Jacobs Response

[trlnurse]

Re: Jacobs Response

I have spoken to the Council this afternoon, and they stated they have received a copy of the letter and WPA's and they have gone back to Jacobs with the same enquiry relating to the WPAs!!! They were so obviously photocopies the Council have picked up on it before I got to them!!

I've fired off a response to Jacobs as well, as we'll see what response they come back with this time, especially when the councl are asking them the same questions!!!!

[Amy]

Re: Jacobs Response

Excellent. If I were you I would insist that the council removes your remaining council tax liability order(s) from Jacobs forthwith and recommend that the council does not pay them any fees.

[wiccaqueen]

Re: Jacobs Response

trinurse you are doing really well keep up the good work this is a well known case all bailiff firms are aware of it

Detailed Assessment Judgment of Throssell v Leeds City Council where the District Judge ruled as follows:
“Turning to the taxation it seems to me that notwithstanding the fact that there were three liability orders but one visit was made by one bailiff and the maximum that the Council’s reasonable charges can be is the result of applying the formula contained in Schedule 5 paragraph 2 (1) (b) of the Regulations”

they cannot charge so many fees if only one visit is made

find out from your council what date each liability order was passed over to Jacobs

[trlnurse]

Re: Jacobs Response

Thanks Wicaqueen, I think the council passed them all over at the same time. I have again pointed out to Jacobs that they can not charge me £24.50 x 4, as the letter that was left on the day they visited only mentioned a of the LO's and no other letters were received on that day so they can only charge me for one visit.

The levies are a whole different ball game, I honestly cannot believe a company would stoop so low as to photocopy the original WPA I had signed for 1 LO then change the references numbers on them in order to attempt to charge me levy fees for all the LO's. They then put in their letter to me that I had signed 3 seperate WPAs!!!!! They really have no boundaries. I was good to hear from the council though that they had already picked up on this and have already gone back to Jacobs with this query. It shows you they didn't even do a good job in trying to forge the WPAs!!!

All you LB's beware of their fraudulent behaviour, their is no trick they will not try, even if it requires breaking the law!!!

[trlnurse]

Re: Jacobs Response

Amazingly I have already received a response to the email I sent the on 22nd Feb regarding the fraudulent WPA's they alleged I had signed but they had in fact photocopied the one I had signed and changed the reference numbers to look like I had signed 3 WPAs.
There response has been that the Bailiff in question no longer works for Jacobs so on this occasion they will accept my version of events and remove the levy charges.

They are liars, and I refuse to accept this response, even though they are refunding me the charges this behaviour is just not good enough.

They have so far reduced their charges from the £772 they originally charged me to £196, after 5 emails, and requests for information from the Council, but I am still unhappy with this.

They are also still insisting that although they only attended my house once they are perfectly within their rights to charge me four visit fees for the individual liability orders, so again I am not happy with this and will not accept this response.

My plan is to write back to them but I was considering reporting the Bailiff on a Form 4, as they are claiming it was the bailiff that fraudulently put the WPAs together and not the head office. Even though they have refunded me the money for the levies I really want to report the bailiff or this company, as their behaviour has been fraudulent on so many levels. Any advice on next steps would be great. The council are aware of the issues and are conducting their own investigation but I am not happy with this and really want to push thise issue further. Any suggestions on routes would be great.

Thanks again all!!

[WendyB]

Re: Jacobs Response

You said in an earlier post that you reckon the actual charges you owe them are roughly £130.

Send them a letter detailing the charges you are willing to pay, and why. Also point out that these are the only charges they can lawfully charge and that that's all they'll be getting.

If they only made one visit, then only pay for one visit. It's up to them to prove they made any more visits, and even if they did, that they were lawful visits. It is not up to you to prove that they didn't, as it's impossible to prove a negative.

And what's more, even if they had 4 LO's in their possession, if they were visiting about all 4 at the same time, that's still only one visit, I would be tempted to point out to them how efficient and cost effective it would have been of their bailiff to kill 4 birds with one stone, rather than use it as an excuse to inflate the charges.

[trlnurse]

Re: Jacobs Response

Thanks Wendy, I have told them all of this but they appear to be sticking to their guns on this one. They still seem to think its lawful to charge me 4 times for 1 visit. They have already taken their charges from the money I paid them for the council. This was obviously before I became clued up on these things, and was not aware of what their charges might be. At no point during my dealings with them did they mention charges, not even when they did the WPA!!

