Not sure if you have seen this, if not hope it's of use. http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2012/%5B2012%5D%20NICh%2016/j_j_DEE8511Final.htm LL

I take it this was in County Court with a District Judge? You can appeal, more knowledgeable will come on and help. Can't believe a judge has done this on such low arrears. I have a repossession on going and the district judge would not listen and did not read anything, just took the word of the other sides barrister,. We did not even get time to speak, I actually laughed at him! we have had one hearing in front of a circuit judge and it has been adjourned . APPEAL Personally I would not even bother trying to make a deal with them, they won't listen. All is not lost, PM if you need any help. I keep of the open forum as much as possible as they know who I am and they they watch the forums. LL

The OFT are clueless!! Donegal Investigations Limited dissolved a year ago, yet the OFT have taken the license away. Already started another company, no license yet. Name & Registered Office: DONEGAL INVESTIGATIONS (EUROPE) LTD 4 STATION COURT GIRTON ROAD CANNOCK STAFFORDSHIRE ENGLAND WS11 0EJ Company No. 08567670 Status: Active Date of Incorporation: 13/06/2013 Country of Origin: United Kingdom Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC): None Supplied Accounting Reference Date: 30/06 Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED) Next Accounts Due: 13/03/2015 Last Return Made Up To: Next Return Due: 11/07/2014

Have you all seen this! http://www.rossendaleshighcourtenforcement.com/index.php/news/37/51/Rossendales-Secure-Prestigious-Government-Standard Rossendales Secure Prestigious Government Standard Rossendales has now secured the prestigious Customer Service Excellence (CSE) Government Standard! When it comes to Customer Service the Government is very clear, “They want services for all that are efficient, effective, excellent, equitable and empowering – with the citizen always and everywhere at the heart of service provision.” Rossendales has won significant Central Government Contracts recently e.g. HMRC,CMEC (Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission) and The Student Loans Company . These Central Government contracts sit alongside our already, well established, Local Authority Client Base . It seemed appropriate therefore that we sought accreditation against a standard that is held in such high regard by Government. We are particularly pleased in having succeeded in our objective to be the first Bailiff Company to acquire this prestigious standard, thus reinforcing our intention to consolidate our position as market leader within the industry. We were required to evidence a range of criteria, including: consulting and involving customers setting and meeting the highest standards of service using resources to the maximum efficiency being innovative constantly looking to improve treating our staff and customers fairly. Within the assessment, applicants were allowed up to 11 ‘Partial non-conformances’ – Rossendales had none. Recipients normally reach ‘compliance’ status. Rossendales have been awarded ‘Compliance Plus’ status in recognition of our exceptional achievements in the following areas: Staff – Highly commended for their Professionalism and Attitude towards customers. Welfare – Dedicated department to help and signpost Vulnerable Customers and persons in severe financial difficulties. Innovation – In particular, the ‘Client Web’ which empowers Clients to securely view and update our case management system in real time and to track individual case progressions. Working Relationships - Providers, Partners and Communities Delivery – Body Worn Video Cameras for our field force to allow for greater visit transparency and accountability.. The CSE assessor concluded the inspection by stating: “It’s unusual for any company to achieve this award at the first assessment. This is an amazing achievement.” LL:???:

Sorry to disagree with the above posts but you will incurr costs all sub prime have a clause in the contracts, you will have to pay the costs. I am with Kensington and it is in the contract.

Thanks, It's a shame they don't fine the bailiffs and the council! it did take up alot of time but I perused this for the vulnerable people out there. I am a strong person and they had me shaking. They would not have cared if the person was elderly or ill they would have enjoyed it. I just want this behavior stopped. Hopefully this is one step closer. LL

Update all, WIN WIN WIN! See link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?358537-Local-Government-Ombudsman-Report-Issued-in-the-quot-public-interest-quot-........Bailiff-fees-!!!! LL

