Tweet
So many of you have read my ongoing saga with phoenix and I sent them an email ,To whom it may concern
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 [] in the sum of [£53]
Attendance to Remove/Van Fee in the sum of [£325]
Costs in the sum of [£129]
Total Amount in the sum of [£507]
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 8th May 2013 although I am under no obligation to provide you with any period of time in which to repay this sum.
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
This is the email I received back, can anyone help any further in regards to getting my money back please!:
We write in response to your email of 30 April 2013, the contents of which we note.
In order to address your complaint we feel it best to provide background information as to the actions taken prior to our involvement in your account. The matter is subject to a liability order granted by the magistrates to our client London Borough of Bromley on 6 July 2012 and subsequently passed to us on 16 July 2012. Prior to our involvement the council would have already made contact with you with demands, summonses and other applications which clearly were unsuccessful in applying as the matter was then passed to us. Upon receipt of such accounts we are provided instruction to recover the outstanding amount as stated by our client. In order to do so, and in the legal execution of the court issued liability order, we adopt various methods which include but are not limited to sending letters, making phone calls and conducting bailiff visits to your property for which fees can be incurred as per The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. In response to the three points you raise regarding the costs incurred on your account we would respond as follows. · Costs in the sum of [£129]o This sum is as a result of court costs incurred and is applied to your account before it is passed to us.· Levy Fee on motor vehicle registration mark [] in the sum of [£53]o The levy carried out on your account was done so during the bailiffs visit of 10 October 2013 and was on a vehicle with the registration , this was a Silver Honda Accord which was situated directly outside your property. This being the case it was reasonable for the bailiff to believe that the vehicle he levied on did indeed belong to you. With regards to obtaining proof of ownership we would advise that it is for you to prove ownership - not the bailiff. The bailiff is entitled to make reasonable assumptions about ownership, the bailiff does not have to prove ownership before fees are properly applied.· Attendance to Remove/Van Fee in the sum of [£325]o An Attendance to Remove fee is incurred when, following a levy being completed, the bailiff attends with the intention to remove goods but where no goods are removed at that time. This was the case on the visits of 10 October 2012 and 25 April 2013. As we have established that the levy was correctly applied in line with The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, Regulation 45, the fees incurred were due and payable. We have established that our bailiff was acting on the legal execution of a court issued liability order on behalf of our client London Borough of Bromley and in doing so properly applied fees in line with The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. We trust that this fully answers your queries and clarifies our position in relation to this matter. Regards, Phoenix Commercial Collections Ltd
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 [] in the sum of [£53]
Attendance to Remove/Van Fee in the sum of [£325]
Costs in the sum of [£129]
Total Amount in the sum of [£507]
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 8th May 2013 although I am under no obligation to provide you with any period of time in which to repay this sum.
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), 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
This is the email I received back, can anyone help any further in regards to getting my money back please!:
We write in response to your email of 30 April 2013, the contents of which we note.
In order to address your complaint we feel it best to provide background information as to the actions taken prior to our involvement in your account. The matter is subject to a liability order granted by the magistrates to our client London Borough of Bromley on 6 July 2012 and subsequently passed to us on 16 July 2012. Prior to our involvement the council would have already made contact with you with demands, summonses and other applications which clearly were unsuccessful in applying as the matter was then passed to us. Upon receipt of such accounts we are provided instruction to recover the outstanding amount as stated by our client. In order to do so, and in the legal execution of the court issued liability order, we adopt various methods which include but are not limited to sending letters, making phone calls and conducting bailiff visits to your property for which fees can be incurred as per The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. In response to the three points you raise regarding the costs incurred on your account we would respond as follows. · Costs in the sum of [£129]o This sum is as a result of court costs incurred and is applied to your account before it is passed to us.· Levy Fee on motor vehicle registration mark [] in the sum of [£53]o The levy carried out on your account was done so during the bailiffs visit of 10 October 2013 and was on a vehicle with the registration , this was a Silver Honda Accord which was situated directly outside your property. This being the case it was reasonable for the bailiff to believe that the vehicle he levied on did indeed belong to you. With regards to obtaining proof of ownership we would advise that it is for you to prove ownership - not the bailiff. The bailiff is entitled to make reasonable assumptions about ownership, the bailiff does not have to prove ownership before fees are properly applied.· Attendance to Remove/Van Fee in the sum of [£325]o An Attendance to Remove fee is incurred when, following a levy being completed, the bailiff attends with the intention to remove goods but where no goods are removed at that time. This was the case on the visits of 10 October 2012 and 25 April 2013. As we have established that the levy was correctly applied in line with The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, Regulation 45, the fees incurred were due and payable. We have established that our bailiff was acting on the legal execution of a court issued liability order on behalf of our client London Borough of Bromley and in doing so properly applied fees in line with The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. We trust that this fully answers your queries and clarifies our position in relation to this matter. Regards, Phoenix Commercial Collections Ltd
Comment