Tweet
Complaint letter to Chandlers Bailiffs - would someone check it out for me please?
Hello All,
I am writing on behalf of a friend of mine who has recently had trouble with Chandlers Bailiffs.
I have spent the last few days researching laws and regulations and with the help of all the useful infomation found on this website have compiled the below letter, you should be able to see the whole story via the letter, I'm sorry it is very long but I had alot of concerns and disagreements regarding every aspect of my case.
If anyone would mind taking 5 minutes out of thier time to let me know what they think of the letter or suggest any changes to it, I would be extremely grateful!
Please note that this is a draught copy and hasnt been spell checked or edited yet, also the copy and paste feature here is copying all of the writing in plaint text so not showing the bold and italic mentioned below, and I haven't got time to go through it all right now to correct it,hopefull it will not be too confusing to read!
Thank you
I write to you in regards to some issues that I would like to raise as official complaints regarding charges made to me and unacceptable treatment by your appointed Bailiffs, Chandlers.
I have had an opportunity to seek advice and I write on the understanding that Case Law has ruled that an Authority is liable for its bailiffs.
To begin I refer to 2 emails received from staff at Chandlers (attached) detailing the visits that have incurred fees since my debt was taken over by them in April this year.
As you will see, these emails differ in their content, they also differ greatly from the truth, and I have pointed out the differences below. Please see my notes in bold and italic, and quotes from case law and regulations in italic.
Email 1: Sent from Amy White on the 21 Nov 2013, after requesting a full and detailed breakdown of fees incurred -
On the 10.04.13 we received this Liability Order from Hounslow Council for the balance of £883.68.
On the 17.04.13 an arrangement was set up with my colleague Crystal to pay £100 starting 30.04.2013.
This payment was not made therefore your arrangement entered default.
This payment was not made as I had entered into a debt management plan in which I had included my council tax arrears to be paid in instalments.
On the 30.05.13 the Certificated Bailiff Mr Brocklehurst attended your premises with the intention to levy distress. For this visit you incurred a charge of £24.50.
On the 02.07.13 the Certificated Bailiff Mr Smith re-attended your premises with the intention to levy distress. For this visit you incurred as charge of £18.00.
I was not made aware of either of the above visits, the bailiff failed to leave a notice of attendance or any kind of correspondence to inform me that he had visited, and according to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents - ”Enforcement agents will on each and every occasion when a visit is made to a debtor's property which incurs a fee for the debtor, leave a notice detailing the fees charged to date, including the one
for that visit, and the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary.”
There is no entitlement for your bailiff to charge fees for multiple visits when no satisfactory evidence of the visit is provided and the burden of proof remains with the bailiff to show those visits were made. Please note: A GPS printout does not constitute calling at my property, it only indicates a vehicle not necessarily belonging to a bailiff passed the vicinity of my property.
Please refer to the below information:
A bailiff commits fraud under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 if he charges for work he has not done, HM Government in the House of Lords April 20 April 2007 and the police cannot treat such complaints as a civil matter.
A debtor can sue to recover unlawful fees and all the following cases resulted in fees not permitted by the scale to be refunded - Phillips v Viscount Canterbury [1843] 11 M&W 619 or Braithwaite v Marriott [1862] 1 H&C 591 or Halliwell v Heywood [1862] 10 WR 780
Bailiffs cannot charge you a "letter" fee or visit fee if the bailiff is unable to prove he sent or called. See Page 5 of 11 of the Local Government Ombudsman report on 29 November 2012.
Fees are only permissible if they are for work that was VERIFIABLY and JUSTIFIABLY undertaken, Haydon v Barton [1849] 5 Ir LR 410 Ex.
A fee charged must be reasonable and proportionate to the debt recovered. The work done must be justified and must have been undertaken before a fee can be charged. Arnison & others ex parte [1868] 3 Exch 56
Van fees must be the actual cost of using the van. Flanagan v John Crilley & Sons [1987] Birmingham County Court, unreported, Adviser Magazine No. 7 p29
The council, and not the bailiff, is liable for refunding unlawful bailiffs fees, Paragraph 24 of complaint number 12 005 084 by the Local Government Ombudsman 13 March 2013, and paragraph 44 confirms I can also make a formal complaint and claim damages, disbursements and compensation if the council is malfeasant.
Despite these visits being made and notices left, we received no attempt from you to contact our office or make payment. This resulted in the Certificated Bailiff Mr James attending your premises with the intention to enforce the Liability Order obtained and recover the outstanding balance in full.
When Mr James attended, he levied upon goods as per the current law and legislation. He also signed a Walking Possession form (which is a legally binding document with you for a final arrangement. This arrangement was to pay £100.00 a month starting the 01.09.13.
For levying upon goods a fee of £51.00 was incurred. For the signing of the legal document (Walking Possession Form) a fee of £12.00 was incurred.
There are a few points to make about this visit –
1. On the date of the visit from Mr James, I was approximately 8 months pregnant and was alone in the property, this situation would have entered me into one of the ‘Vulnerable’ categories as lined out in the National Standards for Enforcement Agents, and according to the guidelines:
‘Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about how such situations should be dealt with The appropriate use of discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance could cover every situation, therefore the agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern. If
necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor if further action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to accusations of inappropriate behaviour.’
2. When I answered the door to Mr James, and before I let him into my property, I told him that I had entered a Debt management plan and the debt was already being paid through this, he called and discussed this on the phone with his manager along with the fact that I was heavily pregnant and from what I heard of the conversation, Mr James' boss told him to go ahead with the levy instead of calling the creditor, as outlined above and proceeded to inform me ‘We don’t accept payments through debt management plans, I need to come in to sort out a separate payment plan for you’
I let Mr James into the property because I was ill informed of my rights at the time and wanted to get the debts paid off, I was nearly at the end of a complicated pregnancy that had drained me physically and mentally, I had started my maternity leave from work early due to this and the last thing I expected or needed was bailiffs knocking on my door with no notice or warning (remember I hadn't been left any notices from the alleged previous 2 visits). He did not inform me that he was a bailiff and simply told me that he was here to agree a payment plan with me.
I was made to feel like I had no other choice and that if I didn't let him in, a bailiff would visit and my possessions would be taken away.
According to case law, A walking-possession agreement is void if it was signed under duress or a misrepresentation is made or pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he ordinarily would not perform Barclays Bank v O Brien [1994] 1 AC 180 House of Lords.
3. I have since discovered, via debt management helplines and online research, that arrears for a previous years council tax can be included in a debt management plan. The exception to this is when bailiffs have already gained access to your home, in which case it is too late. This was obviously the reason Mr James was told by his boss to tell me that Chandlers do not accept payments via debt management plans - because if he had done the correct thing, and referred my case back to Hounslow Council, they would lose out on their fees, and once he had entered my property I would have no choice but to make an arrangement with Chandlers.