Thank you, My complaint to the Ombudsman would not have been possible without this forum and the help and advice that I received from you all.......in particular, from Hallowitch and Tomtubby. Your advice was invaluable. Massive thank you. PS it's not Mr G it's Mr K and he has let his license lapse, neither have worked since they disappeared from Rossendales last July. LL

Hi HW, You are right! it's me LL, neither bailiffs are employed. Mrs had a case against her last August Nottingham City Council had her license removed. Her partner in crime has let his lapse. They both left Rossendale's employment last July, strange, that that is when I was complaining. Neither have been employed as bailiffs since. LL

Hi FB, I wondered how long it would be before someone else complained about Rossers. I complained back in April and have took BDC to the LGO. They don't want any more complaints! They were appauling with me. I had the Police out to Rossers. It is still on going with the LGO, they have only been using Rossers for about a tear. They levied on two cars with me but are having to back track. Check what fees they have charged you it will be wrong. LL

Well done, Possibly scared of the program on tonight!! I bet Rossendales Trading Standards will be inundated tomorrow!! LL

Hi JA, As this is a loan I assume it is a second charge, if so it would come under the OFT. I would make a complaint to them. LL

Hi all, Have had a second reply back from Rossendales....thoughts on what to put next. “I acknowledge some of the information provided in responses to your emails was in accurate for which I apologise”. “With regard to your reference in your original complaint to the council. In relation to the completion of a DVLA enquiry prior to the bailiffs levy, I can confirm that in the legal case of Observer Ltd v Gordon (1983), this case shows that it is” not reasonable” to make the bailiff to make enquiries to ownership. Indeed it can often be physically impossible for a bailiff to be able to prove ownership. This case ruled that if a bailiff has reasonable belief that goods that he lists are not owned by the debtor, then these goods can be seized. The ruling not only applies not only to items within the household but to motor vehicles as well”. To relinquish possession of the vehicles subject to the levy and cancellation of the associated fees, we require proof of third party claim to ownership of the said vehicles”. With regards to the case of Throssell v Leeds City Council, firstly it is a local County Court case and the opinion of the judge and is binding solely on that case alone, taking into account the merits of that case alone, which was for Community Charge and not Council Tax (there is a distinct difference in the legislation). Essentially the judge confirmed that it was reasonable to apply the visit fee in accordance with the regulations and so calculated the fee against the total of all three Liability Orders where the levy had not been made. However ,in respect of council Tax, the fees are prescribed in schedule 5 of the council Tax (Administration and Enforcements Regulations) 2006, at £24.50 for the first visit and £18.00 for the second in respect of a Liability Order where the levy has not been made. Taking the judges comments literally and applying to Council Tax, making a visit to enforce two Liability Orders simultaneously, it is reasonable to apply the fees as detailed in legislation, which are per Liability Order and it is therefore an authority to charge for multiple orders and not an authority against it. Many thanks LL

Bump

Hi all, Have had a reply back to my stage 2 complaint, I cannot believe their reply. Even less from the legal department than Revenues, they have not addressed any issues about the Police at all, so it is OK to have 4 bailiffs trying to break in and they will not take the debt back. To top it all I received final reminder notices back from Rossendales yesterday so they will be banging on my door shortly demanding all three orders are paid in full as I have not kept up payment, do not have the money. I also have paid the council online and emailed them and told them, I have not had a reply from that either. I am at the end of my tether with this, I have so much going on at the moment I just don't need this. Any advice greatly appreciated. LL

Hi BL, It has been to High Court and thrown out the banks and nemo have given in, if you take them to court you will win. Even if you threaten them with court they should give in they won`t win. LL:whoo:

Hi Becky, Take a look at these links this case was appealed in High Court, the bank and Nemo lost, Amberloan have no way out of this I would quote the judgement and threaten them with court. 1) Mr Yates 2) Miss Lorenzelli v Nemo Personal Finance and another 14 May 2010 (Manchester County Court) Case No: 9HG00904 http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/unfair-relationships/yates-lorenzelli-nemo.pdf http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2011/039.shtml LL

I think they have to have 3 separate complaints to get fined, shouldn't take long to collect 3, less than 24 hours with them. LL:violin:

