Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

[cazindevon]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

Got my sums wrong! 2012/13 CT bill was for £1189.81. The court costs involved with making the LO meant our 2012/13 debt rose to £1234.81. We can prove that TDC received payments of £360 which leaves the debt at £874.81 yet as stated R&R are demanding £1179 therefore theres a missing £305 NOT £350. I believe thats right!!!

[ploddertom]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

As far as your Councillor is concerned, rather than write to him I would ring him and ask for his help - do you have more than 1 Councillor who represents you? If still met by refusal go to the Leader of the Council and do the same. The £360 you paid, did that go the Council? If so they need to explain where it has gone = did you use the correct reference number as it may have gone into a "Suspense Account" and therefore be waiting to be allocated.

Having had a quick look at your Council website leads me to believe their back office procedures are run by Capita. This probably means when you have telephoned them you have not spoken to a Council employee. Why is this importatnt. Capita also own 2 Bailiff Co's one of which happens to be R&R. Have you also read this http://www.torridge.gov.uk/CHttpHand...hx?id=1662&p=0 , there may be something in that you can use against them.

[ploddertom]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

It would be of interest to find out why the Bailiffs have passed your accounts back previously. It would not surprise me that they said you have refused to pay. It might be worth a poke at submitting a Subject Access Request on them and see what that reveals.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

Having had a quick look at your Council website leads me to believe their back office procedures are run by Capita. This probably means when you have telephoned them you have not spoken to a Council employee. Why is this importatnt. Capita also own 2 Bailiff Co's one of which happens to be R&R. Have you also read this http://www.torridge.gov.uk/CHttpHand...hx?id=1662&p=0 , there may be something in that you can use against them.

It seems immediately obvious that Crapita has no intention of following the safeguards in that document.

Their comments on committal proceedings are especially interesting:

If distress on goods has been attempted, but failed, councils can apply to the
magistrates’ court to have the debtor committed to prison.

Apparently, this ghastly council wants to lock up CT debtors who do not have sufficiently valuable goods.

In the glossary at the end, there is:

Bailiffs have a right to enter the debtor’s house to levy goods, even if the debtor is not home...

Warrant of execution – Bailiffs enter the debtor’s property and remove goods for sale. The goods must be of sufficient value to cover the debt, the bailiff costs and the costs of sale.

It would appear that the council believes that a bailiff may lawfully kick in any door he pleases.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

It would be of interest to find out why the Bailiffs have passed your accounts back previously.

nulla bona?

It would not surprise me that they said you have refused to pay.

Nor would I be at all astonished, as it would be remarkable indeed for a bailiff not to dissemble.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

It seems immediately obvious that Crapita has no intention of following the safeguards in that document.

Their comments on committal proceedings are especially interesting:

Apparently, this ghastly council wants to lock up CT debtors who do not have sufficiently valuable goods.

In the glossary at the end, there is:

It would appear that the council believes that a bailiff may lawfully kick in any door he pleases.

TDC either need to change their website designer or Head of Legal Services or hire the services of a bloody good barrister to defend them against the litigation that is bound to result from what they have put up on their website and the consequences thereof. Alternatively, the burghers of TDC could do their CT payers a big favour by terminating Capita's contract forthwith and deducting any costs Capita have caused to be incurred as a result of their behaviour from what they may be owed. Better still, cancel the contract and tell Capita to whistle for their remuneration.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

What a shocking evil council, Crapita should be excised as the cancer it is. Report Crapita and Ross 'n Robbers to OFT,

[cazindevon]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

I checked the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regs 1992 (as amended) yesterday, PT, and could find no reference to the number of AoE Orders an LA can have going in respect of CT. However, you cannot subject a person to two different forms of enforcement for the same matter at the same time. For example, you could not have someone subject to an AoE and distress at the same time for the same CT arrears. That would be totally illegal.

I had a meeting with the head of finance at TDC & he apologised for the way they acted. They had in place 2 AEO's for two seperate CT bills (that is the maximum by law) (f ucks you right up when the csa mussle in too! I know from bitter bitter experience) and for the 3rd outstanding bill, the collection process was still at the bailiff stage. Im unsure if he meant "Law of the land" or just TDC process but once they find a way to collect their debt then they HAVE TO ABIDE BY THAT PROCESS ONLY. What that means in our case is that when we first into arrears the bailiff process eventually failed and they returned the debt nulla bona. It was at that point TDC issued an AEO. That was about 18 months from the initial bill fell through the letterbox. Once TDC started to collect by AEO it was at that point that they should of never sent a bailiff to our door again. In TDC country, if you have paid nothing off your CT bill by mid may you will find yourself issued with a liability order from the magistrates by the end of june!! therefore, they should of & could of issued an AEO by mid July and in all probability recouped all the bill by the time the next years is sent out!!! How much "brown enveloping" is done. Quite a few £ worth i bet!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

How much "brown nosing" is done. Quite a few £ worth i bet!

I've fixed your post for you. :rofl:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

I had a meeting with the head of finance at TDC & he apologised for the way they acted. They had in place 2 AEO's for two seperate CT bills (that is the maximum by law)

quod est foetida stercus bovi

Read the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, wherein regulation 42 (link) clearly refers to "two or more attachment of earnings orders" (my emphasis).

certe, capita eos in ano sunt

[bizzybob]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

What do the council propose to do then?

Quando Crapita trahere caput anum?

[bluebottle]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

From what the OP has said and CC has highlighted - Thank you, CC - it would appear TDC has abused the legal process. I am of the opinion the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) would take a very dim view of this. It could be put to TDC that they have either misquoted or misinterpreted the relevant legislation and their action in obtaining a Liability Order and engaging bailiffs is a disproportionate and excessive measure, given the fact that the legislation makes no mention of limits on the number of AEOs they may have in force at any one time. Put them on the spot and ask them to quote relevant case or statute law to back up their claims they can only have a maximum of two AEOs. Expect to hear a sharp intake of breath or the squeaking of pedals going in reverse.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

And swift removal of craniums from anuses with a loud PLOP. Op needs to ask the council what they propose to do as he is looking at going to the LGO. Ideally Capita infestations would be removed from councils as a first step, that company is virtually running the country now, the depth of penetration they have into government systems. Also Boycott O2 campaign should start as they want to outsource call centre to crapita also.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

Whilst we are on the subject of Capita, I have become aware of a number of cases where Capita, who run TV Licensing on behalf of the BBC, have been telling alleged TV licence "offenders" not to go to court. My suspicion is that Capita doesn't want their dodgy or non-existent evidence challenged in a court. I also suspect they are not complying with disclosure rules applicable to summary cases.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bullied by Ross and Roberts bailiff

Whilst we are on the subject of Capita, I have become aware of a number of cases where Capita, who run TV Licensing on behalf of the BBC, have been telling alleged TV licence "offenders" not to go to court. My suspicion is that Capita doesn't want their dodgy or non-existent evidence challenged in a court. I also suspect they are not complying with disclosure rules applicable to summary cases.

I know it is off the Op's issue, but in the wider sphere of Crapita's operations, the way TV Licensing is run, with their rampaging Enforcement Salesmen duping people into a confession on the doorstep "under caution" is abhorrent, there have been several crooked ones found out when they prosecuted an innocent non TV owner, on made up evidence in South wales, who only knew about a fine when the bailiff turned up. Time the TV Tax was abolished it belongs back in the Analogue Age of the 20th century.

The advice not to go to court is like a summary motoring fine with a guilty plea entered by default if someone doesn't attend, so they don't want their cosy criminal stitch up challenged, TVL cases being dealt with en masse like Council tax Lo's