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

[bluebottle]

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

Action Fraud is a clearing house for fraud reports. They take details then pass them on to police forces. Prima face, the fees and other paperwork are fraudulent. Equita and their bailiff are skating on extremely thin ice in the legal sense.

[CleverClogs]

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

Action Fraud is a clearing house for fraud reports. They take details then pass them on to police forces. Prima face, the fees and other paperwork are fraudulent. Equita and their bailiff are skating on extremely thin ice in the legal sense.

But won't the woodentops say "It's a civil matter"?

Whilst I believe the GPS data confirm that the "visits" never took place, there is another possibility. The alleged levy might actually be "genuine", but the wrong flat was visited by the oaf; if that was what happened, then it would be difficult to prove fraud even though the levy fee and associated fees would have to be cancelled.

Until/unless there is some, semi-credible explanation from Equita, one might say the bailiff thinks that the word "inventory" means inventing the list.

[bluebottle]

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

But won't the woodentops say "It's a civil matter? Probably because they can't be arsed to do what they are paid to do and that is investigate crimes and alleged crimes reported to them. Investigating crimes is too hard for the poor dears. It's far easier to dish out penalty tickets like confetti.

Whilst I believe the GPS data confirm that the "visits" never took place, there is another possibility. The alleged levy might actually be "genuine", but the wrong flat was visited by the oaf; if that was what happened, then it would be difficult to prove fraud even though the levy fee and associated fees would have to be cancelled. The onus is on the oaf to prove where they were. I have spoken to the OP on the phone and suggested some questions to put to Equita and their bailiff. Be interesting to see what comes back.

Until/unless there is some, semi-credible explanation from Equita, one might say the bailiff thinks that the word "inventory" means inventing the list. I feel there is more than a grain of truth in what you say, Cloggy.

@@@@

[nalglondon]

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

Just to keep you updated, I have sent a letter to Equita questioning the GPS and the levy. Currently waiting for their answer.

In the meantime also emailed and sent a letter to the Council, to the CEO of finance, also waiting for his reply.
Lets see what they say.....

[CleverClogs]

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

But you've not emailed the Borough Surveyor about the alarming way your front door has been wandering?

There's also this:


It may be worthwhile asking Northampton Combined Court if Mr Foster had informed them - as he was supposed to have done - of his change of employer.

[nalglondon]

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

Hi

I've received a reply from Equita, and they have refused to take any action regarding the charges. Any advice on what to so next?
Im still waiting for a reply from the Council.

It seems that it's always the same person replying from Equita, a Miss A Steward...

any advice on what to do next?

[ploddertom]

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

Biggest load of bull they have written for a long time.

[ploddertom]

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

No need to bother with the Bailiffs anymore. See what response you get from the Council then turn it into a Formal Complaint with a view to involving the LGO.

[ploddertom]

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

Should also have said continue to pay off what is owing.

[CleverClogs]

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

Should also have said continue to pay off what is owing.

To the council directly or to the robbing buggers at Equita?

[bizzybob]

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

Forget Crapquita pay the council

[CleverClogs]

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

It seems that it's always the same person replying from Equita, a Miss A Steward...

Rather than Ms B. A. Steward? :grin:

any advice on what to do next?

I'd say that it is far more likely that you'd get this resolved by contacting your councillors and/or submitting a formal complaint to the Director of Finance.

However, you could try this, which I submit for review and comment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms Steward,

Thank you for your recent letter.

I note that you do not wish to engage in a protracted discussion on the matter of the fees charged, which view pleased me as I also believe that a long discussion of the matter is quite unnecessary. All that needs to be done is for all fees and charges related to the improper, invalid or irregular levies to be removed from my account and I wish to give Equita Ltd one last opportunity to do this before I escalate my complaint further.

In your letters, you assert that a bailiff in the employ of Equita Ltd visited my flat on 16^th October, gained entry and levied distress on certain items he found inside. I do not know where he visited on that day or on whose goods he levied distress, but he did not visit me nor did he levy distress on any of my goods. Indeed, I have never owned some of the goods listed on the inventory. Consequently, I can only conclude that the purported levy was most irregular as it had been made at another address and of another person's goods, as the alternative would seem to be that it was simply bogus and was done to try to garner fees.