Hi Joe I am so sorry about what has happened. Send a complaint to the OFT as soon as poss. The more people complain the more trouble Swift will be in especially after the OFT announcement, they now have to comply or loose their licence and can get fined 50K. LL

Hi all, Here is the reply they sent to my letter, posting what is relevant not all the letter. A bailiff attended my property on 15th March 2011 I informed the bailiff that I was not allowing him into my home as I had a visitor therefore it wasn’t convenient the bailiff then handed me a notice of attendance this Notice is not signed and does not explain how they have arrived at the outstanding figure, Rossendales have confirmed the attending bailiff was ** ********** who was last certificated at Burnley Combined Courts on 22nd March 2011. But rossendales are totally denying that the bailiff spoke with myself. At the time of this visit there were two cars parked on my drive neither belonging to myself or my patrner. Not replied On 25th March I returned home to find 3 Notice of seizure’s for one for each account all listing vehicles REG ********* and ********* ********* being the attending bailiff. PLEASE NOTE only one of said vehicles was on my drive on the 25th March neither car belonging to myself or my partner. Will ********** District council confirm that its standard practise for bailiff to note vehicle registrations then levy said vehicles at a later date therefore being able to charge visit fees before the levy fee thus increasing their charges? Confirmed - Rossendales have advised that the levy was carried out on the visit on 25th March 2011. No they did not, they have not even looked into only one vehicle present, Will ***** District council confirm that the bailiff acted lawfully by levying the same goods 3 times? Confirmed - this is correct that they would levy for each year. ??? I have made several complaints to Rossendales regarding the vehicles and charges applied to the account including DVLA search £10.00 (all emails enclosed). The below information is now being requested from Rossendales. “document, a valid insurance certificate and a copy of the purchase receipt to prove third party ownership. The vehicles will remain subject to the levy until we receive these documents. The Notice of Distress is dated and does not have to have to contain a time“. Can ********** District Council explain how a debtor is supposed to provide such information if the vehicle does not belong to them therefore would not have said information? It is assumed that if a vehicle is parked on a person’s drive then if they didn’t own it , it is reasonable to expect then to know who did (as it is parked on their property) and therefore to be able to obtain and provide the relevant documents to prove ownership of the vehicle. Did not put in my letter but we have a shared driveway Do ********** District Council and Rossendales expect the debtor to find out who owns a vehicle levied and ask them to provide this information before fees are removed? Yes. There is a cost involved in conducting a search via the DVLA which would have to be passed to the debtor this information should be provide by them to prove they the vehicle doesn’t belong to them. Been charged DVLA fee £10.00 Can ********** District Council confirm that this is Rossendales normal reply and any vehicle levied where the debtor can’t provide such documents the levy and associated fees shall still be charged? Not replied I also believe that an article by Local Government Ombudsman Andrew Hobley, in the April 20010 Institute of Ratings, Revenues and Valuation INSIGHT Magazine said. “Levying on a car parked on someone’s drive may appear less problematic as it is more likely to belong to the debtor. But if it does not, and levy and van fees are charged and paid, then the debtor has suffered the injustice of paying fees that were not due. Councils should ensure their bailiffs check ownership of vehicles with the DVLA before levying on them. All councils are encouraged to ensure their written policies say that bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership. Failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be the subject of a public report against the authority“. Can ********* District Council confirm that in light of said report and due to the fact I have been charged and paid a levy and fee against 2 vehicles that do not belong to me they have not implemented said changes to their written policy? This matter will be addressed at the next Review meeting with Rossendales. ??? Not a reply, when is the meeting and will we be informed!!! On the 20th April 4 Rossendales bailiffs attended my home and tried to force entry two were trying to force the back door (one young male and older lady) one was trying to force our lounge window open (older gentleman). They then went round the front and were trying to break into my garage they also went into my next door neighbour’s garage which was open while all this was happening, another young blonde female was on at the front of the property. I by this time was terrified and called the police and my partner. When my partner arrived a bailiff impounded the vehicle he was driving by clamping it and the young blond lady sat in it. The bailiffs demanded an immediate payment of £430.08 this amount to be paid before the release of the vehicle. They were informed by my partner that the vehicle did not belong to him. My partner also asked for their ID and was told would produce when police were in attendance, but did not. PLEASE NOTE this vehicle was not subject to a notice of seizure Can ********* District Council confirm that it’s there policy for bailiffs to impound vehicles not subject to distress therefore not relevant to the outstanding debt to secure an immediate payment regardless of the debtor’s finical position, nor check DVLA records? Rossendales have confirmed that with the Council` s agreement they conduct a vehicle check via the DVLA, although obviously there would be a charge to be met by the debtor for this. This matter will be addressed at the next review meeting with Rossendales. Not a reply, when is the meeting and will we be informed Not subject of a levy. No mention of the Bailiffs lying about how many bailiffs attended even though i sent them the proof, no mention of breaking the law not supplying ID. Again not looked into The two police who attended our property were PC *** **********, and P.C. number ****. I have spoken to P.C. ********** Who confirms the time of my phone call was 4.30 and my call confirms that I stated 4 bailiffs were trying to break into my property they attended at 5.08 (Rossendales have stated 18.26pm) he also confirms seeing 2 vans and young lady with blond hair P.C. Handyman said he is happy to speak to with anybody regarding this matter. I have not spoken to P.C. 2998 yet as he is not on duty this week. The police did not say as my partner was paying them when they arrived. I complained again via email to Rossendales regarding their actions and asked them to confirm how many bailiffs attended, time of attendance ect.. 1st reply only one bailiff attended. (emails enclosed). “The cases were issued to the Enforcement Bailiff, ********** on 15th April 2011, *** attended your property on 20th April 2011 at 18.24pm and a payment of £440.08 was collected. The payment was credited to your case on 27th April 2011, this payment cleared case ******* in full. ********* was last certificated at Burnley Combined Courts on **********“. 