Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

[7CS]

My wife and I fell into arrears on our council tax. We've had a couple of letters from the council over the past 5 or 6 months, but the first we have heard from a bailiff was when they arrived today with the following letter:



I called the bailiff straight away (I was out at work) and had a brief conversation during which he told me the amount owed was ~£1,400 and the least he could accept today was £1000 with the rest to be paid at a later date. When pressed, he explained that the original debt was £1,119, and that we had been charged (amongst other things) a £180 "van fee" for today's visit.

When I asked how that was possible on the first visit, he said they had visited on the 7th of August. I can't say for sure if anyone was in on that date, but I am 100% certain we received no letter in the post or through the door.

To cut a long story short, I have managed to scrape together the £1,119 we owe the council, with help from a friend. I plan to pay this directly to the council, but where will this leave me with the bailiff fees? I have been told they can use GPS to show they attended our property, but this doesn't prove they spoke to anybody or left any correspondence. For the record, we have not let them in, nor have we signed anything.

Any help would be appreciated.

Bailiff company is B&S... Bull and Sh...

[labman]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

It is sensible to pay the council in full. However, for CT cases, bailiff fees are chargeable BEFORE money goes to the council, so the council should pay the bailiff fees, still leaving you slightly short and potentially being pursued by the bailiffs still.

The maximum they can charge is £42.50 IMO. £24.50 for a first visit and £18.00 for Visit 2. Paperwork should have been left on Visit 1 though, so you could put them to strict proof on this.

For you, it's a case of weighing up getting it settled, against arguing the point for £42.50 and possibly risking more bailiff fees. Some sites would disagree with me on this and say the bailiffs have acted unlawfully and you should not pay a penny to them. They may be right, and we can help you fight that way. Equally YOU have the stress of this, nobody else, so you do what is right for you.

What you should definitely do first though is check the following by phone to the council first thing tomorrow before paying anything:

1. How many Liability Orders they have against you?
2. The dates they were obtained?
3. The addresses they were for?
4. The period of time each covers?
5. How much each one was for?
6. How much is still outstanding?
7. The dates they were passed on for enforcement?

If the amounts agree with the bailiff, fair enough. If the amounts are different, go by what the council say you owe, NOT by what the bailiffs say.

Have a read of this:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...67-Council-Tax

It may help you. :beagle:

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

Bailiffs who enforce Council Tax Liability orders are advised by the issuing Authority to accept payment plans (sensible ones, not £5 per week when one feels like it), however my advice to you is to pay the bailiff whatever you can afford now, and discuss how you are going to pay the balance.

I will try to get some clear information about the fees and charges a bailiff can apply and when they can do so.

[ploddertom]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

Clearly the Bailiff is trying to allege he made a prior levy on goods and "forgot" to leave a Notice of Seizure. If paying the Council direct then make sure you add £42-50 to the amount demanded - 1st & 2nd Visit Fees. Then get on to the Bailiffs and demand a breakdown of the fees they charging. We can take a look and distinguish between fact & fiction. I suspect if they have done a prior visit then they have noted a random car nearby that more than likely has nothing to do with you. Whatever happens do NOT under ANY circumstances allow them entry to your home.

[bizzybob]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

I wsould pay the council the sum owing plus the £42.50, as dealing with the bailiff may be futile, if you ever phone a bailiff always record the call if you can, as bailiffs lie.

[labman]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

Everything as per post 2 - we all seem agreed. Sir Vere - if you click bailiffs at the top of the screen, you'll see a load of stickies before any posts are made. These have all the current fees there.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

Everything as per post 2 - we all seem agreed. Sir Vere - if you click bailiffs at the top of the screen, you'll see a load of stickies before any posts are made. These have all the current fees there.

There are some fairly strict guielines on fees and charges applied to Council Tax & Non Domestic Rates Liability orders.

