Philips Bailiffs

[welly]

Go for it mate and like you say they have had a chance to sort this before court and the court will see that:)

 

MCOL TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!

[elsinore]

No Chris, not bored, not lost! Just dismayed at the LTSM's standpoint. "not for the council to question" and "we do not work for you" and "not our responsibility".

 

The man clearly wants educating. Unfortunately he is just representing the overall mindset of the council. They all want educating.

 

Elsinore

[chrismc]

No Chris, not bored, not lost! Just dismayed at the LTSM's standpoint. "not for the council to question" and "we do not work for you" and "not our responsibility".

 

The man clearly wants educating. Unfortunately he is just representing the overall mindset of the council. They all want educating.

 

Elsinore

 

Yes Elsinore there is just too many jobsworths in Local Goverenment!! I did think at weekend I would end up with a MCOL claim, but I have given them one last chance so you cannot be fairer than that!!

 

Chris

[rambo]

Take it all the way chris!!!

You an insperation to us all.

Good luck mate.

[asd120273]

Chris,

 

I have been following your story from the start and just want to say how much I admire what you are doing. Someone has to stand up to these bully boys and it looks like you could take them to the cleaners.

 

I am speachless at the your visit to your local council, and I think you were very restrained, calm and collective (much better than I would have been).

 

Good luck in the next stage of your fight!!!!!!

[chrismc]

Chris,

 

I have been following your story from the start and just want to say how much I admire what you are doing. Someone has to stand up to these bully boys and it looks like you could take them to the cleaners.

 

I am speachless at the your visit to your local council, and I think you were very restrained, calm and collective (much better than I would have been).

 

Good luck in the next stage of your fight!!!!!!

Thanks

 

It did get heated at one point, but if you loose your temper you loose all respect and just come across as a loudmouth idiot, they tend to disregard you after you have done all your shouting. So better to be firm, positive and make sure you are up to date on your topic so they cannot trip you up!!

 

Chris

[chrismc]

Take it all the way chris!!!

You an insperation to us all.

Good luck mate.

Yes Rambo looks like there is no choice now!!

[Bonus77]

Well done Chris. They sound just as bad as my local council.

 

Fortunately, with some excellent advice from people on here, I managed to pay the council in full rather than the bailiffs. When the bailiff called me for the balance between what I had paid to the council to his bill which was over £230 more than the liability order I told him I wanted a breakdown of the costs. He couldnt answer that one and said he would call me back with the info... well, that was well over a month ago now when I receive a letter from Rundle and co, no longer demanding the £230, but a bill for 2 visits totalling £39 even though they had only visited once and dropped a letter through the door.

I asked what it was for and they were extremely evasive stating that it was admin costs... then eventually explaining it was £22.50 for the first visit and £16.50 for the second. When I told the woman that I had had only 1 visit, they removed the second charge, but not before she said that I was lucky as the bailiff had been out numerous times (Yeah, bull**** he did!!)

 

So.. my point is this... they had done virtually NO work, just posted standard threatening, truth bending letters, chucked on additional charges with no breakdown or explanation, and spoken to me like I was a piece of dirt. Without this site, or even Chris' help, I probably would have paid and not questioned, but this, and Chris' case just go to prove that they lie to innocent, vulnerable people in order to get more commision.

 

Has my complaint been replied to by the Bailiff or the Enforcement regulator? No.. of course not. ****, absolute ****.

 

Nail em to the wall Chris and take that muppet from the council with them.

[MARTIN3030]

Well one thing IS absolutely crystal clear...........

 

There is no way on earth you can be accused of failing to take reasonable steps to resolve the matter before court.

 

I would prepare a full list of all these attempts,and add it just like a spreadsheet to the claim

 

[paulson1985]

Well done Chris , You did great as ever.

[chrismc]

Well done Chris. They sound just as bad as my local council.