I have discovered today, after calling Harrington Brooks who are dealing with my debt management plan that Chandlers have been receiving payments from them via cheque on top of my monthly online payments without my knowledge.
Why, after telling me that they do not accept this method of payment, are they still accepting and banking cheques from Harrington Brooks towards my debt?
4. Mr James came into the property, sat in my living room and explained that I could pay £100 per month to the debt and that he was going to write down items that he could potentially remove should I default on the agreement, he stayed seated, looked only around the living room and wrote the below items on a Walking Possession Form:
2x Brown Leather Sofa (Passed down through the family, very scruffy and damaged, no fire safety labels)
1x JVC silver TV (Old style TV with big back)
1x black glass tv stand
1x wooden brown dining table (This was in fact black)
3 x wooden dining chairs (Damaged and broken)
The National Standards for Enforcement Agents states VERY clearly that the levy should be proportional and cover the debt to the council and fees of the enforcement company.
The items above would definitely not cover the debt and Bailiff fees.
Bailiffs have a longstanding duty to conduct a thorough and diligent levy to ensure it does not contain exempt goods, Doe d Haverson v Franks [1847] 2 C&K 678 or Mullett v Challis [1851] 16 QBD 239
Sofas without the fire safety labels are exempt from seizure because they cannot be re-sold commercially. Section 10 and others of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (as amended in 1989 and 1993) and are worthless. As such, these items fall into the remit of insufficient levy.
The current regulation of bailiffs written by the house of commons updated on the 26th March 2013 states -Any goods which the bailiff takes must be likely to fetch money at auction. Bailiffs will not remove goods if they think that they will not fetch enough to pay something towards the warrant after the cost of removing and selling them at auction has been paid.
Case Law states - If the debtor's goods do not meet the debt recovered, the bailiff is excused from levying distress, or if the fees and expenses of the levy absorb the proceeds of sale the bailiff can make a return of nulla bona, Dennis v Whetham [1874] 9 QB 345
My opinion is that the bailiff has levied upon wholly insufficient goods in which to cover the debt and fees and therefore, the bailiff SHOULD have returned the warrant as Nulla Bono (not sufficient assets). Instead, the bailiff appears to have made a financial gain by not returning the debt.
The fees written on the Walking Possession Form on this day were:
£51 - Levy Fee
£12 - Walking Possession Fee
£42.50 - Attendance/Removal Costs (Notice that this fee wasn't mentioned on the email)
My understanding is that an Attendance fee cannot be charged on the same visit as a Levy fee, and if these are the fees relating to the previous 2 visits that Chandlers have lied about then they are therefore not payable as ” Bailiffs cannot charge you a "letter" fee or visit fee if the bailiff is unable to prove he sent or called. See Page 5 of 11 of the Local Government Ombudsman report on 29 November 2012.”
The walking possession includes items that are exempt from distress, because should the bailiff re-attend my property and remove all the goods listed on the walking possession, this would leave my family with no seating or eating areas at all within the property, we would have to sit and eat on the floor, this would constitute removing items that are necessary for satisfying basic domestic needs. The TV listed is extremely old, and is worth virtually nothing, the dining chairs were broken and the table heavily scratched and covered in paint.
Statutory Regulations state that the following items are exempt and must not be taken:
• Such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying basic domestic needs of the person and family.
• Items of minimal value, and or broken items.
I would therefore argue that the levy is invalid due to the fact that I was lied to in regard to the financial options I had, the bailiff went on to levy goods that are exempt and of an insignificant value, and I was in a vulnerable situation. If the Levy is in fact invalid, the bailiff has no legal right to charge me any of the fees listed above.
You on this date paid £111.00 by Card directly to Mr James.
I did not pay Mr James any money on this date, I agreed to give him a payment on the 31st of July as stated in the walking possession.
A Cheque: £13.83 was then received on the 19.08.13. – From Harrington Brookes
Online payment for £101.00 was received on 02.09.13
A Cheque: £13.83 was received on the 16.09.13. – From Harrington Brookes
Your next payment of £100 was due on the 1st of November. However this payment was not received. Therefore your arrangement has automatically entered default and the full balance was now due.
My next payment was actually due on the 1st of October, but this seems to have been missed by the person who wrote the email.
The payment was not made as I was having financially difficult times due to having my tax credits stopped, being moved onto statutory maternity pay, and recently giving birth to my daughter.
I had to make a choice - feed my children or pay the bills.
The Certificated Bailiff Mr Harpum then attended your property on the 20/11/13 with a van in the look to remove goods and chattels as per the current law and legislation. As he received no response a letter was left.
Mr Harpum allegedly attended the property at 06.15am, I was awake from 05.30am on this day feeding my newborn daughter, my property is in a block of 8 maisonettes all of which have loud internal handsets for answering and letting visitors into the communal block, and then into your property. I can catagorically state that not once during the morning of the 20/11/13 did anyone press the buzzer nor knock on my front door.
I found the 'Notice of Attendance' letter by chance, on the stairs in the communal hallway as I left to take my son to school at around 08.30am.
This breaches the Data Protection Act and contravenes The National Standards for Enforcement Agents requirements, as it could clearly have been intercepted by someone passing. The National Standards for Enforcement Agents states - Enforcement agents should, so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to anyone other than the debtor. Where the debtor is not seen, the relevant documents must be left at the address in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor.
Mr. Harpum obviously managed to enter the block without pressing my buzzer, probably via the trades button used for postmen which is active until approximately 11am, so why did he not proceed to knock on my door or post the letter through my letter box?
The Notice of Attendance (attached) states that I needed to make payment of £947.69 including costs of £210, without an explanation as to which this extra £210 fee is for, and that he would return at 7pm the same evening to collect payment or remove goods.
I called Chandlers head office to explain why payment had not been made and that I would pay the missed payments when I got paid but they point blank refused to listen and said it was too late.
In Panic I borrowed £100 from a friend and made an online payment of £101, I called Mr Harpum on his mobile to let him know that I had made payment and to ask him not to attend my property that evening, he said he wasn’t interested and that he would be returning to my property with a van to remove goods at 7pm. I guessed that the £210 fee was in relation to a van and If Mr Harpum had not attended my property on that morning with a van, then why was he charging me in advance for work that had not and subsequently never was completed?
There also is no entitlement for your bailiff to charge me a Van Fee because the law does not prescribe any fee of that description.
If a valid levy on goods is made and the bailiff attended in a van with a genuine intention of removing goods under a valid levy, then the regulations provide for "reasonable costs". The law does not provide a definition for the term "reasonable", so case law definitions can be followed.