1. First visit fee £24.50 -

• Can only be applied where an attendance has been made but the outcome is either no contact or the defaulter is unco-operative and a levy can not be performed
• If the liability is settled on the first visit, without the need to levy, only £24.50 can be applied.
• The visit fee can not be applied if levy is performed on the first visit (Levy fees below)
• Only one visit fee per day.
• It can only be applied on the first liability where multiple liabilities exist, unless received at different times/from different Authorities

2. Second visit fee 18.00 as above.

3. Levy fees:

• For the first £100 owed £24.50
• Next £400 4%
• Next £1,500 2.5%
• Anything over £2,000 0.25%

4. When a levy is raised (the bailiff has put pen to paper and started listing items that he/she can touch and mark) then they can charge for the van (charges differ among Authorities but are in the region of £100) and charge for removal/aborted removal (again in the region of £100).

5. in case of aborted removal, because the defaulter has agreed to a walking possession (where the levied goods are left with the defaulter for a period agreed between the two parties to give time to the defaulter to pay) the fee is £12.

6. In the case of NDR, if close possession is required (that is when the bailiff needs to stay with the controlled goods {say large machinery bolted to the floor, but easily removable with the right equipment} £15 per day.

To conclude, if no levy has been performed then no other fees but the visit fees can be charged, if the bailiff charges more than they are acting illegally by trying to defraud the defaulter.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

To conclude, if no levy has been performed then no other fees but the visit fees can be charged, if the bailiff charges more than they are acting illegally by trying to defraud the defaulter.

Gosh!

Fancy that!

[bizzybob]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

Gosh!

Fancy that!

Fraud plain and simple, it has even been agreed in Parliament that this is so, http://www.publications.parliament.u...70420w0001.htm but the police are reluctant to act, as they consider it a waste of resources, when in reality as the crime is all down on paper, and plain to see it as as easy a cop for the plod as a Gatso fine. Has to be a public confidence issue as in if it is shown the bailiff contractors enforcing for public debt like Council Tax and HMCS fines, are regularly defrauding debtors there will be an outcry. Wain until next year when the Taking Control of goods Regulations come in, and next door loses their car., due to an unlawful levy and cannot afford the interpleader....:wub:

From Hansard the link above:

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

• Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.
One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.
The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.
Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

• Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and by doing so obtains a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2744]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.
The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

[7CS]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

Firstly, apologies for the huge delay in replying. I've only just had the chance to get back on here.

Secondly, thank you for the hugely helpful replies. However, I will need to add more information and ask for more help before I can be 100% certain on what to do next.

The problem is, my wife and I have been in this situation before, with last year's council tax bill. At that time, a bailiff came and levied my car, which was parked on the drive. I was able to borrow the amount owed to the council from my parents, and I paid them directly. After that, I only had one more call from the bailiffs, then all went quiet.

When I spoke to the bailiff last week, he said they had visited 7 times in total (lies). Even if they had visited this many times, surely this year's council tax is a different "account" to last year, and so has to be treated separately?

I emailed Bristow & Sutor on Friday morning and asked for a full breakdown of the money they claim I owe them. It's no surprise that they didn't reply.

I have the £1,119 together now. I was told by the bailiff I had until tomorrow to sort something, so I need to know how to proceed.

Apologies for the disjointed details and lack of concrete info. I feel like I don't know what's going on myself.

[7CS]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

And yes, I know we're idiots for letting this happen twice.

[labman]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

This year's account is totally separate to last years. You settled last years in full anyway didn't you.

Just remember that if they have visited twice, you owe an extra £42.50 for bailiff fees.

[7CS]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

I settled it in full with the council, but I didn't pay anything to the bailiffs, so I suppose I still owe them money. Even so, is it still separate?

[labman]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

Yes, it will be a separate liability order this time. If they haven't pestered you, I think you can forget last year's fees now. :beagle:

[7CS]

Re: Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

Thanks. I've just found something interesting. Their website has a section where you can log in and "manage" your account. I logged in with the reference on the letter in my original post, and it says I owe £296. It says the liability order is from 21/08/2012.

This reference number is the same as the last time they chased me.