Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

[ploddertom]

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

With Council tax the Bailiff Fees are paid first with any remainder going towards what you owe. However it appears that part of your Councils contract with their Bailiff must say where the debtor pays direct the Council keeps all the money & it will be up to the Bailiff to pursue the debtor for any fees outstanding. What you actually need your Council to say is that all the Liability Orders are discharged in full. It will then be very difficult for the Bailiffs to do much more than ask "Pretty please will you pay some of our lawful fees".

[7CS]

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

Understood! Now, where I may have them firmly by the balls is that the letter states only this year's bill has bailiffs fees outstanding. However, only two visits have been made in relation to that account. Shall I take it by the wording of the letter that I only owe them £42.50? Since all other fees are in relation to the 2012/2013 account.

[labman]

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

On re-reading it, the wording is this;

Council tax for the year 2009 / 10 [insert other years as appropriate] for which a Liability Order was issued has been paid.


To me, on a second read, it states the LO has been paid. If they have messed up and not passed on bailiff fees due before stating the LO has been paid, it is their problem, not yours.

2013/14 is worded differently and states a sum equal to the amount outstanding on the LO granted has been received. However substantial bailiff fees are still outstanding. This is specifically in relation to 2013/14, so I believe if bailiff are owing for this years, they can claim them. For any other year, the bailiff can jump up and down and threaten, but you have it in writing the LO is paid. Their mistakes are for them to resolve, not you. :beagle:

[7CS]

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

Thanks again for the help folks. As a result of the past couple of replies, I have sent this email to both the council and B&S. Let me know what you think...

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to my email dated 29/9/13 (attached), I would like to make you aware that I am now in possession of written confirmation from High Peak Borough Council that all liability orders issued to myself have now been paid in full, with the exception of the liability order granted on 11th June 2013 relating to the Council Tax payment for the year 2013/2014. I have attached a copy of the letter for your information.


Therefore, I am only liable for costs and fees in relation to the liability order granted on 11th June 2013, and as such I offer the total sum of £42.50 as full and final payment to close the account.


Please advise how payment should be made, and confirm in writing to myself that upon receipt of £42.50, Bristow & Sutor will no longer pursue fees relating to discharged liability orders.


Any further pursuit of fees or charges relating to discharged liability orders will be treated as illegal attempts to defraud, and shall be reported as such to the relevant authorities.


Kind regards,"

[7CS]

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

Further update:

I have just received this email from the council -

"Dear Mr ********
Thank you for your e-mail.

The matter regarding your Bailiff fees you need to address to Bristow and Sutor

Their contact details are :-

Telephone 0871 677 0071
e-mail www.bristowsutor.co.uk
Post Bristow and Sutor Bartfleet Road Washford Redditch Worcs B98 0FL

Recovery@highpeak.gov.uk"


I replied with the following:

"Thank you for the reply.


As you can see from the email, it was sent to both Bristow & Sutor and High Peak Borough Council.


I trust that I do not need to remind you that HPBC, as a local government authority, are at all times responsible for the actions of contractors employed by the Council to carry out debt recovery work on the Council's behalf. As such, I will continue to address both parties, and will hold High Peak Borough Council fully responsible for any and all acts of misrepresentation and/or unlawful activity in relation to liability orders in my name.


If the Council deem any action carried out by Bristow & Sutor to be potentially unlawful, I would strongly suggest that you make it clear to Bristow & Sutor that action will be taken to ensure both they and the Council will be brought to task by the Local Government Ombudsman.


Kind regards"


I actually feel like I'm fighting my corner quite well, but can't help but think it's all about to come crashing down around me

[labman]

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

A very good response - well done you! :clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:

[7CS]

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



Couldn't have done it without your help! Just hope it produces a positive outcome.

[ploddertom]

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

Well it may make them sit up & think - if they do joined thinking that is. The only actions they cannot be held responsible for is any blatant unlawful action such as the Bailiff getting so fed up he takes a sledgehammer to your car.

[7CS]

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

I've had this reply from B&S this morning.

What should my next step be? Thanks in advance.

