for a court summons.

 

Decisions decisions!!

[Guest Zooman]

as promised

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1990/Uksi_19902159_en_1.htm

 

EXPLANATORY NOTE

 

(This note is not part of the Order)

1. On and after 7th March 1991, this Order makes it unlawful for any person to make or carry out any agreement relating to credit cards to the extent that it imposes or requires the imposition of a "no discrimination rule". A "no discrimination rule" prohibits merchants from charging different prices to those who pay by credit card rather than by another means of payment. All such existing agreements must be terminated before 7th March 1991.
   
2. The Order does not make unlawful a requirement to limit differences in price to the amount of the merchant service charge imposed with respect to the reimbursement for supplies made on the production of a credit card.
   
3. The Order also applies to other payment cards which bear a trade or service mark associated with a credit card, which do notbear a mark registered in the European Economic Community and borne by (and only by) a type of payment card which is not a credit card, and which are not readily distinguishable from a credit card.
   
4. Merchants are not required by this Order to charge different prices for credit card transactions nor are payment card organizations or their members required to limit differences in price.
   
5. The Order does not apply to agreements to which the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 applies.

2. says reimbursement not profit. I can give a rough idea on Monday in work what they will be paying but if I say now it will be remembering and I would not like that.

 

I will give you an eg of case I charge a processing fee on Amex of 3% this is below what they charge me so I have no issues under the rules as I am still making a loss. But CCs only charge 1.x% and DD only £0.2x (I will lokk at work what we are paying) to me so I do not impose a charge.

 

It should be noted that the banks will charge a handling fee to the bailiffs of

 

Cash Paid in 1.5%

Chq Paid in 30p

 

So it should be taken into account that what ever way you pay will cost them money. I have made complaints to my local council against Jacobs Charging CC 3% and and DD £2. In fact I think I will step the complaint up a gear, my end gaol is for Jacobs to drop the fee.

[chrismc]

as promised

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1990/Uksi_19902159_en_1.htm

 

2. says reimbursement not profit. I can give a rough idea on Monday in work what they will be paying but if I say now it will be remembering and I would not like that.

 

I will give you an eg of case I charge a processing fee on Amex of 3% this is below what they charge me so I have no issues under the rules as I am still making a loss. But CCs only charge 1.x% and DD only £0.2x (I will lokk at work what we are paying) to me so I do not impose a charge.

 

It should be noted that the banks will charge a handling fee to the bailiffs of

 

Cash Paid in 1.5%

Chq Paid in 30p

 

So it should be taken into account that what ever way you pay will cost them money. I have made complaints to my local council against Jacobs Charging CC 3% and and DD £2. In fact I think I will step the complaint up a gear, my end gaol is for Jacobs to drop the fee.

 

Ashley

 

Philips charge 5% for a payment by Credit or Debit card. I also made payments to them in cash, but most were credit/debit card and each time they applied a 5% charge. They will incur a cost but as you say it would normaly be around 1.5% - 2.0% max. So! are they allowed to charge the customer and extra 3+% on top?? if not, then that is one more point I can have them on!!

[Guest Zooman]

I said you would like it.

[BotB]

The letter says 'please find enclosed cheque for overpayment on your account' that is it, I already posted here that they were not clever enough to word their last letters as 'Full and Final'

 

They don't have to use the words full and final. The letter is saying we agree we overcharged you by £160, we stand by the rest of our account, here's what we're prepared to give back.

 

I could do this, but they have clearly stated indirectly that they believe everything the bailiffs tell them! I am sure they don't really undrerstand the legalities in these matters and what and what not bailiffs are supposed to charge. It is clear they have never been questioned on this before by anyone!

 

I think you're quite right about Council officials being ignorant of bailiffs' fees. You, on the other hand, are now very knowledgeable. Knowledge is power.

The Council employs Phillips. The Council cannot distance itself from Phillips' behaviour. Someone (YOU) is questioning their practice now. By not taking their offer to discuss it, you are letting them off the hook. They didn't make the offer as an empty gesture. They did it because they HAD to.

 

I am curious why Manchester City Council included a stipulation in their Code that the bailiffs they use should not apply multiple charges. Obviously this is a circumstance that they have had cause to consider in the past - it wouldn't just end up in the Code by accident would it? Take that with you too - at least one other Authority has investigated multiple charging and found it to be unreasonable to the point that it has requested the bailiff companies it employs not to do it.

 

So you've nothing to lose by meeting them - take someone with you for support.

[elsinore]

 

at least one other Authority has investigated multiple charging and found it to be unreasonable to the point that it has requested the bailiff companies it employs not to do it.

 

 

and, conveniently for you Chris, MCC happen to be one of the largest and most important councils in the country. I would hope any smaller (humbler?) council would have the grace to defer to their superiority.

 

Elsinore

[chrismc]

 

I am curious why Manchester City Council included a stipulation in their Code that the bailiffs they use should not apply multiple charges. Obviously this is a circumstance that they have had cause to consider in the past - it wouldn't just end up in the Code by accident would it? Take that with you too - at least one other Authority has investigated multiple charging and found it to be unreasonable to the point that it has requested the bailiff companies it employs not to do it.

 

So you've nothing to lose by meeting them - take someone with you for support.

 

Yes you are quite right.....it has been put in there because they must have had people question their bailiffs actions in the past, my Council on the other hand are a lot smaller and probably have never had that happen.

 

Maybe I have nothing to loose by agreeing toi a meeting, I wil call them Monday and arrange it, I don't need anyone else to go with me, I am quite capable of giving this lot some stick on my own in fact it might be quite enjoyable.

 

Thanks for the suport as usual everyone.

[chrismc]

I have arranged a meeting for 8.30am Wednesday morning with the Local Taxation Services Manager at my local Council. I have compiled in print a full agenda of the meeting covering all aspects of what I consider their agents have done wrong and points where they have acted outside the Codes of Practice, including of course the excessive fees argument amongst other things!!

 

I have a lot of documentation to back up my arguments and he did ask if I was going to bringing any information along to our meeting I told him yes of course!!

 

Let battle commence!!

[MARTIN3030]

Presumably you have been a busy bee over the weekend ?

 

I was thinking .......if you were to be claiming contractual interest here too,then this would have been a very big claim........:o

[elsinore]

...........not to mention aggravation, harassment, worry, costs of dealing with the problem, loss of earnings, etc, etc,etc

 

Elsinore