Philips Bailiffs

[chrismc]

hi again chris thanks again to your support and advice reference my problem with the child support agancy and philips,just a qucik update,i requested all the information the child support agency had on me under the data protection act and found many errors,in their assessment,however the child support agency took me to court last week for arrears of child support,and i pointed out these errors to the magistrate,she then dissmissed the liability order the child support agency were requesting and ordered them to look in to my case file,and to return to court in feb 07,the child support agency have contacted me recently and gave me some bull excuse that the assessment made was an interim maintenance assessment due to the fact i didnt give them my partners earnings details,and this concludes thier investigations for the court in febuary,when we next attend,and that they will pursue the arrears through the courts and philips,however checking through the information i have through the data protection act,i do have a copy of my partners details which were given to them back in 2002,do i inform the child support agency that i do have these details which are already on file for them to check,or do i leave it till we next appear in court and make them look complete prats,is there any obligation to me to inform them of this and remind them of the date on which it was given ,or do i leave it till we appear in court next and make them look complete prats again.thanks chris.

 

This is a bit tricky in my opinion, on the one hand you have already provided the information they wanted back in 2002, so why do their job for them, it is not your fault if they are a bunch of incompetants!! but on the other hand I believe the courts may take a dim view of you hijacking them with this information by leaving it until you go back to court. Of course the court could say they already had the information why did they do nothing with it? But the fact that you are aware this information is already with them leave you in a tricky situation.

 

Personally I say you have given it once why should you point out to them where to find it, but it is not that straightforward.

 

I really have no idea how the CSA work or what their powers are, so maybe it is better to talk to the CAB or someone like that and see what they say OR post your questions somewhere else on this forum, start a new thread in the relevant place and I am sure someone will help you. This is not something I know enough about to advise on unfortunately.

 

Good luck

Chris

[elsinore]

nightsurf I have PM'd you.

 

I have suggested some tactics to nightsurf which are best kept off the thread in case it is being read by 'interested parties'.

 

Elsinore

[doddsy2978]

 

Aghhh!

 

Are these poeple that work at Philips really that thick! I sent a letter of complaint about inventing visits. accompanying this, was an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and £10 cheque. They stated in the letter - reiterating the false visits - along with different dates - and stating that the cheque was not required as the account was paid. :confused:

 

I have just got off the phone to them (these are logged by myself BTW) and explained to the operator there what the cheque is for. Should I escalate?

 

I am in conversation with the man at the court and he does not seem impressed with Philips. Grrrrrrrr! (I hope they get the sack.)

 

Why? Oh! Why? Can't you get to speak to a manager?

 

 

Ian

 

The High Horse is back in the garden

[chrismc]

 

Aghhh!

 

Are these poeple that work at Philips really that thick! I sent a letter of complaint about inventing visits. accompanying this, was an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and £10 cheque. They stated in the letter - reiterating the false visits - along with different dates - and stating that the cheque was not required as the account was paid. :confused:

 

I have just got off the phone to them (these are logged by myself BTW) and explained to the operator there what the cheque is for. Should I escalate?

 

I am in conversation with the man at the court and he does not seem impressed with Philips. Grrrrrrrr! (I hope they get the sack.)

 

Why? Oh! Why? Can't you get to speak to a manager?

 

 

Ian

 

The High Horse is back in the garden

 

Ian

I am surprised you ever got to speak with anyone, I called many times to tell them the state of play and never got to speak to anyone, I then started bombarding them with emails and although they acknowledged them they just completely ignored what I was telling them and did exactly as they liked.

I am sure they make it as hard as possible to contact them and to get hold of someone with some sort of authority, and to get someone to make an executive decision well forget it!! they know the longer they can put people off the more fictitious charges they can add on. One reason the phone is hardly ever answered and emails only in extreme cases and then they are very vague.

Ok I have put the High Horse back in your garden

Chris

[doddsy2978]

Hi Chris,

 

Yeah! I just fired off another letter (got a name now and I'm gonna latch onto it). I am afraid that it is not that polite expressing disbelief at the obtuseness of the person.

 

I have told them to respond in 48 hours (like they do:rolleyes:) I also explained in words of one syllable what the cheque was for (ignorant gits).

 

Let's just see what happens now.

 

What we should do is go there knock on their door and each charge them £100 visit fees each! Heh! Heh!

