rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

[calamity jane]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

I just received the following:

Thank you for your email.

A bailiff attended your property on May 10th, 2011, this incurred charges of £33.94.

A bailiff attended your property on May 31st, this incurred charges of £43.44.

Daniel Simpson attended your property at the above times. He was certified at Burnley Combined Court on 07.09.2011.

The Van bailiff attended on September 23rd, 2011, and completed a levy. The van attendance was £138.00, the levy fee was £55.60. Ray Meades attended on the 23rd September. He was certified at Burnley Combined Court on 27/04/11

A correspondence fee of £11.20 has also been added to your account. All fees have been legally added in line with the Enforcement of Road traffic debts regulations, 1993.

Regards.

Freya Morrison
Correspondance and Welfare Officer
Rossendales Ltd
Wavell House, Holcombe Road, Helmshore, Rossendale, Lancashire BB4 4NB
D: 08447013980
F: 01706831126

DX745020
HELMSHORE
http://www.enquiries@rossendales.com

any thoughts?

Am I right in saying that as Daniel Simpson wasn't certificated until 7th Sept this year(not showing on Register yet) the charges applied in May are unenforceable/illegal?

The other Bailiff certification checks out.


CJ

[Mrs James]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

indeedy.

but paranoia and a family worrying someone will be banging on the door, let alone the fact that the stress of all this is hindering me getting on with my job etc...

I just don't like the ignore them option, at the end of the day I just want them to leave me alone, and it seems to me unlikely they are going to do so (I guess thats probably there preffered modus operandi anyway)


might be nothing in the grand scheme of things but, I do feel positively ill stressing about it

Totally understandable, ebgb. If it was me I would be asking for proof of the alleged levy. But others may have better suggestions.

[ebgb]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

Totally understandable, ebgb. If it was me I would be asking for proof of the alleged levy. But others may have better suggestions.

I guess that should be included in an SAR request. I'm hanging on a bit first, as I don't want to keep seeing spurious £11.20's added every time I ask a questions - wether they are enforceable or not, just to try keep my blood pressure in check if nothing else!

currently on a different tack. rang around loads of solicitors this morning. most don't want to know or don't have the expertise. one suggested I ring the council, tell them I am going to pay the baliffs in full (again), and then pursue them through the small claims court as the bailiffs are their respresentatives/agents, and additionally pursue them to recover the initial set of charges that were excessive in the original £216.30 they had from me

No way am I going to pay the robbing buggers anything, but if the thought of it moves the council to do anything then all well and good

[Amy]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

I am so sorry Gorang, but Amy has assessed the situation quite accurately and responded appropriately.

Try not to sound so surprised, I have actually done this before.

Congratulations Amy, I agree with you absolutely.

I'm over the moon. Really.

[Gorang]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

I am so sorry Gorang, but Amy has assessed the situation quite accurately and responded appropriately.

Tortoise there is nothing to be sorry about at all

Amy is always right with this bailiff stuff from what I have seen, as she is a absolute star and really knows what she is talking about

That why I was asking as I know nothing about bailiff stuff and I know Amy is bl**dy brill with it

Please be sure that I wasn't making any assumptions and I appologise if I came accross that I was in any way at all

I was attempting to learn and not making a very good job of it lol

[ebgb]

beat the buggers

well.....

here's an unexpected happy ending.

Rang the council, told them (wee fib coming up) I had been advised by dickinsons dees (biggest law firm in the north east and often Newcastle Council's Nemesis) to pay the bailiffs in full and they will then issue proceedings against the council to recover this amount, and additional the excessive charges in the first £216.30, and also mention section 10.20 of operational guidance for local authorities as the solictor suggested, and the excessive charges under the "Enforcement of Road Traffic Regulations 1993" and the fact it appears the original bailiff was not certified at the time of his visit

rapidly went through the ranks to senior management, who were then straight on the phone to rossendales and 20 minutes later on the phone back to me to me saying case closed - asked for it confirmed in writing, email just received:


Just to confirm after speaking to the Bailiffs today they have removed costs after June which were incurred when a cheque payment crossed in the post with a third visit from the Bailiff. This 'crossing' caused an underpayment of £49 which the Bailiif after send ing a letter 18/06/2011 then pursued again 23/09/2011.

They have assured me the extra costs added have been remitted and the case is now closed.


hopefully this might be useful for others in a similar predicament in the future

eternally grateful for all the help and support. Glass will be raised to you all later

and then out of badness I may well send that SAR anyway, just to really **** them off!

thanks again all

mark

[enaid]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

Nice one ebgb and thanks for letting us know the outcome.
Enaid x

[Mrs James]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

I guess that should be included in an SAR request. I'm hanging on a bit first, as I don't want to keep seeing spurious £11.20's added every time I ask a questions - wether they are enforceable or not, just to try keep my blood pressure in check if nothing else!

currently on a different tack. rang around loads of solicitors this morning. most don't want to know or don't have the expertise. one suggested I ring the council, tell them I am going to pay the baliffs in full (again), and then pursue them through the small claims court as the bailiffs are their respresentatives/agents, and additionally pursue them to recover the initial set of charges that were excessive in the original £216.30 they had from me

No way am I going to pay the robbing buggers anything, but if the thought of it moves the council to do anything then all well and good

The only suggestions I can think of are to request a copy of the levy, which should have been left at the time of levy anyway, to ascertain if it's a valid levy. Or to send in a SAR. I understand if you don't want to go down either of those routes though.