 

Fortunately, with some excellent advice from people on here, I managed to pay the council in full rather than the bailiffs. When the bailiff called me for the balance between what I had paid to the council to his bill which was over £230 more than the liability order I told him I wanted a breakdown of the costs. He couldnt answer that one and said he would call me back with the info... well, that was well over a month ago now when I receive a letter from Rundle and co, no longer demanding the £230, but a bill for 2 visits totalling £39 even though they had only visited once and dropped a letter through the door.

I asked what it was for and they were extremely evasive stating that it was admin costs... then eventually explaining it was £22.50 for the first visit and £16.50 for the second. When I told the woman that I had had only 1 visit, they removed the second charge, but not before she said that I was lucky as the bailiff had been out numerous times (Yeah, bull**** he did!!)

 

So.. my point is this... they had done virtually NO work, just posted standard threatening, truth bending letters, chucked on additional charges with no breakdown or explanation, and spoken to me like I was a piece of dirt. Without this site, or even Chris' help, I probably would have paid and not questioned, but this, and Chris' case just go to prove that they lie to innocent, vulnerable people in order to get more commision.

 

Has my complaint been replied to by the Bailiff or the Enforcement regulator? No.. of course not. ****, absolute ****.

 

Nail em to the wall Chris and take that muppet from the council with them.

 

Thanks Bonus......you know the more and more I learn and find out about the Local Authorities, Bailiffs etc the more I believe what I said very early on in this thread and that is, it is every man for him self, none of them could care less about their customers, tax payers, constituents etc.

 

All they know is they want as much money as possible out of you as quickly as they can and will use any means legal or otherwise to extract every last penny!!

 

When I was sat in front of the LTSM yesterday I was thinking there are so many people just like you sat in these luxurious offices doing as little as you can for as much as you can get and we the tax payer are expected just to pay for it all without question!

 

I think we'll have a revolution as the Beatles song says

[Bonus77]

Well said mate. Goodluck with the MCOL claim.

 

I once heard a bailiff say not to give them too much gried as they were only doing their job. Well if your job is to lie, cheat, and practically steal money from their clients then they are no better in my opinion than regular conmen.

 

The sooner people realise that 1. they do have rights and 2, the bailiffs usually overcharge then the sooner we can get them to stop doing it.

[chrismc]

Well said mate. Goodluck with the MCOL claim.

 

I once heard a bailiff say not to give them too much gried as they were only doing their job. Well if your job is to lie, cheat, and practically steal money from their clients then they are no better in my opinion than regular conmen.

 

The sooner people realise that 1. they do have rights and 2, the bailiffs usually overcharge then the sooner we can get them to stop doing it.

It works both ways then doesn't it!! what about them giving us grief??

[BotB]

Originally posted by Chrismc:

so I then pulled out my coups de grace and asked him to explain this then! I told him this is the original paperwork that Philips left with me but they do not know I have this,

 

Why haven't you raised it with Philips? It may well be the information that will prompt them to settle. Be wary of going into court proceedings with the intention of "ambushing" the opposition with evidence produced at the last minute. It is no longer the way things are done and it could backfire on you.

 

You should lodge a complaint now with the Local Government Ombudsman - the council official you spoke to appears to have no idea of what bailiffs' responsibilities are with regard to fee charging, there appears to be no procedure by which the council can check financial irregularities given the bailiffs are acting on their instructions, and no proper complaints procedure for investigation of complaints.

[MARTIN3030]

I think if you read all of the posts you will see that Chris has raised the issues with Philips on a number of occasions...........and would not be out of place to take them to court at any stage from now.

 

In fact it looks like that is the only course of action,having exhausted the ones between both Philips and the Council.

 

Did you not read all the posts ?

[chrismc]

Originally posted by Chrismc:

 

 

Why haven't you raised it with Philips? It may well be the information that will prompt them to settle. Be wary of going into court proceedings with the intention of "ambushing" the opposition with evidence produced at the last minute. It is no longer the way things are done and it could backfire on you.