 

Ian

 

High Horse wants flippin' feeding now (It has been far too busy)

[chrismc]

Hi Chris,

 

 

 

What we should do is go there knock on their door and each charge them £100 visit fees each! Heh! Heh!

 

Ian

 

High Horse wants flippin' feeding now (It has been far too busy)

 

 

He! He! just add them on to your claim...that is what I am trying to do, my claim is still with the courts, waiting directions!

 

Goodluck with them...and keep battering away it is the only way to get them to do anything.

 

Sorry about the horse, didn't realise you had to feed it too I have enough non fare paying passengers at my place without an orse too! :grin:

[doddsy2978]

Best of luck with yer court thingy, Chris - you will let us know the outcome?

 

Don't worry 'bout the horse - greedy git anyway! :lol:

 

 

Ian

[chrismc]

Update

 

This seems to be dragging on forever, back on the 4th November I received from the Judge a General Form of Judgement or Order which basically was requesting more information in regards to:-

 

a) The individual fees charged

b) Which of the fees is contended to be excessive

c) What the claimant contends is a reasonable fee and the basis for that contention.

 

He gave me until the 20th November to provide this information, so on the 20th November by Recorded Delivery he received everything he asked for plus lots more. Including:-

 

Points of Dispute,

Basis of Complaint,

Statutory Instruments 1990 No 2159 The Credit Cards (Price Discrimination) Order 1990,

Philips defence and the Claimants Response,

Extracts from The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

Extracts from same showing fees for levying distress.

Fees Charged by Certified Bailiffs and Bailiffs Charges for Council Tax from October 2003 and the source - The Department of Constitutional Affairs

A Summary.

 

As of today I have heard nothing? so I will be calling the court on Tuesday to see what is going on.

 

Chris

[chrismc]

Finally got a court date Tuesday 27th February at 12.30pm.

[elsinore]

Hi Chris.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing this one come to a conclusion at last.

 

Have you been following the bailiff threads, especially the ones concerning the Bailiffs, Courts and Enforcements Bill?

 

Elsinore

[chrismc]

Hi Elsinore

 

 

Thanks for your comments, no I am not up to date withn the other threads, been really busy last couple of months business wise and along with moving house, moving my daughter to her new house, jobs for her etc etc not had time for anything.

 

I need to do some reading up on things again, any items you think are relevant, please let me know.

 

Chris

[chrismc]

I guess the judge must have thought I gave him enough evidence with which to proceed afterall.

[elsinore]

been really busy last couple of months business wise and along with moving house, moving my daughter to her new house, jobs for her etc etc not had time for anything.

 

No pressure, then?

Seriously, I hope it's all working out well for you and your family.

 

 

Well, we now have a Debt Action Group forum with a sub-forum just for Bailiffs. One particular thread (if you can find the time!) is this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs/44284-bailiff-discussion-moved-hijacked.html

 

Elsinore

[chrismc]

Thanks Elsnore I will take a look as soon as I can.

[chrismc]

I was in court today, it took two hours and two directors from Philips turned up. Unfortunately I lost, the three month rule about bringing an action within 3 months of receiving a demand for costs ruined it for me.

 

Philips admitted they only found out about this rule yesterday, I asked the Judge if it was admissible because they were supposed to have provided this information at least 14 days before the hearing and she said unfortunately it was as it is a point of law.

 

The rule is under the 2005 Edition of the Distress Law and Practice produced by the Institute of revenues, Ratings and Valuations Part Two Council Tax and Non Domestic Rates Item 2and covers [a] General Rules [Rules 47.1 to 47.4]

 

I gave the best arguments I could and was well prepared but this was the major influence on the decision.

 

The Judge had a go at Philips about their record keeping or lack of and the way they pursue debtors without leaving a breakdown of costs and future charges with them but it did not count for anything. Philips could not produce any record of fees and charges that were given to me on a visit basis, but this did not matter. Also there was a lot of contradictory information in Philips defence and what they stated throughout the hearing eg fees based on a per visit basis or a per case basis, Philips seemed to change their mind to suit. The Judge also asked why some fees are listed under the regulations and things like van fees were not, this caused them some head scratching but again it made no difference to the outcome. I just felt things were against me from very early on. She also asked what was the outcome of my meeting back in August with the Local Authority Taxation Manager, so I told her the officer really had no idea what was reasonable and what was not in relation to fees they can charge. She expressed concern at the LA being so unconcerned about their own agents, but again not much help to me.

