rossendales walking possesion

[steve-k]

Hi all.

Right staright to the point. i've been paying back an old council tax bill from a few years ago (when i was on dissability benefits) to rossendales & a few months ago i was late makeing a (weekly) payment due to both my father in-law & my mother's partner both being taken into hospital with suspected heart attacks (father in-law taken to hull & mum's partner taken to a hospital in swindon where him & mum live).

I sent them an email stating what had happened & that payment would be made on the following monday as they where both taken in on the friday (the day i normally make a payment) & i was unable to go anywhere to make the payment as i had been in the process of taking my wife to the hospital in hull to see her father then heading of to swindon to help out my OAP mum.

The payment was made early on the saturday morning by my wife onece she had got back home & i made another payment on the friday the same week & since then i have made the payments every friday with out fail.

The only other time i have been late making a payment was a a few weeks ago due to a problem with my benefits being paid into my bank & once again i sent an email to rossendales explaing the situation but no reply to either email.

I have so far recieved three letters (one after each incident) from them, first one stating payment for the outstanding amount was now due in full, the second stating to carry on with the payments as normal & the third (& most recent) stating that payment in full is now due despite the fact that all payment's apart from the two time listed above have (& will continue to be) made on time each week.

Now to the "walking possesion" order, this was put through my letterbox at the very start of proccedings with rossendales & it was not signed by me at all due to the fact that i was not at home when he called as i was at the doctors getting treatment for a damaged knee (reason i'm not at work) & i would like to know where i stand regarding this??

Thing is the car does not belong to me it belongs to my father who let me borrow it on the proviso that i pay the insureance & road tax & maintain it until i am able to get back to work & buy my own car.

So where do i stand?? as it is getting very distressing.

Please help me out here please??

[labman]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

Was the Walking Possession signed by anyone? If so, who?

If the car does not belong to you, write and tell them so, ideally with a copy of the log book. It shouldn't be up to you to prove this, but in reality, it's probably easier for you to do so.

As far as everything else goes, I'd write a letter complaining about their actions and explaining everything you have above, and stating that you will be continuing to pay as you have been for the past x months. Given the company involved it may well be worth writing directly to their CEO, Julie Green-Jones. After her recent high profile TV appearance, it would be somewhat hypocritical if she did not intervene in this case.

Copy the letter to the Head of Revenues at your local council.

Ask for confirmation in writing that any new enforcement action will be stopped, charges removed as any levy was unlawful as the property was not yours, and the repayment plan properly reinstated.

[steve-k]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

Labman thanks for that. As for the log book my father has it & I think he has sent it of to the DVLA for change of address (he's not long moved).

Also do you know of any contact details for the CEO of rossendales??
I also forgot to add that the last letter stating they where coming for the car was dated the 23/12/2011& received it on 30/12/2011. This what has got me worried as if they take it despite it being my fathers then I know he'll want it's true value back off me. If you have got anymore help & advise then please feel free to let me know as this is the first time this has happened to me.

Thank you again.

[labman]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

Rossendales
Wavell House,
Holcombe Road,
Helmshore, Rossendale
BB4 4NB

Can't find an e-mail for her immediately, but if you phone 0844 701 3984 they should give you her e-mail address.

If I come across it, I'll post it up.

[steve-k]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

I forgot to add that the "walking possesion" order was posted through my door while I was out & was only signed by the bailiff & NOT by me.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Labman thanks again for that I'll get the letter sorted tonight. Any idea what I should do if the bailiff turns up in the mean time? Getting very worried & scared now.

[labman]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

I am assuming that the only item levied was your father's car. If this assumption is correct, then this would be considered a wrongful levy, so as mentioned above the bailiff company should be informed immediately, and you should continue to refuse them entry.

In order to force entry they would have to get a warrant from the court and forced entry is only ever used as a last resort.

If the car had been yours and had been impounded, even though you hadn't signed it, the Walking Possession would have been valid even though it was not signed by you. These are much harder to enforce though for obvious reasons.

I've had a good hunt for an e-mail address, but can only find a general one for Rossendales I'm afraid.

[steve-k]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

thanks for that, going to get the letter sorted soon any idea how i should word it & what would be the best thing to say?

Sorry about this but like i said this is the first time this has happened to me & i'm just tryiy to find out what to do.

[labman]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

The bailiffs will be able to check the registered keeper of the vehicle anyway, so it doesn't matter if it's at his old address, just that it's his name. If you haven't got the log book, obviously you can't send a copy as proof.

As regards the rest, I'd be inclined to point out that you've always been a good payer and the only times you've been slightly late have been for good reasons. Enclose copies of the e-mails and tell them they will be able to verify these on their own systems. Explain the reasons again and state you don't consider this to be sufficient reason to claim a breach of the agreement, and that you will be continuing to make payments as per the arrangement.

Basically what you put in your first post with the additional points re a wrongful levy etc.... added.

[steve-k]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

Well I've sent an email to them stating the same as what's in my first post & asking them yet again why when have asked several times before to set up a weekly payment via direct debit that they have not reply'd to me.

I'll also be ringing them first thing in the morning to ask them the same as what's in the email that's been sent.

I am more than willing to set up the direct debit agreement over the phone when I ring them.
Fingers crossed I can get this sorted as I really don't fancy ringing my dad & saying they've taken his car.

