Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

But will they prosecute?

They normally give them an opportunity to back down before wielding the Big Stick. Prosecution is a last resort. However, if a business comes to the attention of TS repeatedly for the same matter or similar, then, prosecution will be considered. Don't forget that it costs the taxpayer at least £2,000 per guilty plea at a magistrates court and a minimum of £10,000 for same at a Crown Court.

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

They are also likely to be in breach of Section 2, Fraud Act 2006 and, possibly, Section 21, Theft Act 1968, too. If they cannot or will not substantiate their fees or it is blindingly obvious the fees being demanded are fraudulent, report this to Trading Standards without delay. Charging for work not carried out is something TS Departments take a dim view of.

But will they prosecute?

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

Update 07/03/13

The council have acknowledged my complaint, send the standard reply about getting back to me within ten days. I had also sent a letter to Rundles on the same day stating that a formal complaint had been made, that I did not accept liability for fees they could not substantiate and that they were in danger of a breach of Section 2, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if they continued their current course of action.
Surprise surprise, this has been ignored and they have sent yet another "Notice Of Intended Proceedings" letter, exactly the same wording as their last one.

They are also likely to be in breach of Section 2, Fraud Act 2006 and, possibly, Section 21, Theft Act 1968, too. If they cannot or will not substantiate their fees or it is blindingly obvious the fees being demanded are fraudulent, report this to Trading Standards without delay. Charging for work not carried out is something TS Departments take a dim view of.

[michael the mouse]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

Update 07/03/13

The council have acknowledged my complaint, send the standard reply about getting back to me within ten days. I had also sent a letter to Rundles on the same day stating that a formal complaint had been made, that I did not accept liability for fees they could not substantiate and that they were in danger of a breach of Section 2, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if they continued their current course of action.
Surprise surprise, this has been ignored and they have sent yet another "Notice Of Intended Proceedings" letter, exactly the same wording as their last one.

[michael the mouse]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

I had written confirmation from the Council back in October when I paid the debt - they did say the liability had been discharged, though the bailiff would still pursue his fees. My point in all this malarkey is that they are claiming for fees which they either cannot substantiate or in fact should have been charging for (e.g. levy fee when no goods were ever levied).
Writing the formal complaint to the CEO now so will update when I hear anything back.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

Thanks bluebottle. Is there a template C&D anywhere on these forums?

Before sending a Notice to Cease and Desist to Rundles, send a Formal Complaint to the LA, as per Ploddertom. Get written confirmation from the LA that you have discharged the debt. This would add weight to your case if you have to seek an injunction.

[ploddertom]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

As the Bailiffs are being obstructive over this you are now in the position to dump all this in the lap of the Council. Regardless of anything they may say, they are 100% liable for the actions and charges of their Bailiffs. When doing this mark it as a Formal Complaint on the letter & envelope and address it to the CEO of the Council. A copy should be sent to the Bailiffs.

You should also contact your local Councillor(s) and ask them for help. If they are reluctant or refuse then go straight to the Lader of the Council and his opposite number.

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

yes Inca. It would appear that reading comprehension is not their strong suit.

Amongst all their other failings ! They are like annoying little 'ankle snappers',,can't quite boot them off.

[michael the mouse]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

yes Inca. It would appear that reading comprehension is not their strong suit.

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

Good Grief........takes all this hoohah just to tell them to 'bog off'?? Terrible isn't it?

[michael the mouse]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

Thanks bluebottle. Is there a template C&D anywhere on these forums?

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

Put them on strict proof, as per bluebottle and send the cease and desist.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

Right. As this has happened on at least two occasions, Rundles are now in breach of Section 2, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (Pursuing A Course of Conduct Amounting to Harassment). Both the bailiff and Rundles can be proceeded against and it is up to them to prove they are acting within the law. That is how the Act is slanted. You should now send Rundles and the bailiff what is called a Notice to Cease and Desist. This is, basically, a "Stop It" letter. You have asked them for evidence of their phantom visits and they have produced no evidence or are unable to produce it. I agree with the comment about Google Street View. If Rundles then continue to harass you, you are then at liberty to apply to your local county court for an ex parte (without notice) injunction under Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, restraining Rundles and its bailiffs. This will cost £175 in court fees. You may be entitled to remission of this if on a limited income. On the day you apply for the injunction or within three working days of doing so, you must submit a claim to the court for any financial loss you have incurred as a result of the harassment and anxiety suffered. This claim will then be heard at a future date by a Circuit Judge who will make the injunction permanent. However, this is a measure of last resort. Do not use it as a first line of attack. Send the Cease and Desist Notice first and see what happens. If you need help with the C & D, please come back onto this thread.

[michael the mouse]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

Delayed update - over a month went by since my last communication with Rundles and I hadn't heard anything back from them, now they're back on my case again. I had a reply to my last letter asking for proof of these alleged visits that they say I owe them money for, and why they charge for a levy which did not take place and in fact should not have taken place since the debt was cleared with the council before any possessions were seized.
The reply was basically "there are notes in our system saying we made those visits" and they told me what colour my front door was. Now that's something anyone could have pulled from Google Street View, and do they seriously think that "because we say we did" consituties satisfactory proof? I did not receive any letters or notifications that any visits had taken place, or that fees were being added to the account as a result of said visits.
They are now threatening so make arrangements to remove goods again - am I right in thinking that they cannot seize goods to auction to pay for their own fees? If so, can someone point me at the relevant legislation that would back that up? I will be writing back to them imminently. Thanks in advance.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs demanding fees after debt is paid

Oh bailiff companies know what the law says. They rely on debtors not knowing it. Thanks to forums like LB, people are better-informed.

Sometime ago, a bailiff was bitching and belly-aching on national television about a drop in business because of "those bloody internet information forums".

There's a simple answer to that - If the civil enforcement industry stops telling lies and resorting to intimidation and violence to achieve their objectives, there would be no need for "bloody internet information forums".

Personally, I am of the opinion that the coalition government isn't going to be around for much longer and that we are in the final days of the current political party system of government. IMHO, the civil enforcement industry has been drinking in the Last Chance Saloon for too long and now time is going to be called when they least expect it. And it will take everyone by surprise when it does.