 

You should lodge a complaint now with the Local Government Ombudsman - the council official you spoke to appears to have no idea of what bailiffs' responsibilities are with regard to fee charging, there appears to be no procedure by which the council can check financial irregularities given the bailiffs are acting on their instructions, and no proper complaints procedure for investigation of complaints.

 

Botb....so far you have been very good with your advice and I have taken onboard what you have said.

 

In this particular situation I did raise the issue directly with the council official about reporting them to the LGO....you can obviously report the council to the LGO but unless it is for malpractice you will not get very far!! IMO and I think although you could say they are not very clued up in their knowledge about certain areas of bailiff law and collection procedures etc, Based on the fact they did respond in a timely fashion to my letters proving malpractice is another matter.

 

In my situation now, I have given Philips every opportunity to prove to me the fees are reasonable, they have not proved to me anything whatsoever!! They say they can do this,, they can do that, who says they can???? Prove it?? I have asked them for a breakdown which they did eventually give me, but they just expect me to take what they say for granted! with regards to what they can charge.

 

I have a document in my posession that they signed and left with me, they did not provide a copy of this under the SAR/DPA, along with other documents, receipts etc etc that I am sure are covered by the same Act.

 

So, how many times do I have to ask? they treat my requests and my actions with contempt, so why should I open up communications once more with them?

 

As I have stated many times, they will only take notice of a CC Summons, so let them argue the facts with a judge in the County Court.

 

I have had a few days now to think about this and I am still of the opinion a Summons is the correct action to take.

[BotB]

MARTIN3030 wrote:

Did you not read all the posts ?

 

Yes, Martin I did. I have also personally recovered fees myself from both Equita and Drakes for parking tickets. I didn't have to go anywhere near a Court to do it. In fact, I think I can claim to be the first person who posted on this site about recovering bailiff's fees.

 

I'm not saying Chris will have the same success although he has got a part refund which not that long ago was UNHEARD of, from bailiffs, right?

 

I do not recommend people to use the Courts unless they have followed the correct procedures and this particular process is not the same as reclaiming bank charges. It isn't nice getting your case thrown out and I have long since changed my views from my law student days that the Courts are there to dispense "justice". In Chris' case, he has to decide if MCOL is the best way to go because the official way to challenge bailiff fees is applying for a detailed assessment and that can leave him open to having costs against him if he doesn't get the bill reduced by at least 20% although its in the Judge's discretion.

 

I haven't of course seen any of the paper work which again limits the advice I can give.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes I understand what you are saying.

 

I think this is why he is doing some more preparation before making a final decision.

I have heard about the 20% costs reduction already and there is good arguement for this.

[elsinore]

Sorry, pressed wrong key

[elsinore]

Just picking up on BotB's reasoning in favour of Detailed Assessment, I thought I'd go back and re-read the information relating to that course of action.

 

Two points strike me in this extract from HMCS advice:-

 

"If you think that the fees charged by a certificated or non-certificated bailiff are too high, you can apply to the county court for a detailed assessment of the fees. This means that a district judge will decide if the fees you have been charged are reasonable or not. Detailed assessment applies where the fees scale does not set a fixed amount to be charged".

 

1. The sentence that I've highlighted and

2. you can apply.... for a detailed assessment (not you should or you must)

 

Getting knocked back by a judge at a DA hearing surely means that's it. One couldn't then go on to a CC claim as a last resort. It seems to me that a DA is not a step in the process, more an either/or.

 

If Philips know that they are in the wrong, then Chris has to convince them that he means business. A summons would do that and Philips, like the banks, might well cough up, using the same excuses.

 

If Philips dont know they are in the wrong, or believe they are right, then it's for Chris to decide on the (financial) risk he takes in pursuing them all the way.

