Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

[bluebirdsforever]

Hi guys

New to posting on forum, but an avid reader of the threads here since bailiffs got in to my house (I know bad!), but now come seeking advice

My partner and I have outstanding council tax with our local authority (Cardiff), and sadly were duped in to letting the Ross & Roberts bailiff into our property. Anyway, have been paying back an agreed amount over £220 a month (very hard for us with one income and children) and were happy recently when made the last payment.

Anyway fast forward a few weeks, Ross and Roberts state they don't have the final payment. I have a receipt from their online system, and have forwarded this to them but they say their investigation cannot find the payment. My bank are adamant that the payment is showing as paid (and it shows on my statement), yet Ross and Roberts now wish to come around and remove goods listed on the Form 7. The tracing of payments, etc has been going on since early November

The Form 7 they have left previously, is of their own design not like those seen from the government/court pages linked to from here etc (does that matter? I assume not?) and lists the items as follows:

1x 3 seater leather sofa
1x 2 seater leather sofa
1x 42" LCD samsung TV
1x TV stand
1x Black DVD player
1x Black storage Sq unit
1x wooden dining (not a typo - just wooden dining - so is it a table? a chair?)

My query is this, out of the 7 items above, the first 3 are on HP agreements with not even 50% of the payments made yet, and I can prove this with documentation.

The debt was originally for (with their fees) over £1750, I now owe after subtraction of all the payments that are not missing ~£225.

I therefore ask can they levy against these goods since on a HP agreement? Can they (since can re-enter the property) just take anything they fancy that is not on the list? The amount they can only seize for now is the £225 owing from the debt?

They state their costs were £350, so I assume they should pay the council debt first THEN recover their fees (anything in law prescribe this?) Therefore do I just owe what is left of their fees? If so, am I right in thinking they cannot levy for their fees?

As an important aside, my bank has suggested (and I have told R&R of this) that I do a chargeback of the payment and then make in cash or over the phone and avoid their online payment system. On their advise and having told R&R I have requested the chargeback which should hopefully be in my account soon - although I have been warned R&R may decline the request from my bank?

Sorry for the muddled question, but hopefully can have some advice

Many thanks in advance
Bluebird

[bizzybob]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

The items on HP cannot be removed, nor can they be levied, did you tell the Ross 'n Robbers muppet that they were on HP? if so and he still listed them it is Formal Complaint time to the council, as rewmoving them makes the levy potential;ly worthless as what remains would not clear all fees and a portion of the debt.

I would complain to the council marking it as a Formal Complaint regarding the vexatious levy of their agent Ross & Roberts on exempt items exempted due to being on HP, and the remaining goods being of insufficient value to cover even a fraction of the debt which leazds you to believe the levy was soley to garner fees for the bailiff. Include the information and proof of payments that show there is no default, and indicate you will be escalating this through the complaints process with an intention to go to the Local government Ombudsman if this is not resolved. Send to the Head of Revenues, the council CEO, the Elected Leader, ward councillor and MP. If the seating were removed would there be sufficient seating for all the family?

Ross 'n Robbers are not entitled to diddly squat in extra fees for the non default, which is their feck up, and also some of their other fees may well be suspect also.

Other Beagles will doubtless be along with more advice soon.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

sadly were duped in to letting the Ross & Roberts bailiff into our property.

How were you duped by the pen pidyn?

Anyway, have been paying back an agreed amount over £220 a month

For how long? How much money have you paid those gargoyles?

Ross and Roberts now wish to come around and remove goods listed on the Form 7.

Actually, they don't. They know that to remove goods and chattels listed on a Form 7 Notice of Seizure would be a lot of effort for which they'd get bugger all at auction - not even enough to cover their stated costs for removal and sale expenses, let alone reduce the alleged debt.

Levying distress is a sort of kidnapping against goods and, just like holding people for ransom, it should have been outlawed centuries ago.

The Form 7 they have left previously, is of their own design

Fancy that.

1x 3 seater leather sofa
1x 2 seater leather sofa
1x 42" LCD samsung TV
1x TV stand
1x Black DVD player
1x Black storage Sq unit
1x wooden dining (not a typo - just wooden dining - so is it a table? a chair?)

My query is this, out of the 7 items above, the first 3 are on HP agreements with not even 50% of the payments made yet, and I can prove this with documentation.

Did the numpty know that? If he did, but listed them anyway then the levy is invalid.

The items on HP belong to the hire company, not you, so may not be taken. The wooden dining table/chairs/trough/whatever is exempt by law. That just leaves the DVD player, the storage unit and, possibly, the TV stand - assuming the latter is not also on HP. Those three items would probably not realise enough at auction to cover the fees that would be claimed by Ross and Robbers.

The debt was originally for (with their fees) over £1750, I now owe after subtraction of all the payments that are not missing ~£225.

From their antics, one might wonder by how much you've been overcharged.

They state their costs were £350,

Bailiffs tell lies.

so I assume they should pay the council debt first THEN recover their fees

No, it's the other way round - the buggers take their "fees" (both lawful and invented) first, then deign to give the council anything that may be left.

[bizzybob]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

Agreed CC that Ross 'n Robbers bailiff is a penypidyn fawr, or even Mawr, damn those mutations. I feel that all their fees apart from a couple of visit fees totaling £42.50 are invalid given that egregious levy.

