Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

[d1ngle]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

the client defaulted by £1 on council tax in October and this lead to the Bailiff being appointed. Council awaiting further response from Phoenix collections on charges".

this highlights the automated no check system as a Lo should not be sought for £1 but the coulcil will no doubt support their bailiff as arrears are arrears. Muppets.

They said that the issue is that once you default on £1 you owe the outstanding for the year, which at the time was £800. We continued to pay though and by the time the bailiff turned up £800 wasn;t owed.

[ploddertom]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

For Councillors the best initial contact is by phone - this way you can guage what they are likely to do. If reluctanyt or refusal to do anything go straight to the Leader of the Council and his/her opposite number. Bear in mind there are some local elections looming next month.

[d1ngle]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

I will write a fuller response in a bit, but in summary the council are saying the charges are nothing to do with them and are legal. They have a separate letter from bailiff showing charges as:

Levy Jan 9th - £49
Attendance no removal Jan 9th - £210
Attendance no removal Feb 12th - £210
Card fee - £0.50


Unsure where to go from here?

Heart rate at 180 and feel like going down council and setting things on fire (joke).

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

Write back stating that the fees are the full responsibility of the council.

Advise the council that if there is a Stage 2 in their complaints procedure, then this letter should be considered a "Stage 2 Complaint"

The reasons for your complaint are:

1. The bailiff did not levy on anything that belonged to the debtor. This rendered the levy fee and all subsequent fees invalid.

2. In addition, the bailiff cannot have visited "with a view to levy" and a "view to remove goods" on 9th Jan.

3. A bailiff may only charge the attending with a van fee once. The bailiff appears to be charging this fee twice.

Finally can the council please answer the following question:

1. Under what header of Schedule 5 were the 2 van fees made (another trick is to charge the 2nd fee under Head D which is not correct)

2. Do the council place any restrictions on bailiffs removing goods? ie does it require the bailiffs to give the debtor chance to pay before removing? Also, if goods are to be removed, does the council ask to be advised beforehand? If the answer is yes, was the council advised on 9th January & 12th February that the bailiffs were intending to remove goods in connection with this case.

You require a response to your letter within 14 days otherwise you will ask the LGO to investigate this matter.

[d1ngle]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

Write back stating that the fees are the full responsibility of the council.

Advise the council that if there is a Stage 2 in their complaints procedure, then this letter should be considered a "Stage 2 Complaint"

The reasons for your complaint are:

1. The bailiff did not levy on anything that belonged to the debtor. This rendered the levy fee and all subsequent fees invalid.

2. In addition, the bailiff cannot have visited "with a view to levy" and a "view to remove goods" on 9th Jan.

3. A bailiff may only charge the attending with a van fee once. The bailiff appears to be charging this fee twice.

Finally can the council please answer the following question:

1. Under what header of Schedule 5 were the 2 van fees made (another trick is to charge the 2nd fee under Head D which is not correct)

2. Do the council place any restrictions on bailiffs removing goods? ie does it require the bailiffs to give the debtor chance to pay before removing? Also, if goods are to be removed, does the council ask to be advised beforehand? If the answer is yes, was the council advised on 9th January & 12th February that the bailiffs were intending to remove goods in connection with this case.

You require a response to your letter within 14 days otherwise you will ask the LGO to investigate this matter.

Thank you for your help. I will do this today.

D

[d1ngle]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

Still no response from Council. Do I send another letter or go direct to LGO?

Thanks

D

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

I would send them one last letter, enquiring as to the status of this complaint and ask them to clarify in writing.

The LGO would always like to see the council given every opportunity to address the issue. You could perhaps include something along the lines of if you don't hear anything within the next 14 days, you will assume that the council asre not prepared to deal with the matter and you will at that point ask the Ombudsman to intervene.

[d1ngle]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

I would send them one last letter, enquiring as to the status of this complaint and ask them to clarify in writing.

The LGO would always like to see the council given every opportunity to address the issue. You could perhaps include something along the lines of if you don't hear anything within the next 14 days, you will assume that the council asre not prepared to deal with the matter and you will at that point ask the Ombudsman to intervene.