The judgment of Flanagan v John Crilley & Sons [1987] Birmingham County Court, unreported, Adviser Magazine No. 7 p29 says van fees must be the actual cost of using the van. The case of Culligan v Simkin & Marston Group Ltd [2008] says if the bailiff "produced no evidence as to how the charge has been arrived at and therefore are unable to show that it is reasonable". Therefore the reasonable costs of the van is Nil.
Please also note that the date has been changed at the top of the Notice of Attendance, from the 10/11/13 to the 20/11/13.
Mr Harpum then re-attended on the same day with the look to remove goods and chattels. For this attendance you incurred a fee of £210.00
Mr Harpum DID NOT re-attend my property on the 20/11/13, and has since made no further contact with me.
I had to beg friends and family to lend me the money for the remaining balance, minus the van fee that he had already added to the amount owing as I was not prepared to pay this, and waited in the property for Mr Harpum to arrive so I could make a payment to him, he failed to turn up, so I made the mistake of paying the full balance of £635.61 online to Chandlers after confirming earlier on in the day with Hounslow Council how much of my debt was outstanding, I now realise this was probably a mistake and I should have paid the balance straight to Hounslow Council because Chandlers have probably taken their unlawful fees before passing the rest onto the council towards the debt.
The Statutory Regulations state the following: "one attendance with a vehicle with a "view to recovering goods after a levy has been made"
The maximum number of removal/attending to remove/enforcement fees that a bailiff may charge is two. However for the second visit then goods must have actually been removed, which they were not, if given the evidence, the Levy is in fact invalid, then Mr Harpum has no right to charge me any fees.
Amy states above that I was charged for the second visit from Mr Harpum on the 20/11/13, yet Mr Harpum did not make this visit and had already added the fee to my outstanding balance.
Advance fee fraud is a criminal offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 and confirmed by HM Government in the House of Lords on 20 April 2007
I can confirm that your current outstanding balance is £210.00.
All of our fees are applied as per Schedule 3,5 Regulations 14,39,45 Charges Connected with Distress. I trust that this clarifies the position.
We work under Council Tax Regulations 2007 as stated on the attached Walking Possession Form.
It is clearly stated on the Walking Possession form that you signed 'It is my responsibility to ensure all payments are received into Chandlers Offices on time, should I default in my payments further action will result which could mean removal of my assets and further costs without further notice.
(End of Email)
In reply to an earlier email I had sent to Chandlers on the 21/11/13 (attached) to confirm that I had paid the remaining debt the previous evening, Amy White of Chandlers Bailiffs states the below:
“Your account has not been paid in full. Your current balance outstanding is £210.00.”
And when asked what the £210 fee was for she states in a subsequent email:
“Mr Harpum's fee was added for attending the property with a van in the look to remove goods and chattels. This amount is agreed with Hounslow Council.”
I asked for a copy of the Code of Conduct for bailiffs issued to Chandlers by Hounslow Council to confirm this, to which she replied:
“We work under Council Tax Regulations 2007 as stated on the attached Walking Possession Form.”
Where exactly in those regulations does it state that Hounslow Council have agreed to let Chandlers charge £210 for a van fee?
She also states in the email:
“Your account is now out with another Bailiff. You will need to contact Mr Simou directly on 07703 187 803 to discuss your account further.”
After searching for the above mentioned Bailiff on the Certificated Bailiff Register online, there were no results.
By Law Bailiffs collecting Council Tax must be certificated.
I now move onto the Second email (Attached) received on the 22/11/13 from Crystal Kenton of Chandlers Bailiffs in response to an email sent to Chandlers from myself requesting the below information:
a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.
b - the reason for the fee.
c - the FULL name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.
d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were certificated at.
e - the date of the Certification.
Again, Please see my notes in bold and italic regarding differences between the email above from Amy White and this email:
Thank you for your email
On the 10.04.13 Chandlers Limited received the Liability Order from Hounslow Council with an outstanding balance to recover of £883.68.
On the 17.04.13 an arrangement was made for you to pay £100.00 per month with the first payment due on the 30.04.13 followed by the 30th of every month thereafter.
Your arrangement entered default because you failed to make this payment. This resulted in the Certificated Bailiff Mr Brocklehurst attending your premises on the 30.05.13 with the intention to levy distress. For this visit you incurred a fee of £24.50.
In the first email from Amy White above she states that: “On the 02.07.13 the Certificated Bailiff Mr Smith re-attended your premises with the intention to levy distress. For this visit you incurred as charge of £18.00.” On the email from Crystal Kenton there is no mention of this fee, visit or bailiff, this is because it is in fact a fictional visit that was never made, and must have been fabricated by someone in order to obtain/justify unlawful fees.
On the 15.07.13 we received a cheque payment of £13.83.
On the 29.07.13 the Certificated Bailiff Mr James attended your premises with the intention to enforce the Liability Order obtained and recover the outstanding balance in full. When Mr James attended he agreed to an arrangement with you and the agreement was for you to pay £100.00 per month with the first payment due on the 01.09.13 followed by the 1st of every month thereafter. The reason Mr James agreed to this arrangement was because you was heavily pregnant.
Mr James had told me before he entered my property that he was there to set up an arrangement for me to pay the debt monthly, not at any stage during the visit did he mention the fact that he was agreeing to a payment plan because I was pregnant. The arrangement was suggested to me by Mr James, not the other way around.
On the 31.07.13 we received a card payment of £111.00.
On the 19.08.13 we received a cheque payment of £13.83.
On the 02.09.13 we received an online payment of £100.00.
On the 16.09.13 we received a cheque payment of £13.83.
However, your arrangement entered default because you failed to make payment for payment due on the 01.10.13 and 01.11.13.
On the 15.11.13 we received a cheque payment of £3.08.
On the 20.11.13 the Certificated Bailiff Mr Harpum attended your premises with the intention to enforce the Liability Order obtained and recover the outstanding balance in full.
On the same day, Mr Harpum re-attended your premises.
The above is still incorrect as Mr Harpum did not re-attend the property, but there is no mention of the £210 fee as stated in the previous email from Amy.
On the 21.11.13 we received two card payments. The first payment was for £101.00 and the second payment was for £635.61.
On the same day, Michael from our removal team contacted you to advise that the remaining balance was still due and the account was pending further action.
The above sentence makes it unclear as to which day I was allegedly contacted by ‘Michael from our removal team’, was it the same day that Mr Harpum visited or the same day the payments were received? I am unable to confirm which day it was as I did not and have not received a call from anyone from Chandlers or a removal team to date.
