Urgent Need Help with Equita

[gasman13]

Re: Urgent Need Help with Equita

Thank you wiccaqueen

This is causing me so much stress it is unbelievable. Have this morning received a Removal Notice stating:
"Despite numerous previous applications for payment you have failed to pay the outstanding Penalty Charge Notice due to London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames.

Therefore, I have been issued your case so that I can call at your home within the next week with a removal contractor when I will remove your goods to the local auction house.

I would prefer that you were in attendence when your goods are removed and should another day be more suitable I urge you to contact me on the number below immediately.

Should you prefer to pay the balance outstanding, call me to arrange immediate payment.

What should I do now?

I cannot pay charges that Equita cannot / will not give me a breakdown of what they are for.

I have made numerous attempts to resolve this but both Equita and Richmond Council seem more intent on just raising further revenue. If I posted all the letters from Equita and the Council you would not believe the amount of inaccuracies, contradictions and downright lies that they contain For example simple sum in response to breakdown of fees:

Debt: £155.00
Initial Letter: £ 11.20
Visit fees: £ 28.00 Letter left on windscreen in communal car park
Card Charges: £ 2.49
VAT: £13.95 What is this 20% of?
Total: £238.64 Should be £210.64
Total Received: £172.00
Balance: £ 66.64

They sent this letter twice, so how I am supposed to pay when they can't even add or tell me what the VAT relates to.

With regards to Removal Notice:
1) How can they remove goods when they have never been inside the block let alone my flat?
2) If I am not attendance does that mean that they are threatening to break into my flat?
3) Is the Bailiff Removal letter that was left under my windscreen a levy of goods?

I need to know if there is anyway I can legally get this case put on hold. Will a Form 4 filled at Northampton County Court put a stop to proceedings until a case is heard?

To file a Form 4 do I need to complain about an individual bailiff or can I make the complaint against Equita themselves.

Would me posting a copy of all communications on here help with any advise anyone here could give me

Thanks again for all the help

Read more at: Urgent Need Help with Equita - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[gasman13]

Re: Urgent Need Help with Equita

I deleted this post as managed to edit above

[labman]

Re: Urgent Need Help with Equita

I would suggest you pm Amy or Wendy who seem to be the experts on bailiffs on this site. They should be able to sort this out for you.

[gasman13]

Re: Urgent Need Help with Equita

Hi labman have sent pm to Amy.

What I really need to know is:

1) Are the Bailiff Removal Letters a Levy on my goods?
2) Can Equita charge me for visits where the bailiff never even entered my block of flats and certainly never knocked on my door, probably because they came during the middle of the night. Tradesman can gain entry to the block after 6am yet one bailiff left the notice on my windscreen in a communal parking area and the other pushed the letter under the front door of the block of flats. Yet Equita claim that they can't tell me what time of day the bailiffs visited but and I quote "on both occassions they were unable to make contact with you". Maybe because they didnt attempt to.
3) Is it fraud to demand money in writing for a visit that never took place, a visit that there is no documentation, and a visit that even if had taken place would have done so while the case was on hold.
Fraud Act 2006
Fraud by False Representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, an
d(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading
.(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

4) If no levy has been issued and they have not gained peaceful entry can they charge me for attending with a removal contractor to remove goods
5) If the Bailiff Removal letters do not have a notice of fees already charged and fees for that visit is it legal to charge me fees for those visits?

I am leaving this letter in a sealed envelope pinned to our front door for the bailiff if he visits this week
This notice directs that you are not being given entry to my home or to levy goods contained within. This notice revokes your entitlement to charge a Walking Possessions fee. Please be advised that if your fees are found to contradict [Regulation 45(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992/ Schedule 1 of Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs)(Amended 2003) Regulations 1993] and you may be liable for criminal prosecution under section 1 to 5 of Fraud Act 2006, and I will automatically file a Form 4 complaint at your certificating court.
Please be advised it is not a "criminal offence" for me to deny a bailiff entry to my property, if a bailiff threatens me with getting a locksmith without a levy or tries to break & enter my home, I will automatically make a phonecall to the Police and tell that the is burglary taking place and the suspect is still in the property.


