Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

[CleverClogs]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

Also see http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...m-4-complaints

Even getting the fees and costs assessed would be futile. In the "case" of Attley v Latham, Mr Attley won a total of £136.40, yet was ordered to pay costs of £1200.

Such putative "justice" may remind one of Hislop's famous aphorism, "If that's justice, I'm a banana!".

[geoffrey]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

If someone else can prove that they are the owner, there is nothing that the balyfs can do about it.

[bizzybob]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

If someone else can prove that they are the owner, there is nothing that the balyfs can do about it.

Very true geoffrey, but Equita are lying and duplicitous people, and will place ever increasing burdens of proof on the ripped off debtor to prove they are not the owner, not limited to providing a V5 Registration Document to show they are not the keeper, a non existent insurance certificate, and more. They will then when all else fails refer to Gonsky v Durrell [1918] which says the onus of proof of ownership always falls on a debtor, as that was a case nearly 100 years old, it clearly cannot apply in all reasonableness to a third party car, as the ownership, or at least registered keeper is out there in the DVLA database; and Observer v Gordon [1983] which says it is reasonable for the bailiff to assume any motor near ot outside the debtor's premises is the property of the debtor so is fair game. Difficult for the bailiff to argue this in a street of terraced houses with only on street parking, there a debtor may never actually have "their" car outside their home, assuming they own a car. This reliance will lead to much shenanigans after April with the new interpleaders, and bailiffs go on a car pinching spree.

[bluebottle]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

Very true geoffrey, but Equita are lying and duplicitous people, and will place ever increasing burdens of proof on the ripped off debtor to prove they are not the owner, not limited to providing a V5 Registration Document to show they are not the keeper, a non existent insurance certificate, and more. They will then when all else fails refer to Gonsky v Durrell [1918] which says the onus of proof of ownership always falls on a debtor, as that was a case nearly 100 years old, it clearly cannot apply in all reasonableness to a third party car, as the ownership, or at least registered keeper is out there in the DVLA database; and Observer v Gordon [1983] which says it is reasonable for the bailiff to assume any motor near ot outside the debtor's premises is the property of the debtor so is fair game. Difficult for the bailiff to argue this in a street of terraced houses with only on street parking, there a debtor may never actually have "their" car outside their home, assuming they own a car. This reliance will lead to much shenanigans after April with the new interpleaders, and bailiffs go on a car pinching spree.

And I can see a large number of certificated bailiffs ending up in A & E after having their heads kicked in for trying to steal third-party vehicles. The new legislation, as it stands, is not a licence to steal or cheat or seize third-party vehicles and then try to extort fees. If a third party has their goods seized in their absence in error and the bailiff can prove it was a genuine error on their part, not laziness or sheer criminal behaviour, then they might just be able to use the new legislation - if it doesn't get pulled following the forthcoming meeting in London - to escape being held to account. However, as we all know, most certificated bailiffs lie and will claim they can seize third-party goods and try to use the new legislation as their justification. That is where I feel many will trip up. Making a false or misleading statement as to a matter of law may be all it needs to stuff a bailiff. Notwithstanding, ECHR and the HRA go one step further and hold the bailiff and bailiff company to account, along with their central and local government creditor clients, especially where Article 1 of the First Protocol is concerned (Protection of Possessions). My gut-feeling is that, after April, certificated bailiffs who fancy their chances with misquoting the new legislation are going to get a physical, financial or legal hiding, or a combination thereof.

[nalglondon]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

I've binned the Form 4!!! Thanks for the advice guys! Saved me a lot of hassle.
in the meantime, just this morning, received an email from Executive Assistant to Mr. Chris Naylor from Barnet Council saying that my complaint had been passed to the Council Tax office to be investigated by someone there. Don't know why, but suspect it will fall again in the same circle.....

[wales01man]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

Have to agree with Bluebottle as to what may happen to bailiffs who try to seize cars not belonging to a debtor

[bluebottle]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

I've binned the Form 4!!! Thanks for the advice guys! Saved me a lot of hassle.
in the meantime, just this morning, received an email from Executive Assistant to Mr. Chris Naylor from Barnet Council saying that my complaint had been passed to the Council Tax office to be investigated by someone there. Don't know why, but suspect it will fall again in the same circle.....