This is me trying to get the money back from them, as they obviously didn't pay the council all the money I expected them to. Also really want to take matters further with this company, as they are really taking he P***!!!!

[WendyB]

Re: Jacobs Response

well, if I were you, I wouldn't expect them to actualy give the money back to you direct, but would insist they forward it to the council, i.e 772 - 196 (so far still allegedly owing) means that they should be turning over another 576 to the council, this can be paid against your remaining LO (s). Sorry if they've already done this, I've only skimmed through the thread. Then you can just argue the other 60 odd quid out with them.

[trlnurse]

Re: Jacobs Response

Thats exactly where im at WendyB, they have already repaid £576 to the council, for visits that didnt happen, levy fees that didnt happen etc, and they have refunded "as a gesture of goodwill"!!!!

However they are still claiming the 1/4 visit fees is legal and will not remove it. And even though they have refunded I'm still pretty ****ed that they photocopied a WPA I had signed and try to pass it off to me that I signed 3 WPAs and was therefore liable for the levy fees, as I said they have refunded the fees, but I really want to take the issue further, as that is blatantly fraud.

[WendyB]

Re: Jacobs Response

In my opinion, the fact that the bailiff is no longer employed by them is netiher here nor there, he was employed by them at the time so they are responsible, ultimately, for his actions and conduct.

If the fees are definitley illegal and there is statue/case law etc to back this up (which there is, as Wiccaqueen has pointed out) then I would send them an LBA and tell them they have xx days to refund the fees, or issue an N1. As the Council employ the bailiffs, then they are also responsible so put pressure on the council to make th bailiffs remove th charges. They can do this, my council did.

[trlnurse]

Re: Jacobs Response

Thanks WendyB, do you know I've been backwards and forwards to them so much over the last month, I'm tempted to tell them to refund all the money to the council. I would not have minded paying fees that were fair and just. However, it has taken at least 5 or 6 letters, and each time they obviously deny any wrong doing, but "as a gesture of goodwill" refund the fee. The fraudulent WPAs are the icing on the cake, and I feel really angry, they have basically photocopied the WPA the crossed out the original reference number and handwritten in another and this they have done twice.

I discussed it with the council and they stated they had queried the same thing with them before I had even mentioned it, so that shows you how obvious it was. For the reason I want to take them to court, and actually reclaim all my fees.

Anyway, I did warn them in my last letter I would complete a Form 4 if I did not receive a satisfactory response, do I still need to do the LBA??

[Swingletree]

Re: Jacobs Response

Are you making this a 'formal' complaint to the Council? In readiness to forward it on to the Local Government Ombudsman.

[trlnurse]

Re: Jacobs Response

How do I do that. They have been copied in to all my emails to Jacobs. and I sent them a seperate email complaining of my treatment by Jacobs and the fact Jacobs are representing them. I called them after the whole WPA thing, and they said they were investigating my complaint, but were waiting for further info from Jacobs before I get a formal response.

Does that constitute a formal complaint??

[Swingletree]

Re: Jacobs Response

I think I would write to them in a formal letter making sure that they fully understand that you are far from happy and you consider it a complaint

If it is a registered complaint then Council are bound to follow their own complaints procedure. Thus if the bailiffs fail to respond or do something further that is not correct the complaint has aready been logged

A lot of Councils have a two stage complaint procedure and once that has been exchusted you can then take the complaint to the Ombudsman. However the Ombudsman will not look at your case if legal action has already started.

If eventually the Ombudsman rules in your favor it adds strength to the legal case that will surely follow. Somewhat more importantly it brings further negative publicity to the Bailiffs & Council.

The Ombudsman route will probably take a time to sort out but it is difficult to see how that they would find the Council 'not guilty' in this case. The law would seem to be on your side.

[trlnurse]

Re: Jacobs Response

OK have received a response from the council, no apology but have reduced the fees charged by jacobs from £772 to £196. They are still charging me 3 times £24.50 or one visit and say this is legal.

I'm not totally happy with firstly the 3 charges for 1 visit and the fact that Jacobs blatantly actued fraudulently by photocopying the WPA, however there is no acknowledgment of this.

Yes they have reduced the fees, should I be happy with this or pursue further? any advice gratefully received!!