 

IMHO

 

Elsinore

[chrismc]

Just picking up on BotB's reasoning in favour of Detailed Assessment, I thought I'd go back and re-read the information relating to that course of action.

 

Two points strike me in this extract from HMCS advice:-

 

"If you think that the fees charged by a certificated or non-certificated bailiff are too high, you can apply to the county court for a detailed assessment of the fees. This means that a district judge will decide if the fees you have been charged are reasonable or not. Detailed assessment applies where the fees scale does not set a fixed amount to be charged".

 

1. The sentence that I've highlighted and

2. you can apply.... for a detailed assessment (not you should or you must)

 

Getting knocked back by a judge at a DA hearing surely means that's it. One couldn't then go on to a CC claim as a last resort. It seems to me that a DA is not a step in the process, more an either/or.

 

If Philips know that they are in the wrong, then Chris has to convince them that he means business. A summons would do that and Philips, like the banks, might well cough up, using the same excuses.

 

If Philips dont know they are in the wrong, or believe they are right, then it's for Chris to decide on the (financial) risk he takes in pursuing them all the way.

 

IMHO

 

Elsinore

 

You have hit the nail on the head Elsinore your statement

"If Philips know that they are in the wrong, then Chris has to convince them that he means business. A summons would do that and Philips, like the banks, might well cough up, using the same excuses.

 

If Philips dont know they are in the wrong, or believe they are right, then it's for Chris to decide on the (financial) risk he takes in pursuing them all the way."

 

is the dilema I am faced with and that is why I have not jumped into doing anything yet! But I am leaning towards the CC Summons route and hope they pay up like the banks rather than go into court or end up with a CCJ or the bailiffs going in on them!

 

This is not as straightforward as going after fees the banks have charged, I am at the point now where the next step has to be right! One reason I am taking my time and trying to get others points of view! I have read and read what I can, but there does not seem to be any examples of this going to the courts that I can find.

 

I know detailed assessment or taxation is the normal route, but there is a risk both ways!!

[elsinore]

I have read and read what I can, but there does not seem to be any examples of this going to the courts that I can find.

 

 

I can't find any either! Mind you, a case entitled Everyman v Barracuda Ltd wouldn't indicate that the defendants were bailiffs, lol!

 

Maybe there aren't any:eek: But that might just mean that, until now, nobody has been empowered (bold enough) to try it.

 

Perhaps Zooman can find what you're looking for.

 

Elsinore

[BotB]

elsinore wrote:

It seems to me that a DA is not a step in the process, more an either/or.

 

 

I'm sorry but this is not correct. One has to be careful using guidance notes for reference rather than the actual legislation.

 

If you look at the source regulations:

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations1992

 

Schedule 5, para. 3(2) - In the case of dispute as to any charge under this Schedule, the amount of the charge shall be taxed.

 

 

"Taxed" is the old terminology for detailed assessment.

 

The question is whether there are any disputed facts (other than the reasonableness of the fees) where the Court is to be asked to make findings.

[chrismc]

I'm sorry but this is not correct. One has to be careful using guidance notes for reference rather than the actual legislation.

 

If you look at the source regulations:

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations1992

 

Schedule 5, para. 3(2) - In the case of dispute as to any charge under this Schedule, the amount of the charge shall be taxed.

 

 

"Taxed" is the old terminology for detailed assessment.

 

The question is whether there are any disputed facts (other than the reasonableness of the fees) where the Court is to be asked to make findings.

It is mainly the fees that are disputed, there are one or two items with regards to their conduct, paperwork they should have left, items they have not supplied in the DPA request, pre-printed stationary they have written on, etc etc but from my understandings Taxation or a Detailed Assessment can only be for the reasonableness of their fees, is this correct?

[elsinore]

 

Schedule 5, para. 3(2) - In the case of dispute as to any charge under this Schedule, the amount of the charge shall be taxed.

 

 

Thanks BotB. It was only my opinion and I'm happy to be corrected.

 

Elsinore