Apart from the fact that no call took place (Do Chandlers have evidence to prove this?), Why would someone from a removals team be contacting me regarding this debt? Also, if the call had taken place on the 21/11/13 the remaining debt had already been paid so there was no need for anyone to attend the property, and if a van had been brought to my property the on the 20/11/13 as claimed by Amy White above, then why would someone from a ‘removals’ team be contacting me the day after to discuss my account?
All of our Bailiffs are certificated at Bromley Council Court. You can contact them for verification if you wish.
The Bailiffs who attended your premises are:
Mr W. Brocklehurst: Certificated on 06.08.13 Expiry: 05.08.15 – There are no Bailiffs under the name Brocklehurst on the Register of Certificated Bailiffs, and my alleged visit from Mr Brocklehurst took place on the 30/05/13 - before this certificate was issued.
Mr S. James: Certificated on 24.06.13 Expiry: 23.06.15 – Again, there are no Bailiffs under this name on the register.
Mr N. Harpum: Certificated on 24.01.13 Expiry: 24.01.15
Again there is no mention ‘Mr Smith’ who allegedly visited my property on the 02/07/13 occurring an £18 fee.
These online checks were made on the 21/11/2013 and the 26/11/2013.
I have confirmed with the Ministry of Justice that the register is updated no less than once a week, and in the case of a Bailiff no longer showing on the register despite having an expiry date that is in the future, they have in most cases, had their certificates revoked.
I have sent an email to the Ministry of Justice to confirm that the bailiffs who I have been told attended my property were certificated at the time, I will advise you of my findings.
As a reminder, there is lots of leading case law that says a person not a certificated bailiff conducting levy is trespass, Bray v Naldred [1894] 2 PMR 227 or Hawes v Watson [1892] 94 LT 191 ;[1890] 29 LJ 556; contrast Varden v Shread [1890] 36 EG 449 or 25 LJ 363, Harker v Browne [1890] 36 EG 59, [1892] 40 EG 402, Thomas v Millington [1894] 2 PMR 472, Bray v Naldred [1894] 2 PMR 227 and Rodgers v Webb [1912] 20 PMR 186 and the debtor can sue.
All of our fees are applied as per Schedule 3,5 Regulations 14/39/45 Charges Connected with Distress I have enclosed a copy for your records.
Your account has now been passed onto the Certificated Bailiff Mr Z. O’Sullivan on 07545435028 therefore you will need to contact him directly after 5pm today in order to discuss your account further.
Why was my account passed to 2 different bailiffs within 2 days, neither of which appear on the certificated Bailiff Register?
I trust that this clarifies the position.
(End of email)
Notice that how in each of the emails I was not given the actual information requested – typing the fees on an email does not substitute an official statement (which I assume would be available to staff in the office) and does not constitute proof of what has actually been charged and paid off my debt.
It is amazing that 2 members of staff who work in the same office cannot give me correct the information requested and the information provided does not match, this suggests dishonesty and cover ups on behalf of Chandlers and constitutes as fraud.
Please see a table below outlining payments received by Chandlers and a list of fees added to my debt.
Dates Payments Received (According to Chandlers) Amounts Received
15.07.13 £13.83
31.07.13 £111.00
19.08.13 £13.83
02.09.13 £100.00
16.09.13 £13.83
15.11.13 £3.08
21.11.13 £101.00
21.11.13 £635.61
Total £992.18
Original Liability Order Amount (According to Chandlers) £883.68
Fees Charged
First Visit £24.50
Second Visit £18.00
Levy £51.00
Attendance/Removal £42.50
Walking Possession £12.00
Van (Remains Unpaid) £210.00
Total £358.00
Hounslow Council confirmed by phone on the 21/11/2013 that the amount outstanding on the debt as of the 01/11/13 was £734.61. This means that out of the £252.49 paid to Chandlers from July to 01st November only £149.07 had been paid to the council for my debt and £103.42 had gone straight into Chandlers’ pockets.
The total Amount of payments made to Chandlers since July 2013 are £992.18, £108.50 more than the original Liability Order and the total sum that would have been paid if I had proceeded to pay all of the fees incurred including the van fee would have been £1241.68, £358.00 more than the Liability Order.
Unfortunately as of today’s date, I am unable to obtain information from Hounslow Council in regards to how much of the £734.61 received by chandlers on the 21/11/13 has been passed to the Council to pay off my debt.
Due to the fact that the levy is most likely invalid, the first 2 visits were fictitious and the walking possession contains exempt items and no van was bought to my property, Chandlers are not entitled to charge me any of the above fees.
Charging these fees is fraud and I understand it is a criminal offence under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 and anyone receiving or benefiting from the proceeds of a crime may be subject to a criminal investigation.
I appreciate the public are less-informed of the prescribed fees bailiffs are entitled to charge, I believe they have taken advantage of this to make a gain or obtain an unlawful money transfer for himself or another. While I am quite sure the council did not intend to contract a firm of tricksters who have been found defrauding a member of the public in this way, I would be grateful if we can settle this matter quickly and quietly by refunding me within the next seven days. They may be bailiffs but that does not make them less liable than any other public service contractor, e.g. a plumber. However, a bailiff is in a position of trust and in abusing that position they commit an offence under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006.
I therefore ask you to deliver to me at the above address a full refund of your bailiff’s fees overpaid by me of £108.50 within seven days from the date of this letter.
And I respectfully ask
ii. I apply for compensation in respect of my goods distrained or sold of an amount equal to the amount which in the opinion of the court would be awarded by way of special damages in respect of the goods if proceedings were brought in trespass or otherwise in connection with the irregularity under regulation 45(7).
iii. if the court is satisfied that an attempted levy was irregular then I apply for an order requiring the authority to desist from levying in the manner giving rise to the irregularity.
Please note, The council, and not the bailiff, is liable for refunding unlawful bailiffs fees, Paragraph 24 of complaint number 12 005 084 by the Local Government Ombudsman 13 March 2013, and paragraph 44 confirms I can also make a formal complaint and claim damages, disbursements and compensation if the council is malfeasant.
For the avoidance of doubt, that in your failure to furnish me with a refund within seven days, I will automatically file a claim in the small claims track without writing further and this will invariably involve an application for costs, I will also inform the LGO that you, the council is aware that a contractor working under your instruction is engaging in criminal activity by defrauding members of the public. If you wish to start an investigation of your own, please be advised that in the absence of a refund this doesn't delay legal proceedings or filing a criminal complaint with a police authority.
This document is a notice of intended proceedings and delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it to be served on you by the ordinary course of post in the meaning of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and therefore your responsibility and it’s in your own interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.
Yours Faithfully
I am writing on behalf of a friend of mine who has recently had trouble with Chandlers Bailiffs.
