Judge J. F. Appleton - Form 4 determination

[outlawlgo]

A Distress for Rent Rules 1988 (Form 4 complaint) was made against a Rossendales' bailiff, the Judge ruled in the favour of the bailiff.

John Fortnam Appleton, designated Judge for Lancashire and Cumbria determined that he was not of the view that the bailiff’s fitness was in question. This determination was made despite a blatant illegal levy on a vehicle which did not belong to me, which in turn resulted in an attempt to defraud me of the levy fee (and another illegal invented fee he added for good measure) which I knew nothing about at the time.

Q.1 - Is this Judge and the bailiff complaints system totally corrupt?

Q.2 - Does the Judge believe the bailiffs explanation without question?

Q.3 - Is the Judge obliged to inform the complainant of the bailiffs explanation?

I wonder if anyone with knowledge or experience of these issues could answer any of the above.

[Amy]

Re: Judge J. F. Appleton - Form 4 determination

Can you give us some background information to this please?

[outlawlgo]

Re: Judge J. F. Appleton - Form 4 determination

I have the original contents of the form 4 complaint, with specific dates etc. deleted, though there's enough information to determine that the sequence of events indicate the illegal nature of the levy.


Contents of the form 4 complaint

Please note the delay of this complaint is due to the lengthy process in completing the complaints procedures with the local authority, firm of bailiffs and local government ombudsman.

I am aggrieved by the levy carried out by Mr. ** formerly of rossendales bailiffs (but now Philips Collection Services Ltd) on behalf of N.E. Lincs council/Rossendales bailiffs in applying fees illegally to my account in relation to my council tax liability.

He visited my premises at * ** ***, **** th March 2009 and allegedly created a Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory advising me that he had levied against a vehicle which was in the car park at the apartment complex where I live.

Fees I was charged by Rossendales were not itemised, until *th May 2009 in response to a subject access request in which a levy fee was itemised. (I knew nothing about the levy).

I was unaware that the bailiff had levied on a vehicle until *st July 2009 when I was sent a copy of the document in response to a formal complaint about the conduct and application of fees by Rossendales.

There was no notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory handed to me or left with me on the th of March 2009, only an envelope I found by chance wedged outside the entrance door to the apartment block of my residence, in which was a demand for £2**.** headed bailiff removal and threatening to remove goods even in my absence. I believe Regulation 45 SI 1992/613 requires a bailiff to hand the debtor a copy of the regulation, a memo of the amount due and a copy of any agreement.

This vehicle is not owned by me. I do not know the owner of the vehicle and it would appear that the bailiff has randomly selected this car because it was parked close to my home, despite confirmation from the DVLA that Rossendales have access to driver/vehicle data on a next day basis. It is of my opinion that the bailiff’s action was solely to generate an extra feeand in illegally seizing this vehicle he applied a £25 levy fee to my account.

Additionally regarding the £2**.** demand, if the dubious fees I had already incurred (First and second visit fees £24.50 and £18 plus levy fee £25 plus £110 van fee) were added to my remaining debt of £57 to the council, there is still an overcharge of £60. Interestingly the copy of the supposed levy document I received in July did not include the £60 overcharge, whereas the demand I received on the day had the amount hand written. Would this have any relevance as to why I did not get to know about the levy?

[F_DCAs]

Re: Judge J. F. Appleton - Form 4 determination

There's a CAG thread going on now about Judge Appleton - seems he's notorious for siding with bailiffs.

[Amy]

Re: Judge J. F. Appleton - Form 4 determination

CAG? Who are they?