Problem with unfair/made-up bailiff fees.

[ploddertom]

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

My take on the fees are as following:
Account 1
1st Visit Fee - £24-50 - payable
2nd Visit Fee - £18-00 - payable
Header H Fee (Redemption Fee) - £24-50 - no goods removed so no fee payable
Levy Fee - £18-00 - in my view goods abandoned so fee not chargeable
Van Fee - £180-00 - not payable as goods abandoned
Fees Payable £42-50

Account 2
1st Visit Fee - £24-50 - not payable as attended in conjunction with Account 1
2nd Visit Fee - £18-00 - as above
Fees Payable £0-00

Total Fees for both Accounts £42-50

Knowing B&S they will come up with with plenty of bull as to why the levy is not abandoned but that can be left for the Council to agree or disagree and dependent on their answer could be taken to the LGO - which probably the Council will not want to happen.

[7CS]

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

Thank you very much Plodderton.

Would you advise me to just send them a re-working of the above and see what they say?

[ploddertom]

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

Thank you very much Plodderton.

Would you advise me to just send them a re-working of the above and see what they say?

See what others think first but basically yes. I can nearly guarantee the reply you get back will poo poo all you say and the reasons why they are right.

[labman]

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

I think the LGO will expect you to have followed the complaints procedure, should it get that far. I'd therefore head any communications 'Formal Complaint' , state you dispute the fees charged by B&S, list a breakdown, explaining those which are disputed.

At the end, state what you need as a resolution, and also that if this resolution is not agreed, then you will be escalating the matter to the LGO.

Send the letter to both B&S and the council.

[7CS]

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

Perfect, thanks. I'll keep this thread up to date with any developments.

[7CS]

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

OK, I've drafted the following letter to B&S (I will CC the council). Could you guys please have a read and let me know if anything needs to be added/removed or reworded? Thanks!

[QUOTE]

Ref: HPC-T/1925 and HPC-T/2344

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your reply, and for the requested breakdown offees.

Unfortunately I am not in agreement with the amounts quoted,and will outline my reasons in this email.

First of all, my vehicle was levied by Bristow & Sutoron the 1^st of March 2013.Since nobody was employed to stay with the vehicle, and the next visit by oneof your bailiffs was over 5 months later (7^th of August 2013) withno attempt to seize the vehicle on that day or any in between, I consider thislevy to have been abandoned and as a result, invalid.

Below is a beakdown of the fees which Bristow & Sutorare attempting to charge, along with the reasons I believe they should or should not be paid.

HPC-T/1925

16/10/2012 - £24.50 1st ATL Fee	Legitimate first visit fee, and therefore payable.
17/10/2012 - £18.00 2nd ATL Fee	Legitimate second visit fee, and therefore payable.
29/11/2012 - £0	N/A
28/01/2013 - £0	N/A
01/03/2013 - £24.50 Redemption Fee	Levy abandoned due to length of time between visits, as explained above; therefore this charge is not payable. Alternatively, if this is a “Head H” fee, it is also invalid as nothing was redeemed from the bailiff.
01/03/2013 - £18.00 Levy Fee	Levy abandoned due to length of time between visits, as explained above. Also, only one charge is permitted per visit. This is not payable.
07/08/2013 - £180.00 Van/Removal Fee	Again, no valid levy is currently in place due to abandonment of the levied goods (my vehicle). I would also question whether acar would fit in the back of a Bristow & Sutor van regardless.
19/09/2013 - £0	N/A

HPC-T/2344

17/08/2013 - £24.50 1st ATL Fee	Since this visit was made in conjunction with the first account (HPC-T/1925) a first visit fee is not applicable nor is it payable.
19/09/2013 - £18.00 2nd ATL Fee	Since this visit was made in conjunction with the first account (HPC-T/1925) a first visit fee is not applicable nor is it payable.

By my calculations and interpretation of the law surroundingbailiff action for unpaid Council Tax, I accept that a total of only £42.50 ispayable by myself to Bristow & Sutor.

To further make my position clear on the invalidity of thelevy on my vehicle, I would also draw to your attention a passage taken fromThe Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 sectionentitled ‘Distress’:

“If, before any goods are seized, the appropriate amount(including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) is paid ortendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount and the levyshall not be proceeded with.”

Furthermore, since I made full payment to ******** BoroughCouncil for both instances of outstanding Council Tax, and therefore settledand discharged all liability orders, I do not believe Bristow & Sutor areentitled to payment of any further charges or penalties relating to dischargedliability orders.

I wish to make it very clear indeed that I will not hesitateto escalate my grievance by making a formal complaint to both Bristow &Sutor, and ******** Borough Council. I also intend to contact both my localMember of Parliament and local Councillor to canvas their opinions on thematter.

From a legal standpoint, I am absolutely willing to contactthe police and report Bristow & Sutor for fraud if I believe any actiontaken or fees charged by you to be knowingly in contravention with the law.

With this in mind, I would urge you to review both accounts andensure that all fees and charges are accurate before any further action orcorrespondence. I look forward to hearing from you promptly with regards to thepoints outlined above.

Regards,
[/QUOTE]

[labman]

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

That looks fine, just re-read regarding missed spaces between words, as there's lots of those. You might also want to mention escalating the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, which should really be your next step, unless you suspect fraud. :beagle:

[7CS]

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

Thanks Labman. Re: the spaces, the original is fine - just went funny when I pasted it here for some reason. I'll add the bit in about the LGO and send it first thing tomorrow.

[labman]

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

I assume you're sending it to B&S with a copy to the council? :beagle:

[7CS]

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

Yes

[ploddertom]

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

Personally I would send it to the Council with a copy going to B&S.

[bizzybob]

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

Personally I would send it to the Council with a copy going to B&S.

Good point PT, council is ultimately responsible for any overcharging or unlawful action by their agents B & S, they like to forget that little actuality, and it often pays to remind them of that not so little detail..

[7CS]

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

Unfortunately I had already sent the email when I saw the replies above :tinysmile_cry_t:

I received this letter today as response to my request for written confirmation that all liability orders had been discharged. Is there anything in the wording which will help my case?


screenshot pc

[7CS]

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

I don't understand how they can say that I don't owe them anything if the fees and costs are cleared first? For that to happen, they would need to pass money to the bailiffs, surely?

[labman]

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

I don't understand how they can say that I don't owe them anything if the fees and costs are cleared first? For that to happen, they would need to pass money to the bailiffs, surely?

Exactly what I was just about to post! It shows what a mockery it is. You have a self contradicting letter. The letter of the law talks (off the top of my head) about the LO (and any fees or charges associated with it). I guess therefore, they can say the LO is satisfied, but not the fees and charges. If fees are paid first and you only paid the exact amount of the LO, the LO cannot be satisfued though.

Madness!

I wouldn't worry about who got the original and who the copy - they both got it, that is the main thing. :beagle: