Urgent advice required, please!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

The message you have from the Council at post 31 is a load of rubbish as the Council are ultimately responsible for what you owe and for the actions and charges of the Bailiff.

Just out of interest then, why do they then clearly post up on their website that they will not get involved in complaints against Bailiff's and especially complaints with regards bailiffs fees?

This version of Silly Buggers is commonly known as stercus tauri or BBB.

It is, of course, utter nonsense if the bailiffs can be shewn to have been acting as agents of the council.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

Thanks for the advice, but as mentioned in post previously, this issue has now been favourably resolved.

Have you been repaid the excessive fees charged by the bailiff?

[titch2k6]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

Have you been repaid the excessive fees charged by the bailiff?

I believe that all charges have been removed as the balance outstanding as at 2nd February (£534.50) according to the letter sent by Jacob's, is now actually lower than the amount on the Liability Order (£562.50). Bear in mind that 2 weeks ago, the bailiff was trying to take goods to the value of £665.50.

Be interesting to know if the Form 4 actually makes it to the certifying Court or not.............

Just happy it is all over and I can get on and pay the debt, which is all I wanted from the start.

[titch2k6]

Re: Urgent advice required, please!

By the way, lots of interesting inconsistencies coming up in Jacob's version of events to what actually happened in the real world. Not surprised.........

For instance, they trying to say that the bailiff in question arranged the re-payment arrangement that they say was not followed through. Crock!! I know the baillif who set up the payment arrangement, which we followed through and completed, and was someone totally different. The agreement was not even made for the amount and under the reference number Jacob's are stating.

Also, the baillif in question did not even sign the Walking Possession on this amount - another bailiff did (only realised this after going through Jacob's statement in letter - unfortunately for them, I do have some paperwork from them). There was no notice of a different bailiff taking over the case from Jacob's so to extend the thoughts of "ploddertom", I believe that the levy had been abandoned and should have been re-filed by the new bailiff. And if he had not signed the Walking Possession, he could not have applied fees. Maybe I am wrong?

Still a lot of questions, that probably will never be answered, but as said, glad it's over now.....