2nd reply. “I have spoken with the van bailiff who attended your property and who has advised that ***** ***** ********* and another bailiff *** *** ********* were the only two that attended your property. You have previously been informed of ** ********** certification details and I can confirm that ** ********** was last certificated at Burnley Combined Court on *********. The bailiff has advised that there was a passer by stood at the top of the garden near your gate, but this person was not with the bailiffs. The visit took place on April 20th at 18:26“. I can confirm and prove there were four bailiffs on my property, the details of which Rossendales will not supply and cannot even give the correct time of attendance. They also go on to state there was a passer-by stood at the top of the garden near my gate, and this person was not with the bailiffs there was no person. The top of my garden is private not near a road there is no place for a person to pass by and I do not and never have had a gate on my property. Not a reply, again they are lying and I sent the proof again not looked into There would seem to be a number of failures regarding the administration of my account(s) by all the bailiffs, The National Standards for Enforcement Agents 2002. I believe Rossendales have taken advantage to make a gain or obtain an unlawful money transfer for himself or another. While I am quite sure the council did not intend to contract a firm of tricksters who have been found defrauding a member of the public in this way. They may be bailiffs but that does not make them less liable than any other public service contractor, e.g. a plumber. However, a bailiff is in a position of trust and in abusing that position they commit an offence under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. I will be informing Rossendales of my complaint and also informing them I intend to pursue their company and the actions of their bailiffs further, No reply, Due to the seriousness of my formal complaint council please return the debts to local authority control and set a payment plan by standing order that is affordable and agreeable to both parties. In view of the fact that these debts have been ignored for so long by yourselves and your past payment history, I am satisfied that the Enforcement Agents have acted correctly in this matter and intend to leave the debts to be collected by Rossendales. OK for Rossendales to break the law? The alternative option is for you to provide your bank details for a Direct Debit to be activated and for the outstanding balance to be collected from your bank account over the next 12 months. If you are agreeable to this course of action and payment plan then contact my revenues section with your bank account details in order for this to be initiated without delay and consequently I will ask Rossendales to put the case on hold. I must advise that any default on the payment plan would result in Rossendales re-commencing further action. In conclusion you have had ample opportunity to make payments and avoid bailiffs charges being incurred and allowed matters to get to this stage before contacting the council the agree payment terms and therefore all action has been reasonable. Issues not addressed in my complaint. 1) 20th April Rossendales sending four bailiffs and not telling the truth 1st reply one bailiff attended, second reply two bailiffs attended. (there were 4) 2) Not telling correct time of attendance (over 2 hours difference) 3) police in attendance 4) Rossendales not issued and will not issue paperwork for that day 20th April 5) Clamping car not levied and demanding payment before release, no paperwork left 6) Would not produce ID 7) Three bailiffs trying to force entry Proof enclosed in letter 8) Council only sent a standard letter no proof of any paperwork from Rossendales, can only assume they had telephone conversations 9) Can ***** District Council confirm that this is Rossendales normal reply and any vehicle levied where the debtor can’t provide such documents the levy and associated fees shall still be charged? 10) There would seem to be a number of failures regarding the administration of my account(s) by all the bailiffs, The National Standards for Enforcement Agents 2002. 11) I believe Rossendales have taken advantage to make a gain or obtain an unlawful money transfer for himself or another. While I am quite sure the council did not intend to contract a firm of tricksters who have been found defrauding a member of the public in this way. They may be bailiffs but that does not make them less liable than any other public service contractor, e.g. a plumber. However, a bailiff is in a position of trust and in abusing that position they commit an offence under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. 12) I will be informing Rossendales of my complaint and also informing them I intend to pursue their company and the actions of their bailiffs further 13) Nowhere on the councils web site do the have any details of procedure they use or The National Standards for Enforcement Agents 2002. 14) Council also did not reply to say my email was received I had to email them, sent 2nd June no reply emailed them 13th June. 15) Got their dates wrong, I emailed and told them 16) Their procedure to answer letter within 15 working days three working days late. Should have been receive by the 22nd June, letter dated 24th June, so received 27th June. 17) I emailed to say I have made a payment online, they emailed back to say would have a reply in letter, no reply. The letter was sent by the Revenues and Recovery Manager. Dont think he/she knows the The National Standards for Enforcement Agents 2002. I have found the receipt £440.08 was paid so they charged £10.00 for a DVLA check. Thoughts?