Form 4 is only to be used where a bailiff's actions are so serious that to allow them to continue to act as a bailiff would be condoning criminal behaviour or putting the public at risk. This includes such transgressions, but is not to restricted to actions such as assaults on debtors not in self-defence, fraud, theft, forgery and acting without lawful authority. Compared to these transgressions, overcharging is a relatively minor transgression, albeit an irritating one. Deliberately or recklessly making false or misleading statements as to fact or law in order to obtain money or goods is more serious. However, it is better to try and resolve such an instance through applying judicious pressure and letting the buggers hang themselves. If they do that, they can blame only themselves if they then end up minus their bailiff certificate.

[nalglondon]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

Well, Equita and the bailiff have come forward with a supposed levy that never existed and they are claiming charges regarding those actions. Wouldn't that be classed as fraud?

Form 4 is only to be used where a bailiff's actions are so serious that to allow them to continue to act as a bailiff would be condoning criminal behaviour or putting the public at risk. This includes such transgressions, but is not to restricted to actions such as assaults on debtors not in self-defence, fraud, theft, forgery and acting without lawful authority. Compared to these transgressions, overcharging is a relatively minor transgression, albeit an irritating one. Deliberately or recklessly making false or misleading statements as to fact or law in order to obtain money or goods is more serious. However, it is better to try and resolve such an instance through applying judicious pressure and letting the buggers hang themselves. If they do that, they can blame only themselves if they then end up minus their bailiff certificate.

[bluebottle]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

Well, Equita and the bailiff have come forward with a supposed levy that never existed and they are claiming charges regarding those actions. Wouldn't that be classed as fraud?

Give them plenty of rope to hang themselves with, Nuno. Sometimes, biding your time can be the best policy in cases like this. At the moment, they are only attempting to claim dodgy fees. When they attempt to enforce dodgy fees is when they really cross the line and hang themselves good and proper. If you're going to hang them, make sure it is worth hanging them.

[ODC]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

What really needs to happen is for the actual owner of a vehicle to report it stolen when the Balliffs take it. Then the police should arrest the thieving scum. As it stands there is nothing to prevent the scum levying a neighbours car and use this as a tool to blackmail you into paying them

[bizzybob]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

What really needs to happen is for the actual owner of a vehicle to report it stolen when the Balliffs take it. Then the police should arrest the thieving scum. As it stands there is nothing to prevent the scum levying a neighbours car and use this as a tool to blackmail you into paying them

Problem is the police may well tell the unfortunate that it is Civil, bailiff will use Observer v Gordon [1983] as their get out of jail card, and after April will tell the owner sod off to interpleader we can have your car if we want (assuming MOJ still let it in)

[bluebottle]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

Problem is the police may well tell the unfortunate that it is Civil, bailiff will use Observer v Gordon [1983] as their get out of jail card, and after April will tell the owner sod off to interpleader we can have your car if we want (assuming MOJ still let it in)

My gut-feeling is that what you cite will only work if the bailiff takes the vehicle in the absence of the third-party owner, can prove it was a genuine error on their part and not bone-idleness or recklessness in not bothering to check ownership before levying on/seizing the vehicle. If the third-party owner catches the bailiff attempting to levy on/seize and is fed the crap the bailiff can take it and to sod off to interpleader, the third-party owner is completely within their rights to use as much reasonable force as is necessary to protect their property. A warrant/Liability Order only permits a bailiff to seize the debtor's goods, not third-party goods, so the bailiff is on a sticky wicket if they try the "I can seize it and sod off to interpleader" number and should not be surprised if the third-party gives the bailiff a bloody good hiding. Nothwithstanding, there is nothing to stop the third-party hauling the bailiff in front of a judge under Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998, landing the bailiff with a ruling against them that would reverberate through the civil enforcement industry, an order for costs and, possibly, compensation to the third party. In addition to that, there would be serious questions as to the bailiff's fitness to act as a bailiff.