"Dear Sir,
Re: Council Tax arrears due to High Peak Borough Council

We write with reference to the above and confirm receipt of your email, the contents of which have been duly noted.

Whilst the letter from the council states that you have cleared to outstanding Council Tax it does not confirm that you have cleared all fees due to Bristow & Sutor which remain outstanding.

We can confirm that your outstanding balance is £338.50, this includes the following cases:-

HPC-T 1925- £296.00
HPC-T 2344- £42.50

Having reviewed your account we can confirm that you will remain liable for all of the outstanding costs as visits had taken place prior to the council balance being cleared.

We have also spoken with High Peak Borough Council who has confirmed that you will remain liable for Bristow & Sutor’s costs.

We are prepared to accept the full balance of £338.50 by 10/10/2013, if you are unable to clear the full amount in one instalment please contact our offices with a new offer of payment by 09/10/2013.

Failure to comply will result in further action in which bailiffs will be instructed to attend your property with the intention of collecting the balance in full in cleared funds or removal of your goods to be sold at public auction.

Yours faithfully,

Miss C Lostitch
Recovery Officer
Bristow & Sutor
Tel: 0871 677 0070"

[labman]

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

Dear Miss Lostitch,

Your Ref: abcd1234

I am writing in response to your letter dated dd/mm/yyyy in which you state I am still liable for the fees charged by Bristow and Sutor.I have in writing, from the High Peak, the fact my Council Tax, for which a Liability Order was issued, has been paid. This is a clear, unambiguous statement. It is paid. The balance owing is £0.00.

I know that for Council Tax issues, fees for the council's appointed Enforcement Officers are taken out of any payment before any money is paid towards the Council Tax bill itself. It is therefore impossible for my Council Tax to be cleared, while fees for enforcement remain outstanding. If the council have erroneously cleared the debt without paying you any alleged fees owing, I respectfully suggest you pursue them for the fees, not me. The letter I have is quite clear, the Council Tax is paid. As said above, this would be impossible if other alleged fees were still outstanding as it is not how the stystem works. I look forward to your written confirmation that this matter is now completed.

Yours sincerely,


It has to be worth a try. Apply a bit of pressure and make them squirm a bit rather than just cave in. See what they say. It will be resorting to legislation next. :beagle:

[7CS]

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

Thank you Labman. I was actually going to reply to say I'd give that a go, but I have received a further email in the last 5 minutes... :tinysmile_cry_t:

"Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Outstanding Costs

We write with reference to the above and acknowledge receipt of your email, the contents of which have been duly noted.

Bristow & Sutor advise we levied distress on your vehicle registration number ******* on 01.03.13 prior to you paying the Council on 23.09.13, therefore the levy was not for outstanding costs alone, please note Bristow & Sutor can legally levy distress for outstanding fees as these remain legally due and payable under the terms of the Liability Order and the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

We confirm that the seizure on the above vehicle is still valid until the total balance of £338.50 has been paid in full.

Bristow & Sutor confirm that we have reviewed all visits that were incurred and they were all correct, please note all our vehicles are fitted with tracking devices and we can provide the relevant evidence if requested in a court of law.

We re-iterate as per our previous email we require the balance of £338.50 to be paid by 10.10.13 to prevent further recovery action from being taken.

We trust this clarifies the situation

Yours faithfully

Mrs C Corcoran"

[7CS]

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

Anyone bored of this yet? I am

I have replied with the following:

"Mrs Corcoran,

Thank you for your email.


Unfortunately, I am not willing to solely accept your word that such GPS data exists, and as such I would request that this evidence be sent to myself for confirmation that all visits were made as claimed.


Furthermore, I would request that you clarify a number of points before I even consider entering into an agreement to pay Bristow & Sutor's alleged fees.


Firstly, please clarify exactly how long a levy can legally last before being declared abandoned. I am of the opinion that over five months between visits after levying an item constitutes an abandoned levy.


Secondly, I would like clarification on why exactly I was charged a "Van fee/aborted removal fee" of £180.00 on the 7th of August 2013 - including why exactly a van was sent despite no goods small enough to fit in one having been levied, and also why the removal was "aborted."


