Second visit from rossendales

[moneyman]

Hi All,

Today while I was out, or perhaps while I was in, as I didn't hear a knock on my door, I had a second visit from Rossendales, I only realised this as I was going out of my front door again to go out, looked down and saw that there was a letter in the middle of the floor between mine and my neighbours door?!

Why didn't he put it through the letterbox?

I opened it, and on closer inspection after the first reading, I noticed that there had been another two documents that had been ripped off the top, because there is a tiny bit of them under the staple holding the pages together.Is there some important information that is missing?

Also there is no signature, just a line.

Under the debt and costs part there is the debt, which is £162.87, then the costs, for the first visit £24.80, and the second, £18.00, or £18.60, I'm not sure. The total is £205.something, which I can't make out.

I will be going away for two weeks on Saturday, which is quite good, as I imagine they will come round on Tuesday, as they've said they want payment in full in 5 days, so presumably will come round a few times during that period.

The only thing I'm concerned about is if they somehow break in and take what they want, as there are no windows on our stairwell, so in theory they could break in and no one from out side would see them doing it.

I am thinking off removing my most valuable stuff out, just in case.

Any tips/advice would be gratefully received.

Thanks

[cards down]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

Hi moneyman, what is the debt for?

Have a look here also http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...67-Council-Tax

[Guest]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

The debt is council tax.

When I read this post I nearly fell off my chair!!

Rossendales have actually played by the rule book as far as their fees go. Ive never seen that before.

The law says a first visit fee is £24.50 and the second visit is £18.00 which makes the total £205.37. Bailiffs handwriting is never legible.

The bailiff probably didn't knock the door because he was not a certificated bailiff, and he is not allowed to handle public money or levy distress, so he leaves a document hanging out of the letterbox which they constitute as a chargeable "visit".

Rossendales were hoping you might stump up the money on the strength of the document alone. They might be short on certificated bailiffs to work in the field.

To answer your question. Council tax bailiffs cannot break into your home.

[moneyman]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

Hi Guys, Thanks very much for your input!

I feel better now, I was abit concerned.

The bloke who came round the other day is a certified bailiff, as I looked him up, so this was obviously a junior.

[Guest]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

The name on the document will be a certifciated bailiff, and the guy sticking final demands in your sdoor is not.

At my own house in Ealing a few years ago, I heard a rattle at the door and found a big red final demand on the doormat. I went outside and collared the scroat and took the keys to his van. He had a big wad of final demands on the passenger seat. I pressed him for his ID and indeed, he wasnt the name on the final demand.

[bluebottle]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

The name on the document will be a certifciated bailiff, and the guy sticking final demands in your sdoor is not.

At my own house in Ealing a few years ago, I heard a rattle at the door and found a big red final demand on the doormat. I went outside and collared the scroat and took the keys to his van. He had a big wad of final demands on the passenger seat. I pressed him for his ID and indeed, he wasnt the name on the final demand.

It's a pity you didn't take the wad of Final Demands off him. That would have buggered him and his firm completely.

[Guest]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

I would have been done for theft, and the van driver charging for a certificated bailiffs visit, is a civil matter.

He was already on his mobile to police complaining I had "stolen" the keys to his van.

I dont mind kicking bailiffs arses, but its not something I would do outside my house. I could have kicked the police arses as well, but I would have irons clapped on me to make them feel they are still in charge. I know I would have had my day in front of an IPCC investigation and I would still have my career in tact, when they probably wouldnt.

I am known to police in the UK for busting bent coppers in front of the judge.

[bluebottle]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

I would have been done for theft, and the van driver charging for a certificated bailiffs visit, is a civil matter.

He was already on his mobile to police complaining I had "stolen" the keys to his van.

I dont mind kicking bailiffs arses, but its not something I would do outside my house. I could have kicked the police arses as well, but I would have irons clapped on me to make them feel they are still in charge. I know I would have had my day in front of an IPCC investigation and I would still have my career in tact, when they probably wouldnt.

I am known to police in the UK for busting bent coppers in front of the judge.

Yes, I've seen bent coppers get ripped to shreds by judges when I was on the force. Not a pleasant sight, but at least you know you don't have to work with the bent b:censored:ds anymore because the moment they arrive back at the nick, they are suspended from duty, put in front of a disciplinary tribunal and sacked.

