Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

[wahoo_thomas]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

I am certain that the fees are Illegal .I have included in my payments the 24.50 first visit fee that can legally be claimed by the council.I am not paying the rest of the fees as they are not legitimate.I have sent the link to this site not only to my councilor but to the head of the council revenues department maybe that will help him understand the law.

There was no levy on either LO so to be charged 2 levy /attendance fees is fraud there is no other way to see this it is black and white as far as the law is concerned .The council have admitted there was no levy .

The bailiff did not make any previous visits to my property this was the first and he has tried to claim 2 visit fees for both LOs for just 1 visit.He can claim only 1 visit as that is what he made .

If he did visit prior to this the visit is not legitimate as I was not given a notice clearly stating I had 14 days prior to distress.Also as regulation 45 A states I need to be served certain information prior to a bailiff visit .one of which is the fees prescribed in schedule 5 of the above regulation .This did not happen either . Be clear I am not trying to avoid paying any legitimate fees or council tax I am merely only paying what the law states I should.


Thanks again for all your info .

Jim

[Caspar]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Totally with you there Jim. Glad you paid the legitimate one as that's the one that could have caught you out.

[Amy]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Fees can only be tacked on first if the bailiff is being paid directly. What we're discussing here is whether, when the LO has been satisfied in full, that same LO can be used to collect the bailiffs fees.

The only reason it can be used here if my understanding is correct, is that the bailiffs had already incurred legitimate fees before the LO was discharged in full.

If the bailiffs had not incurred the fees legitimately before the LO was discharged, then they would need to get a separate LO to reclaim their fees.

This is a very confusing post and for the most part, incorrect. Fees are tacked on first regardless of whether the payments are being made to the bailiff or the council.

Wendy is completely accurate on this thread. If the bailiff is being paid first, then he takes his fees first and passes the remainder to the council and if the council is being paid direct, then the council passes the fees to the bailiffs from the sum paid to them and keeps the remainder. Ergo, the fees will remain outstanding and ergo, the LO is not discharged.

Most council workers believe the fees are legitimately incurred because they are quite stupid people and are not legally trained. This is precisely the reason it is imperative to keep them in the loop at all times and to use the law to prove, where necessary, that the bailiff charges are either incorrect or illegal.

The council is in charge at all times. Vicarious liability is an often quoted term in this forum, but I think few actually understand the true meaning of it.

Following this to its logical conclusion, bailiffs collecting outstanding council tax would never need or have, to gain a separate liability order for their fees.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Totally with you there Jim. Glad you paid the legitimate one as that's the one that could have caught you out.

I would still be concerned as, having established that the council and its employees are a bunch of shonky crooks, they may resort to committal proceedings to prevent their scam being stopped.

[WendyB]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

what grounds could they resort to committal proceedings? As far as I am aware it it only the refusal to pay council tax which is an offence. If the OP has already established that the council tax is paid in full the this would not be relevant. Once the legitimate bailiff fees are established, if the OP then refused to pay them, that would be when further action could be taken, otherwise what would be the cause of action in the POC?

[wahoo_thomas]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Ok All sorry for the delay in updating you all I have been unwell.

I have had an excellent result from the council and have attached a PDF of their reply to me .

All costs wiped off and account closed.

Also having spoken to the Council Tax Head have found out that I have given him about 6 months worth of paperwork to sort out as he attempts to find all levies placed by there internal Bailiff and check the validity of them .

I hope they learn from there mistakes .He did seem sincere and is going to let me know the outcome of his enquiry into all the work his internal bailiff has undertaken for Arun council.Hope it helps someone in the area that has been illegally charged .

Thankyou all for your help on this matter .

[CleverClogs]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

As there is clearly a discrepancy between what Mr Blyth seems to have told Mr Iain Bell and what you reported here, perhaps you should forward Bell's reply to your MP, saying that despite the tales told to the council numpty, Mr Blyth neither visited nor left any letters on 29 April 2010 or 23 June 2010, and that your only contact with that bailiff was on 13 July 2010. It certainly seems odd that Mr Bell seems content to accept Mr Blyth's word that he visited you and left documents on those two previous occasions, even though Mr Bell has admitted that he could only provide blank templates for some of the documents allegedly left.

Can you say what was in the reports allegedly made by Mr Blyth and whether those corresponded to the condition etc of your house at the time those visits were allegedly made?

Alternatively, you may wish to take the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman

[wahoo_thomas]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

I totally agree clever cloggs .

This is not the end mearly the beginning.I am satisfied the debt is now fully discharged but am no way finished with the council.

The council have informed me that i will receive a full copy of the report when it is concluded .I just have to wait for that .

As for my local councilor he is shocked that this can happen and will be bringing it to all the other council members attention .

[wahoo_thomas]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Sorry clever I meant to attach this to my previous post the only report they could muster up .not signed looks filled in the same time to me

[wiccaqueen]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Counsel advises, ―I am asked to advise whether a bailiff may charge two separate attendance fees when making a single visit to a property in connection with 2 separate liability orders. In short it is plain that he can.

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

[CleverClogs]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Perhaps someone should acquaint the council numpty of the fact that the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 (link) has not been entirely repealed and that section 8 thereof (as amended) doth state:

Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence , whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.

