Ross And Roberts bailiffs

[Martin Suter]

Hi


On the 10/01/14 a ross and Roberts called at my house at 6:30am. At that time of the morning I am still sleeping so they posted a letter (First Notice).

On this First Notice it has my total outstanding balance £992.50 The cost of the 1st visit of £22.50.

Now it says to contact the Bailiff who called at my home. Which I did at around 6:25pm when I was at work as I had no credit on my mobile and don't have a landline. Bailiff did not answer, So I followed the message to leave my name, address, contact number and Ross and Roberts Ref number and they would get back to me asap. (they never did)

Also on the First Notice they have listed cost of the 2nd visit if I did not contact the bailiff. ( which I did contact them later that day )

second visit fee £16.50
Levy fee £51.00
walking possession £11.00
Administration fee in accordance with section H £24.50 if applicable. ( What would make this fee payable )
Reasonable costs for attendance of a removal vehicle.



can anyone please advise if these fee are correct.
unfortunately their is no break down of the debt I owe before they have added he 1st visiting fee just the total outstanding balance.

At the moment I am already paying off 1 council tax debt with Ross and Roberts and on that occasion I let them into my property. with this being a new Debt do they still have the right to forcefully gain access to my home or am I within my rights to keep them shut outside.


Many Thanks

Martin Suter

[bizzybob]

Re: Ross And Roberts bailiffs

Hi welcome to LB I would change your handle to something other than your name, and ask site team to change it on the thread

Did the bailiff leave a Form 7 Notice of Seizure, if so what did he list? Ross 'n Robbers are well known along with their cousins Equita for upfront fee fraud as i loading all fees at the first visit whether they are legit or not, both are part of Capita PLC. As the visit fee was £22.50 I will assume you are in Wales, and the council is infested with Crapita. The Head h is contentious, and may well be dodgy. Is he trying to claim a previous levy can be used on this call I wonder?

What goods did he list for the first debt, as he cannot list them again for a different debt.

[Martin Suter]

Re: Ross And Roberts bailiffs

Their was no form left and nothing listed on this visit from them. Just the 1st notice letter.

I have a old debt for council tax still being paid off with them though. which is due to end this month when make finally payment at end the month.

[Martin Suter]

Re: Ross And Roberts bailiffs

Also i am in a private rented property that is fully furnished by my landlady.
If they found a way into my home, Are they allowed to list goods that belong to her?

[bizzybob]

Re: Ross And Roberts bailiffs

Also i am in a private rented property that is fully furnished by my landlady.
If they found a way into my home, Are they allowed to list goods that belong to her?

ABSOLUTELY NOT Do not let them in they cannot rely on the prior entry for this new debt, and when you make the last payment that LO is extinguished and they cannot rely on any part of it to add fees to this one. You say you let them in, presumably they listed your landlady's furniture on the previous debt? If so that levy and all the fees are void save the first and second visit fees totaling £39, anything else if the levy is void is unlawful and those fees MUST be refunded, and as they have not had peaceful entry to the second debt only the visit fees are payable on that imho.

What did they list when you let them in before for the first debt? Were they your landlady's goods?

[Martin Suter]

Re: Ross And Roberts bailiffs

They listed 3 seater leather sofa, cooker and washing machine. all which belong to my landlady. they did include itm of my own like my TV and pc

[Martin Suter]

Re: Ross And Roberts bailiffs

On the useful letters forum, Bailiffs costs and Breakdown letter, would it be possible to include they send a list of all items listed to be levied against?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Ross And Roberts bailiffs

They listed 3 seater leather sofa, cooker and washing machine. all which belong to my landlady. they did include itm of my own like my TV and pc

The cooker and washing machine are exempt goods anyway, and hence should not have been levied even if you owned them.

The irregularity of that levy is, in my opinion, sufficient to make it invalid and to make the bästärd bailiff's entry into trespass.

On the useful letters forum, Bailiffs costs and Breakdown letter, would it be possible to include they send a list of all items listed to be levied against?

For a levy fee to be payable, a valid levy has to have been made and the items levied upon listed in the inventory section of a Form 7 Notice of Seizure.

For the reasons given above - levying on exempt goods and levying on third party goods - the buggers from Ross & Robbers haven't done that yet.

Which council is it?

[bizzybob]

Re: Ross And Roberts bailiffs

As I suspected and confirmed in your reply to CleverClogs, landlady's property and the rest exempt, the levy is worthless. The bailiff as it is Ross 'n Robbers may well claim when challenged that he can have the goods and you will be liable to the landlady for their loss. That would be as big a LIE as the Pope being a Mulsim!

Once the reply to Letter 1 is in in fact do it now anyway provide the council and Ross 'n Robbers with a copy of the tenancy agreement and copy of the inventory, with a covering letter telling them to remove the leby and all associated fees, and refund them forthwith. if they refuse as will be likely as there may be a Crapita infeststion at the counci;, You may need to initiate a Formal Complaint to the Head of Revenues at the council copied to CEO, Elected Leader, Local Member and MP stating you are aggreived by the unlawful levy on third party and exempt goods and the unlawful fees applied as a result. Which Council is this? I suspect it is in Wales and please change your screen name to something else as bailiffs trawl forums and request site team update the thread with it.

[bluebottle]

Re: Ross And Roberts bailiffs

A question I would ask and that is did this bailiff say he had to do a Walking Possession in order to set up a payment plan? This is a common ploy and amounts to gaining entry by deceitful conduct. This has the effect of rendering a levy, Walking Possession and fees pertaining thereto invalid and unenforceable at the very least. The bailiff may argue to the contrary, claiming they gained peaceable entry, but the use of deceit is a no-no. Besides this, it is conduct that brings into question the fitness of the bailiff to act as a bailiff.

[bizzybob]

Re: Ross And Roberts bailiffs

A question I would ask and that is did this bailiff say he had to do a Walking Possession in order to set up a payment plan? This is a common ploy and amounts to gaining entry by deceitful conduct. This has the effect of rendering a levy, Walking Possession and fees pertaining thereto invalid and unenforceable at the very least. The bailiff may argue to the contrary, claiming they gained peaceable entry, but the use of deceit is a no-no. Besides this, it is conduct that brings into question the fitness of the bailiff to act as a bailiff.

Good point, it compounds the bailiffs problem as the levy he has is and always was unlawful, although Martin didn't know that at the time.

CC alluded to the bailiffs as buggers, as the fees quoted seem to indicate a Welsh council can we agree they are more likely to be penypidyn?