Tweet
Hi there, just wanted to update you all on my previous thread Jacobs Bailiff Help!!! Without repeating myself it turns out when I checked the money I had paid to them and then the money they had paid to my Council there was a deficit of over £700. With some help and advise from this site, I drafted a letter to Jacobs below:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Fraudulent and Illegal Charges
Further to your letter dated 19th January, whereby you state you have noted the contents of my correspondence.
I am writing to you again, is it would appear you have not noted the contents of my email in the slightest. I have therefore on your suggestion sought legal advice regarding your illegal charges.[/font]
Lets start with a breakdown of the fees you have charged me and taken, (see attached table).
You will of course be aware that any letters left after a visit should contain the name and contact number for the Certificated Bailiff that has attended, there should also be a schedule of fees/charges with every letter. The letters I have received on 12/4/2010, 29/4/2010, 13/5/2010 do not have this information, nor the schedule of fees, they were not hand delivered by a Certificated Bailiff but were in fact sent via Royal Mail from your offices, these are therefore fraudulent charges. You will also note in Bold letters at the top of the letters dated 12/4/10 and 13/5/10 states "BALANCE WE WILL BE ATTENDING FOR......", we will means you have not yet attended but intend to do so I also note that when posting these letters you had in fact already pre-empted the first visit charge by adding them on to the typed figures on the back of the letter and then posting via Royal Mail!!
The letter received from yourselves on 19/5/2010 was in response to my email proposing payments, as all your previous letters had requested I contact the office. This is the first letter that makes reference to my account being passed to a Bailiff, you have put his name and contact number on this letter for me to make contact with him. You should also note the mobile number you supplied with me on this letter is incorrect.
The visit on the 24/5/2010 did occur and a letter was left by your Certificated Bailiff XXXXXXXXXXXX with his name, signature and correct mobile number. The letter that was left refers to an amount of £643.01, and would therefore only relate to 1 of the 4 orders, you therefore can legally only charge me for 1 visit. Unless you are able to prove that you visited me on 4 separate occasions, and left me 4 separate letters detailing any work or visits with fees incurred, you cannot legally charge me for these visits.
27/5/2010 this alleged visit is completely fraudulent. I telephoned your Certificated Bailiff XXXXXXXXXX on this date, following the visit on the 24/5/2010, I made a payment over the telephone for £400 and you took £406.30 (which is another issue altogether). There was no attendance, and no levy fee. Again, if he had visited my property he would have been required to leave a letter, which he did not, as he did not attend my home.
The 3/6/2010 was an arranged visit with the Bailiff following my telephone conversation and the only other visit that actually occurred. However you have charged me for Schedule 5 H Header fee, this is only applied once the full amount is paid and you are claiming that this order has not been paid, you therefore cannot charge me for this.
Schedule 5 of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations states (H) where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender in the circumstances referred to in Regulation 45(4) - either (i) £24.50 or (ii) the actual costs incurred to a maximum of 5% of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made.
During the visit by XXXXXXXX on 3/6/2010, we made arrangements for a payment plan, the next payment being due on 29/6/2010. Here we find more fraudulent charges, as there was no visit on this date, only a telephone call made by me to XXXXXXXX to make the arranged payment.
XXXXXXX was also supposed to leave me with a Notice of Seizure and you claim in your last letter that the schedule of fees is on the back of this, however as I did not receive this, I did not receive the notice of fees. You are also supposed to supply me with the schedule of fees on every occasion that you write or visit me, I appear to have not received this once.[/font]
The National Standard for Enforcement Agents states “The enforcement agent will produce an inventory of the goods seized and leave it with the debtor, or at the premises, with any other documents that are required by regulations or statute.
Enforcement agents will on each and every occasion when a visit is made to a debtor's property which incurs a fee for the debtor, leave a notice detailing the fees charged to date, including the one for that visit, and the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary. If a written request is made an itemised account of fees will be provided.”
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, Schedule 5 allows for one attendance only with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (but only once a valid levy is in place). The legislation states that “reasonable costs and fees incurred" [may be charged].
You are attempting to charge me for work that did not happen, this is fraud. You have failed to supply me on any occasions a list of your charges and fees, you have taken these illegal fees from the money I have paid you for Croydon Council, without any prior knowledge from me this amounts to theft.
I think you also need to be clear on the description of Fraud as set out under the Fraud Act 2006;
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.
One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.
You should also be aware that The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, Schedule 5 does not provide for a card fee to be charged. Any fees that are not permitted under the above regulations and schedule are, therefore, illegal because they are non-prescribed fees.
I am therefore requesting that all fees illegally taken from the £2,607.30 I have paid to Jacobs for my outstanding Council Tax bills, are in fact returned to Croydon Council immediately as this is where the money was always intended to be paid. Please note should you refuse to repay this money, I do intend take this issue further as your behaviour has amounted to theft and fraud.
Yours faithfully
Today, I have received this response:
Dear XXXX
We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 21st January and note the contents therein.