Thirdly, I have in writing, from High Peak Borough Council, confirmation of the fact my Council Tax, for which a Liability Order was issued, has been paid in full. This is a clear, unambiguous statement: The balance owing is £0.00.


I know that in relation to Council Tax arrears, fees for the Council's appointed Enforcement Officers (in this case Bristow & Sutor) are taken out of any payment tendered before any money is paid towards the Council Tax bill itself. It is therefore impossible for my Council Tax to be cleared and have a balance of £0.00 while fees for enforcement remain outstanding. If the High Peak Borough Council have erroneously cleared the debt without paying Bristow & Sutor any alleged fees owed, I would respectfully suggest you pursue the Council for the fees, and not me.


The letter I have is quite clear, the Council Tax is paid. As said above, this would be impossible if other alleged fees were still outstanding as it is not how the system works.


I would be grateful if you could point out to me (including quoting Council Tax enforcement law) exactly why I am allegedly still responsible for Bristow & Sutor's fees despite owing no money to the Council, and all Liability orders having been settled and discharged.


Until I am in receipt of all requested information, I am afraid I do not feel I am in a position to negotiate how best to proceed with this situation.


Again, I look forward to your response.


Regards."

[labman]

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

They will quote Sections 45(3) and (4) to you.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...lation/45/made


You counter with Section 52(4)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...lation/52/made

(4) Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in accordance with this Part, any sum recovered thereby which is less than the aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges shall be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum.


I bet that is what they cite (and to be fair, they are probably right, but we can argue and try to get you off the costs).

The issue of an abandoned levy is far more serious. Good reply! I hope you're going to hang around to help out after you've got your own issue resolved. Your knowledge would be invaluable on here.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

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

Last edited by labman; Yesterday at 19:06:PM. Reason: anbandoned doesn't exist; abandoned does!

anbandomedabdomen is after 180 days:gossip:

[7CS]

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

Labman, again I can't thank you enough for the advice; you've been invaluable! Of course I'll stick around and help out where I can, although I am just 'winging it' to an extent - there's not much concrete knowledge on my part.

Sir Vere, can you point me to the legislation or law that says it's 180 days on a levy? Does that mean 180 days full stop, or just if they don't visit for 180 days?

I'm running out of ammunition now, and running out of time. I received the following email today, and it's making me want to give in. If they couldn't or hadn't levied my car, I'd tell them where to go, but they currently seem to have me by the balls

"Dear Sir,
Re: Council Tax arrears due to High Peak Borough Council

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been duly noted.

We can confirm that on 21/08/2012 & 11/06/2013 High Peak Magistrates court made a liability order under regulation 34 of the council Tax (administration & enforcement) Regulations 1992 against you.

Once a liability has been granted the council have the lawful authority to enforce the debt by instructing certificated bailiffs to collect the outstanding arrears in which additional fees can be applied.

Your assumption that a levy can be abandoned after a period exceeding 5 months between visits is incorrect. To clarify once goods are seized the levy will remain valid until the outstanding debt including costs is paid in full.

The van/removal fee was charged as the bailiff attended with the intention of removing goods or collecting the outstanding balance. We must point out that when a bailiff is instructed to collect the full balance they are also legally entitled to re levy and remove other items in which a van would be necessary.

During the visit the bailiff made the decision to abort removal and allow time for the balance to be paid. We must point out that if he would have commenced removal additional contractor and removal costs would be been applied.

As previously advised at the point in which the first two visits took place the council balance had not been cleared. We would also advise that once a liability order has been granted the balance becomes due in full therefore any part payment made would not prevent action unless an arrangement had been made.

As fees were incurred prior to the full balance being paid we are legally entitled to recover any outstanding costs regardless of whether the council balance was later cleared.

Documents will be sent to you by post to confirm that the bailiff visits took place however at this stage we feel that we have made our position clear therefore we will have no alternative but to continue recovery action for the outstanding balance of £338.50.

We trust this clarifies our position.

Yours faithfully,

Miss C Lostitch"