Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

[Caspar]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

If you have sent a formal SAR and enclosed the statutory maximum £10, then they must comply with your request whether or not you have a current debt with them.

I am sure you didn't read that kind of advice on this forum.

Possibly not - apologies. Trying to take in so much at the moment and reading around everything as I find all of this REALLY interesting! Glad to know they have to comply (I did send £10) - did the same to the council. It would be good to fight back after all this time, especially as I know a few people now who's lives have been ruined by this "people."

[Amy]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

Send them a reminder if the 40 day deadline is close or word your letter more strongly if the deadline has actually passed, but do not write anything you do not mean.

[Caspar]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

Send them a reminder if the 40 day deadline is close or word your letter more strongly if the deadline has actually passed, but do not write anything you do not mean.

They still have time. 40 days is up on November 17th - only sent SAR last week! However, I do believe that when I get the information required I will find excessive bailiff fees and will hold the bailiffs and council severally and (are you ready for this AMY??????) vicariously liable for any excess charges.

I know at the time they made our lives a living hell with endless threats, demands and plain lies about what we had and had not paid. At the time we were just glad to get them off our backs so paid everything they asked. If I'd known then......

[Amy]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

... and will hold the bailiffs and council severally and (are you ready for this AMY??????) vicariously liable for any excess charges.

Almost. Lose the "severally" and you have it.

[Caspar]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

Almost. Lose the "severally" and you have it.

Grrrrrrrr...... Why do you always have to be right? lol

[WendyB]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

Because she is.....lol. It's vicariously liable

[Arrogant Duck]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

However, before you write to Rossendales, would it be possible for you to get something in writing from your council to say these fees are correct?

I've written to the Council several times, the last e-mail having the heading "Formal Complaint", but it seems trying to get information out of them is useless.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
This is a draft of the letter I am planning on replying with... Any advice on amendments would be welcome (reference numbers, dates, etc. have been edited for anonymity reasons)




Scummingdales
Wavell House
Helmshore
Rossendale
Lancashire
BB4 4NB


Client Ref: *******
Account Numbers: 1234567 & 7654321


Dear Bureaucratic Scumbag,

In reference to your letter dated ## October 2010.

I have some major discrepancies with the breakdown of the above accounts.

Firstly, I challenge the fact that your bailiff, Mr. Bailiff#1 was chasing two separate accounts, yet two sets of visit fees had been added. As Bailiff’s fees are set by statute in The Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992, if a bailiff is collecting on more than one liability order, they can only charge one set of visit charges.

Therefore, both liability orders should be added together and the levy should be worked out on the total amount.

This brings me to my next disagreement. On the 29th February 2009, your breakdown advises that your bailiff, Mr. Bailiff#2 attended my property and completed a levy on goods therein. Mr. Bailiff#2 DID NOT ENTER MY PROPERTY VIA PEACEFUL ENTRY OR OTHERWISE AND I DID NOT RECEIVE OR SIGN A WALKING POSSESSION AGREEMENT OR RECEIVE A FORM 7. Neither did I receive any correspondence which would make me aware of any charges which had been added on this occasion. Therefore, the levy fee of £29.00, van attendance fee of £160.00 and “waiting time” fee of £80.00 are all invalid AND deceptive under the Fraud Act 2006 and should be removed from my account at once.

I called Mr. Bailiff#2 and was advised to pay £X by the end of the week, which I did. However, if I was aware of these charges I am now challenging I would never have entered into any verbal agreement with your bailiff and would have certainly voiced my complaint sooner.
It was only after I paid £Y on 1st September 2009 that I had discovered earlier correspondence of my account(s) advising that the balance was a combined amount of £X+Y>Z I wrote letters on two occasions asking for breakdowns, but had not received anything until I wrote another letter on 30 September 2010, which in turn you responded to. I have only noticed that I sent both my earlier letters to your previous address in Rawtenstall. Perhaps this is why you claim to have not received them.

