rossendale bailiffs

[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.

[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.

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?

[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?

[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

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

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

Haha now if I'd have been wearing that when I answered the door I don't think I'd have this problem. One little squirr he'd have been gone

[bizzybob]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

That depends...

Are you still breast feeding?

Grandpa Jack in the Little Fokkers?

Re: rossendale bailiffs

I'm a full time single dad, which after their very first incident with me 10 months ago tosserdales were more than aware of. Do I fall in that category because I'm male does it not count?

That depends...

Are you still breast feeding?

[singledaddy]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

This is very helpful I wish I had accessed this yesterday when dealing with this scumbag then I mighg still have my £200. Thank you all for your help in this I will make sure I keep everyone updated as soon as I get it. I'd be grateful for any information anyone can supply it will all help towards making these low lives realise they can't keep getting away with it. Also I've read around and the 'vunerable' word has come up a few times. I'm a full time single dad, which after their very first incident with me 10 months ago tosserdales were more than aware of. Do I fall in that category because I'm male does it not count?

[bizzybob]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

That video of itself should cause the police some problems regarding their officers apparent condonation of the bailiffs action. You have had great advice, Tossendales, oops now Marstons own them should it be Tosstons? should be compulsorily wound up they are corrosive to the public good.

Re: rossendale bailiffs

I went to close the door and he stuck his foot in the way.

Don't you keep a heavy crowbar by the side of your entrance door?

I do... :rofl:

[bluebottle]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

Believe me if I didn't have to pick my son up from school just after this I would've done a whole lot more. And I agree there some of them are very corrupt. Although there are a few I've met that are very good at the job but they are a small minority

About 1% who are very successful and make a good living. Why? They play things strictly by the book and treat debtors as human beings, with dignity and respect.

[dementedfeline]

Re: rossendale bailiffs

singledaddy - also - on whatdotheyknow - Cornwall has provided their contract (nothing of great interest), but also, the last answer by Sheila Ashby - their Service Level Agreement with Rossendales - some of it makes for interesting reading - especially their pre-classification of certain types of debtors (for PCNs) as "wilfully" not paying. Link is https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ncoming-448100