I have spent the last few days researching laws and regulations and with the help of all the useful infomation found on this website have compiled the below letter, you should be able to see the whole story via the letter, I'm sorry it is very long but I had alot of concerns and disagreements regarding every aspect of my case.
If anyone would mind taking 5 minutes out of thier time to let me know what they think of the letter or suggest any changes to it, I would be extremely grateful!
Please note that this is a draught copy and hasnt been spell checked or edited yet, also the copy and paste feature here is copying all of the writing in plaint text so not showing the bold and italic mentioned below, and I haven't got time to go through it all right now to correct it,hopefull it will not be too confusing to read!
Thank you
I write to you in regards to some issues that I would like to raise as official complaints regarding charges made to me and unacceptable treatment by your appointed Bailiffs, Chandlers.
I have had an opportunity to seek advice and I write on the understanding that Case Law has ruled that an Authority is liable for its bailiffs.
To begin I refer to 2 emails received from staff at Chandlers (attached) detailing the visits that have incurred fees since my debt was taken over by them in April this year.
As you will see, these emails differ in their content, they also differ greatly from the truth, and I have pointed out the differences below. Please see my notes in bold and italic, and quotes from case law and regulations in italic.
Email 1: Sent from Amy White on the 21 Nov 2013, after requesting a full and detailed breakdown of fees incurred -
On the 10.04.13 we received this Liability Order from Hounslow Council for the balance of £883.68.
On the 17.04.13 an arrangement was set up with my colleague Crystal to pay £100 starting 30.04.2013.
This payment was not made therefore your arrangement entered default.
This payment was not made as I had entered into a debt management plan in which I had included my council tax arrears to be paid in instalments.
On the 30.05.13 the Certificated Bailiff Mr Brocklehurst attended your premises with the intention to levy distress. For this visit you incurred a charge of £24.50.
On the 02.07.13 the Certificated Bailiff Mr Smith re-attended your premises with the intention to levy distress. For this visit you incurred as charge of £18.00.
I was not made aware of either of the above visits, the bailiff failed to leave a notice of attendance or any kind of correspondence to inform me that he had visited, and according to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents - ”Enforcement agents will on each and every occasion when a visit is made to a debtor's property which incurs a fee for the debtor, leave a notice detailing the fees charged to date, including the one
for that visit, and the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary.”
There is no entitlement for your bailiff to charge fees for multiple visits when no satisfactory evidence of the visit is provided and the burden of proof remains with the bailiff to show those visits were made. Please note: A GPS printout does not constitute calling at my property, it only indicates a vehicle not necessarily belonging to a bailiff passed the vicinity of my property.
Please refer to the below information:
A bailiff commits fraud under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 if he charges for work he has not done, HM Government in the House of Lords April 20 April 2007 and the police cannot treat such complaints as a civil matter.
A debtor can sue to recover unlawful fees and all the following cases resulted in fees not permitted by the scale to be refunded - Phillips v Viscount Canterbury [1843] 11 M&W 619 or Braithwaite v Marriott [1862] 1 H&C 591 or Halliwell v Heywood [1862] 10 WR 780
Bailiffs cannot charge you a "letter" fee or visit fee if the bailiff is unable to prove he sent or called. See Page 5 of 11 of the Local Government Ombudsman report on 29 November 2012.
Fees are only permissible if they are for work that was VERIFIABLY and JUSTIFIABLY undertaken, Haydon v Barton [1849] 5 Ir LR 410 Ex.
A fee charged must be reasonable and proportionate to the debt recovered. The work done must be justified and must have been undertaken before a fee can be charged. Arnison & others ex parte [1868] 3 Exch 56
Van fees must be the actual cost of using the van. Flanagan v John Crilley & Sons [1987] Birmingham County Court, unreported, Adviser Magazine No. 7 p29
The council, and not the bailiff, is liable for refunding unlawful bailiffs fees, Paragraph 24 of complaint number 12 005 084 by the Local Government Ombudsman 13 March 2013, and paragraph 44 confirms I can also make a formal complaint and claim damages, disbursements and compensation if the council is malfeasant.
Despite these visits being made and notices left, we received no attempt from you to contact our office or make payment. This resulted in the Certificated Bailiff Mr James attending your premises with the intention to enforce the Liability Order obtained and recover the outstanding balance in full.
When Mr James attended, he levied upon goods as per the current law and legislation. He also signed a Walking Possession form (which is a legally binding document with you for a final arrangement. This arrangement was to pay £100.00 a month starting the 01.09.13.
For levying upon goods a fee of £51.00 was incurred. For the signing of the legal document (Walking Possession Form) a fee of £12.00 was incurred.
There are a few points to make about this visit –
1. On the date of the visit from Mr James, I was approximately 8 months pregnant and was alone in the property, this situation would have entered me into one of the ‘Vulnerable’ categories as lined out in the National Standards for Enforcement Agents, and according to the guidelines:
‘Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about how such situations should be dealt with The appropriate use of discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance could cover every situation, therefore the agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern. If
necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor if further action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to accusations of inappropriate behaviour.’
2. When I answered the door to Mr James, and before I let him into my property, I told him that I had entered a Debt management plan and the debt was already being paid through this, he called and discussed this on the phone with his manager along with the fact that I was heavily pregnant and from what I heard of the conversation, Mr James' boss told him to go ahead with the levy instead of calling the creditor, as outlined above and proceeded to inform me ‘We don’t accept payments through debt management plans, I need to come in to sort out a separate payment plan for you’
I let Mr James into the property because I was ill informed of my rights at the time and wanted to get the debts paid off, I was nearly at the end of a complicated pregnancy that had drained me physically and mentally, I had started my maternity leave from work early due to this and the last thing I expected or needed was bailiffs knocking on my door with no notice or warning (remember I hadn't been left any notices from the alleged previous 2 visits). He did not inform me that he was a bailiff and simply told me that he was here to agree a payment plan with me.
I was made to feel like I had no other choice and that if I didn't let him in, a bailiff would visit and my possessions would be taken away.
According to case law, A walking-possession agreement is void if it was signed under duress or a misrepresentation is made or pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he ordinarily would not perform Barclays Bank v O Brien [1994] 1 AC 180 House of Lords.
3. I have since discovered, via debt management helplines and online research, that arrears for a previous years council tax can be included in a debt management plan. The exception to this is when bailiffs have already gained access to your home, in which case it is too late. This was obviously the reason Mr James was told by his boss to tell me that Chandlers do not accept payments via debt management plans - because if he had done the correct thing, and referred my case back to Hounslow Council, they would lose out on their fees, and once he had entered my property I would have no choice but to make an arrangement with Chandlers.
I have discovered today, after calling Harrington Brooks who are dealing with my debt management plan that Chandlers have been receiving payments from them via cheque on top of my monthly online payments without my knowledge.