All help with these questions gratefully received

[Amy]

Re: Urgent Need Help with Equita

I'm a bit confused here to be perfectly frank. Have the fines been paid as far as you are aware, but Equita are chasing for fees that they keep adding?

If the answer is yes and yes, then nothing has changed since my post #9.

If you want to send me the documents, then feel free.

[gasman13]

Re: Urgent Need Help with Equita



I have posted below the email I am sending today in response to the Bailiff Removal letter recived on 29/19/11 - let me know what you think please

Hello Amy thanks for your help, as you will see below I have paid the initial amount requested and yes all they seem to be chasing for - unless they have allocated money paid to cover their fees rather than direct it London Borough of Richmond - which I would have thought would have been illegal and fraudulent as they never at any time notified me of that.

To the Equita Operations Manager

Thank you for your computer generated letter dated 25/10/11 in the name of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXBailiff in Charge received on 29/10/11. I think you will again find that it contains a number of inaccuracies or 'administration errors' as highlighted in red below.

I would again firstly request that you send me a true breakdown of the balance claimed to be owed as your previous 3 letters have inaccuracies that I have already brought to your attention via email and are again listed below.

"Despite numerous previous applications for payment you have failed to pay the outstanding Penalty Charge Notice due to London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames"

I think that you will find that I have paid the outstanding PCN and charges from the initial letter sent 24/05/2011 where the figure quoted was £168.44 inclusive of statutory fees of £11.20. I made payments of £57.00 on 02/06/11 and 08/07/11 with a final payment of £58.00 on 25/09/11( which was made online) That totals £172.00 which pays the £168.44 demanded in your letter of 24/05/11. so this means that you are in effect demanding your charges not the PCN stated in the letter. If this is not the case then it means that you have been collecting charges ahead of the money owed to London Borough of Richmond. If this is the case you have mislead and possibly committed fraud by collecting charges without notifying me of what the charges are for and how much they are.

You mention"numerous previous applications for payment". Can you please advise when these where made as the only contact from Equita to myself were in incorrect letters in response to my request for a breakdown of your charges added to my account. and two letters left by your bailiffs (one on windscreen in a communal parking area and one under the communal door to my block of flats. In details sent by Equita to Mr XXXXXXXXXXX at London Borough of Richmond and copied in the letter sent to me by the afore mentioned on 24/10/11 which you should have a copy of, I quote "....on 05/09/11 a bailiff visited your property to try and aquire the remainder of the debt, including a statutory fee added to pay for this visit".Is this one of the"numerous previous applications" ? and if so may I point out that he did not visit my property, he visited a communal parking area. How exactly did he try to aquire the remainder of the debt by visiting a car park.? As I had been inside the property from 00.12 until 11.02 when I discovered the letter on my windscreen and called the bailiff XXXXXXXXXXXX at 11.04 How was I able to contact him when he was unable to contact me in his attempt to "aquire the remainder of the debt". If he did not enter the block and knock on my door then I would suggest that he did not "try and aquire the remainder of the debt" at all and therefore your demand for a statutory fee is misleading and again could be fraud.

Is one of the "numerous previous applications for payment" the one on 26/09/11 that you claimed was made, in the information given to Mr XXXXXXXXXXXX London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames when he sought clarification of the charges. Again I quote from his letter dated 24/10/11. "4) No payment was made and so a second visit was made on 26/09/11 adding a further statutory fee to what was owed". I would point out that I made a payment on 25/09/11 and have an email acknowledgement sent by Equita on 25/09/11. Why would you send a bailiff without checking if payment was made? Why did your bailiff fail to make contact with me? Why did your bailiff not leave a letter (with a notice of fees charged on the account and a notice detailing the fee to be added for that visit? What was the name of the bailiff who made that visit? As this visit never took place I would suggest that fraud has been committed by yourselves and possibly London Borough of Richmond for demanding money for a visit that never took place.

