Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

[wales01man]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

Can i ask a question?
How can a bailiff put a levy on a car without knowing the owner as theOP says he did not own acar at the time why should he have to prove he didnt own the levied car in my book its illegal to claim someone elses property and the council must also be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime why have bailiffs and councils been never been taken to court?
Some where along the line the rules that these bailiffs operate under must ge clarified and the law enforced WHEN????

[ploddertom]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

A Bailiff is entitled to levy on goods which he "believes" are those of the debtor. If he gains access to your home then that may be fair comment on what he may seize. Goods outside are a different matter and any within the boundaries of your home will be fair game as may a vehicle parked on your drive or immediately outside.

The problem becomes when in a situation like yours he levies on a a random car. In all instances it is up to the debtor to prove otherwise as to ownership and usually a simple denial or even a Statutory Declaration will sort it.

In instances like your own you could challenge them to remove the vehicle, you could make a Regulation 46 Complaint in the Magistrates Court naming the Council as Defendant - they are 100% liable for the actions of the Bailiff. There are LGO reports dealing with similar matters where both Bailiffs 7 Councils have been censured for similar actions.

[pepsie]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

That's thrown me a little as I have not had any visits plus I did not even own a car in January 2011. How can the onus be on me to prove that the car on the levy (presumably) is not mine?

I live in a flat with limited car parking outside the entrance, maybe five cars for 30(?) flats so I do not understand how they could even justify 'guessing' which car was mine even if I had one.

It's also worth pointing out that if fees have previously been added to my account then I will have more or less settled the original debt to the council. I need to get a full statement and cross check with my bank statements.

I'll contact the council and get in contact with Rossendales Wednesday and see who is claiming what.

Was there only the one liability order? What dates did it cover? How much was it for?how much a week/month did you agree to repay? how much have you paid toward it? how much do you estimate is left owing to the debt (excluding bailiff fees)? do you claim any benefits eg working tax credits? are you employed/unemployed? what do you consider would be an affordable and sustainable amount if you entered a repayment plan with the Council to clear the balance? Please remember old council tax is not classed as a priority debt and although you do have to clear the amount owed they cannot impose a deadline for it to be paid...which means you do not have to agree to paying extortionate amounts by way of repayment.

First you need to compose a carefully worded letter to Rottendales raising all the points discussed so far on the forum and suggest they suspend any further visits until such time they can reply in full to your dispute. Send a copy of that letter to the Head of Revenues at the Council with a covering letter asking they place it on their files to your account for future reference.

Pepsie

[wales01man]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

Thanks Plodderton
i still am amazed how these bailiffs are operating in the real world in a court of law its ( beyond all reasonable doubt) not i beleive you done wrong its really strange in the world of bailiffs but as Mr Bumble says the laws an ass?

[bluebottle]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

Rossendales have been forced to sack bailiffs for levying on random vehicles. And they've also been forced to cancel dodgy fees. The Regulation 46 route PT has advised is something worth investigating further. However, I don't know if this would send Ms Green-Jones running home to change her underwear.

PT - In Post #32, you wouldn't happen to be referring to a certain local authority in Berkshire, by any chance? Because I have a copy of said report.

[ploddertom]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

The Regulation 46 route PT has advised is something worth investigating further. Only downside is I believe the fee is something like £200

PT - In Post #32, you wouldn't happen to be referring to a certain local authority in Berkshire, by any chance? Because I have a copy of said report.

There is more than 1 report where this crops up, strangely one is concerning Equita & Rossendale Borough Council. Some of the thicker Councils then argue it doesn't apply to them as it was not them named? The LGO reports are quite a useful tool particularly those where the Council has sought BR proceedings.

[ploddertom]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

Thanks Plodderton
i still am amazed how these bailiffs are operating in the real world in a court of law its ( beyond all reasonable doubt) not i beleive you done wrong its really strange in the world of bailiffs but as Mr Bumble says the laws an ass?