In reference to charges added to account 7654321 and extra charges added. Your letter states that your bailiff, Mr. Bailiff#3 attended and levied on a vehicle at my property, incurring fees of £29.00 for the levy itself and additional attendance fee of £160.00. I would like to strenuously object to these charges as I DO NOT OWN A VEHICLE AND NEVER HAVE. I would assume that a professional debt collection company like yourselves would have the facilities to investigate information like this on a same or next day basis with the DVLA. The set of fees for this visit should be removed from my account at once as they unashamedly contravene with the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
Once again, I would have challenged these set of charges immediately but as I did not receive notice of distress from your bailiff I couldn’t. Perhaps, this is because he had a habit of leaving confidential letters in a communal foyer.
It doesn’t surprise me that your bailiff is denying such breaches of the Data Protection Act, but I can provide proof of another debtors credit card details being left on a note addressed to me if you wish?

Bearing in mind that the following charges breach the Fraud Act 2006, I look forward to receiving a letter from you confirming that my account is now settled in addition to a cheque for my overpayment:

Charges to be removed:
1 x First Visit Fee dd/mm/yy: £24.50
1 x Second Visit Fee dd/mm/yy: £18.00
2 x Levy Fees dated dd/mm/yy & dd/mm/yy: £58.00
2 x Van Attendance Fees dated dd/mm/yy & dd/mm/yy: £320.00
1 x Waiting Time: £80.00
Sub-total: £500.50

I have worked out my overpayment charge to be the amount of £A. This based on:
Accounts 1234567 & 7654321 combined: £ZZ
Minus charges to be removed: £500.50
Minus payments already made: £X+Y
Equals: -£A


I would also like my telephone number removed from your records as I refuse to correspond to Rossendales in any way aside from via letter.

Should I fail to receive both written confirmation that my account is now settled in addition to a cheque for £A I will have no choice but to begin legal action against Rossendales and will also be filing a Form 4 against Mr. Bailiff #1, Mr. Bailiff#2 & Mr. Bailiff#3 for adding fraudulent charges against a liability order.

Please note that a similar letter has also been sent to Hounslow Council, and will also be sent to my Local Government Ombudsman as well as the Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies and the Certificated Bailiffs Association should you not comply with the actions in the paragraph above within 30 days.

Yours Sincerely,



Arrogant Duck


*Please also note that I am not signing this letter as I do not want my signature to be forged upon any of your documents.

[Arrogant Duck]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

I've made amendments to the letter prior to sending it...


Scummingdales
Wavell House
Helmshore
Rossendale
Lancashire
BB4 4NB


Client Ref: *******
Account Numbers: 1234567 & 7654321


Dear Bureaucratic Scumbag,

In reference to your letter dated ## October 2010.

I have some major discrepancies with the breakdown of the above accounts.

Firstly, I challenge the fact that your bailiff, Mr. Bailiff#1 was chasing two separate accounts, yet two sets of visit fees had been added. As Bailiff’s fees are set by statute in The Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992, if a bailiff is collecting on more than one liability order, they can only charge one set of visit charges.

Therefore, both liability orders should be added together and the levy should be worked out on the total amount.

This brings me to my next disagreement. On the 29th February 2009, your breakdown advises that your bailiff, Mr. Bailiff#2 attended my property and completed a levy on goods therein. Mr. Bailiff#2 DID NOT ENTER MY PROPERTY VIA PEACEFUL ENTRY OR OTHERWISE AND I DID NOT RECEIVE OR SIGN A WALKING POSSESSION AGREEMENT OR RECEIVE A FORM 7. Neither did I receive any correspondence which would make me aware of any charges which had been added on this occasion. Therefore, the levy fee of £29.00, van attendance fee of £160.00 and “waiting time” fee of £80.00 are all invalid AND deceptive under the Fraud Act 2006 and should be removed from my account at once.

I called Mr. Bailiff#2 and was advised to pay £X by the end of the week, which I did. However, if I was aware of these charges I am now challenging I would never have entered into any verbal agreement with your bailiff and would have certainly voiced my complaint sooner.
It was only after I paid £Y on 1st September 2009 that I had discovered earlier correspondence of my account(s) advising that the balance was a combined amount of £X+Y>Z I wrote letters on two occasions asking for breakdowns, but had not received anything until I wrote another letter on 30 September 2010, which in turn you responded to. I have only noticed that I sent both my earlier letters to your previous address in Rawtenstall. Perhaps this is why you claim to have not received them.

