equita bailiffs

[mem]

Hi
I missed a payment on my council tax which was deffered to equita on a monthly payment plan. I had been paying this regularly until march when i payed it 10 days late due to no work. On the 16th march i recieved a letter asking for full payment of 309.45 from equita which was only 244.45 after late payment. I rang them straight away and they put me through to the bailiff dealing with the case and he said the figure was 407.45 when asked for a breakdown he could not answer this. Within 10 minutes he was at my door with a letter which included a levy fee of £33 and a visit fee of £130 which added up to 407.45 also the levy was against 2 cars is this fair to charge me for these fees as the letter stated that i owed 309.45 by return of post.

[bluebottle]

Re: equita bailiffs

Who owns the two cars, please?

[mem]

Re: equita bailiffs

Hi
I own both cars
Thanks

[bizzybob]

Re: equita bailiffs

How much are they worth individually?

[bluebottle]

Re: equita bailiffs

Engineering defaults in order to gain a levy. Typical of Equita and a number of other certificated bailiff companies. Are either or both of the cars for business use, or subject to finance or are you a healthcare or medical professional that needs to use your vehicles in an emergency call-out situation?

[CleverClogs]

Re: equita bailiffs

On the 16th march i recieved a letter asking for full payment of 309.45 from equita which was only 244.45 after late payment. I rang them straight away and they put me through to the bailiff dealing with the case and he said the figure was 407.45 when asked for a breakdown he could not answer this. Within 10 minutes he was at my door with a letter which included a levy fee of £33 and a visit fee of £130 which added up to 407.45 also the levy was against 2 cars is this fair to charge me for these fees as the letter stated that i owed 309.45 by return of post.

He is - of course - overcharging; for a first visit, the fee is £24.50 and not one penny more.

His levy fee of £33 would be accurate for the debt of £309.45, but his "visit fee" of £130 is simply wrong - it would be a fee for attendance with a van to remove goods on which distress had been levied and, as no opportunity had been given for the debtor to pay, it is an "up-front fee".

Moreover, unless the van was equipped with a shrinking ray gun from the planet Kwacko, it is immediately obvious that any van used would be far too small to accommodate even one motor-car and that the "fee" was added solely for personal gain.

[bluebottle]

Re: equita bailiffs

Why did your local authority resort to distress for one missed CT payment? That appears to be an inappropriate and disproportionate measure in the circumstances. Could you enlighten us as to why your local authority has chosen to behave in this way and who your local authority is, please?

[bizzybob]

Re: equita bailiffs

Possibly a Crapquita stitch up council, it certainly stinks of crap(ita) fishyness

[mem]

Re: equita bailiffs

Hi
thanks for all replys both cars are worth £2000 approx
Not to sure why council took this path local council is sutton,
i use 1 car for work other car no mot or tax trying to sell

Thanks

[bluebottle]

Re: equita bailiffs

Hi
thanks for all replys both cars are worth £2000 approx
Not to sure why council took this path local council is sutton,
i use 1 car for work other car no mot or tax trying to sell

Thanks

The measure is, IMHO, disproportionate and inappropriate use of distress. Did Sutton Council follow correct procedures? My gut-feeling is that this matter should be the subject of a Regulation 46 complaint against Sutton Council to the Magistrates Court that issued the LO.

[CleverClogs]

Re: equita bailiffs

Not to sure why council took this path

I might know.

Is this the Head of Revenues?

[bluebottle]

Re: equita bailiffs

I might know.

Is this the Head of Revenues?

A severe case of Cranio-Rectal Obstruction if ever I saw one!

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: equita bailiffs

Equita and the bailiff are well out of order, but....

Hi
I missed a payment on my council tax which was deferred to equita on a monthly payment plan. I had been paying this regularly until march when i payed it 10 days late due to no work. On the 16th march i received a letter asking for full payment of 309.45 from equita which was only 244.45 after late payment. I rang them straight away...You should have got in touch with them when you knew you were going to be late with one of the agreed payments and they put me through to the bailiff dealing with the case and he said the figure was 407.45 when asked for a breakdown he could not answer this. Within 10 minutes he was at my door with a letter which included a levy fee of £33.00 if this was the first visit from a bailiff from equita the charge is only £24.50, if it was the second visit the charge should be £18.00....if this was his third visit there is no charge and a visit fee of £130..the bailiff can only charge a levy fee (assuming £309.45) of £53.38 and the attendance to remove (this depends on the sum agreed between the Local Authority and Equita) if he had clamped your cars and filled in a Notice of Distress with inventory of what he had seized. which added up to 407.45 also the levy was against 2 cars is this fair to charge me for these fees as the letter stated that i owed 309.45 by return of post.

hope this helps

[CleverClogs]

Re: equita bailiffs

Equita and the bailiff are well out of order, but....

the bailiff can only charge a levy fee (assuming £309.45) of £53.38

Wrong!

On a debt of £309.45, the levy fee would be (£24.50 + (£209.45 x 4%) = £24.50 + £8.38 = £32.88. This was (correctly) rounded up to £33; even if VAT were (wrongly) to be added, it would still only total £40 after rounding up. Please see paragraph 2(1) of the attached file.

Perhaps you could say at which point in the calculations the date should be added?

and the attendance to remove (this depends on the sum agreed between the Local Authority and Equita) if he had clamped your cars and filled in a Notice of Distress with inventory of what he had seized.

As I pointed out earlier, no opportunity to pay had been given to the debtor, so any fee for "attendance to remove" was inappropriate. Moreover, as the van used by the bailiff could not possibly have been used to remove even one of the motor-cars, that "fee" must surely be considered to be fanciful.

hope this helps

Yes.

It certainly helps one to understand how someone might attempt to exculpate a bailiff.

[ploddertom]

Re: equita bailiffs

They cannot charge VAT on top of fees for Council Tax.