There is another way of dealing with these spurious levies and that is to challenge them to remove the goods they have levied on. They hope the threat of them having levied and added more charges will make the debtor cough up, what they seem to forget is that in the majority of cases the debtor knows and just sits back and laughs at them. What is even more perturbing however is that to ask the Council to investigate they invariably come back and say the Bailiffs have done nothing wrong. I strongly believe that if the Council don't know then they should refrain from using Bailiffs, after all it's like telling a Learner Driver on his first lesson he doesn't need someone in the passenger seat and he go straight onto the motorway. More should be done to name & shame Bailiffs, Bailiff Co's & Councils.

[bluebottle]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

More should be done to name & shame Bailiffs, Bailiff Co's & Councils.

When I mentioned to a local councillor where I live that the vast majority of certificated bailiffs haven't been CRB-checked and convictions for dishonesty and violence are not uncommon, their face went white as a sheet. The councillor is one of a breed that believes any sort of enforcement should be done responsibly. They have asked me to provide information to the council's Head of Parking Services about bailiffs and what they can and cannot do, as it appears they, themselves, aren't too familiar with the "rules". I totally agree that naming and shaming individual bailiffs, bailiff companies and councils who use them can be a very effective weapon in curbing misconduct and complicity.

[papasmurf]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

There is another way of dealing with these spurious levies and that is to challenge them to remove the goods they have levied on.

The thought had crossed my mind and I would like to see how much faith Mr Duffy/Rottendales have in Mr Boast's levy.

First you need to compose a carefully worded letter to Rottendales raising all the points discussed so far on the forum and suggest they suspend any further visits until such time they can reply in full to your dispute. Send a copy of that letter to the Head of Revenues at the Council with a covering letter asking they place it on their files to your account for future reference.

This is what I will be doing today and I will hold back on contacting Mr Duffy until I hear from them. If he decides to visit before I have an answer, is the above seriously an option?

[papasmurf]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

My email to Rossendales as follows:


To: Enquiries Rossendales
Subject: Re: Breakdown of charges



Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your reply.

Unfortunately I can not recall the visits from Mr Boast in January 2011 and at no point has any representative from your company visited my property for the levy. I would therefore dispute the charges that have been applied to my account including the latest "Van fee" from May 29th 2012.

Can you please provide evidence of Mr Boasts visits (of 21st and 28th January 2011) and a copy of the levy carried out on 31st January.

I would also suggest you suspend any further visits until you have been able to reply and provide satisfactory evidence of the above.

I thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their reply:

Thank you for your email.


When the bailiff attends they pen the information through to the office, with the time and date they visited. We are unable to send you these details as they are stored on the system

On the first visit no contact was made, and a letter was left. On the second visit contact was made, and the account was set into an arrangement. The levy was completed on January 31^st, 2011, the same visit £200.00 was collected from you. A copy of the levy will have been given to you. This lists a Peugeot, registration R***ABC.

We will not be removing any fees, as these have been applied legally under the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992, schedule 5. You will need to deal with the bailiff directly on this account.

Yours sincerely.

Freya Morrison
Debtor Correspondence Officer
Rossendales Ltd
Wavell House, Holcombe Road, Helmshore, Lancashire, BB4 4NB
T: 08447013980
F: 01706831126

Campaign for change

www.rossendales.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So they cannot provide evidence of the visits and they suggest there was an arrangement made in person on the second visit. Simply not true.

The Peugeot on the levy however, sounded vaguely familiar (needless to say, this is not my car) so after receiving their reply I checked my bank statements again for the payments. I did make two payments of £200.80 on 1/2/2011 (I had two accounts originally) and I do remember speaking to someone over the phone to make these payments although I thought the person I spoke to was from Rossendales, this must have actually been Mr Boast.

I have seen images of Mr Boast on-line and in the Exposure programme and from these I can 'hand on heart' say this was the first time I have ever seen this man's face.

Rossendales can not prove the visits but are insisting they happened and therefore all the fees are legit. Mr Duffy is expected tomorrow (if they work Sundays) so where should I go from here?

[papasmurf]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

Just thought of something else, 'if' I had made an arrangement on the second visit (never happened but hypothetically) would a levy still be raised on the following Monday?

Also, if Mr Boast wrote in his report that we met on the second visit and made an arrangement (again, this never actually happened), does this mean that the bailiff now can use force to enter my property?

[Debtfix]

Re: Rossendales - Missed payment, received Baliff charges of £210

All the more reason you need the breakdown. What you need is corroboration from the Council over what they say you owed, from when etc and how much the Bailiffs say you owe - very rarely the same sums. The Bailiff is the person who attends your address - Rossendales is the Company he is employed by.

