Rossendales final notice- help please

[Katc07]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

Is the last line in councils reply correct from what read its not do the plebs in the council not know the rules ?or am i a pleb?

Thats what they put, Seemed a bit strange to me but then I dont know what they can and cant do!

[wales01man]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

I hope someone on here can guide you its disgusting that council workers are not familar with the rules thos highly paid managers should get to grips with their staff its not the duty of councils to give so much grief to those who THEY WORK FOR
Im fuming every i read of the time way these people treat others

[ploddertom]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

This was the response from Rossendales

"I note that you state one of the vehicles levied upon belongs to a leasing company and that you expect us to contact the DVLA to confirm this. For data security reasons the DVLA will not provide usnwith details of the registered keeper of the vehicle. - Load of ballcocks - of course they can apply to the DVLA -
I must therefore ask you to provide us with paperrwork from the leasing company to show you are not the legal owner of the vehicle. No, now they are on notice of this if they decide to lift the vehicle they are in the smelly stuff.

I note you confirm the econd vehicle belongs to you but you state it is of little value, so you believe the levy is invalid. I am unaware of any regulations or case law which support your opinion, therefore I am satisfied the levy is valid.
However a baliff would only remove an item or items which would be likely to cover all costs involved and a percentage of the debt. The liability order acts as a continuing power to seize goods so the baliff can levy on further items as they become available."

They deny it in their first sentence & admit it in their second sentence, seems as if they don't know themselves what they are doing. And no they can't keep adding things to it as they see fit. Seems to me as if the admitting they have a levy of insufficient worth for the debt owing.

They then go on to say we have 14 days to prove the lease car isnt ours and to provide an offer of payment with full details of our income and expenditure. In my view I would sit tight and ignore them.

Any ideas of where to go next? Keep paying the Council direct. I will post a different reply with the councils response

PT
PT

[ploddertom]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

I hope someone on here can guide you its disgusting that council workers are not familar with the rules thos highly paid managers should get to grips with their staff its not the duty of councils to give so much grief to those who THEY WORK FOR
Im fuming every i read of the time way these people treat others

Normally the ordinary man in the street deals with whoever answers the phone or faces the public. This "employee" is mostly not even a Council employee these days but one from one of the outsourcing companies such as Capita, Liberata etc who has no training at all in Council Tax matters, they are usually unhelpful and refer all to the Bailiff. Ene those further up the food chain know very little of the CT Regs and when challenged often refer to the Bailiffs for an answer.

How many times have we see the "fees are all charged in accordance" letters. Delving deeper and making Formal Complaints usually produce abject apologies and gestures of goodwill when it is found they are in the wrong. I agree it is time they either learnt the rules or suffer the consequences.

[bluebottle]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

Thanks for your help so far, I've now received responses from both Rossendales and The council so wondered what to do next.

This was the response from Rossendales

"I note that you state one of the vehicles levied upon belongs to a leasing company and that you expect us to contact the DVLA to confirm this. For data security reasons the DVLA will not provide usnwith details of the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I must therefore ask you to provide us with paperrwork from the leasing company to show you are not the legal owner of the vehicle.

I note you confirm the econd vehicle belongs to you but you state it is of little value, so you believe the levy is invalid. I am unaware of any regulations or case law which support your opinion, therefore I am satisfied the levy is valid.
However a baliff would only remove an item or items which would be likely to cover all costs involved and a percentage of the debt. The liability order acts as a continuing power to seize goods so the baliff can levy on further items as they become available."

They then go on to say we have 14 days to prove the lease car isnt ours and to provide an offer of payment with full details of our income and expenditure.

Any ideas of where to go next? I will post a different reply with the councils response

Who wrote Rossendales' letter, the Brothers Grimm? The onus is on Rossendales, not you, to prove ownership of the lease vehicle. I have contacted DVLA and been informed that anyone having reasonable cause to require the details of the registered owner/keeper of a motor vehicle can obtain the necessary information by completing DVLA Form V888. I have also looked on Rossendales' website and they are members of the British Parking Association (BPA) and, as such, have access through the arrangement between DVLA and the BPA. So, what Rossendales have told you in that respect is a pack of lies.

As for the levy on your car, I agree with Ploddertom that Rossendales have abandoned the levy and that it is no longer valid.

Rossendales also have some strange ideas about Liability Orders. In order for an LO to be valid, a certificated bailiff/bailiff company must act in accordance with the Council tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended), Distress for Rent Rules 1988 and other legislation. If they do not, the LO is invalid, which means a bailiff's legal protection, attached to the LO, is null and void and any attempted levy or seizure is invalid, if not, illegal. The only protection an LO confers on a bailiff is for Irregular Levy. It does not protect them against Illegal Levy or Conduct.