We write to confirm that we have now reviewed your accounts and have the following to state:
We can confirm that we have now removed the 1st visit fee for the 12th April 2010, as this was added in error, for which we apologise.
On the 19th April 2010 we received correspondoce from you, advising that the debt(s) were in dispute. Therefore, we wrote to you under our covering letter dated 29th April 2010, wherein we advised that if you were disputing that you wre liable for the amount(s) outstanding then you would need to contact the Local Authority. However, we were unable to hold any action whilst you did so.
We received further correspondence from you on 12th May 2010, wherein you thanked us for our recent correspondence, You also porposed payment methods. However, we wrote back to under our covering letter dated 19th May 2010, advising you that we were unable to accept any offers of repayment as your accounts were out with our Enforcement Bailiff, we stated that you would need to contact our Bailiff to discuss your accounts further.
On the 13th May 2010 we wrote to you in respect of Jacobs reference XXXXX, confirming that we had been instructed to pursue you in respect of this account.
Our Enforcement Bailiff attended your property on the 24th May 2010 at 15.27pm. Our Bailiff did not gain a response from your property therefore, he left notification of hid attendance and requested that you contact him on the telephone number provided within the letter of notification. There was a £18.00 fee incurred for this visit.
We can confirm that the payment you made to our Bailiff in the sum of £406.30 on the 27th May 2010 cleared the balance outstanding on reference XXXXX
After review of this account, we have removed the Attendance fee, Levy fee and Schedule 5, Header H fee. Therefore, this account has now been cleared in full.
On the 3rd June 2010, out Bailiff attended your property in order to Levy and secure the debt on behalf of reference XXXX. We can confirm that the fees incured for this attendance was a Levy fee, Walking Possition fee and Schedule 5 Header H fee. After review this account we can confirm that you signed the Notice of Walking Possession (copy enclosed for your perusal). Our Bailiff will have left you with a copy of the Notice of Seizure.
We have contacted our Bailiff in respect of the visit on the 29th June 2010 and due to the account being some time ago, our Bailiff cannot recall this account. Therefore, as a gesture of goodwill we have removed the van/attendance fee.
We can confirm that your payments of £700.00 in August 2010 ad £1,000.00 in October 2010, were deducted from the balance outstanding.
We would take this opportunity to apologise for any inconvienence caused and hope the above will suffice.
In the meantime we can confirm that your Local Suthority has placed this account on hold. Therefore, we will liaise with you again once we have received further instructions.
Yours faithfully
Jacobs.
There are some many parts of their letter that makes me laugh I just don't know where to start, but I thought I would share this with you all, is it would appear in round about way they are acknowledging that they over charged me, but I have noted they have not given me any figures as to what they have overcharged. Another letter will be coming there way I thinks!!!!
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Fraudulent and Illegal Charges
Further to your letter dated 19th January, whereby you state you have noted the contents of my correspondence.
I am writing to you again, is it would appear you have not noted the contents of my email in the slightest. I have therefore on your suggestion sought legal advice regarding your illegal charges.[/font]
Lets start with a breakdown of the fees you have charged me and taken, (see attached table).
You will of course be aware that any letters left after a visit should contain the name and contact number for the Certificated Bailiff that has attended, there should also be a schedule of fees/charges with every letter. The letters I have received on 12/4/2010, 29/4/2010, 13/5/2010 do not have this information, nor the schedule of fees, they were not hand delivered by a Certificated Bailiff but were in fact sent via Royal Mail from your offices, these are therefore fraudulent charges. You will also note in Bold letters at the top of the letters dated 12/4/10 and 13/5/10 states "BALANCE WE WILL BE ATTENDING FOR......", we will means you have not yet attended but intend to do so I also note that when posting these letters you had in fact already pre-empted the first visit charge by adding them on to the typed figures on the back of the letter and then posting via Royal Mail!!
The letter received from yourselves on 19/5/2010 was in response to my email proposing payments, as all your previous letters had requested I contact the office. This is the first letter that makes reference to my account being passed to a Bailiff, you have put his name and contact number on this letter for me to make contact with him. You should also note the mobile number you supplied with me on this letter is incorrect.
The visit on the 24/5/2010 did occur and a letter was left by your Certificated Bailiff XXXXXXXXXXXX with his name, signature and correct mobile number. The letter that was left refers to an amount of £643.01, and would therefore only relate to 1 of the 4 orders, you therefore can legally only charge me for 1 visit. Unless you are able to prove that you visited me on 4 separate occasions, and left me 4 separate letters detailing any work or visits with fees incurred, you cannot legally charge me for these visits.
27/5/2010 this alleged visit is completely fraudulent. I telephoned your Certificated Bailiff XXXXXXXXXX on this date, following the visit on the 24/5/2010, I made a payment over the telephone for £400 and you took £406.30 (which is another issue altogether). There was no attendance, and no levy fee. Again, if he had visited my property he would have been required to leave a letter, which he did not, as he did not attend my home.
The 3/6/2010 was an arranged visit with the Bailiff following my telephone conversation and the only other visit that actually occurred. However you have charged me for Schedule 5 H Header fee, this is only applied once the full amount is paid and you are claiming that this order has not been paid, you therefore cannot charge me for this.