Thanks. WIll do today.

[d1ngle]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

Letter back as to why the charge is legal:

1) Levy on he 9th Jan 2014 was carried out that the car belonged to my Wife and they heard from neighbour that the car was hers (they didn't clamp the car on the 9th??). On the 12th they say they provided ample time for me to provide proof the car was not mine (actually they didn't they ran upstairs into the house knocking me out the way).

2) Fees for levy fees incurred as a result of levy and attendance to remove goods (where no removal takes place) they do not accept that their appropriation charges were incorrect and explained that fees that can be applied, which are payable as provided for in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Both are not mutually exclusive and can be applied concurrently.

3) They confirm that with regards to the "attendance to remove" a second fee may be applied should there be a requirement for the bailiff to reattend to remove goods following the completion of a levy. Due to the fact full payment was made at the time of visit, which incurred the "second attendance to remove fee" the actl removal was not required to be completed. They aaffirm this does not render the application of the second "attendance to remove" fee void.

4) The application of the "attendance to remove fees" are granted under the Local Government finance act 1992, Chapter 7, secon 45 "charges connected with distress" (schedule 5).

They then talk about how they are allowed to contract out bailff services etc and the bailiff does not have to communicate with the council.

They also say it was a Ms Pates who attended on the 9th Jan, but she decided not to remove and give my wife time to respond, they say this is known as a "walk in possession". On the 12th Fed removal was not required as payment was made in full.

They then talk about complaints procedure etc.

They then provide documents that apparently they left. However, they are not photo copies and look like they just wrote and printed them out recently. The "Notice of Seizure and Goods and Inventory" left on the 9th of Jan has my car listed and also a neighbour's car.

They provide:

1) Notice Before removal - Blank copy.
2) Notice of seizure of Goods and Levy from the 9th - looks like its been completed recently.
3) Notice of seizure and goods and levy from the 1th Feb - barely readable photocopy that I have never seen.
4) Certificated Bailiffs Notification of Intetnail on Distain - Not dated and looks like just a print out of a template with my wifes details on.


End of letter.

No one came on the 9th as far as I know and some of these documents look suspect!

This is a nightmare and frustrating.

Thanks for all your help on this to everyone contributing!

Any advice?

[ploddertom]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

Who is that letter from?

[Guest]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

Looks like this is from the EA's?

You're not really interested in their drivel at this stage as you are just about to ask the LGO to investigate.

For clarity, you may wish to write to them, asking if they would confirm what Header the 2 ATR fees fell under (its most likely C & D). These can definitely be challenged. I would also write to the council (probably under FOI) and ask if their agents are required to give the debtor an opportunity to settle the account or enter into a repayment plan before removing. If they do then the bailiffs shouldn't have charged the Levy fee plus the van fee on the 9th.

If you haven't provided evidence of ownership to the council, you really ought to do so. They will ask for insurance details. Remember the V05 is not proof of ownership.

[Crazy council]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

I can add something to this thats right up my street at the moment.

If i have read correctly, was the default £ 1.

There is a general council rule, although it can be internally legislated differently at individual councils, that they will not proceed for liability orders for less than 1 full months council tax, 1 full month in arrears....... This is one of the main points i am dealing with the courts and regulators over at the moment.

If that is the case, email the collections dept at your council asking them to confirm how much the default was that lead to the Liability order. The will realise there error and probebly remove all costs, they may need a little push

On the baillifs charges, as the other posters say, the baillifs are the councils agents, the council are fully responsible for the actions of the baillifs, more interestingly, before the baillif attempted to leavey, he should have contacted the council to confirm, usually the same morning of the leavey....

So, ask the council to request proof of the bailiffs prior visits, tell them you dont believe the bailiff, they will tell you to ask the baillif, tell them they must as there are there agents.

[techiboi]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

The v5 doesn't prove ownership though

[d1ngle]

Re: Bailiff gained entry, clamped wrong car and collected more than owed

This was from the Council.

The v5 doesn't prove ownership? What does?

I had my insurance documents in the car and showed those, but my log book was at my house 60miles away.