The only thing I can hope is that someone more knowledgeable will have a better way forward for you. Just sorry I couldn't have been more helpful.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

well.....

here's an unexpected happy ending.

Rang the council, told them (wee fib coming up) I had been advised by dickinsons dees (biggest law firm in the north east and often Newcastle Council's Nemesis) to pay the bailiffs in full and they will then issue proceedings against the council to recover this amount, and additional the excessive charges in the first £216.30, and also mention section 10.20 of operational guidance for local authorities as the solictor suggested, and the excessive charges under the "Enforcement of Road Traffic Regulations 1993" and the fact it appears the original bailiff was not certified at the time of his visit

rapidly went through the ranks to senior management, who were then straight on the phone to rossendales and 20 minutes later on the phone back to me to me saying case closed - asked for it confirmed in writing, email just received:


Just to confirm after speaking to the Bailiffs today they have removed costs after June which were incurred when a cheque payment crossed in the post with a third visit from the Bailiff. This 'crossing' caused an underpayment of £49 which the Bailiif after send ing a letter 18/06/2011 then pursued again 23/09/2011.

They have assured me the extra costs added have been remitted and the case is now closed.


hopefully this might be useful for others in a similar predicament in the future

eternally grateful for all the help and support. Glass will be raised to you all later

and then out of badness I may well send that SAR anyway, just to really **** them off!

thanks again all

mark

Excellent news, egbg. So pleased for you.

Ignore my last post, I didn't see this before I posted it. Lol

[ebgb]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

have to say a big 'ta muchly' to the solicitor that suggested that approach. He'd said already he knew very little of this area of the law and confessed it would be "the blind leading the blind" but it seems to have worked a treat

I can only hope that at some point some one else might google upon this and get some similar mileage

In such trying economic times it angers me greatly that those that are generally the 'skintest' in society are being preyed upon by the likes of rossendales et al

angers me even more that the aggresive and intimidating attitude displayed by their bailiffs is pretty much the same as that of those that answer the phones

just gotta hope karma is particularly unkind to them at some point in the future

[Gorang]

Re: beat the buggers

well.....

here's an unexpected happy ending.

Rang the council, told them (wee fib coming up) I had been advised by dickinsons dees (biggest law firm in the north east and often Newcastle Council's Nemesis) to pay the bailiffs in full and they will then issue proceedings against the council to recover this amount, and additional the excessive charges in the first £216.30, and also mention section 10.20 of operational guidance for local authorities as the solictor suggested, and the excessive charges under the "Enforcement of Road Traffic Regulations 1993" and the fact it appears the original bailiff was not certified at the time of his visit

rapidly went through the ranks to senior management, who were then straight on the phone to rossendales and 20 minutes later on the phone back to me to me saying case closed - asked for it confirmed in writing, email just received:


Just to confirm after speaking to the Bailiffs today they have removed costs after June which were incurred when a cheque payment crossed in the post with a third visit from the Bailiff. This 'crossing' caused an underpayment of £49 which the Bailiif after send ing a letter 18/06/2011 then pursued again 23/09/2011.

They have assured me the extra costs added have been remitted and the case is now closed.


hopefully this might be useful for others in a similar predicament in the future

eternally grateful for all the help and support. Glass will be raised to you all later

and then out of badness I may well send that SAR anyway, just to really **** them off!

thanks again all

mark

Exellent outcome well done

LOL I like your way of thinking with still sending the SAR LOL
LOL attach an invoice to the SAR for the privalage of you sending the SAR and tell them if they don't pay they will have one of their competition round to enforce payment LOL

[enaid]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

We all appreciate there is a place for bailiffs and sometimes they can be the only resolve to some problems. What is unacceptable is the methods they use and the law breaking they get away with in their work, often sanctioned by local authorities.
Enaid x

[ebgb]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

should charge em for the many hours spent today when I should been trying to run my business

[CleverClogs]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

I guess that should be included in an SAR request. I'm hanging on a bit first, as I don't want to keep seeing spurious £11.20's added every time I ask a questions - wether they are enforceable or not,

It wasn't. Read the note at the end of paragraph 1 of schedule 1, The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 - link.

How much was the original parking "fine" or penalty?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

We all appreciate there is a place for bailiffs

I'd say one such place is a quicksand in Morecambe Bay.

[ebgb]

Re: rossendales re-attending AFTER being paid

original penalty would have been 30 quid if memory serves

[CleverClogs]

Re: beat the buggers

out of badness I may well send that SAR anyway, just to really **** them off!

I believe you should, as it seems possible - or probable - that you had been overcharged at the end of May.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

original penalty would have been 30 quid if memory serves

Then how in Merlin's beard did it get to £216.30?