rossendale bailiffs

[CleverClogs]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

I hadn't heard hide nor hair from them again until yesterday when another minion of rossendales came to my door, new address may I add, demanding 'fees' incurred from 10 months ago, totalling £197 for first and second visit apparently and van fee.

I have now seen the video and heard the oaf's "explanation" of the fees.

He is correct in his statement about the first and second visit fees being laid down by statute.

He may be correct in his statement about "van fees" being agreed with the council, but the statute only states "reasonable costs and fees incurred" and it is immediately obvious that, if the buggers charge that same fee on a number of calls in a day, they will collect considerably more than "reasonable costs and fees incurred" - they'll male several times that in pure profit.

He referred to a levy fee. On what goods did he levy distress?

[singledaddy]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

I have now seen the video and heard the oaf's "explanation" of the fees.

He is correct in his statement about the first and second visit fees being laid down by statute.

He may be correct in his statement about "van fees" being agreed with the council, but the statute only states "reasonable costs and fees incurred" and it is immediately obvious that, if the buggers charge that same fee on a number of calls in a day, they will collect considerably more than "reasonable costs and fees incurred" - they'll male several times that in pure profit.

He referred to a levy fee. On what goods did he levy distress?

He didn't have levy on any goods, I never received a levy or any sign of any but I didn't know what I was paying for to be honest

[dementedfeline]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

singledaddy - if they are claiming a levy, then they should have left a Form 7. Email Rossendale office asking for a copy along with a full breakdown of fees, including dates. Ask for copies of ALL paperwork allegedly left. If they produce copies I will go out and buy a hat, deepfry it and then eat it.................

[singledaddy]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

singledaddy - if they are claiming a levy, then they should have left a Form 7. Email Rossendale office asking for a copy along with a full breakdown of fees, including dates. Ask for copies of ALL paperwork allegedly left. If they produce copies I will go out and buy a hat, deepfry it and then eat it.................

So you reckon if they don't give me copies then they've got something to hide meaning I have a stronger case?

[CleverClogs]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

He didn't have levy on any goods, I never received a levy or any sign of any but I didn't know what I was paying for to be honest

No levy, no levy fee, no van fee.

The most they'd lawfully be able to claim is £42.50 for two visits.

Did you get a receipt?

What was the oaf's name?

[dementedfeline]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

Apparently they don't keep copies of originals............. so it all comes down to your word against the bailiff's as to whether the paperwork that should be left actually was left. BUT if Mr Bailiff did say that they had a levy, then in your email/letter to Rossendales as advised earlier, add in that you want a copy of all paperwork allegedly left by any and all of their bailiffs. If they produce a Form 7, I bet the top third will be blank..... but it should show you what they have allegedly levied on.

In the SLA I gave the link for earlier, it does say, as a mandatory requirement:

"If a debtor brings an action against the Council for replevin or tort, or appeals against distress through the Magistrates’ Court, the contractor must supply all evidence, reports and other documentation to enable the Council to respond to such action. "

which I would read as they SHOULD be keeping copies of absolutely everything because if someone took the Council to court, the Council would ask Tossers for ALL the paperwork.........

Ask them for all the paperwork - and see what reply you get.

[bluebottle]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

Council Tax enforcement has been found to be riddled with corruption and fraud. The issue of summonses is made by local authorities. not courts, even though the name of a court is on it, and it is the local authority running a Liability Order hearing, not the court staff.

The issue of the summonses is called Passing Off and is illegal. The issue of the Liability Order hearings is unlawful and, potentially, illegal.

Bailiff companies enforcing public debt either conveniently forget or hope you don't know both they and their creditor clients, usually, government agencies and departments and local authorities, are subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 in terms of compliance and liability.

Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful for a public authority, which includes local authorities, to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right, these being the rights conferred by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Commercial entities, which includes bailiff companies, performing functions of or on behalf of public authorities are deemed to be public authorities also.

Convention rights are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away from you, and inviolate, meaning they are unaffected by any legislation the government may enact.

The most common violations where Council Tax is concerned are -

Article 6 (Right to A Fair Hearing) - which means the court must hear, weigh and test the evidence placed before it and in accordance with the law, not let a local authority, which has no judicial authority, run the hearing;

Article 17 (Prohibition of Abuse of Right) - which means a public authority cannot engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at destroying your rights and freedoms or limiting them more than ECHR permits.