If the Bailiff - whoever may have called originally, not just the one who has posted this latest letter - has never been in your your home or otherwise made a levy on goods outside then the most they can charge you is £24-50 for a 1st Visit Fee + a 2nd Visit Fee of £18-00, Total = £42-50. To apply a Van/Enforcement Fee they must have had a valid levy in the first place. usual trick is for them to levy on a car in the street & when you say it isn't yours they then ask you to prove that. However this is then when you take things up with the Council and make them take action..

Now lets get this right. The bailiff cannot levy on a car in the street. He can impound the vehicle (clamp it) but the law is very clear on bailiff levy; the bailiff must gain peaceable entry to a debtor's premises in order to conduct a lawful, enforceable levy. The reference is case No 8CL51015 2008 District Judge Advent at the Central London County Court and was part of the early package that LB offered. The case mainly concerned the legality of bailiff charges but due to the diligence of the Judge in his researches there is some very valuable information concerning the bailiff levy. I have interpreted the decision to mean that because a levy had not been achieved the bailiff had no right to remove goods and that includes the car. Normally a county court judgement does not make a precedent as would a higher court BUT the case was very carefully considered by the judge who referred to the Law of England text books. I'll get that reference next but essentially the information provided in the case does cover all courts nationally because the Judge went back to basics, the basics that all courts would refer to and information that we can rely upon. No peaceable entry; no levy; no removal of Goods. The Judge concluded that a bailiff levy consists of three parts and all parts are relevant and must be completed to lawfully complete a levy. The central point was that the bailiff MUST gain peaceable entry to the debtor's premises in order to achieve an enforceable (legal) levy. The issue with the car is the loss of the facility of using the car and this can be defeated if the car is essential for the debtor's work. No-one wants their car clamped indefinately do they? So that is why the bailiffs do it. They cannot remove the vehicle if the levy as described above has not taken place. But they can only clamp the vehicle if it is to be left in a safe place as they are responsible for it once they impound it. Often a clamp can be removed from a car by letting the air out of it. The clamp must be removed without causing any damage to it ie cutting the locks off, because damaging it can be prosecuted as "criminal damage". It is not illegal to remove the clamp only to damage it.

The case of Evans v South Ribble Borough Council 1991 involves a bailiff who posted a levy through the debtor's letter box. The court ruled that the levy had not been conducted lawfully and the enforcement was defeated.

The latest statute applicable to bailiffs is the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. But the law has not been substantially changed from the previous common law practices as described in Professor Beatsons paper (2000) on bailiff custom and practice forming the common law under which they act. Certain parts strengthening the right of bailiffs on entry were not put into effect even tho they form part of the act. There was to be a government committee report on these clauses for April 2012 but it has been shelved according to my MP.

If Rossendales do not have a legally applied levy they cannot enforce the missed payment. The action I would take would be to pay the council via an online site or via a friend. The law on this is contained in the Office of Fair Trading guidelines on debt collection 2003. It states that "it is a princple of law that if a third party tenders a sum of money to a creditor on behalf of a debtor the creditor MUST accept it". The bailiffs try to defeat this by including a clause in their paperwork that states that any payments made direct to the council will not be counted as a payment towards satisfaction of the agreement. This is incorrect and is an attempt to defend their position. If the debt is paid off the bailiff loses the right to attend a debtor's premises to collect money. There is no reason for him to be there. I have p***ed off many bailiffs with this one. So refuse to pay them, but pay the council.

I have been campaigning against bailiffs for ten years. Our local bailiff manager used to fly his helicopter around his domain. Every beat of those blades was paid for from the profits he made. It is you that provides those profits, paid for through the fear, anxiety and misery that you experience. The bigger these firms get the more hungey they are for profits. All the local bailiffs in my area were swallowed up into a group covering the whole of the south coast. They were then swallowed up by Capita two years ago. Capita is a very large company and is super hungry for profits to pay all their back office staff. Get the word out "RESIST THE BAILIFF AT ALL TIMES". Make it too expensive to operate these huge companies and smaller companies may emerge with more realistic attitudes towards debt.