As you quite rightly said recently, BB, ECHR and HRA penetrate a lot more deeply than most people believe and bailiffs and civil enforcement companies, not to mention local authorities and government agencies and departments, ignore them at their peril.

Cloggy placing a link to the National Pro Bono Centre in his siggie was a stroke of genius. ECHR and HRA are likely to be the tools that stuff the civil enforcement industry and those who are trying to get everyone at each other's throats.

[bizzybob]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

Problem is BB that as the new rules bring the interpleader in as ststus quo, it will take a challenge such as you highlighted, or a bailiff attempting to remove, getting a sound and thorough tolchock like the diesel thief who had his legs and arm broken, police and Criminal Protection Service rubbing their Common Purpose paws in glee at the prospect of sending the victim of theft away for a long holiday in jail, only to have their pig killed when the jury decided reasonable force and found not guilty. I can see police arresting the third party for assaulting the bailiff, and letting them take the car. This will be the situation UNTIL there is a challenge against the whole Taking Control of Goods regulations, especially the interpleader.

HRA is a good law, it must be, Camoron and his hooray Henry cronies want rid of it, it is the Common Purpose interpretations that bring it into disrepute not the Act itself.

[bluebottle]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

Problem is BB that as the new rules bring the interpleader in as ststus quo, it will take a challenge such as you highlighted, or a bailiff attempting to remove, getting a sound and thorough tolchock like the diesel thief who had his legs and arm broken, police and Criminal Protection Service rubbing their Common Purpose paws in glee at the prospect of sending the victim of theft away for a long holiday in jail, only to have their pig killed when the jury decided reasonable force and found not guilty. I can see police arresting the third party for assaulting the bailiff, and letting them take the car. This will be the situation UNTIL there is a challenge against the whole Taking Control of Goods regulations, especially the interpleader.

HRA is a good law, it must be, Camoron and his hooray Henry cronies want rid of it, it is the Common Purpose interpretations that bring it into disrepute not the Act itself.

What you say is true, BB. However, I have a feeling the tide is about to turn on the civil enforcement industry and a lot of certificated bailiffs are going to get the shock of their lives. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[nalglondon]

Re: Equita Bailiff placed a levy on a car which is not mine

Hi Everyone, further update, and I really can't believe how this is possible....This is regarding the complaint that I made to the council and has now been investigated by the Revenues Operations Teams Manager.

It's really disappointing to see that they only listen to Equita's view and don't care about what we say. He did't care about what I said at all....Here's his reply...

"
You have raised several issues relating to the working practices of Equita bailiffs and the levy of fees and charges in respect of your unpaid Council Tax. Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention.

In your complaint you have stated that Equita bailiffs are trying to apply unlawful charges for visits, levy of goods and attendance fees for something that never occurred.

I am aware that you have been in correspondence with Equita regarding these issues but felt it necessary to make my own investigations in relation to the matters you have raised.

Equita were first instructed in this case on 20 September 2013 to recover the arrears of Council Tax totalling £1225.00. They have confirmed that a visit to your property was made on 1 October 2013 and a notice of attendance was left. This visit is further supported by GPS co-ordinates that would have been logged to the case during the visit. At this stage, first visit fees of £24.50 were incurred by you.

Second visit fees of £18.00 were then raised on the bailiff’s attendance to your property on 17 October 2013. I note that these have subsequently been removed as advised in their letter to you dated 22 January 2014. This visit is also supported by GPS co-ordinates that were logged at the time of the visit.

This visit was undertaken by John Foster and it is reported that the following levy of goods took place:

· 42 inch TV
· 3 piece sofa
· Ipad
· PC
· Xbox

The calculation of fees for the levy was detailed in their letter of 22 January 2014 and amounted to £59.00. You were also charged an additional £120.00 on the second visit for appropriate “van fees”.

You state in your complaint that you consider the fees to be unlawful and to be in direct contravention of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended).

I have examined the fees charged by Equita together with the supportive evidence of the respective visits and consider them to be both lawful and correct.

Moving on to the issue surrounding the actual levy of the goods in question, I note with concern the fact you claim that this never took place as the bailiff did not gain entry to your premises.