... whilst section 44(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (link) deals with summary offences:

A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence...

[ploddertom]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

I wonder if they ever got to see this.


Local Government Ombudsmanicon’s Report:


Local Authority: Rossendale Borough Council


Bailiff Company: Equita Ltd


Date: 15th December 2010



Approximately 25% of complaints to the Local Government Ombudsmanicon are resolved though a “local settlement”. This is where an “agreement” is reached between the LGO and the relevant Local Authority and nearly always, is on the basis that the local authority agrees to the recommendation of the Ombudsmanicon by agreeing to change the practice that had been the subject of the complaint to the LGO.

Although Local Settlements made by the LGO are not legally binding, it is important to be aware that according to the LGO, 99% of all “local settlements” are complied with in full.


For the above reason, “Local settlements” do not result in a public report or a formal finding of maladministration. Accordingly, a copy will not be made available on the LGO website.

On 15th December 2010 the LGO provided their final written report regarding a complaint made to them concerning Rossendale Borough Council and their agent; Equita Ltd. This particular complaint resulted in a “local settlement” and as mentioned above, a public report is not published.


I have a copy of the full report and permission from the complainant (Mr H) to provide the following details. Please note that the underlining is not from the LGO report.


The Complaint by Mr H concerns the following:


· Charging “multiple” fees to Mr H’s account for enforcing two Liability Orders
· Charging for visits that Mr H disputes ever took place
· Levying upon a vehicle that did not belong to Mr H and failing to provide a Notice of Seizure.

Paragraph 21 of the Ombudsman’s report states:


· “I am also concerned that there are fees charged to both of Mr H’s accounts in relation to one visit on 2nd July 2009. Although there were two Liability Orders in place, I do not consider it reasonable to charge twice for one physical visit”

Paragraph 23 states:


Thirdly, I am concerned that the bailiffs levied on a vehicle parked in the street which did not belong to Mr H. The bailiffs are required to leave an inventory of the goods seized with the customer at the time of the levy and the Council confirmed that the bailiffs will check the ownership of a vehicle with the DVLA before seizing it.


Legally, bailiffs can distrain on goods in a public place (in this case a vehicle parked in the street) if they have reasonable cause to believe that the goods belong to the debtor and are not needed for the debtor's work.


I do not consider the fact that a vehicle is parked in the street outside someone's home to be sufficient evidence of the bailiff to have reasonable cause to believe the vehicle is owed by the occupier of the house. It is recognised that there is some onus on the customer to advise the bailiffs if the vehicle listed on the inventory does not belong to them. However there is also some onus on the bailiffs to take reasonable steps to check the vehicle's ownership.


Paragraph 24:


I have consulted the Ombudsman and it is her view that although contacting the DVLA would be the most effective way to check ownership of the vehicle, she would accept other documented or supporting evidence such as the bailiff having witnessed the customer using the vehicle regularly



Paragraph 25:


There is no evidence to show that letters were left with Mr H on 4th and 12th June 2008 and so I consider that Mr H should not have been charged for these visits.


Paragraph 26:

To remedy this injustice it is recommended that the bailiff’s charges of these dates are removed from Mr H's account.


Paragraph 27:


I have additional concerns about the way this case was handled by the bailiffs. There is no evidence that an inventory was left with Mr H when the levy was made on a vehicle. In addition, the vehicle levied against was not his and the notes recorded by the bailiff are insufficient to show when visits were actually made what information was left with the customer.


Paragraph 29:


In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2 July 2008.


It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.


Paragraph 30:


The vehicle levied on does not belong to Mr H and he was not required to pay the costs associated with the levy visit.


Paragraph 34:


I remain of the view that bailiffs should make reasonable enquiries to establish the ownership of a vehicle before levying against it.


The person receiving the levy must accept some responsibility for advising the council or bailiff if the vehicle levied upon does not belong to them.


Paragraph 42:


The council has stated that a levy form was supplied. The Council has never produced a copy of the levy inventory.


The Council's complaint response to Mr H advised that the bailiff has not retained a copy of the levy form. Surely this document is essential if the bailiff were ever to proceed to seizing a vehicle? Mr H was not aware of what had been levied against until he received the Council's response to his complaint which commented on a levy having taken place, in relation to the silver Audi. At this point he was able to advise the Council we did not own such a car. I therefore remain of the view that there is no evidence of the levy inventory was left at the property.

Paragraph 53:


In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2nd July 2008.

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.


Paragraph 54:

The council has accepted the recommendations and has agreed to apologise to Mr H for any procedural errors the bailiffs have made. I consider this a satisfactory way to resolve this complaint and so I have discontinued the investigation and closed the complaint.

XXXX

Investigator, on behalf of the Ombudsman

[CleverClogs]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Counsel advises, ―I am asked to advise whether a bailiff may charge two

separate attendance fees when making a single visit to a property in connection with 2 separate

liability orders. In short it is plain that he can.

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

District Judges do not set legal precedents.

[wiccaqueen]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

District Judges do not set legal precedents

did i say they did

[wahoo_thomas]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Ok all thankyou for your response ,

I have sent an e mail to the COUNCIL NUMPTY detailing what has been said in response to his letter and asking him to clarify these points .Will now wait for him to make up another load of c**p then hit him again with more requests under the FOI act.


Thanks again all