and so it continues.....

[CleverClogs]

Re: and so it continues.....

How dare they question you as to why you are querying their lies now. The simple answer is that they lied, cheated and bullied you into paying their legalised extortion. Now that you have the benefit of advice you can see that they are lying, robbing, ba$tards (allegedly) and you are determined to get back that which they stole off you. Hell will not be full until these people are in it. They are worse than scum.

As this is hardly the first time that Phoenix Collections has been caught adding bogus fees (link to CAG) perhaps a private prosecution (link) might deter them from doing it again?

[CleverClogs]

Re: and so it continues.....

I have sent this:

I would also like to point out that you have duty to ascertain legal ownership of the vehicle which if you did you would have found it to not be mine and makes the levy against it unlawful, in which case I expect a refund of the fees charged in relation to the levy and the attendance with a van.

If anyone can add anything else it would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Well, there is the matter of the £129 charged and described by them as "costs", which they added before they'd added any visit fees. Such a charge does not appear in the schedule of permissible charges.

[CleverClogs]

Re: and so it continues.....

Sounds to me as if they may be monitoring both of your thread on here.

Perhaps, then, we should not say too much about their impending prosecution?

[CleverClogs]

Re: and so it continues.....

How would they ?

This part of the site can be searched by Google - and they probably check the various forums anyway, just to see which of their latest misdeeds are being discussed.

and even if they were what difference does it make if they have acted unlawfully!?

None whatever, though it might perhaps impair our chances of an effective prosecution if they were to turn up in the next few days bearing a big box of chocolates, an enormous bouquet of flowers, a magnum (double bottle) of champagne and, most importantly, a cheque for £507 plus something added for the trouble they've caused.

[bizzybob]

Re: and so it continues.....

The council are equally guilty as they accepted and condone the unlwful actiions of their bailiff. It is the actions of a desoperate party when they question why something was only just pointed out as unlawful and fraud. The reason is simple for the numpties in the council. The victim of their cretinous contractor has only after much investigation found out they had been defrauded in a wholly criminal m,anner.

[bizzybob]

Re: and so it continues.....

These numpties are definitely candidates for involvement of PPS, maybe a test case agaist a couple of bailiffs would focus the authorities where the evidence is compelling.

[bluebottle]

Re: and so it continues.....

A letter worded something like this might put their backsides into gear-

Dear Sir,

Ref.: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I write with regard to the matter at reference.

On scrutinising the charges your company has made, I have found the following to be not in accordance with relevant legislation -

Levy Fee on motor vehicle registration mark [VRM] in the sum of [Amount]
Attendance to Remove/Van Fee in the sum of [Amount]
Costs in the sum of [Amount]

Total Amount in the sum of [Amount]

You are put on notice that I do not hold a driving licence, nor do I own a motor vehicle. It would, therefore, appear that your bailiff randomly selected a vehicle that was parked in the street outside my home without first conducting any adequate or proper checks to ascertain who the Registered Owner or Keeper of that vehicle was. If the bailiff had done so, they would have discovered that I do not own the vehicle whose Vehicle Registration mark they have written on the Form 7. Additionally, at no time have any of your company's bailiffs entered my home and levied on any of the goods therein. Therefore, without a lawful levy, there is no justification for any Attendance to Remove or Van Fees. Also, the "Costs" you have charged do not appear in the schedule of fees permitted under relevant legislation.

You are put on notice that I expect the sum detailed above to be repaid immediately and certainly by no later than 12 noon on [Date 7 days from date of letter], although I am under no obligation to provide you with any period of time in which to repay this sum.

Your company is put on notice that should the sum not be repaid, then I reserve the right to report this matter to the police or, alternatively, pass the matter to the Private Prosecution Service (PPS), which is a not-for-profit organisation that provides its services on a paid and pro bono basis, with a view to pursuing a private prosecution against Phoenix Collections and the bailiff involved. I do not feel that I need elaborate as to the consequences of a successful conviction against Phoenix Collections and the bailiff responsible.

In addition to the sum above, I am claiming Statutory Interest at 8% plus all other costs necessarily incurred pursuing this matter.

It is, therefore, in the best interests of Phoenix Collections and the bailiff involved to ensure the sum detailed above is repaid promptly, with interest.

No further notice shall be given.

Yours faithfully

Sparkle


Let other LB members comment on this and fine-tune it if necessary. If the bailiff is monitoring this thread, he needs to be aware that two of the posters are former police officers.

[CleverClogs]

Re: and so it continues.....

Your company is put on notice that should the sum not be repaid, then I reserve the right to report this matter to the police or, alternatively, pass the matter to the Private Prosecution Service (PPS),

Like that, it could be read as an attempt to use the threat of prosecution to reinforce a demand for repayment of monies improperly charged.

I would prefer:

You are put on notice that I also reserve the right to report this matter to the police or, alternatively, pass the matter to the Private Prosecution Service (PPS), (etc.)...

[sparkle99]

Re: and so it continues.....

Thanks ever so much you guys. i would never have known what to do without all your lovely help. i wish i could buy u a drink to thank u. x

[ODC]

Re: and so it continues.....

Thanks ever so much you guys. i would never have known what to do without all your lovely help. i wish i could buy u a drink to thank u. x

Ballifs and DCAs rely on peoples lack of knowledge to carry out their scummy activities

[bizzybob]

Re: and so it continues.....

Ballifs and DCAs rely on peoples lack of knowledge to carry out their scummy activities

Exactly so, when they are up against someone who knows what is what, they are so used to frightening people, it still takes a while before they realise it is they that may end up in the dock.

As to the letter, I would add that the council gets a copy and they are approached as the primary defendant, they being ultimately liable for coughing up for their agents muppetry

[ODC]

Re: and so it continues.....

Exactly so, when they are up against someone who knows what is what, they are so used to frightening people, it still takes a while before they realise it is they that may end up in the dock.

As to the letter, I would add that the council gets a copy and they are approached as the primary defendant, they being ultimately liable for coughing up for their agents muppetry

Good point. The company who passes the debt on to a DCA to chase (not sold to) is responsible for the behaviour of the scum they use to harrass and bully

[CleverClogs]

Re: and so it continues.....

Thanks ever so much you guys. i would never have known what to do without all your lovely help. i wish i could buy u a drink to thank u. x

As I remarked earlier this week, it is a privilege and a sincere pleasure to help whenever I can.

It almost makes my late mother's labour pains seem worthwhile.

[bizzybob]

Re: and so it continues.....

Good point. The company who passes the debt on to a DCA to chase (not sold to) is responsible for the behaviour of the scum they use to harrass and bully

Councils tend to forget that their agents actions are their responsibility, under a little thing called vicarious, and joint and several liability, so if a bailiff causes a debtor's death, the Head of Revenues and CEO should be in the dock with the bailiff.

[bluebottle]

Re: and so it continues.....

Councils tend to forget that their agents actions are their responsibility, under a little thing called vicarious, and joint and several liability, so if a bailiff causes a debtor's death, the Head of Revenues and CEO should be in the dock with the bailiff.

Since the creation of the offence of Corporate Manslaughter, it should now be possible to haul senior local government officers, including CEOs, before the
courts and hold them to account. There are also the offences of Misconduct and Misfeasance in Public Office that can be used against LGOs.