You have stated that you live in fully furnished rented accommodation and both of the sofas have 2 seats. You do not have a 42 inch TV; you have never owned an Xbox and at that time, namely 17 October 2013, you had previously sold both your Ipad and computer.

I have read Equita’s response to you in respect of this issue where it is stated that Mr Foster attended your address on 17 October 2013 and reported that contact was established with the ‘defendant’. During this visit a levy was conducted on several items located inside your property to secure the debt. At the time you also agreed to settle the full amount due by 21 October 2013. Partial payment of £951.00 was subsequently received on 21 October 2013.

Further to my own enquires with Equita Limited, I have now received a report from their Client Team Manager Mrs Fowler who has conducted an interview with Mr Foster in connection with this matter. Mr Foster has stated that he would not make a levy on household goods without gaining access to the property.

The report further states that “his case notes clearly show that at the time of the visit, contact was established and an agreement was made that the full balance would be paid on the 21 October. Indeed, following this a substantial amount of the debt was paid via the internet. On the same day the bailiff temporarily suspended all bailiff action for a period of 30 days, and we must assume that this was following further contact and an arrangement for the remaining sum to be cleared. The bailiff does recall actively pursuing the balance, and whilst he did reference this on his paperwork at the time, he is unable to clarify the exact dates”.

The report concludes by stating “It is noted that on the 20 December 2013 the charge-payer did contact our office and did refer to having had contact with John Foster and that he was apparently waiting for Mr Foster to contact him regarding the balance, but had now received a further notice from a different bailiff. This supports Mr Foster’s recollection as well as the visit on the 19 December 2013”.

I note from Equita’s records that following Mr Foster’s visit to your property on 17 October 2013, the case was then passed to a Mr Furlonger who attended your address on 19 December 2013. You were further visited by Mr Irvine on 13 January 2014.

From the information gathered, it is clear that Equita bailiff’s have attended your property with a view to recover this debt. The GPS co-ordinates captured via the bailiff’s digital pen and phone system during each visit support their attendance at your address on all four occasions. It is also clear that Mr John Foster was the bailiff who visited your property on 17 October 2013 and produced the levy notice detailing the goods in question.

I note that you have requested a full description of the items listed on the levy notice to include colour, brand, serial numbers, makes and models. Equita’s response to you was that it is not necessary for their bailiffs to list note details such as serial numbers and that the information listed is regarded as sufficient and lawful. I do not share this opinion and I am pleased to note that this practice will become a requirement under the new Enforcement Regulations 2014.

In drawing this matter to a conclusion and based upon the information and supporting evidence I have received, I am unable to agree with your suggestion that Equita Limited have acted unlawfully in this matter. I would however mention, as a result of your complaint and my investigation into this matter, certain enhancements to working practices have been identified which will now be implemented.

I note that you have now entered into an arrangement with Equita to settle the outstanding debt at the rate of £100.00 every 30 days. The balance due is £278.50 and your next payment is due on 3 March 2014. I am happy for this arrangement to continue and will therefore not request the case to be returned to the Council.

I hope that through this letter I have been able to resolve your complaint. If you do have any remaining concerns please feel free to contact me to discuss them. If you are unhappy with this outcome, you can ask for your complaint to be reviewed by a Head of Service at stage two of our complaints procedure. However, in order for us to escalate your complaint, you will need to explain in detail why you consider that my response has not resolved your complaint. For example you may consider that the response; did not answer all the points you complained about (if so, please say which ones) or, failed to take into account information you provided in support of your complaint or, made conclusions based on incorrect information or failed to carry out or to carry out an action that would resolve your complaint.

Your request for a review should be made within 8 weeks from the date of this letter and addressed to:

.........

1. The visit by Mr Foster never occurred, he was never inside my house and forged a levy of goods, however the council didn't take this in consideration and is just taking his word for it. What can I do about it??
2. They say they left proof of visit, but they didn't, what can I do to prove this?
3. I received a further notice as mentioned, but t was a normal post letter

I have been repaying the debt, however I really don't want to pay them nearly £200 for something that didn't happen.

Can someone advise??