[teaboy2]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

Steve. i have PM'd you with Julie Green's email address. Do not disclose it to anyone else though, also in your email to her include a link to this thread as she does have an account on this forum too.

[steve-k]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

Hi teaboy2 thanks for that I'll get it sorted soon. Thanks again.

[mariknub]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

Hi Steve-K

My son had the same problem exactly and they wanted to seize my car etc and I contacted the council involved and phoned to get the name of the CEO and complained to her about it. I threatened to contact the Council Ombudsman if the council didn't stop Rossendales and take back the debt themselves! It worked like magic and now R is out of the picture and my son has a new arrangement for his C Tax debt directly from his benefit - much better! Try that too maybe....!Get rid of Rossendales!

Good luck!

[ploddertom]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

I am assuming that the only item levied was your father's car. If this assumption is correct, then this would be considered a wrongful levy, so as mentioned above the bailiff company should be informed immediately, and you should continue to refuse them entry.

In order to force entry they would have to get a warrant from the court and forced entry is only ever used as a last resort. This would not apply as they have never gained peaceful entry - only seized goods externally.

If the car had been yours and had been impounded, even though you hadn't signed it, the Walking Possession would have been valid even though it was not signed by you. These are much harder to enforce though for obvious reasons.

I've had a good hunt for an e-mail address, but can only find a general one for Rossendales I'm afraid.

1111

[ploddertom]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

What you have experienced is a common ploy by just about every Bailiff Company. Even paying late by 1 day gives them the right to cancel any payment agreement you may have and for them to then charge extra fees.

If you go back to the beginning of this do you know how much the original Liability Order was for as confirmed by the Council? Do you know what fees Rottendales have charged? Have you sent off for a breakdown of the fees?

As for the car there are various ways to deal with this, Rottendales will insist they will not remove any fees until such time as you can prove you don't actually own the vehicle and will put lots of obstacles in the way, however:
1 - a Statutory Declaration could be sworn by the owner claiming ownership
2 - as an aggrieved party to the levy made you could issue a Regulation 46 Complaint in the Magistrates Court naming the Council as defendant - they are 100% liable for the actions of their contractors
3 - point the Council to this LGO report
April 2010 Insight – Local Government Ombudsman

As it has become increasingly difficult for bailiffs to gain access to debtors’ homes for the purpose of taking goods for council tax, the practice of levying on vehicles in the absence of the debtor has grown. These vehicles may be parked on the debtor’s property or in the road outside. This practice, if abused, can lead to the Local Government Ombudsman finding fault with the bailiffs and the council employing them.

The Ombudsman has dealt with at least four unreported complaints when cars parked in the road were levied on, but did not belong to the debtor. In each case the bailiffs assumed that the vehicle belonged to the debtor, but did not check ownership before making the levy. In one case, having levied on the car, a notice was put through the debtor’s letterbox including the fees. As the debtor did not respond, the bailiffs returned to remove the car, but found it was no longer there. Despite not being able to levy on the goods the bailiffs charged a “van fee” (under head C of Schedule 5 of the 1992 Administration and Enforcement Regulations, as amended) of £105, and posted a further notice through the letterbox to advise the debtor of the new, higher debt.

In three other complaints, involving a different authority, the same thing happened – with levy and van fees being charged for cars not owned by the debtors. In those cases the debtors contacted the bailiffs to say that they did not own the cars. The bailiffs acknowledged this, but still insisted that the levy and van fees were payable. When our investigator queried this with the council, they were told that the bailiffs would have checked with the DVLA before moving the car, but even if the debtor did not own the car the levy fees would not have been removed.

These practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman. There is no question that when bailiffs have carried out a relevant action, they are entitled to the fees the law allows them to charge. However in these cases the levy and van fees were being charged for goods that the bailiff would not have removed - had the car been found and the bailiffs checked before removal, it would have been found they belonged to a third party.

A council may say that a check would be made before any removal, but this does not prevent possible fault. Some debtors will pay when they receive the levy or other notices, and will pay fees that should not have been charged to them. Levying on a car parked on someone’s drive may appear less problematic as it is more likely to belong to the debtor. But if it does not, and levy and van fees are charged and paid, then the debtor has suffered the injustice of paying fees that were not due.

In all four cases the Ombudsman recommended the same remedy. The levy and van fees should be refunded and the council should ensure their bailiffs check ownership of vehicles with the DVLA before levying on them. Debtors should pay what they owe, and if a vehicle belongs to the debtor (and any levy would not be excessive) then levying and charging reasonable fees would not be questioned by the Ombudsman.

All councils are encouraged to ensure their written policies say that bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership. Failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be the subject of a public report against the authority.


Andrew Hobley is Senior Investigator with the Local Government Ombudsman.
4 - another LGO report although lengthy also makes mention of levying on vehicle not owned by the debtor
Local Authority: Rossendale Borough Council
Bailiff Company: Equita Ltd
Date: 15th December 2010

They will no doubt try and wriggle out of things by saying "different Council" or "different Bailiffs" but the principle is established.

[labman]

Re: rossendales walking possesion

Excellent as always Ploddertom, thanks.

Possibly worth mentioining while on the topic of cars that bailiffs are not allowed to levy on a car with HP outstanding on it, nor one displaying a Disabled blue badge.