Rossendales Final Reminder, I need time

[whothisebe]

hi,

wow!!! what a rollercoster of a read that was. i have got to take my hat off to chris and the rest of the contributors, amazing!

 

hk

[vandermerwe]

I thoroughly agree, hk.

 

An Englishman (I trust!) with principles and convictions willing to see them through to the end.

 

65 years ago the lad could well have been defending your and my freedom in a Spitfire!

 

I just thank God there are still some still around.

 

Vandermerwe

[dx100uk]

chris, great news its finally died of death.

this thread should inspire other to stick with their principles.

 

well done everyone.

 

dx

[chris600uk]

Well folks here's the update I wish I hadn't had to make.

As you all know the property market is still nosediving, and prices are going down with it.

My house is still unsold. The Council tax bill is still rising.

 

I am in negative equity by squillions, which is probably why the council have decided not to make me bankrupt, which was their original plan.

 

Although I do remember a comment by tomtubby about why they don't.

If anyone's been clobbered with a Statutory Demand, not just served actually had it used upon them, I'd be interested to know. Just in case they change their minds!

 

The deadline from the council has passed today and they are planning to give the account back to my old chums and best buddies Rossendales.

 

So the plan of action is:

 

a) My CAB helper is writing to the council to complain that I can't afford to pay any more than I am already paying, and that handing it to the bailiffs is unreasonable. If the council reject that, he will complain to the Local Ombudsman.

 

b) I will write to my councillor explaining the same thing essentially and ask them if they can persuade the council to keep the account and make an arrangement with me.

 

c) Keep all the bloody doors and windows locked and refuse to let anyone in! Parking vehicles outside of the curtillage, and keeping the window blinds down so no sneaky bailiff tries peeking in and making lists.8)

[Fair-Parking]

Chris. Why the query about the Statutory Demand? The original has long since expired and therefore another one must be issued if they wish to proceed with a bankruptcy.

[chris600uk]

That's a good point, I should have explained it better.

 

This is round two, I got the bailiffs to hand the account back to the council last time, and the council then issued a Statutory Demand.

I came to an agreement with the council which expired today.

They've handed the account back to the bailiffs, who will quickly discover that they won't get anything out of me except their minimum fee so long as they do it by the book - so they will almost certainly hand the account back to the council again and I may face a Statutory Demand again.

 

D'you see what I mean?

[Fair-Parking]

Chris. Don't worry about a statutory demand that doesn't exist. The fact that they didn't go through with the first one rather suggests that they are very unlikely to use that tactic again.

 

Take it from me that actually being in your position where your debts exceed the amount you can cope with mentally and your assets fail by some way to cover your liabilities means that you are in far stronger position than you realise. The ball is back firmly in the court of your creditors. They are the ones with the problem of trying to make something out of this. You can sit tight and let them figure it out.

 

It works Chris because they all know the old solicitors expression 'that you can't get blood out of a stone'.

 

Just keep pleading poverty, for sooner or later somebody is going to realise that all they aren't going to get all or any of their money and that there will be no point in trying to force the issue.

[chris600uk]

Here we go again:

 

 

Letter through the door with the standard R text

"I have this day re-attended with a view to seizing goods for debt and costs owing...." £2000 plus £24.50 plus £18.00

 

The funny thing is, this is the first visit although charges for two visits are listed, also it is undated, and the signature is an illegible scrawl.

 

So I'm going to challenge it in my usual way, asking for details of both visits, and the name of the bailiff on each occasion.

 

We will also soon lose our rather nice home, because it'll either be sold at auction for around £50 - 70k less than we owe on it, or the mortgage lender will repossess it, the whole thing should take about 3 months so we'll probably have to leave somewhere around Christmas.

 

What's annoying is that once the current credit crisis is over we'd make enough on the sale to pay off the Council tax debt which is currently around £7k altogether.

 

I'll keep this updated with template copies of the letters I use.

[chris600uk]

Re: XXXXXXX Client reference XXXXXXXX 
Please understand that I am fully aware of my rights and you will not

gain entry to my home under any circumstances to levy goods

I know the fees allowed under statute and when these fees can be applied.

 

Dear Sir/madam,

 

Re: your NOTICE OF RE-ATTENDANCE which is undated and is on a form normally used for Walking Possession Agreements, the Bailiffs name does not appear anywhere on the form and the signature is an illegible scrawl.

I enclose a copy for your records.

 

You will see that it refers to Client debt and costs outstanding of £2129.22, a First visit fee of £24.50 and a Second visit fee of £18.00 and they are added up to make a total of £2171.72.