Why, after telling me that they do not accept this method of payment, are they still accepting and banking cheques from Harrington Brooks towards my debt?
4. Mr James came into the property, sat in my living room and explained that I could pay £100 per month to the debt and that he was going to write down items that he could potentially remove should I default on the agreement, he stayed seated, looked only around the living room and wrote the below items on a Walking Possession Form:
2x Brown Leather Sofa (Passed down through the family, very scruffy and damaged, no fire safety labels)
1x JVC silver TV (Old style TV with big back)
1x black glass tv stand
1x wooden brown dining table (This was in fact black)
3 x wooden dining chairs (Damaged and broken)
The National Standards for Enforcement Agents states VERY clearly that the levy should be proportional and cover the debt to the council and fees of the enforcement company.
The items above would definitely not cover the debt and Bailiff fees.
Bailiffs have a longstanding duty to conduct a thorough and diligent levy to ensure it does not contain exempt goods, Doe d Haverson v Franks [1847] 2 C&K 678 or Mullett v Challis [1851] 16 QBD 239
Sofas without the fire safety labels are exempt from seizure because they cannot be re-sold commercially. Section 10 and others of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (as amended in 1989 and 1993) and are worthless. As such, these items fall into the remit of insufficient levy.
The current regulation of bailiffs written by the house of commons updated on the 26th March 2013 states -Any goods which the bailiff takes must be likely to fetch money at auction. Bailiffs will not remove goods if they think that they will not fetch enough to pay something towards the warrant after the cost of removing and selling them at auction has been paid.
Case Law states - If the debtor's goods do not meet the debt recovered, the bailiff is excused from levying distress, or if the fees and expenses of the levy absorb the proceeds of sale the bailiff can make a return of nulla bona, Dennis v Whetham [1874] 9 QB 345
My opinion is that the bailiff has levied upon wholly insufficient goods in which to cover the debt and fees and therefore, the bailiff SHOULD have returned the warrant as Nulla Bono (not sufficient assets). Instead, the bailiff appears to have made a financial gain by not returning the debt.
The fees written on the Walking Possession Form on this day were:
£51 - Levy Fee
£12 - Walking Possession Fee
£42.50 - Attendance/Removal Costs (Notice that this fee wasn't mentioned on the email)
My understanding is that an Attendance fee cannot be charged on the same visit as a Levy fee, and if these are the fees relating to the previous 2 visits that Chandlers have lied about then they are therefore not payable as ” Bailiffs cannot charge you a "letter" fee or visit fee if the bailiff is unable to prove he sent or called. See Page 5 of 11 of the Local Government Ombudsman report on 29 November 2012.”
The walking possession includes items that are exempt from distress, because should the bailiff re-attend my property and remove all the goods listed on the walking possession, this would leave my family with no seating or eating areas at all within the property, we would have to sit and eat on the floor, this would constitute removing items that are necessary for satisfying basic domestic needs. The TV listed is extremely old, and is worth virtually nothing, the dining chairs were broken and the table heavily scratched and covered in paint.
Statutory Regulations state that the following items are exempt and must not be taken:
• Such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying basic domestic needs of the person and family.
• Items of minimal value, and or broken items.
I would therefore argue that the levy is invalid due to the fact that I was lied to in regard to the financial options I had, the bailiff went on to levy goods that are exempt and of an insignificant value, and I was in a vulnerable situation. If the Levy is in fact invalid, the bailiff has no legal right to charge me any of the fees listed above.
You on this date paid £111.00 by Card directly to Mr James.
I did not pay Mr James any money on this date, I agreed to give him a payment on the 31st of July as stated in the walking possession.
A Cheque: £13.83 was then received on the 19.08.13. – From Harrington Brookes
Online payment for £101.00 was received on 02.09.13
A Cheque: £13.83 was received on the 16.09.13. – From Harrington Brookes
Your next payment of £100 was due on the 1st of November. However this payment was not received. Therefore your arrangement has automatically entered default and the full balance was now due.
My next payment was actually due on the 1st of October, but this seems to have been missed by the person who wrote the email.
The payment was not made as I was having financially difficult times due to having my tax credits stopped, being moved onto statutory maternity pay, and recently giving birth to my daughter.
I had to make a choice - feed my children or pay the bills.
The Certificated Bailiff Mr Harpum then attended your property on the 20/11/13 with a van in the look to remove goods and chattels as per the current law and legislation. As he received no response a letter was left.
Mr Harpum allegedly attended the property at 06.15am, I was awake from 05.30am on this day feeding my newborn daughter, my property is in a block of 8 maisonettes all of which have loud internal handsets for answering and letting visitors into the communal block, and then into your property. I can catagorically state that not once during the morning of the 20/11/13 did anyone press the buzzer nor knock on my front door.
I found the 'Notice of Attendance' letter by chance, on the stairs in the communal hallway as I left to take my son to school at around 08.30am.
This breaches the Data Protection Act and contravenes The National Standards for Enforcement Agents requirements, as it could clearly have been intercepted by someone passing. The National Standards for Enforcement Agents states - Enforcement agents should, so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to anyone other than the debtor. Where the debtor is not seen, the relevant documents must be left at the address in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor.
Mr. Harpum obviously managed to enter the block without pressing my buzzer, probably via the trades button used for postmen which is active until approximately 11am, so why did he not proceed to knock on my door or post the letter through my letter box?
The Notice of Attendance (attached) states that I needed to make payment of £947.69 including costs of £210, without an explanation as to which this extra £210 fee is for, and that he would return at 7pm the same evening to collect payment or remove goods.
I called Chandlers head office to explain why payment had not been made and that I would pay the missed payments when I got paid but they point blank refused to listen and said it was too late.
In Panic I borrowed £100 from a friend and made an online payment of £101, I called Mr Harpum on his mobile to let him know that I had made payment and to ask him not to attend my property that evening, he said he wasn’t interested and that he would be returning to my property with a van to remove goods at 7pm. I guessed that the £210 fee was in relation to a van and If Mr Harpum had not attended my property on that morning with a van, then why was he charging me in advance for work that had not and subsequently never was completed?
There also is no entitlement for your bailiff to charge me a Van Fee because the law does not prescribe any fee of that description.
If a valid levy on goods is made and the bailiff attended in a van with a genuine intention of removing goods under a valid levy, then the regulations provide for "reasonable costs". The law does not provide a definition for the term "reasonable", so case law definitions can be followed.
The judgment of Flanagan v John Crilley & Sons [1987] Birmingham County Court, unreported, Adviser Magazine No. 7 p29 says van fees must be the actual cost of using the van. The case of Culligan v Simkin & Marston Group Ltd [2008] says if the bailiff "produced no evidence as to how the charge has been arrived at and therefore are unable to show that it is reasonable". Therefore the reasonable costs of the van is Nil.