In mid January, I received a text message from a bailiff in the employ of Equita Ltd, telling me that he had just levied distress on a car parked near to my flat. As I do not own a car, he can only have tried to levy distress on a car belonging to a neighbour, but this second attempt to levy distress may be more significant. If the levy allegedly made on 16/10/2013 had been valid, why would the bailiff try to levy distress again some three months later?

As this matter has already taken too long, I would like a final response within seven calendar days of your receipt of this letter.

[nalglondon]

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

Hi
Should I mention that I have already contacted the Northampton County Court and have the Form 4 already downloaded and ready to follow to the Certified Bailiff Duty regarding this matter?

Rather than Ms B. A. Steward? :grin:


I'd say that it is far more likely that you'd get this resolved by contacting your councillors and/or submitting a formal complaint to the Director of Finance.

However, you could try this, which I submit for review and comment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms Steward,

Thank you for your recent letter.

I note that you do not wish to engage in a protracted discussion on the matter of the fees charged, which view pleased me as I also believe that a long discussion of the matter is quite unnecessary. All that needs to be done is for all fees and charges related to the improper, invalid or irregular levies to be removed from my account and I wish to give Equita Ltd one last opportunity to do this before I escalate my complaint further.

In your letters, you assert that a bailiff in the employ of Equita Ltd visited my flat on 16^th October, gained entry and levied distress on certain items he found inside. I do not know where he visited on that day or on whose goods he levied distress, but he did not visit me nor did he levy distress on any of my goods. Indeed, I have never owned some of the goods listed on the inventory. Consequently, I can only conclude that the purported levy was most irregular as it had been made at another address and of another person's goods, as the alternative would seem to be that it was simply bogus and was done to try to garner fees.

In mid January, I received a text message from a bailiff in the employ of Equita Ltd, telling me that he had just levied distress on a car parked near to my flat. As I do not own a car, he can only have tried to levy distress on a car belonging to a neighbour, but this second attempt to levy distress may be more significant. If the levy allegedly made on 16/10/2013 had been valid, why would the bailiff try to levy distress again some three months later?

As this matter has already taken too long, I would like a final response within seven calendar days of your receipt of this letter.

[bizzybob]

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

Hold off on the Form 4, Equita will send barristers to the hearing into fitness, and pervert it into pseudo adversarial litigation, and you could be landed with £ thousands in costs.

[CleverClogs]

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

Should I mention that I have already contacted the Northampton County Court and have the Form 4 already downloaded and ready to follow to the Certified Bailiff Duty regarding this matter?

Do NOT do that!

I do not know which site may have suggested making a Form 4 complaint, but it would be extremely foolish to follow such advice.

As the procedure was initially set out in the Distress for Rent Rules 1988, it was a simple remedy for misconduct by bailiffs (but, even then, not for overcharging) as it was not expected to need a hearing. The complainant would submit a complaint, it would be sent to the bailiff for his reply and then a judge would decide on the outcome. Three outcomes were possible:

1. The complaint could be dismissed
2. The bailiff could be ordered to pay a sum of money in compensation, which could be taken from his bond and he'd be suspended until his bond was reinstated.
3. The bailiff's certificate could be revoked and any compensation due taken from his bond before the balance was returned to him.

To deter complaints being made, bailiffs and bailiff companies have perverted that process. Using the third outcome as their excuse, they have changed an exercise on paper to a full hearing every time on the basis that the bailiff's very livelihood is at stake. At the hearing, they will fill the court with a posse or two of barristers, the better to bamboozle the judge and to ramp up the costs they will demand the complainant pays when the bailiff wins. Finally, as the poor man's trade is at stake (which it shouldn't be in most cases) they'll demand that the criminal standard of proof be applied - that the judge must be sure, rather than that the judge should decide on the balance of probabilities.

The complainant - who is often unrepresented, as a litigant in person - does not stand a chance against such a legal ambush; they'll lose, whereupon the bailiff (or bailiff company) will demand a costs order to be made in their favour for several thousand quid.

This is the reason that bailiffs act as they do - they know they can get away with it.