Schedule 5 of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations states (H) where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender in the circumstances referred to in Regulation 45(4) - either (i) £24.50 or (ii) the actual costs incurred to a maximum of 5% of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made.
During the visit by XXXXXXXX on 3/6/2010, we made arrangements for a payment plan, the next payment being due on 29/6/2010. Here we find more fraudulent charges, as there was no visit on this date, only a telephone call made by me to XXXXXXXX to make the arranged payment.
XXXXXXX was also supposed to leave me with a Notice of Seizure and you claim in your last letter that the schedule of fees is on the back of this, however as I did not receive this, I did not receive the notice of fees. You are also supposed to supply me with the schedule of fees on every occasion that you write or visit me, I appear to have not received this once.[/font]
The National Standard for Enforcement Agents states “The enforcement agent will produce an inventory of the goods seized and leave it with the debtor, or at the premises, with any other documents that are required by regulations or statute.
Enforcement agents will on each and every occasion when a visit is made to a debtor's property which incurs a fee for the debtor, leave a notice detailing the fees charged to date, including the one for that visit, and the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary. If a written request is made an itemised account of fees will be provided.”
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, Schedule 5 allows for one attendance only with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (but only once a valid levy is in place). The legislation states that “reasonable costs and fees incurred" [may be charged].
You are attempting to charge me for work that did not happen, this is fraud. You have failed to supply me on any occasions a list of your charges and fees, you have taken these illegal fees from the money I have paid you for Croydon Council, without any prior knowledge from me this amounts to theft.
I think you also need to be clear on the description of Fraud as set out under the Fraud Act 2006;
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.
One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.
You should also be aware that The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, Schedule 5 does not provide for a card fee to be charged. Any fees that are not permitted under the above regulations and schedule are, therefore, illegal because they are non-prescribed fees.
I am therefore requesting that all fees illegally taken from the £2,607.30 I have paid to Jacobs for my outstanding Council Tax bills, are in fact returned to Croydon Council immediately as this is where the money was always intended to be paid. Please note should you refuse to repay this money, I do intend take this issue further as your behaviour has amounted to theft and fraud.
Yours faithfully
Today, I have received this response:
Dear XXXX
We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 21st January and note the contents therein.
We write to confirm that we have now reviewed your accounts and have the following to state:
We can confirm that we have now removed the 1st visit fee for the 12th April 2010, as this was added in error, for which we apologise.
On the 19th April 2010 we received correspondoce from you, advising that the debt(s) were in dispute. Therefore, we wrote to you under our covering letter dated 29th April 2010, wherein we advised that if you were disputing that you wre liable for the amount(s) outstanding then you would need to contact the Local Authority. However, we were unable to hold any action whilst you did so.
We received further correspondence from you on 12th May 2010, wherein you thanked us for our recent correspondence, You also porposed payment methods. However, we wrote back to under our covering letter dated 19th May 2010, advising you that we were unable to accept any offers of repayment as your accounts were out with our Enforcement Bailiff, we stated that you would need to contact our Bailiff to discuss your accounts further.
On the 13th May 2010 we wrote to you in respect of Jacobs reference XXXXX, confirming that we had been instructed to pursue you in respect of this account.
Our Enforcement Bailiff attended your property on the 24th May 2010 at 15.27pm. Our Bailiff did not gain a response from your property therefore, he left notification of hid attendance and requested that you contact him on the telephone number provided within the letter of notification. There was a £18.00 fee incurred for this visit.
We can confirm that the payment you made to our Bailiff in the sum of £406.30 on the 27th May 2010 cleared the balance outstanding on reference XXXXX
After review of this account, we have removed the Attendance fee, Levy fee and Schedule 5, Header H fee. Therefore, this account has now been cleared in full.
On the 3rd June 2010, out Bailiff attended your property in order to Levy and secure the debt on behalf of reference XXXX. We can confirm that the fees incured for this attendance was a Levy fee, Walking Possition fee and Schedule 5 Header H fee. After review this account we can confirm that you signed the Notice of Walking Possession (copy enclosed for your perusal). Our Bailiff will have left you with a copy of the Notice of Seizure.
We have contacted our Bailiff in respect of the visit on the 29th June 2010 and due to the account being some time ago, our Bailiff cannot recall this account. Therefore, as a gesture of goodwill we have removed the van/attendance fee.
We can confirm that your payments of £700.00 in August 2010 ad £1,000.00 in October 2010, were deducted from the balance outstanding.
We would take this opportunity to apologise for any inconvienence caused and hope the above will suffice.
In the meantime we can confirm that your Local Suthority has placed this account on hold. Therefore, we will liaise with you again once we have received further instructions.
Yours faithfully
Jacobs.
There are some many parts of their letter that makes me laugh I just don't know where to start, but I thought I would share this with you all, is it would appear in round about way they are acknowledging that they over charged me, but I have noted they have not given me any figures as to what they have overcharged. Another letter will be coming there way I thinks!!!!
Comment