[bluebottle]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

When you say you were duped into letting the bailiffs into your home, could you describe exactly how you were duped, including any threats, words used, gestures, etc..? It is possible that if deceit or coercion was used, the levy and fees may be invalid and cannot be enforced.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

Hello Bluebirdsforever,

Just two questions:

When the bailiff started filling in the form 7 did you produce proof that the first 3 items are on HP?

Immaterial if the item is on HP or not, did the bailiff record model number and most importantly serieal numbers?

If he/she did not then the levy on those items is invalid.

This may not be common knowledge, but as far as re-entering any property, once a bailiff has a walking possession agreement signed by both parties, they can, but only after the date stated on the walking possession as the last day for the debtor to pay in full.

[bizzybob]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

Agreed Sir Vere, a black Panasonic 32" TV is too generic, serial number is only way of positive identification of a specific item, bailiffs cut their own throats in most cases with this. takes too long and they have other levies to do.....

[CleverClogs]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

Agreed Sir Vere, a black Panasonic 32" TV is too generic, serial number is only way of positive identification of a specific item, bailiffs cut their own throats in most cases with this. takes too long and they have other levies to invent.

I've fixed your post for you. :grin:

[bizzybob]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

I've fixed your post for you. :grin:

Bailiff to copper, "well it was a black TV I wrote down, but this black 14" CRT isn't what was there!, it was a 50" flatscreen." Copper to bailiff " Now calm down, it IS a black TV and that is what you listed, so that is what you have to take"

Bailiffs should be abolished.

[bluebottle]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

Hello Bluebirdsforever,

Just two questions:

When the bailiff started filling in the form 7 did you produce proof that the first 3 items are on HP?

Immaterial if the item is on HP or not, did the bailiff record model number and most importantly serieal numbers?

If he/she did not then the levy on those items is invalid.

This may not be common knowledge, but as far as re-entering any property, once a bailiff has a walking possession agreement signed by both parties, they can, but only after the date stated on the walking possession as the last day for the debtor to pay in full.

Many thanks for that, Sir Vere. You have confirmed a number of things I have suspected for a while.

[bizzybob]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

Many thanks for that, Sir Vere. You have confirmed a number of things I have suspected for a while.

That most levies may of themselves be defective due to the bailiffs eagerness to cut corners when listing goods.

[bluebottle]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

That most levies may of themselves be defective due to the bailiffs eagerness to cut corners when listing goods.

That and the fact that -

a. the WPA must be signed by both bailiff and debtor; and
b. the bailiff cannot enter until the seven days following the signing of the WPA has passed.

However, taking account of the fact that the manner in which local authorities issue LOs is ultra vires, ab initio, the above is somewhat academic as the use of distress, in the circumstances, is ultra vires, too.

[bizzybob]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

That and the fact that -

a. the WPA must be signed by both bailiff and debtor; and
b. the bailiff cannot enter until the seven days following the signing of the WPA has passed.

However, taking account of the fact that the manner in which local authorities issue LOs is ultra vires, ab initio, the above is somewhat academic as the use of distress, in the circumstances, is ultra vires, too.

When the number of Liability Orders go through the roof as a result of the welfare reforms cutting benefits for In Work people, and people having to pay a portion of the council tax for the first time and get into arrears due to the cuts, civil unrest is becoming more likely, and bailiffs will need more than police protection in some areas where entire streets will have an LO at every house. I wonder how much of the entire Council Tax enforcement is challengeable under HRA?

Wait until an immigrant family is targeted by bailiffs for an LO and they rampage though the house where no one speaks English, the Grauniad readers will be foaming at the mouth and bleeding from the ears at the racist bailiffs.

[bluebottle]

Re: Ross and Roberts - Form 7 and missing payment

When the number of Liability Orders go through the roof as a result of the welfare reforms cutting benefits for In Work people, and people having to pay a portion of the council tax for the first time and get into arrears due to the cuts, civil unrest is becoming more likely, and bailiffs will need more than police protection in some areas where entire streets will have an LO at every house. I wonder how much of the entire Council Tax enforcement is challengeable under HRA?

Wait until an immigrant family is targeted by bailiffs for an LO and they rampage though the house where no one speaks English, the Grauniad readers will be foaming at the mouth and bleeding from the ears at the racist bailiffs.

If the local authority has not followed the correct procedures under the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulation 1992 to the letter of the law, that is, they have used Passing Off, the enforcement is likely to be challengeable, in toto, as well as being potentially unlawfull/illegal. Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the HRA are the two Articles local authorities are likely to be caught out by. If a CT payer were to challenge a local authority's actions and had their challenge upheld, it would have consequences that would reverberate around local and national government. However, I suspect a local authority would quietly back down rather than have their corruption and fraud exposed in an open court.

As for civil unrest, a lot of people have realised what is going on and have also realised that violence and rioting are not the way to deal with corrupt politicians and officials. It has been found that rogue elements within the security services have been responsible for whipping up violence at otherwise peaceful protest marches through Central London. I can see people using Lawful Rebellion, where the law is used to subvert the politicians and officials. Greasy Grayling has already made a major error of judgement by thinking he can take on the Criminal Bar and lawyers overall. It is an error of judgement I suspect will backfire on him and the other quislings in spectacular style.