Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

[Radha]

My story so far.

The council sent letters to old address ( I am a landlady ) and so I didn't receive them and was shocked to finally learn that the matter had been sent to court and had incurred subsequent bailiff costs. I got scared called Newlyn and paid the full amount. Upon investigating why I had not received any notification from the offices that they were visiting , i realised that they didn't leave a note to say that they had been.

I have followed all the advice here and asked for a Breakdown of Bailiff Fees. I got this back but it doesn't give details about the following,c the name(s) of the bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a fee was charged.
d the name(s) of the Court(s) at which the Bailiff(s) was/were Certificated.
e the date of certification.

Attached please find the breakdown of fees from the company. Its different to what I have seen stated here.

So is the next step to follow up with a formal SARS request and then follow up with my council the sample suggested letters. The difference for me is that I have already paid Newlyn.

Your help and advise is much appreciated. Thank you in advance.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

What did they claim to have levied? Was it a third party car that conveniently just happened to be parked adjacent to the property, you were non resident at the time.


As they couldn't have levied your goods the most you owed in fees was £42.50, for a first and second visit fee, the ATR of £235, the Levy fee of 34.18, the Sch 5 Head H of £24.50 and possibly the card fee are all invalid imho.

Put the buggers at Newlyn on STRICT PROOF as to what they levied and send a Formal Complaint to the Head of revenues at the council regarding the unlawful fees applied by their agent for which they are 100% responsible and liable, Newlyn

Other Beagles will no doubt help further:beagle:

[Radha]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

Sorry I omitted that it was council tax bills that I was responsible for when a property was empty. Thanks

[Radha]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

Is "strict proof " - the SARS letter as in the sample letters ?

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

Is "strict proof " - the SARS letter as in the sample letters ?

Strict proof is a request for what they claim to have levied with full details, they must provide this information, and it doesn't attract a fee of £10 you state that as they have NOT left any Notice of seizure you have no proof of what they claim to have seized, therefore can only conclude that they have charged you excessive fees.

If the property was empty what have they levied, a doormat, a ragwort weed, no proof no fee, in fact it could be argued that the bailiff has defrauded you, and a Formal Complaint to the council is an option reminding them of their 100% liability jointly and severally with and for Newlyns apparent fee fraud, as in no proof of work done no notes or notice of seizure just a demand which you paid, and now consider to be dubious..

[Milo]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

This is surely a most dreadful abuse of the statutory fee scale and this local authority should be ashamed of themsleves !!

Before I post more on this could you please confirm what items were levied upon?

Was a Notice of Seizure provided or a Walking Possession signed?

Did the bailiff gain "peaceful entry" into your home?

If the levy was against a motor vehicle...is this vehicle owned by you?

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

Milo, it appears Op was non resident I think it was an empty rental property for which the council charged council tax, and Newlyn claimed a levy, on the Lord knows what as no notices were left, Op then paid them the sum demanded in Post #1 A dreadful situation imho

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

Newlyns have stated by certain dates on the breakdown "approximately". They either state the exact dates or it brings into question the veracity of the fees and their legality. Using the word "approximately" is not good enough. IMHO and in the light of recent questionable fees by Newlyns involving other LB members, putting them on Strict Proof is a must. If they try to fob off the OP, the OP may need to consider seeking an order from the courts forcing Newlyns to disclose or repay their fees in full.

[ploddertom]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

Their other preamble they come up with is refusing to name the Bailiff or his Certificating Court as they believe the complainant is vexatious. Again it is simply not good enough and by trying to hide behind that compounds their dubious fees.

[labman]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

I'm unhappy with no paperwork being left.
No apparent levy having taken place.
If the levy took place, why wasn't it removed as they charged the ATM fee? If not removed, ATM fee doesn't stand.
Approximate dates totally useless - need putting to strict proof.

So, strict proof as a starting point, and according to the new guidelines, possibly one to report to the police for fraud by misrepresentation. What do others think?

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

If we go back to Radha's initial post "The council sent letters to old address ( I am a landlady ) and so I didn't receive them and was shocked to finally learn that the matter had been sent to court and had incurred subsequent bailiff costs. I got scared called Newlyn and paid the full amount. Upon investigating why I had not received any notification from the offices that they were visiting , i realised that they didn't leave a note to say that they had been."

It would appear that the property was unoccupied throughout the period in question, unless she left valuable garden furniture in the garden, or the property was let furnished and the bailiff got in and listed goods somehow, the only conclusion is that any levy is either on a random car, or an invalid one done by peering through a window, if the property has nopthing in it, this compounds the fee fraud by Newlyn imho, I would be inclined to write to the council a Formal Complaint regarding their appointed agent Newlyn, as bluebottle and ploddertom point out dates MUST be exact, approximations do not cut it in court Radha, does your council know the house was unoccupied for that period? If not tell them, as there may be a discount or council tax waiver they should have applied. Either way I would be inclined to quote the recent guidelines and inform the council of imminent police involvement and the reporting of their agent to the police, and their liability along with Newlyn for the fraud, as well as the personal liability of the CEO, if the police take action. Might scare them into sorting Newlyn out, and getting the unlawful fees refunded, after all there is no evidence they even called let alone had a levy.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

If Newlyns have levied on a random vehicle, not owned by the OP, then confirming with DVLA Data Access Unit if any enquiries have been made in respect of the vehicle in the last 180 days before challenging Newlyns or the local authority involved is a must. If they then try to claim they conducted checks, being presented with evidence that shows they are being untruthful can have a chilling effect. You have to be crazy to try and bluff your way out of something like that.

Visualise such evidence as a mouse-trap. Along come Newlyns, fib their heads off, the evidence that they are fibbing is presented to them and - BANG! - trap shuts on them. Sometimes, you have to be just a little bit sneaky - in a legal way - to catch out the likes of Newlyns.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

Absolutely BB, I feel Newlyn are so complacent that they will be knocked for six when caught out as frauds cheats and liars.

[Radha]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

This is surely a most dreadful abuse of the statutory fee scale and this local authority should be ashamed of themsleves !!

Before I post more on this could you please confirm what items were levied upon?

Was a Notice of Seizure provided or a Walking Possession signed?

The bailiffs were calling on an old business address which was the address the council had for me. The property the charges were outstanding is a different address to where they were calling at. They didn't leave any notices when they visited. They haven't seized anything. These charges were provided to me after I wrote to them and had paid them and had asked for a receipt.

So I am not sure of what to do next. Any advice gratefully received.

[labman]

Re: Bailiff Fees paid - but insufficient information from Newlyn to substantiate fees

Excuse me being thick here, but just to clarify -

These charges are for a property you own, but rent out. At the time of incurring the charges, the property was empty?

Did you have arrangements in place for redirection of post? (I assume not) How long did the letters sit there before they were collected by you - was it months, weeks, days or less? :beagle: