Rossendales Bailiff

[ciaran11]

Hi all, kind of new to the whole forum thing so I thought I give it a ago about a small problem I have

I have a letter from Rossendales (hand delivered) on 26th Jan 2010. It's a Liability order/Distress warrant for unpaid council tax for 09/10. The amount owed to Leeds City Council is £606.00.

The letter is a standard hand delivered letter from Rossendales which goes on to says we want payment in full in 24hrs, I will remove goods at my convenience even in your absence.

On the letter however it ball pont pen (the rest is typed) is says a amount of £803.50. I have had one letter from Rossendales before but this letter didn't mention any amount.

I have called the Bailiff and offered £300 on 25 Jan, £100 on 25 Mar & he remaining £206 on 25 Apr.

He says he want £500 in Feb and the remaining in Mar which is not a realistic offer if you ask me as I don't have that sort of money.

I have called the council and they say I have to dal with Rossendales. I have called Rossendales and they say I have to deal with the bailiff in question. I have called the bailiff in question again tonight when I got back in and he said I have to call him tomorrow.

I am aware that under the Council Tax Administration & Enforcement Act 1993 (as amended), you can charge a first visit fee of £24.50 and a second visit fee, if necessary, of £18.00. No further visit fees can be imposed which leaves me baffled as to how the amount of £803.50 is calculated.

The bailif in question said he had his fees on top of the £606.00 (actual debt) so it's now £803.50.

The bailiff has never entered my house nor have I actually seen him. I have also told him I'm willing to clear the debt but will pay the council direct.

Any help or advice would be great as I'm calling him tomorrow to try and sort this out. I'm not worried he will come in the house because their is no way I will let him in peacefully..

Thanks in advance.

[Amy]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

You have done your research well, I am impressed.

Except to say that I would not be telephoning the bailiff under any circumstances. You do not have to deal with the bailiff at all as you have not previously allowed him peaceful entry to your property and it is clear that he has already added fees to which he is not entitled.

You should pay the council directly what you owe, as you have said you will and ignore the bailiff completely. However, if you must converse with him, do it in writing.

[WendyB]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

The council don't like taking payments direct, they say (well my council did today anyway) that this is to ensure that no mistakes are made with the account numbers etc.What a load of rubbish. However, they will take your payment if you insist, and if they won't take it over the phone then just pay it over the counter in the local office, the peple there will more than likely just take it no questions asked.
Ask the bailiffs to give you a written breakdown of your account, do this by SAR if necessary.

And one final thing - just remember that you can always tell when a bailiff is lying - his lips will be moving!

[ciaran11]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

Ok, thanks for that, I was supposed to be calling him this morning but I will write direct to Rossendales via their own contact us email which is on thier website. I will also ask them for a break down of the charges too. Am I correct in say that above charges are the only one's they can add at this moment in time though?

Kind regards.

[Guest]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

You are correct regarding the charges. The bailiff can only charge for two visits and since he has not gained peaceful entry, there are no further fess that may be added.

Thus the bailiff has committed fraud. You should write to your local council alleging that they too have committed fraud, since the bailiff acts as their agent and they are equally culpable and liable for his actions and ask them what they intend to do about it.

See this link where the Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) responds to written question by Lord Lucas. Lords Hansard text for 20 Apr 200720 Apr 2007 (pt 0001)

If you write to Rossendales, write directly to Ms Green-Jones, who is the Managing Director at the following address.

Rossendales
Hardman Mill
New Hall Hey Road
Rawtenstall
Lancashire
BB4 6HH

You can tell her that her bailiff has committed fraud by false representation, which is a criminal offence and you should ask her why her bailiffs are adding fees that have no basis in law and are fraudulent.

Write to, do not call, your council and inform them that their agents and vicariously the council, have committed the same criminal offence of fraud and that due to the seriousness of this situation, unless you receive a satisfactory response you intend to make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman on grounds of maladministration, misfeasance and/or malfeasance in public office regarding the council’s flawed procedures and failure to control its agent Rossendales and further, you reserve the right to instruct your solicitors to issue proceedings in the County Court, against the council and Rossendales as second defendants, within which proceedings may, inter alia, seek substantial damages together with costs and it is also your intention to further instruct your solicitors to seek Counsel’s advice, in respect of criminal proceedings in the Magistrates Court.

Of course, if you do this, you must be prepared to execute what you write.

[ciaran11]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

Cetelco Thank you for that I never though about writing to Rossendales & the council placing blame on them regarding the added fees to be honest. Thank you for the address and name of the MD for Rossendales to. I can see my weekend planned out already, a good letter with a stamp to boot too. Your help and the help of every one in this has been fantastic. You all are a credit to this forum. I shall keep you updated with any correspondence I get.

Kind regards

[ciaran11]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

Hi guys, below is the letter I have type up to send to Rossendales. If you can pick any holes in it then please do. You will see I have quoted Baroness Scotland Of Asthal but I've only done this for effect so that they take the letter serious and to let them think I know what I'm talking about .