I would write back to Rossendales and tell them you have checked with DVLA and find that what Rossendales have said is untrue as anyone having reasonable cause to enquire can obtain registered owner/keeper details of vehicles using DVLA Form V888. You also note they are members of the British Parking Association (BPA) and have access through the arrangements between DVLA and BPA.

You also need to put them on notice that due to the time-lapse since levying, they are regarded as having abandoned the levy. You also need to put them on notice that any attempt by them or anyone acting on their behalf to remove and/or sell the lease vehicle will result in the vehicle being reported to the police as stolen and render those involved, including management, liable to arrest and possible prosecution.

If you want to put Rossendales in their place, you could tell them there is nothing in law that requires you to deal with them and you are at liberty to make all future payments directly to the council without further notice or reference to themselves.

If you are going to make payments directly to the council and have already done so using their automated system or internet banking, continue to do so. Legally, there is nothing Rossendales can do about it. However, you should allow for any legitimate fees due to Rossendales. I would pay these to the council as well. Then, Rossendales will have to apply for the fees or the council can credit these to the Council Tax for the current financial year or the 2013/2014 financial year.

[ploddertom]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

It would appear that Rossendales have very short memories because of the critiscisms of both them & Blaby District Council by the LGO http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2012/jul/...iliff-charges/ maybe both they & your Council need reminding of the findings made.

[bluebottle]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

They didn't come out of that very well, did they, PT?

[Katc07]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

Thats great, I will get another letter off to Rossendales first thing tomorrow.

You guys are brilliant, Do you think I need to reply again to the council?

[bluebottle]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

No. Just make regular payments to the council via their automated payment system or internet banking.

As for a letter to Rossendales, try this -

Dear Sirs,

Reference: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I refer to your letter dated [date] in which you make a number of statements and which I will address as follows -

Proof of Ownership of A Third-Party Vehicle

I have, today, contacted DVLA, by telephone, and they have confirmed that anyone having reasonable cause to require the registered owner/keeper details of a motor vehicle can obtain such using DVLA Form V888. Also, I note that your company's website shows that it is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and that an arrangement exists between the BPA and DVLA for obtaining the registered owner/keeper details of motor vehicles. It is, therefore, clearly evident that what your company claims in its letter is either erroneous or untrue.

Validity of Levy

It has been noted that the levy on motor vehicle registration mark [VRM of your car] was made on [date of levy]. At no time has your company attempted to contact me or contacted me between [date of levy] and [date contact was re-established]. In view of the time-lapse involved, it is clearly evident that your company has abandoned the levy. It is also noted that you have admitted to levying on goods of insufficient value.

Rights of Debtors

I have checked the terms and provisions of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended) and can find nothing contained therein which requires me to deal with a certificated bailiff in any way whatsoever. Therefore, I am at liberty to make all future payments to [Name of Council] directly without further reference to yourselves. Any fees which your company is legitimately due would be paid directly to [Name of Council] and your company should apply to them for any legitimate fees due.

Attempts to Remove Third-party Vehicle

You are reminded that a bailiff may not remove any third-party goods from a debtor's property, especially where the bailiff or bailiff company has been previously advised as to the ownership of any such goods. You should regard this letter as formal notice that any attempt on the part of any employee of your company or any other person acting under the instructions or on behalf of your company who removes or attempts to removes the lease vehicle of whose ownership you have been advised, including any attempts to sell said vehicle, will result in the vehicle being reported to the police as stolen and this may result in the arrest and possible prosecution of those involved, including your company and its management.

Finally, I would remind your company of the scathing report by the Local Government Ombudsman in the case involving Blaby Council and, in particular, the references the report makes to the behaviour of your company and its employees.

Yours faithfully,

Katc07

Let us know what response you receive.

[Katc07]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

Ok so I heard from Rossendales again today. Two baliff removal notices were posted through my door, One for £1600 and one for £440. I had no response from my last letter that bluebottle very helpfully composed for me.

Any ideas where I can go now? I have continued to pay the council directly as I have money available

Thanks

[bluebottle]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

Continue to pay the council directly as you are doing so already. Rossendales have already been put on notice as to what will happen if they attempt to remove either or both of the vehicles. One is third-party property and the other does not have a valid levy on it. I would also send Rossendales an email, followed by a letter. Try the following -


Dear Sirs,

References: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Further to my letter to your company of [date], it is clearly evident that your company has chosen to ignore the contents.

Your company is now on formal notice that any attempt to remove any vehicles will result in them being reported as stolen and render those involved liable to arrest and prosecution for Theft. This would be in addition to any County Court proceedings that may also be brought against your company and the bailiffs involved.

It is also drawn to your attention that any removal contractor you employ to remove or attempt to remove any vehicles is at risk of arrest and prosecution also for Being An Accessory to Theft or, alternatively, Aiding and Abetting Theft. The removal contractor also risks the seizure of their vehicle and an order being made for its forfeiture and, possibly, its destruction, also. You are put on notice that the law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities have the power to seize any vehicle used in connection with a criminal offence and to seek its forfeiture and destruction. If this were to happen, your removal contractor would have a case to commence court proceedings against your company for the cost of a replacement vehicle.