 

What is very strange is that there has been no previous attendance, and so it appears that whoever posted the letter is attempting to charge excessive fees on your behalf.

 

My experience of paying you shows that you will take your fees first whether they are correct or not and then pass what is left to the council to pay off the debt.

That means if I pay money to you, including the fees that you claim to be entitled to, there will be a shortfall when the money is passed to the council and I will still owe unpaid council tax, presumably giving you the opportunity to apply even more fees.

This is unfair.

 

This account is in dispute because your charges are wrong; I expect NO FURTHER ACTION to be taken until this situation is resolved and I expect you to provide a full breakdown of costs, including what the fee consists of (showing appropriate receipts if applicable), when they visited, the name of the certified bailiff and the court at which he was certified.

 

If I do not receive the information that I have asked for within 14 days I will make a complaint to XXXXXXXXX City Council, the court which issued the liability order, and if necessary the local government ombudsman.

 

I have not refused to pay the Council Tax arrears.

I have not refused to pay reasonable fees that you are legally entitled to.

I am sending a copy of this letter to XXXXXXXXX City Council

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

This is due to go out on Monday

Any comments good or bad will be gratefully received, even if it's only to poke fun at my spelling:)

Edited October 11, 2008 by chris600uk
It may be wrong morally, but legally I'm not so sure

[chris600uk]

Well here's an update:

 

In fact I never did send the letter I posted above - after thinking about it I just didn't see the point - after all, the wpa notice they put through the door two months ago listing charges of £24.50 and £18.00 for the one visit was so ridiculous that I decided to ignore it.

 

 

Today, another leaflet came, the bailiff must have walked very quietly to the front door because he didn't knock, and I watched it pushed carefully through the letterbox, in fact my dogs didn't bark until the letter was being pushed through.

It's one of those multipurpose BAILIFF REMOVAL leaflets with tick boxes for council tax, road traffic debt, non domestic rates, community charge.

Mine's ticked council tax.

 

It says:

 

PAYMENT DUE IN FULL - 24 HOURS

I have attended today with the intention of removing your goods and chattles as are necessary to discharge the debt and any additional ENFORCEMENT COSTS incurred.

 

PLEASE NOTE - No further arrangements are acceptable and payment is now required in full by CLEAR FUNDS ONLY.

I will re-attend at your address at my convenience and may REMOVE goods even in your absence. Should you wish to avoid this course of action, contact me immediately on the telephone number below to arrange prompt payment of your debt.

 

NO CONTACT WILL BE TAKEN AS YOUR REFUSAL TO PAY

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mr xxxxxxxx

Bailiff In Charge

 

Telephone number xxxxmobilexxxx

Edited December 9, 2008 by chris600uk
clarity

[paula4stevie]

I've had exactly the same letter word for word chris ,myself today but from Equita. I have sent letters via advice from cag and been paying council direct monthly but the letters with big red writing on them still come.... wots your next step, very interested ?

 

 

cheers

 

P4s

[chris600uk]

There's really nothing for me to complain about.

 

They have now done their two visits and are therefore entitled to the £42.50 that they mentioned on the last visit's paperwork, which they'll get shortly.

[lookinforinfo]

The visits would only be payable if they were done by bailiffs whe were correctly Certificated at the time of the visits.

[chris600uk]

Well, yes that's absolutely correct, but after I caught them out last time they'd have to be fairly stupid to try and pull the same stunt twice.

 

Still it's fair comment and I will insist on the info before I pay them.

[chris600uk]

Actually I've just had another letter warning me that they may hand one of the accounts back to the council who they say may decide to ask for my committal to prison.

 

I suspect it's a computer generated letter, but I will acknowledge it just to show good manners.

[Fair-Parking]

There are only two grounds for committal to prison on non payment of council tax. A refusal to pay and 'wilful negligence' - whatever that means. Can't pay isn't a reason.

 

You haven't used the money to fund a trip to the Bahamas have you?

 

Seriously it is a empty threat based on ignorance of the law. We did away with our last debtor's prison in 1869.

[chris600uk]

You haven't used the money to fund a trip to the Bahamas have you?

 

No, not the bahamas:) What a lovely thought!

 

Anyway I'm sending a response explaining that I'm reliant on family to make the payments I do make, and so far into negative equity that the lender has chosen to do nothing so far - I guess they don't see any benefit in possession of the house right now.

[chris600uk]

R's sent a letter today.

 

They have handed the account back to the council.

 

 

I'll let you know what happens next.