Please also note that the date has been changed at the top of the Notice of Attendance, from the 10/11/13 to the 20/11/13.
Mr Harpum then re-attended on the same day with the look to remove goods and chattels. For this attendance you incurred a fee of £210.00
Mr Harpum DID NOT re-attend my property on the 20/11/13, and has since made no further contact with me.
I had to beg friends and family to lend me the money for the remaining balance, minus the van fee that he had already added to the amount owing as I was not prepared to pay this, and waited in the property for Mr Harpum to arrive so I could make a payment to him, he failed to turn up, so I made the mistake of paying the full balance of £635.61 online to Chandlers after confirming earlier on in the day with Hounslow Council how much of my debt was outstanding, I now realise this was probably a mistake and I should have paid the balance straight to Hounslow Council because Chandlers have probably taken their unlawful fees before passing the rest onto the council towards the debt.
The Statutory Regulations state the following: "one attendance with a vehicle with a "view to recovering goods after a levy has been made"
The maximum number of removal/attending to remove/enforcement fees that a bailiff may charge is two. However for the second visit then goods must have actually been removed, which they were not, if given the evidence, the Levy is in fact invalid, then Mr Harpum has no right to charge me any fees.
Amy states above that I was charged for the second visit from Mr Harpum on the 20/11/13, yet Mr Harpum did not make this visit and had already added the fee to my outstanding balance.
Advance fee fraud is a criminal offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 and confirmed by HM Government in the House of Lords on 20 April 2007
I can confirm that your current outstanding balance is £210.00.
All of our fees are applied as per Schedule 3,5 Regulations 14,39,45 Charges Connected with Distress. I trust that this clarifies the position.
We work under Council Tax Regulations 2007 as stated on the attached Walking Possession Form.
It is clearly stated on the Walking Possession form that you signed 'It is my responsibility to ensure all payments are received into Chandlers Offices on time, should I default in my payments further action will result which could mean removal of my assets and further costs without further notice.
(End of Email)
In reply to an earlier email I had sent to Chandlers on the 21/11/13 (attached) to confirm that I had paid the remaining debt the previous evening, Amy White of Chandlers Bailiffs states the below:
“Your account has not been paid in full. Your current balance outstanding is £210.00.”
And when asked what the £210 fee was for she states in a subsequent email:
“Mr Harpum's fee was added for attending the property with a van in the look to remove goods and chattels. This amount is agreed with Hounslow Council.”
I asked for a copy of the Code of Conduct for bailiffs issued to Chandlers by Hounslow Council to confirm this, to which she replied:
“We work under Council Tax Regulations 2007 as stated on the attached Walking Possession Form.”
Where exactly in those regulations does it state that Hounslow Council have agreed to let Chandlers charge £210 for a van fee?
She also states in the email:
“Your account is now out with another Bailiff. You will need to contact Mr Simou directly on 07703 187 803 to discuss your account further.”
After searching for the above mentioned Bailiff on the Certificated Bailiff Register online, there were no results.
By Law Bailiffs collecting Council Tax must be certificated.
I now move onto the Second email (Attached) received on the 22/11/13 from Crystal Kenton of Chandlers Bailiffs in response to an email sent to Chandlers from myself requesting the below information:
a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.
b - the reason for the fee.
c - the FULL name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.
d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were certificated at.
e - the date of the Certification.
Again, Please see my notes in bold and italic regarding differences between the email above from Amy White and this email:
Thank you for your email
On the 10.04.13 Chandlers Limited received the Liability Order from Hounslow Council with an outstanding balance to recover of £883.68.
On the 17.04.13 an arrangement was made for you to pay £100.00 per month with the first payment due on the 30.04.13 followed by the 30th of every month thereafter.
Your arrangement entered default because you failed to make this payment. This resulted in the Certificated Bailiff Mr Brocklehurst attending your premises on the 30.05.13 with the intention to levy distress. For this visit you incurred a fee of £24.50.
In the first email from Amy White above she states that: “On the 02.07.13 the Certificated Bailiff Mr Smith re-attended your premises with the intention to levy distress. For this visit you incurred as charge of £18.00.” On the email from Crystal Kenton there is no mention of this fee, visit or bailiff, this is because it is in fact a fictional visit that was never made, and must have been fabricated by someone in order to obtain/justify unlawful fees.
On the 15.07.13 we received a cheque payment of £13.83.
On the 29.07.13 the Certificated Bailiff Mr James attended your premises with the intention to enforce the Liability Order obtained and recover the outstanding balance in full. When Mr James attended he agreed to an arrangement with you and the agreement was for you to pay £100.00 per month with the first payment due on the 01.09.13 followed by the 1st of every month thereafter. The reason Mr James agreed to this arrangement was because you was heavily pregnant.
Mr James had told me before he entered my property that he was there to set up an arrangement for me to pay the debt monthly, not at any stage during the visit did he mention the fact that he was agreeing to a payment plan because I was pregnant. The arrangement was suggested to me by Mr James, not the other way around.
On the 31.07.13 we received a card payment of £111.00.
On the 19.08.13 we received a cheque payment of £13.83.
On the 02.09.13 we received an online payment of £100.00.
On the 16.09.13 we received a cheque payment of £13.83.
However, your arrangement entered default because you failed to make payment for payment due on the 01.10.13 and 01.11.13.
On the 15.11.13 we received a cheque payment of £3.08.
On the 20.11.13 the Certificated Bailiff Mr Harpum attended your premises with the intention to enforce the Liability Order obtained and recover the outstanding balance in full.
On the same day, Mr Harpum re-attended your premises.
The above is still incorrect as Mr Harpum did not re-attend the property, but there is no mention of the £210 fee as stated in the previous email from Amy.
On the 21.11.13 we received two card payments. The first payment was for £101.00 and the second payment was for £635.61.
On the same day, Michael from our removal team contacted you to advise that the remaining balance was still due and the account was pending further action.
The above sentence makes it unclear as to which day I was allegedly contacted by ‘Michael from our removal team’, was it the same day that Mr Harpum visited or the same day the payments were received? I am unable to confirm which day it was as I did not and have not received a call from anyone from Chandlers or a removal team to date.
Apart from the fact that no call took place (Do Chandlers have evidence to prove this?), Why would someone from a removals team be contacting me regarding this debt? Also, if the call had taken place on the 21/11/13 the remaining debt had already been paid so there was no need for anyone to attend the property, and if a van had been brought to my property the on the 20/11/13 as claimed by Amy White above, then why would someone from a ‘removals’ team be contacting me the day after to discuss my account?
