Tweet
Following yesterdays panic post: update below - I am amazed that initially what was discussed as a walking possession order - is now a levy and doesnt need to be signed so now worried what does this mean - although do they still have to do two visits (which the claim they have) but we have no paperwork regarding?
The visit on the 15th at 6.46am - we would have been in, I would have not left for work - it was half term week - we were all in the house and three cars on the drive but interestingly they listed the beaten up old banger??? which is now scrapped.
See email updates below:
First email from council
I have now had a chance to review your account.
I did give you an outline of the bailiff's fees that have been raised by Chandlers in my email of 3 March 2010. These details covered the amounts of the fees and the dates on which they were raised. You are now asking for details of the actual bailiff's visits.
The first visit to your property was made on 15 February 2010 at 6.46 AM. There was no reply but there was a vehicle at the property. The Renault Laguna had a levy placed on it and the bailiff posted the green levy document, through your letterbox, in a sealed envelope. A copy of the Schedule relating to Charges Connected with Distress was also left at this time. I am attaching a copy of this Schedule for your reference.
As mentioned in my earlier email, the fees at this stage amounted to £24.50 (raised on your case on 4 February 2010 in readiness for the visit) and £71.00 (raised on 15 February 2010) for the actual levy. The levy fee of £71.00 is based on a % of the Council Tax owed and is calculated in line with the Schedule.
As Chandlers had not received payment or contact, a second visit was made on 1 March 2010 at 12.12 PM. This was done with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods. The fees for this are covered in 1.C of the Schedule and are defined as "reasonable costs and fees". In this case the fee was £200.00. The Laguna was not available at the time of the visit but a Notice of Bailiff Attendance was posted through your letterbox in a sealed envelope.
I did mention in my previous email that Chandlers had obtained a walking possession order. I now understand that a Levy was placed on the Laguna but that there is no Walking Possession Order in existence. In your case there was no one available to sign the Order. In these circumstances, a Levy is placed on goods that the bailiff can see. A Levy can be made at any stage and there is no requirement for a minimum number of visits before a levy.
I can confirm that both Chandlers and Lewes District Council have acted fully within the legislation in the recovery of the outstanding Council Tax. I note that you suggest that Chandlers have made false representation but do not offer any evidence as to why you think that.
You may, of course, choose to make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. I will respond to any such complaint when required. In the meantime, I confirm that Chandlers will continue to recover the outstanding Council Tax amount of £1942.99 (including bailiff fees).
I would again urge you to contact Chandlers immediately on 020 8290 5055 to arrange payment and prevent any further recovery action. No further notice will be given before this action is taken.
My response:
An interesting reply from yourselves and contradicts your previous email.
I will seek further advice your initial email states that a walking possession order was in place and now you have changed this to a levy not walking possession order (although these appear to be the same thing?) and why did you state in your first email it was a walking possession order - then on querying the fees it has suddenly changed its name?
I therefore only had your information to go on and state they could not issue the walking possession order (in fact I think they also are unable to issue a levy either) without peaceful entry - and therefore the charges are not correct based on your initial facts as they have not followed correct procedure - that was my evidence.
I will be in touch with yourself in due course and will contact chandlers with an SAR to understand how these charges have been made.
I would request further copies regarding the levy and visit 15 February, interesting at this time of day there would have been three cars on the drive and we would have been home.
Why did you say in your first email that it was a walking posession order but now state it's a levy - I will of course get legal confirmation regarding what the difference is and why the bailiffs therefore feel they can charge £71.00 and subsequently £200.00. The last letter we of course have received and are willing to make payment against the debt as previously advised.
In addition, I would highlight that the car in question was scrapped that very week as we were unaware of the so called levy visit. It was a broken down unused car.
Final response from council:
Thank you for your email.
I did state that the levy had been made in my third paragraph of my email of 3 March 2010. This was correct. The difference between the levy and a walking possession order is the fact that the charge payer is present and signs the walking possession order. A levy is valid even without the charge payer's signature.
The fees for the levy are as stated in both my emails. The mention of the walking possession order in the final paragraph was an error on my part and does not alter anything else in the emails.
There is no need to enter your property to levy on goods outside the building.
You mention the term SAR in your email. Can you please explain this acronym?
You should contact Chandlers direct if you have any further questions regarding the fees, visits or their handling of the case. Chandlers have your full case details to hand.
So where do we go from here????
I am sending an SAR to Chandler the bailiff is Mr Skinner - tried searching the bailiff site for Chandlers and his name but it doesn't come up with anything is it working ?