Ms Green-Jones


Rossendales
Hardman Mill
New Hall Hey Road
Rawtenstall
Lancashire
BB4 6HH

Your Ref:

Sq No:

Clients Ref:



Dear Ms Green-Jones

I write to you in connection to the above account/ref numbers.

I have received a bailiff removal letter form a Mr. Sewell which I believe to be a employee of the company which your are the managing director of. In the letter is clearly states that should I not pay £803.50 within 24 hours of the letter (dated 26th January 2010) Mr. Sewell will re-attend my address at his convenience and may REMOVE goods even in my absence.

As Mr. Sewell or any representative of Rossendales has never entered my property peacefully I feel the letter is incorrect in saying Mr. Sewell will remove goods as this would be breaking the law due to the fact that your company has no Walking Possession Order.

My original debt to Leeds City Council for unpaid council tax is £606.00. I have requested a break down of the charges (£803.50)which has been put on your letter but as of yet I have had no response from your company.

I am aware that under the Council Tax Administration & Enforcement Act 1993 (as amended), you can charge a first visit fee of £24.50 and a second visit fee, if necessary, of £18.00. No further visit fees can be imposed thus the bailiff has committed fraud by false representation, which is a criminal offence and so I ask you Ms Green-Jones why is YOUR employee adding fees that have no basis in law and are fraudulent.

The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.

Taking in to account the above paragraph I look forward to seeing a breakdown for the fee's which have been added to by original debt so I can see where to pursue this matter. Please also note that a letter similar to this has been sent to your clients (Leeds City Council).

Your sincerely

[ciaran11]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

Below is the letter I have drafted for Leeds City council. Please note these are the first letters I will be sending. Yet ago should you be able to pick any holes in them then please do. Thanks again.

Revenues Service
P.O. Box 60
Leeds
LS2 8JR

Account No. xxxxxxxx


Ref: Rossendales Bailiffs

Dear Sirs/Madam

I write to you in connection to the above account/ref

I have received a bailiff removal letter form a Mr. Sewell which I believe to be a employee of the company which represents Leeds City Council. In the letter is clearly states that should I not pay £803.50 within 24 hours of the letter (dated 26th January 2010) Mr. Sewell will re-attend my address at his convenience and may REMOVE goods even in my absence.

As Mr. Sewell or any representative of Rossendales has never entered my property peacefully I feel the letter is incorrect in saying Mr. Sewell will remove goods as this would be breaking the law due to the fact that your company has no Walking Possession Order.

My original debt to Leeds City Council for unpaid council tax is £606.00. I have requested a break down of the charges (£803.50)which has been put on Rossendales letter but as of yet I have had no response from your representatives.

I am aware that under the Council Tax Administration & Enforcement Act 1993 (as amended), you can charge a first visit fee of £24.50 and a second visit fee, if necessary, of £18.00. No further visit fees can be imposed thus the bailiff has committed fraud by false representation, which is a criminal offence. As Rossendales Bailiffs acts as your agent you Leeds City Council are equally culpable and liable for the actions of Rossendales Bailiffs.

Rosendale Bailiffs and vicariously the council, have committed the same criminal offence of fraud and that due to the seriousness of this situation, unless I receive a satisfactory response I intend to make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman on grounds of maladministration, misfeasance and/or malfeasance in public office regarding the council’s flawed procedures and failure to control its agent Rossendales.

I look forward to your response to resolve this matter urgently as I feel am unable to go forward any more with a company which will blatantly flaunt the law .

Yours Sincerely

[ciaran11]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

I have now had a letter from Rossendales with a breakdown of chages:

Summary of Charges according to Rosendale Bailiffs letter dated 2 February 2010

Dec 07, 2009 Debt £606.00
Dec 11 2009 Visit fee 1 £24.50
Dec 15 2009 visit fee 2 £18.00

I have no proof but I have never had any letter or notification that a bailiff attended me on these dates. I've had one hand deliver letter and that is all

[Amy]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

So the erroneous fees have magically disappeared?

[Guest]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

On the letter however it ball pont pen (the rest is typed) is says a amount of £803.50. I have had one letter from Rossendales before but this letter didn't mention any amount.

Summary of Charges according to Rosendale Bailiffs letter dated 2 February 2010

Dec 07, 2009 Debt £606.00
Dec 11 2009 Visit fee 1 £24.50
Dec 15 2009 visit fee 2 £18.00

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

• Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

I think Ms Green-Jones has some explaining to do, don't you?

[dontknow]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

have read this thread a few times and was wondering how it is going:beagle:

[Arrogant Duck]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

I have the same problem ongoing with Rossendales. They originally asked for £606, which then magically grew to £870. I paid £676 last summer and they're still chasing for £389 (although this might as well be magic sum £xxx)

I've been trying to sort things out for months now, but am still being harrassed. Rossendales are a bunch of scam artists!

[pendledad]

Re: Rossendales Bailiff

Did anything come of this ? I'm currently in the middle of a complaint against Rossendales and interested in any "wins" against them...