I see the van bailiff acted true to form - like a total muppet - claiming a crime was in progress when it wasn't.

[Guest]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

Appparently I am not in CIVEA's good books. They are complaining that I am giving out letter templates and "dangerous" advice.

I was tipped off they have a solicitor on the case looking to circumvent my template letters, in particular the bailiffs truth-test letter.

Someone has also complained to my webhost. They acccidentally leaked the personal details of their informant to my host, who then forwarded it straight with me with a LMFAO email - a certain CAG poster has been telling porkies about me.

If these bailiffs behaved themselves and did their job by the rules, they wouldnt need solicitors to come up with measures to deal with the problem of me TARFU'ing errant bailiffs in front of a judge.

They know my home adddress in the UK, they can write to me with their complaint. I might instruct counsel to represent me and ask for £15,000 costs and show the court their own claims they do the same.

Back to the OPs thread, this could be why Rossendales is running out of certificated bailiffs.

[bluebottle]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

It will be interesting to see if CIVEA have a go at me over what I'm currently advising posters to do, i.e. complain to the OFT's Credit Fitness Team, MoJ Bailiff Department and the Permanent Secretary, Secretary of State and relevant Minister of State at the appropriate government departments. It's a strategy that seems to be viable as one OP on another thread has already received a communication back from the OFT informing them that they may use their complaint against Marstons, who hold a Category F Debt Collection Licence. The loss of that licence could have far-reaching consequences, especially where any government and local authority contracts are concerned. Holding a Category F Licence is usually a condition of contract/tender.

[wales01man]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

I think that some people on here are getting right up the noses of the Bailiff industry and with increasing publicity they are realizing that the days of operating the way they do are numbered and legislation will soon be put in place to stop them acting like thugs and intimidating vulnerable people ther must come a way where people in debt can be treated better if they are on benefits and low pay and cannot pay back large sums they morons must have a system in place to obtain even the smallest payment not be pressurised into borrowing money to pay debts or live in fear of the knock on the door Keep up the good work PLEASE

[Guest]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

It will be interesting to see if CIVEA have a go at me over what I'm currently advising posters to do, i.e. complain to the OFT's Credit Fitness Team, MoJ Bailiff Department and the Permanent Secretary, Secretary of State and relevant Minister of State at the appropriate government departments. It's a strategy that seems to be viable as one OP on another thread has already received a communication back from the OFT informing them that they may use their complaint against Marstons, who hold a Category F Debt Collection Licence. The loss of that licence could have far-reaching consequences, especially where any government and local authority contracts are concerned. Holding a Category F Licence is usually a condition of contract/tender.

I don't think they will BB, because we have gone to pains to check that you have your facts right.

The problem with some of the half cocked ideas that are advised on these forums is that they have not been thought through and can cause more harm than good, not only to the poster directly but to the credibility of the forum in general.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

I don't think they will BB, because we have gone to pains to check that you have your facts right.

The problem with some of the half cocked ideas that are advised on these forums is that they have not been thought through and can cause more harm than good, not only to the poster directly but to the credibility of the forum in general.

D

Thank you for your post, Davy. I do try and check matters thoroughly before I post. I have no problem with double-checking as it can pick up something that may have been missed. I'm sure you do not have any problem with what you post being double-checked. As you say, it preserves the integrity of the forum. I also agree with you that some half-cocked ideas do, sometimes, get posted up, but once they are dissected, they can either be dismissed or the workable bits extracted and developed into something workable.

[Guest]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

Thank you for your post, Davy. I do try and check matters thoroughly before I post. I have no problem with double-checking as it can pick up something that may have been missed. I'm sure you do not have any problem with what you post being double-checked. As you say, it preserves the integrity of the forum. I also agree with you that some half-cocked ideas do, sometimes, get posted up, but once they are dissected, they can either be dismissed or the workable bits extracted and developed into something workable.

No not at all, it is fine people expressing opinions on here . But when authoritive advice is given i believe all possible measures must be taken to check that it is correct, same with any links to other forums or "information" sites.

In particular template letters need to be 100% correct in any law that they quote.

D

[Guest]

Re: Second visit from rossendales

If I didnt know any better, I would say you are labmans brother, Are you?

It is very true other foums give unsound advice. I was sent this link a few days ago from the CAG forums. A site administrator doesn't even know the difference between an FPN and a PCN.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...om-2008!!-help.