Article 18 (Limitation on Use of Restriction of Rights) - which means a public authority cannot impose any restrictions on your rights and freedoms under ECHR than the Convention permits;

Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Possessions) - which means a public authority cannot deprive you of your possessions except in certain circumstances.

How does this affect the collection and enforcement of Council Tax? What follows is my personal view and should not be taken as an authoritative statement of the law.

Liability Order Hearings - Due to the way these are conducted, there is no way in which the alleged debtor can be said to have a fair hearing. Notwithstanding that a court rubber-stamps the Liability Orders, the fact that the alleged debtor's rights under Article 6 are violated or, more accurately, undermined and subverted, there is an argument that the Liability Orders are not worth the paper they are printed on and, consequently, are unenforceable.

Use of Distress - The late Lord Denning branded bailiffs "A 12th Century solution to a 21st Century problem" and advocated their demise. Unfortunately, Lord Denning did not exactly endear himself to the Establishment, even though he was a man of great wisdom and commonsense, and after his death they rubbished his rulings and judgements. The use of distress to collect taxes is iniquitous, except where a debtor is deliberately evading payment - a "won't pay" or tax dodger - but the authority bailiffs are given to collect Council Tax arrears - the Liability Order - given the manner in which they are obtained, raises serious questions as to whether bailiffs are acting within or outside the law.

Seizure of Goods - Given the legally-questionable manner in which Liability Orders are obtained and question mark over the use of distress as a means of enforcement of Council Tax, should a bailiff be permitted to seize a debtor's goods? Unless it can be shown a Liability Order has been obtained in accordance with the law and in accordance with a debtor's Convention rights, the answer has to be "No", as the entire process, as it currently stands, is unlawful from the outset.

What redress is available?

Under the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, a debtor has redress under Regulation 46, but only to the extent of a magistrates court telling the local authority to behave itself, or restrain its enforcement agents, or return goods to a debtor or compensate them. The Human Rights Act 1998 goes further than this and can penetrate far deeper than other legislation to the extent of forcing a public authority to change the way it does or goes about its business.

What would be the effect on Council Tax enforcement if a debtor won a Human Rights Act ruling?

The collection of Council Tax would probably collapse. The corruption and fraud attached to Council Tax would be blown wide open and the courts would no longer be permitted to allow local authorities to run Liability Order hearings. It would mean local authorities would be put to strict proof and their so-called evidence scrutinised properly. The number of Liability Orders granted would, I suspect, take a sharp, if not, terminal nosedive.

[bluebottle]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

singledaddy - if they are claiming a levy, then they should have left a Form 7. Email Rossendale office asking for a copy along with a full breakdown of fees, including dates. Ask for copies of ALL paperwork allegedly left. If they produce copies I will go out and buy a hat, deepfry it and then eat it.................

Is that with small, medium or large fries and is it to eat in or to go?

[dementedfeline]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

[/B]

Is that with small, medium or large fries and is it to eat in or to go?

bb, as i can't see my local chippie offering up their fryer for the hat, it will probably be home-fried hat, but I take your point about getting some chips to go with it

[bluebottle]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

bb, as i can't see my local chippie offering up their fryer for the hat, it will probably be home-fried hat, but I take your point about getting some chips to go with it

I tend to find the headband is rather chewy and the brim tends to get stuck in your teeth.

[singledaddy]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

Just seen this as well makes interesting reading as well http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/vi....php?f=3&t=772

[CleverClogs]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

Just seen this as well makes interesting reading as well http://www.bailiffunhelpfulforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=772

Someone should have warned you about that site.

Sometimes their cited cases do indeed have the effect claimed, but more usually they do not and sometimes the judgement given is the exact opposite of that claimed !

The one useful feature of that thread is the Local Government Ombudsman report on two cases in Ealing, in 1997. It was found that, for "van fees" to be charged, there must first be a valid levy in place.

[bizzybob]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

They may well claim a levy on a random car near your premises, then ask you to produce the V5 to prove you don't own it.Either way if they claim a levy on goods not owned by yourself, the levy is invalid, at that point you can challenge it with a Formal Complaint to the council bigwigs, CEO, Leader and MP.

[singledaddy]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

I shall be cracking down on it all today. Get the ball rolling asap to try and get my money back doubt I will though :/

[CleverClogs]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

I shall be cracking down on it all today. Get the ball rolling asap to try and get my money back doubt I will though :/

Remember, exhaust the council complaints procedure first, then take the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman. The law on levies has not (yet) been changed since the report I attached above.