I am feeling sick regardin the whole thing and really dont know what to do - we have sent a further letter to the council with a budget and plan so await that although they don't want to deal with this it would seem but then I guess they don't!
The visit on the 15th at 6.46am - we would have been in, I would have not left for work - it was half term week - we were all in the house and three cars on the drive but interestingly they listed the beaten up old banger??? which is now scrapped.
See email updates below:
First email from council
I have now had a chance to review your account.
I did give you an outline of the bailiff's fees that have been raised by Chandlers in my email of 3 March 2010. These details covered the amounts of the fees and the dates on which they were raised. You are now asking for details of the actual bailiff's visits.
The first visit to your property was made on 15 February 2010 at 6.46 AM. There was no reply but there was a vehicle at the property. The Renault Laguna had a levy placed on it and the bailiff posted the green levy document, through your letterbox, in a sealed envelope. A copy of the Schedule relating to Charges Connected with Distress was also left at this time. I am attaching a copy of this Schedule for your reference.
As mentioned in my earlier email, the fees at this stage amounted to £24.50 (raised on your case on 4 February 2010 in readiness for the visit) and £71.00 (raised on 15 February 2010) for the actual levy. The levy fee of £71.00 is based on a % of the Council Tax owed and is calculated in line with the Schedule.
As Chandlers had not received payment or contact, a second visit was made on 1 March 2010 at 12.12 PM. This was done with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods. The fees for this are covered in 1.C of the Schedule and are defined as "reasonable costs and fees". In this case the fee was £200.00. The Laguna was not available at the time of the visit but a Notice of Bailiff Attendance was posted through your letterbox in a sealed envelope.
I did mention in my previous email that Chandlers had obtained a walking possession order. I now understand that a Levy was placed on the Laguna but that there is no Walking Possession Order in existence. In your case there was no one available to sign the Order. In these circumstances, a Levy is placed on goods that the bailiff can see. A Levy can be made at any stage and there is no requirement for a minimum number of visits before a levy.
I can confirm that both Chandlers and Lewes District Council have acted fully within the legislation in the recovery of the outstanding Council Tax. I note that you suggest that Chandlers have made false representation but do not offer any evidence as to why you think that.
You may, of course, choose to make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. I will respond to any such complaint when required. In the meantime, I confirm that Chandlers will continue to recover the outstanding Council Tax amount of £1942.99 (including bailiff fees).
I would again urge you to contact Chandlers immediately on 020 8290 5055 to arrange payment and prevent any further recovery action. No further notice will be given before this action is taken.
My response:
An interesting reply from yourselves and contradicts your previous email.
I will seek further advice your initial email states that a walking possession order was in place and now you have changed this to a levy not walking possession order (although these appear to be the same thing?) and why did you state in your first email it was a walking possession order - then on querying the fees it has suddenly changed its name?
I therefore only had your information to go on and state they could not issue the walking possession order (in fact I think they also are unable to issue a levy either) without peaceful entry - and therefore the charges are not correct based on your initial facts as they have not followed correct procedure - that was my evidence.
I will be in touch with yourself in due course and will contact chandlers with an SAR to understand how these charges have been made.
I would request further copies regarding the levy and visit 15 February, interesting at this time of day there would have been three cars on the drive and we would have been home.
Why did you say in your first email that it was a walking posession order but now state it's a levy - I will of course get legal confirmation regarding what the difference is and why the bailiffs therefore feel they can charge £71.00 and subsequently £200.00. The last letter we of course have received and are willing to make payment against the debt as previously advised.
In addition, I would highlight that the car in question was scrapped that very week as we were unaware of the so called levy visit. It was a broken down unused car.
Final response from council:
Thank you for your email.
I did state that the levy had been made in my third paragraph of my email of 3 March 2010. This was correct. The difference between the levy and a walking possession order is the fact that the charge payer is present and signs the walking possession order. A levy is valid even without the charge payer's signature.
The fees for the levy are as stated in both my emails. The mention of the walking possession order in the final paragraph was an error on my part and does not alter anything else in the emails.
There is no need to enter your property to levy on goods outside the building.
You mention the term SAR in your email. Can you please explain this acronym?
You should contact Chandlers direct if you have any further questions regarding the fees, visits or their handling of the case. Chandlers have your full case details to hand.
So where do we go from here????
I am sending an SAR to Chandler the bailiff is Mr Skinner - tried searching the bailiff site for Chandlers and his name but it doesn't come up with anything is it working ?
I am feeling sick regardin the whole thing and really dont know what to do - we have sent a further letter to the council with a budget and plan so await that although they don't want to deal with this it would seem but then I guess they don't!