Thanks PT excellent advice, will look into later when I get back. Many thanks LL

Hi PT, no have not involved local councillor but I will on Monday Will involve both, no own employees and this is from the Revenues Manager. Will post more tomorrow, bit busy tonight but they have no answer to most and just keep repeating themselves. Not commented on the proof I sent in about Rossendales lying about the amount of bailiffs in attendance,time of attendance ect. not even mentioned the police not even looked into. Here is a snippet of their reply. "In conclusion you have had ample opportunity to make payments and avoid bailiffs charges being incurred and allowed matters to get to this stage before contacting the council to agree payment terms and therefore all action has been reasonable" They have stated similar replies several times.Add More tomorrow LL

Hi all, Well I have had a reply back from the council, WHAT A JOKE. Still going through but they seem to think the actions are reasonable. Here is the answer to a couple of questions. Will post the rest when I have finished. Will ***** District council confirm that its standard practise for bailiff to note vehicle registrations then levy said vehicles at a later date therefore being able to charge visit fees before the levy fee thus increasing their charges? Confirmed - Rossendales have advised that the levy was carried out on the visit on 25th March 2011. Will ***** District council confirm that the bailiff acted lawfully by levying the same goods 3 times? Confirmed - this is correct that they would levy for each year.

WELL DONE!! great to hear success stories. The bailiffs are so frightening and I am not scared easily!! I have also reported them to Trading standards, there behaviour is appalling, if it stops them from doing it to one more person I will be happy. LL

Many thanks for your support, I intent to take them all the way!!!! help and advice from on here has been invaluable, many many thanks to everyone. Will update as soon as possible. LL:-)