Is one of the "numerous previous applications for payment" the visit made on 17/10/11 when again no contact was made, no one knocked on my front door and the letter was pushed under a communal door to the block of flats. The Bailiff Removal letter states "I called at your home today to execute a Warrant". As he did not call at my home I would yet again suggest that the letter misleads and again by adding a charge for something that did not happen that it is a fraudulent charge.
Returning to your Removal Notice it states:

"Therefore, I have been issued your case so that I can call at your home within the next week with a removal contractor when I will remove your goods to the local auction house."

Please note that as no Levy of Distress has been issued and Peaceful Entry has not occured and a Walking Possession Order has not been issued, then you cannot attend my property with a removal contractor. As none of your bailiffs have ever set foot in my block of flats, they have obviously never set foot in my flatso it would be impossible for any of the above to have taken place. So if you visit with a removal contractor and add charges for such a visit then those charges will be fraudulent.

"I would prefer that you were in attendance when your goods are removed and should another day be more suitable I urge you to contact me on the number below immediately."


Is the letter suggesting that if I am not attendance that my goods will be removed. As you have not gained Peaceful Entry previously you have no right to enter my flat by force. If you state that you will return with a locksmith you are braking the law and a complaint will made to the police. If you force entry to my flat I will dial 999 and report a burglary in progress with the suspect on site. Please be advised it is not a "criminal offence" for me to deny a bailiff entry to my property

I have attempted to contact the bailiff 3 times yesterday and sent a text, I have again today attempted to contact him again all with no response or answer. I have sent him a text tonight to notify him that I have confirmation that this case is hold from London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames"These will be passed to the Parking Services Appeals team who will respond in due course. Your case will be held at its' current stage and no further recovery action will be taken until an investigation has taken place and we have responded to you in writing." I would suggest that you contact your bailiff upon receipt of this email to advise of the same as any action taken whilst the case is on hold and charged for will again be fraudulent.

"Should you prefer to pay the balance outstanding, call me to arrange immediate payment."

As i have stated in numerous email communications to you I have not stated that I will not pay just and true charges but I am not prepared to pay possible fraudulent demands for money.

I would also point out that despite you making 3 attempts the breakdown of fees in all 3 letters fail to add up to the balance you are demanding. Your final letter demanded a total of £466.34 when the figures contained in the breakdown totaled £321.34 meaning your are demanding £145.00 more than you are able to provide figures for. Your previous two letters demanded a total of £238.64 when the figures totaled £210.64. an over demand of £28.00. I would point out that when I made you aware of this you sent me the same letter again.

So I would ask you how I can pay a balance when you are not able to tell me what it is?

I will expect that when you receive my SAR with £10.00 payment that it will include all communications between Equita and London Borough of Richmond. I will also expect the names of all three bailiffs who have "visited my property" and the county court where the relevant bailiff obtained their license.

As it appears that fraud may possibly have taken place I am on 31/10/11 placing all copies of all communications betwwen Myself, Equita, Its Bailiffs andd London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames in the hands of my solicitor who will be in contact with yourselves, your bailiff and Mr XXXX XXXXXXXXX London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames.

For your reference I have reproduced the relevant sections of the Fraud Act 2006

Fraud Act 2006
The Offences Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it set out in Sections 2, 3 and 4.

• Fraud by false representation (Section 2);
• Fraud by failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and
• Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4).

In each case:

• the defendant's conduct must be dishonest;
• his/her intention must be to make a gain; or cause a loss or the risk of a loss to another.
• No gain or loss needs actually to have been made.
• The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment.

Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

The defendant:

• made a false representation
• dishonestly
• knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
• with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)

The defendant:

• failed to disclose information to another person
• when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information
• dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.

Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.


Yours Faithfully

[Amy]

Re: Urgent Need Help with Equita

Hello Amy thanks for your help, as you will see below I have paid the initial amount requested and yes all they seem to be chasing for - unless they have allocated money paid to cover their fees rather than direct it London Borough of Richmond - which I would have thought would have been illegal and fraudulent as they never at any time notified me of that.

No, fees are not allocated first for parking fines and they cannot chase merely for their fees.