In reference to charges added to account 7654321 and extra charges added. Your letter states that your bailiff, Mr. Bailiff#3 attended and levied on a vehicle at my property, incurring fees of £29.00 for the levy itself and additional attendance fee of £160.00. I would like to strenuously object to these charges as I DO NOT OWN A VEHICLE AND NEVER HAVE. I would assume that a professional debt collection company like yourselves would have the facilities to investigate information like this on a same or next day basis with the DVLA. The set of fees for this visit should be removed from my account at once as they unashamedly contravene with the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
Once again, I would have challenged these set of charges immediately but as I did not receive notice of distress from your bailiff I couldn’t. Perhaps, this is because he had a habit of leaving confidential letters in a communal foyer.
It doesn’t surprise me that your bailiff is denying such breaches of the Data Protection Act, but I can provide proof of another debtors credit card details being left on a note addressed to me if you wish?

I am also aware that there is no legislation for a transaction fee under the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) regulations 1992. As this is another non-prescribed fee I expect these to be removed from my account also.

Bearing in mind that the following charges breach the Fraud Act 2006, I look forward to receiving a letter from you confirming that my account is now settled in addition to a cheque for my overpayment:

Charges to be removed:
1 x First Visit Fee dd/mm/yy: £24.50
1 x Second Visit Fee dd/mm/yy: £18.00
2 x Levy Fees dated dd/mm/yy & dd/mm/yy: £58.00
2 x Van Attendance Fees dated dd/mm/yy & dd/mm/yy: £320.00
1 x Waiting Time: £80.00
2 x Transaction Fee: £1.60
Sub-total: £502.10

I have worked out my overpayment charge to be the amount of £A. This based on:
Accounts 1234567 & 7654321 combined: £ZZ
Minus charges to be removed: £502.10
Minus payments already made: £X+Y
Equals: -£A


I would also like my telephone number removed from your records as I refuse to correspond to Rossendales in any way aside from via letter.

Should I fail to receive both written confirmation that my account is now settled in addition to a cheque for £A I will have no choice but to begin legal action against Rossendales and will also be filing a Form 4 against Mr. Bailiff #1, Mr. Bailiff#2 & Mr. Bailiff#3 for adding fraudulent charges against a liability order.

Please note that a similar letter has also been sent to Hounslow Council, and will also be sent to my Local Government Ombudsman as well as the Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies and the Certificated Bailiffs Association should you not comply with the actions in the paragraph above within 14 days.

Yours Sincerely,



Arrogant Duck


*Please also note that I am not signing this letter as I do not want my signature to be forged upon any of your documents.


--------------------------------------------------------------


I also e-mailed my council with an attachment of the letter above and stated that if I did not receive the information I require within 14 days, I will be starting legal action against Rossendales and will be naming my council as co-defendants.

[Amy]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

Just a minor point, but multiple visits fees can be charged for, but only if the visits were made on separate dates and the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 do not preclude this practice.

[Arrogant Duck]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

Just a minor point, but multiple visits fees can be charged for, but only if the visits were made on separate dates and the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 do not preclude this practice.

According to the breakdown I received from Rossendales, both visits took place on the same day.

[Amy]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

Cool, ok then you just need to reword this bit then "... if a bailiff is collecting on more than one liability order, they can only charge one set of visit charges"

[Arrogant Duck]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

Oops. Already posted it now.

[Arrogant Duck]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

Does anybody have a good template which would help when I write to the LGO, ACEA & CBA?

[Arrogant Duck]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

It's been two weeks now and I've still to receive a reply from Rossenfrauds. Funny that. First letter I sent I had a reply within days. Now I've evidence that they've been breaking the law they seem to be burying their heads in the sand.

[Arrogant Duck]

Re: Are Rossendales trying to defraud money?

I finally got a reply, they're saying that I need to prove that the vehicle isn't mine, rather than the other way around. This firm stink of corruption!