All of our Bailiffs are certificated at Bromley Council Court. You can contact them for verification if you wish.
The Bailiffs who attended your premises are:
Mr W. Brocklehurst: Certificated on 06.08.13 Expiry: 05.08.15 – There are no Bailiffs under the name Brocklehurst on the Register of Certificated Bailiffs, and my alleged visit from Mr Brocklehurst took place on the 30/05/13 - before this certificate was issued.
Mr S. James: Certificated on 24.06.13 Expiry: 23.06.15 – Again, there are no Bailiffs under this name on the register.
Mr N. Harpum: Certificated on 24.01.13 Expiry: 24.01.15
Again there is no mention ‘Mr Smith’ who allegedly visited my property on the 02/07/13 occurring an £18 fee.
These online checks were made on the 21/11/2013 and the 26/11/2013.
I have confirmed with the Ministry of Justice that the register is updated no less than once a week, and in the case of a Bailiff no longer showing on the register despite having an expiry date that is in the future, they have in most cases, had their certificates revoked.
I have sent an email to the Ministry of Justice to confirm that the bailiffs who I have been told attended my property were certificated at the time, I will advise you of my findings.
As a reminder, there is lots of leading case law that says a person not a certificated bailiff conducting levy is trespass, Bray v Naldred [1894] 2 PMR 227 or Hawes v Watson [1892] 94 LT 191 ;[1890] 29 LJ 556; contrast Varden v Shread [1890] 36 EG 449 or 25 LJ 363, Harker v Browne [1890] 36 EG 59, [1892] 40 EG 402, Thomas v Millington [1894] 2 PMR 472, Bray v Naldred [1894] 2 PMR 227 and Rodgers v Webb [1912] 20 PMR 186 and the debtor can sue.
All of our fees are applied as per Schedule 3,5 Regulations 14/39/45 Charges Connected with Distress I have enclosed a copy for your records.
Your account has now been passed onto the Certificated Bailiff Mr Z. O’Sullivan on 07545435028 therefore you will need to contact him directly after 5pm today in order to discuss your account further.
Why was my account passed to 2 different bailiffs within 2 days, neither of which appear on the certificated Bailiff Register?
I trust that this clarifies the position.
(End of email)
Notice that how in each of the emails I was not given the actual information requested – typing the fees on an email does not substitute an official statement (which I assume would be available to staff in the office) and does not constitute proof of what has actually been charged and paid off my debt.
It is amazing that 2 members of staff who work in the same office cannot give me correct the information requested and the information provided does not match, this suggests dishonesty and cover ups on behalf of Chandlers and constitutes as fraud.
Please see a table below outlining payments received by Chandlers and a list of fees added to my debt.
Dates Payments Received (According to Chandlers) Amounts Received
15.07.13 £13.83
31.07.13 £111.00
19.08.13 £13.83
02.09.13 £100.00
16.09.13 £13.83
15.11.13 £3.08
21.11.13 £101.00
21.11.13 £635.61
Total £992.18
Original Liability Order Amount (According to Chandlers) £883.68
Fees Charged
First Visit £24.50
Second Visit £18.00
Levy £51.00
Attendance/Removal £42.50
Walking Possession £12.00
Van (Remains Unpaid) £210.00
Total £358.00
Hounslow Council confirmed by phone on the 21/11/2013 that the amount outstanding on the debt as of the 01/11/13 was £734.61. This means that out of the £252.49 paid to Chandlers from July to 01st November only £149.07 had been paid to the council for my debt and £103.42 had gone straight into Chandlers’ pockets.
The total Amount of payments made to Chandlers since July 2013 are £992.18, £108.50 more than the original Liability Order and the total sum that would have been paid if I had proceeded to pay all of the fees incurred including the van fee would have been £1241.68, £358.00 more than the Liability Order.
Unfortunately as of today’s date, I am unable to obtain information from Hounslow Council in regards to how much of the £734.61 received by chandlers on the 21/11/13 has been passed to the Council to pay off my debt.
Due to the fact that the levy is most likely invalid, the first 2 visits were fictitious and the walking possession contains exempt items and no van was bought to my property, Chandlers are not entitled to charge me any of the above fees.
Charging these fees is fraud and I understand it is a criminal offence under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 and anyone receiving or benefiting from the proceeds of a crime may be subject to a criminal investigation.
I appreciate the public are less-informed of the prescribed fees bailiffs are entitled to charge, I believe they have taken advantage of this to make a gain or obtain an unlawful money transfer for himself or another. While I am quite sure the council did not intend to contract a firm of tricksters who have been found defrauding a member of the public in this way, I would be grateful if we can settle this matter quickly and quietly by refunding me within the next seven days. They may be bailiffs but that does not make them less liable than any other public service contractor, e.g. a plumber. However, a bailiff is in a position of trust and in abusing that position they commit an offence under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006.
I therefore ask you to deliver to me at the above address a full refund of your bailiff’s fees overpaid by me of £108.50 within seven days from the date of this letter.
And I respectfully ask
ii. I apply for compensation in respect of my goods distrained or sold of an amount equal to the amount which in the opinion of the court would be awarded by way of special damages in respect of the goods if proceedings were brought in trespass or otherwise in connection with the irregularity under regulation 45(7).
iii. if the court is satisfied that an attempted levy was irregular then I apply for an order requiring the authority to desist from levying in the manner giving rise to the irregularity.
Please note, The council, and not the bailiff, is liable for refunding unlawful bailiffs fees, Paragraph 24 of complaint number 12 005 084 by the Local Government Ombudsman 13 March 2013, and paragraph 44 confirms I can also make a formal complaint and claim damages, disbursements and compensation if the council is malfeasant.
For the avoidance of doubt, that in your failure to furnish me with a refund within seven days, I will automatically file a claim in the small claims track without writing further and this will invariably involve an application for costs, I will also inform the LGO that you, the council is aware that a contractor working under your instruction is engaging in criminal activity by defrauding members of the public. If you wish to start an investigation of your own, please be advised that in the absence of a refund this doesn't delay legal proceedings or filing a criminal complaint with a police authority.
This document is a notice of intended proceedings and delivered by Royal Mail and I deem it to be served on you by the ordinary course of post in the meaning of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and therefore your responsibility and it’s in your own interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.
Yours Faithfully
The Black rat (Rattus rattus) is a common (hence the accusation of being Pleb) long-tailed rodent of the genus Rattus (rats) in the subfamily Murinae (murine rodents). The species originated in tropical Asia and spread through the Near East in Roman times (another thing that we ought to thanks the Romans for, besides roads, aqueducts and public toilets) before reaching Europe by the 1st century and spreading with Europeans across the world.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Comment