Your company is put on notice that a formal complaint is now being made to [Name of Council] in accordance with its complaints procedure as to your company's actions and the conduct of its bailiffs.

Your company is also put on notice that a formal complaint will be made against any bailiff in the employment of Rossendales to the court or courts that issued their bailiff certificates with a view to cancellation of their certificates, in the event of any removal or attempted removal of vehicles and such action shall be additional to any formal legal action taken by the law enforcement and prosecuting authorities.

Finally, I would remind your company of the damning report of the Local Government Ombudsman in the case of Blaby Council and, in particular, the Ombudsman's scathing criticism of the actions of your company and it employees.

Yours faithfully,

Katc07

I would suggest you address this to the Chair of Rossendales, Julie Green-Jones. She owns the company.

Tip: Don't mention anything in your email/letter about Mr Boast. Lol!

[Katc07]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

So We've heard from them again and I'm pretty sure their reply is a load of cobblers but I'd appreciate any advice on what to say now. This is their letter.....

"Although you refer to having written to us on the 26th October we have no record of any contact from you on this date,

I note your comments regarding our membership of the BPA. As the accounts we hold against you are in respect of Council Tax this is not relevant.

As explained in my earlier letter the DVLA will not provide us with the details of the owner of a vehicle. They will however confirm if you are or are not the registered keeper. I have arranged for a DVLA check to be carried out on both vehicles.

Our records show you were in contact with N.S District Council regarding this matter and that we wrote to you to request payment. Therefore I cannot accept your argument that the levy completed in May 2012 has been abandoned.

In an effort to assist, I am prepared to hold action on the account for 21 days whilst we awaut further information from the DVLA. In the meantime you will need to contact ourselves or N.S district council with proposals for payment of the accounts."

I've been paying the council direct on their website as they refused to set up a payment plan or take the account back.

[ploddertom]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

So We've heard from them again and I'm pretty sure their reply is a load of cobblers but I'd appreciate any advice on what to say now. This is their letter.....

"Although you refer to having written to us on the 26th October we have no record of any contact from you on this date, Unless you sent it by a trackable means you have to take their word for it.

I note your comments regarding our membership of the BPA. As the accounts we hold against you are in respect of Council Tax this is not relevant. Fair comment.

As explained in my earlier letter the DVLA will not provide us with the details of the owner of a vehicle. True. They will however confirm if you are or are not the registered keeper. I have arranged for a DVLA check to be carried out on both vehicles. Which is what they should have done in the first place, this was one of the criticisms made in the report I referred to in Post 36.

Our records show you were in contact with N.S District Council regarding this matter and that we wrote to you to request payment. Therefore I cannot accept your argument that the levy completed in May 2012 has been abandoned. Well they would say that, the fact is the Bailiff has not been back to check on the goods seized.

In an effort to assist, I am prepared to hold action on the account for 21 days whilst we awaut further information from the DVLA. In the meantime you will need to contact ourselves or N.S district council with proposals for payment of the accounts."

I've been paying the council direct on their website as they refused to set up a payment plan or take the account back. In my view keep it up.

As you appear to be getting nowhere with the Bailiffs it is time to put everything back to the Council. After all they are 100% responsible for the actions & charges of their contractor. As the Bailiffs are now appearing to be intransigent it is up to the Council to sort this out. You will need to remind them of the LGO report in Post 36 and also this one http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2012/nov/...half-councils/

Of course the chances are that the Bailiffs are reading this anyway .

[erathaf]

Re: Rossendales final notice- help please

Hi

There are so many people being taken to court for late instalment payment of Council Tax. I have started an e-petition to get the Government to look at this unfair practice. For example, my local authority, Basildon Council raised £402,705 just this financial year and it is not even over yet. Here is their response to the question I asked from Freedom of Information (FOI) regarding extra revenue raised from summonses:

How much extra revenue has been raised as a result of summonses being issued for non-payment of Council Tax?
How much extra revenue has been raised as a result of summonses for late payment of Council Tax?


Costs of £45 are charged for each summons that is issued. However, so far this financial year we have withdrawn 996 cases prior to the court hearing. These 996 cases will not be charged the £45 costs. Therefore the net costs raised are £402,705. However, not all of those costs will be recovered.

That is a huge amount of money, costing further financial hardship to many families.

When asked:
How many summonses have been issued this financial year for non-payment of council tax?


How many summonses have been issued this financial year for late payment of council tax?


The regulations do not distinguish between customers who have paid some of their Council Tax and those that have paid none. We have issued 9945 summonses in total since 1 April 2012.


Please click on the link below and sign the e-petition to stop this unfair practice.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43663

Many thanks and lets hope we can make a change.

Erathaf