 

I had asked Philips to bring with them vehicle logs and mileage logs to prove they actually visited me on dates listed but they failed to do this also, the Judge actually said she doubted it would have helped the case anyway?? No idea why?? What didn’t help throughout is that the Judge had been changed at the last minute, so the original Judge who I had provided a comprehensive list of additional information for back in November was not available, another thing that didn’t help the outcome.

 

At least I won a moral victory, before the decision, Philips actually admitted they wished they had just ‘paid up’ instead of offering a defence as it had cost them quite a bit to get this far.

 

I did come out of this with a complete copy of the Distress Law and Practice bible and also a copy of the Procedure for Detailed Assessment of Costs and Default Provisions Part 47 that Philips very kindly gave me on the day, but apart from that, the decision was still in their favour and they were also awarded costs of £200.00. The Judge limited their loss of earnings to £50 per man per day plus travel expenses, so could be worse, but you live and learn!

 

During summing up the Judge basically said Philips fees seemed reasonable, how 51% additional fees added on to a debt are anyway reasonable I don’t know, but it he looks like they have virtually carte blanche to go out and charge what they want and if questioned just need to produce a few office or case notes to back up what they say and everything is OK.

 

The fact they charged numerous copy fees for the same event over and again just did not seem to cause a problem for her. Having said that it was made easy for her to say things when all along the three month rule would basically make her mind up for her.

 

Well this is a shortened version of events but enough I think for you to get the jist of things.

 

Nevermind, I lost one battle but there are still a few wars to fight and at least they refunded £160.00 to me (last year) for van fees they should never have charged in the first place. So not too bad, at least I tested the waters....but the moral here is to make sure you start proceedings within 3 months of receiving the demand for costs, otherwise you are wasting your time.

 

Chris

[elsinore]

Don’t quite know what to say, Chris, except,,,,bad luck, mate.

 

I do admire the philosophical way that you are taking the defeat.

 

Even so, it is extremely galling to know that Philips will more or less continue in its own sweet way.

 

However, on another day, with another claimant, in front of another judge: maybe there will be a different outcome.

 

Best wishes

 

Els:)

 

p.s. No chance of an appeal, I suppose?

[MARTIN3030]

Yes they must never be allowed to get away with this again.

I am sure they know the Consumer action group will be watching.

Chris what can we say mate ???????

seems to have gone on for eternity.

Lets hope Barclays will help you to put this to bed and give you full settlement next week.

All the more reason to season some real vodka.......and Moscow is the best place to do that.

Looking forward to your views.....I will be there in April

and nothing to do with polonium 10 lol

If you can deal with Philips you will have little worries from the moscow police ........ !!! Pashal na hoy lol отвяжитесь

[chrismc]

Don’t quite know what to say, Chris, except,,,,bad luck, mate.

 

I do admire the philosophical way that you are taking the defeat.

 

Even so, it is extremely galling to know that Philips will more or less continue in its own sweet way.

 

However, on another day, with another claimant, in front of another judge: maybe there will be a different outcome.

 

Best wishes

 

Els:)

 

p.s. No chance of an appeal, I suppose?

 

 

Thanks Elsinore....yes a bit annoyoing but you live and learn. I could possibly appeal but I have spent so long on this now I am glad it is out of the way at last even though the outcome was against me, so I won't be taking it any further, it takes up too much time for what I may or may not get out of it. I put up two hours of argument and discussion for my case so that was all I could do. At some stage you have to make a business decision and it is not good business to keep chasing a lost cause so to speak.

 

Anyway thanks for your continued support...it is a shame the judge changed at the last minute as I am sure she really did not grasp the whole situation and Philips last minute findings on the three month rule made it very easy for her to dismiss my claim without having to explain too much her reasons.

 

Chris

[chrismc]

Yes they must never be allowed to get away with this again.

I am sure they know the Consumer action group will be watching.

Chris what can we say mate ???????

seems to have gone on for eternity.

Lets hope Barclays will help you to put this to bed and give you full settlement next week.

All the more reason to season some real vodka.......and Moscow is the best place to do that.

Looking forward to your views.....I will be there in April

and nothing to do with polonium 10 lol

If you can deal with Philips you will have little worries from the moscow police ........ !!! Pashal na hoy lol отвяжитесь

 

Yes they know they will have to make sure their paperwork is in order next time, another Judge may not be as lenient. Nevermind it was not meant to be......and I have my trip to Moscow next week to take my mind off things.

 

паук паук !

(paka paka!)

[PizzaMaker]

There are different charges depending what they are after collecting - there's a scale of charges for parking fines, Council tax, rent etc. Bailiffs can't charge more than the fixed scale of charges.

There's no scale of fees for bailiffs charges for collecting fines in the Magistrates Court but the Courts themselves are supposed to coem up with a scale of fees proportionate to fine they are collecting.

 

There is a set scale of fees for the companies who collect on Magistrate Court fines, i am trying to locate this as i found it last week. One particular company can only charge a maximum of £200 on top of the fine. Philips have a set scale on magistrate fees

[chrismc]

There is a set scale of fees for the companies who collect on Magistrate Court fines, i am trying to locate this as i found it last week. One particular company can only charge a maximum of £200 on top of the fine. Philips have a set scale on magistrate fees

 

There are set fees, but according to the Judge in my case as long as she felt they were fair and reasonable then it was OK for them to charge what they wanted. I gave her a list of what they are allowed to charge and also argued the fact that they cannot charge on a 'per case' basis when they collect fees for a number iof levies on the same visit on the same day, the Judge ignored this and said she felt it reasonable that they could.

 

A waste of time really arguing, from my experiences they can charge more or less what they want and if questioned about it only have to come up with the very minimal of evidence to support their cause.

 

If I was ever in the position again with Bailiffs chasing me, I would just never let them in, that would be the end of it, nothing they can do under current legislation anyway!

[helpful1]

Just checked rates and it says the first 10,000 miles per year 40p/mile over 10,000 25p/mile that is assuming they are self employed and the rates are what they reclaim from their company.

 

So yet another rip off!! that we pay for!!

 

The bailiff cant charge mileage the above rate is what Philips bailiffs claim back by doing a self assessment at the end of each year as Philips do not pay them a salary and work on commision only this cost is NOT i assure you passed on the the defendant

[helpful1]

There are set fees, but according to the Judge in my case as long as she felt they were fair and reasonable then it was OK for them to charge what they wanted. I gave her a list of what they are allowed to charge and also argued the fact that they cannot charge on a 'per case' basis when they collect fees for a number iof levies on the same visit on the same day, the Judge ignored this and said she felt it reasonable that they could.

 

A waste of time really arguing, from my experiences they can charge more or less what they want and if questioned about it only have to come up with the very minimal of evidence to support their cause.

 

If I was ever in the position again with Bailiffs chasing me, I would just never let them in, that would be the end of it, nothing they can do under current legislation anyway!

 

Hi Philips bailiffs have strict guidence on their charges for magistrates fines they do stick to them but "bend" the rules a max of £200 can be charged for visit fees this is put on per visit at £50 / visit how they beat this is by using so called bailiffs to drop letters these callers have no or little bailiff experience if nobody is in they leave a letter costing you £50 the letter directs you to their call centre this procedure will happen 4 times totalling £200!!

If someone opens the door there instructions are to "ask for payment" if they dont pay leave a letter costing you £50 !! they will not attempt to gain entry or attempt to remove goods even if your car is on the drive only when the case has MAXIMUM FEES will they send a Bailiff to enforce the warrant

Levy fees are set down on a sliding scale and are charged accordingly

There is a darker side to Philips and if you are still interested i can type for hours about their procedures and structure

[loopylou32]

Hello I have to pay my sons court fine he was 16 when the court ordered me to pay the £150 which now has risen thanx to Philips Bailiffs they are charging me £50 per letter the cost now is £300 twice what was originally owed I have phoned and tried to explain I am on benefits and I only get £150 per week for me and my 2 children and offered to pay by instalments of £5 per week which they didnt seem interested in only suggested I write a letter to them I asked if that would stop them coming out the reply was it might. I dont know where to go to sort this out

[woodywhite]

all certificated bailiffs must carry there id states where and when certificate was obtained and cant operate on road traffic penalties without one,ask to see it if he cant produce,he cant charge extra fees and should not be in attendance