Help needed with bailiffs fees and repeated visits

[1970]

The are both certified. However, one of the shows that his certificate was granted in March this year yet he visited me in November 2007 ???

[hallowitch]

they have to get it renewed renew every 2 yrs so he may have been a bailiff in 2007

you could phone

Ministry of Justice Public Register of Bailiffs on 020 3334 6355 and ask if he was a bailiff in 2007 and if he was who he worked foe

 

however i have no idea how long they keep records but it would be interesting to find out if they do and how long they keep them

Edited July 27, 2009 by hallowitch

[1970]

Thanks - called the number and found out that when he called on me as an abc company employee he was actually certificated to xyz company.

 

Certificate granted on the 30th April 2007 - xyz bailiff company. Berkenhead County Court.

Certificate renewed on the 30th March 2009 - abc bailiff company. Merthyr Tydfil County Court.

 

He visited me as an abc company employee on the 6th November 2007.

 

Is this lawful?

Edited July 27, 2009 by 1970

[hallowitch]

no i don't link so if you read tomtubbys post it explains that you can only be certificated with one company unless you are self employed

 

If your search reveals that the bailiff is working for a different company it is important to be aware that statutory regulations laid down by Parliament state that if there are "any changes" to the certificate then the bailiff must “without delay” give notice to the Court and a new certificate will be issued to him reflecting the changes. This is vitally important because in almost all cases, the bailiff’s bond will be cancelled when he leaves his previous employer!!

 

As I have said many times here on the forums, it is always the case that if you have a complaint about a certificated bailiff then this should first be sent to the bailiff company to address and a Form 4 Complaint to the County Court should wait until the company have had an opportunity to sort out the complaint.

 

As a Form 4 Complaint can have serious repercusssions for the individual bailiff, the County Courts also expect that the debtor should at least allow the company to have the opportunity to sort out the complaint. By doing this you will avoid being criticised by the Court

 

after i read that i asked tomtubby

 

can i ask you a question can a bailiff work for 2 company's at the same time

 

REPLY

 

There are many self employed bailiffs who work on behalf of different companies but these mainly have a certificate and BOND in their individual name.

 

so i would say no he should not collecting for swift

Edited July 27, 2009 by hallowitch

[1970]

Ok, this is developing well and I have a change on mind in regard to my next course of action.

 

I wrote a 7 page letter to the bailiffs 14 days ago explaining everything. I had a reply a couple of days ago simply stating they have been lawful in their actions and that all charges are correct. They even claim that they contacted the council to confirm if there was an attachment of earnings in place and they claim there wasnt (i have payslips to prove it).

 

I wrote another 7 pager last night in response.

 

As I have written a total of 12 letters since November 2007 I feel there has been ample opportunity for the bailiff company to sort the problems out. I now think it is time to file a form 4 complaint without delay.

 

I shall turn my latest 7 pager into a form 4 but condense it and make it more appropriate for the court.

 

Question, are there any rules as to how I present my complaint? Is this a different process as it is heard at a magistrates court rather than a county court?

 

I'll start to prepare the document and popst the text here.

 

1970.

[hallowitch]

below was posted by tomtubby

My comment is made on the basis of experience of the many cases that are being made to the Courts which are being rejecting on the basis that a Form 4 is the wrong course of action as the company should have first been given the opportunity to correct any mistakes.

 

A Form 4 Complaint is a serious matter and if the court agrees that the complaint is serious enough he can ultimately take away the bailiffs certificate which will lead to him being unemployed and this is possibly why some courts consider that the compliant should first be taken up with the bailiff company.

 

For the collection of council tax, if a person is "aggrieved" at a levy made by the bailiff, Regulation 46 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992 provide that an application should be made to the MAGISTRATES COURT .

 

The following is a TEMPLATE of such a complaint and in all cases that we have advised on, it is recommended that a copy is sent to the LOCAL AUTHORITY and the bailiff company before being sent to the Magistrates Court.

 

Any questions, please post back...

 

 

Mr Jo Blogs

1, High Street

Anytow

Post Code.

 

The Chief Clerk[/font]

xxxx Magistrates Court[/font]

 

 

 

Date:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Council Ref: xxxxxx[/font]

 

I am writing to request that you issue a Summons against xxxxxxx Council by virtue of Regulation 46 Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992 as a matter of urgency.

 

 

 

 

 

I am aggrieved by the levy carried out by Mr Smith of ABC Certificated Bailiffs on (enter date) for the following reason:

• The bailiff visited my premises and he has provided a Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory advising me that he has levied against a vehicle that was outside/on the drive of my home.
  
• This vehicle is not owned by me. I do not know the owner of the vehicle and it would appear that the bailiff has assumed that this is my car because it was parked close to my home.
  
• The bailiff in seizing this vehicle, has charged me a levy fee of £50 together with an enforcment fee of £150 and I am advised that unless I pay the amount of the Laibility Order of £xxx together with the charges associated with this levy, that the bailiff will be attending at my property to remove this vheilce to satisy my council tax arreas and in addition I will also be liable for further charges for "attending to remove" and I could also be in position of being personally liable to the owner of the vehicle.
  
• I have written to the bailiff company and the local authority concerning this levy but my complaints have been ignored.
  

I trust that this information will be sufficient and please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Yours faithfully

__________________

[1970]

Here's what I intend submitting as a form 4 complaint. Sorry about the formatting, MS Word doesnt cut and paste too well on here.

 

 

Form 4 Complaint

 

BAILIFF A

 

BAILIFF A, employed by BAILIFF COMPANYABC visited my home at 7am on the 6th November 2007 to enforce a liability order obtained by The Borough Council for an outstanding Council Tax Debt of £1270.73.

 

BAILIFF A demanded immediate payment and if not he would have me arrested and imprisoned. My wife was present and witnessed what took place.

 

I asked BAILIFF A for proof that he was a certificated bailiff. BAILIFF A refused.

 

I explained that The Borough Council obtained an attachment of earnings order in October 2007 and showed the documentation. I explained there was no need for BAILIFF A to neither visit nor threaten me with arrest and imprisonment.

 

The Ministry of Justice confirmed that BAILIFF A was not a certificated bailiff for BAILIFF COMPANY ABC on the 6th November 2007. His certificate and bond was registered with BAILIFF COMPANY XYZ. Statutory regulations laid down by Parliament state that if there are "any changes" to the certificate, the bailiff must “without delay” give notice to the Court and a new certificate must be issued to him reflecting the changes.

 

I complained to BAILIFF COMPANY ABC on the 12th November 2007 regarding this matter and I have not received a response.

 

Summary of complaint against BAILIFF A

 

• BAILIFF A acted unlawfully by threatening me with arrest and imprisonment.

• BAILIFF A refused to provide evidence that he was a certificated bailiff.

• BAILIFF A was not a certificated bailiff for BAILIFF COMPANY ABC on the 6th November 2007.

• BAILIFF COMPANY ABC charged £24.50 for the visit on 6th November 2007 despite an attachment of earnings order being in force.

 

BAILIFF B

On the 20th August 2008 BAILIFF B a bailiff employed by BAILIFF COMPANY ABC visited my home to enforce a liability order obtained by The Borough Council for an outstanding Council Tax Debt.

 

BAILIFF B entered my home and explained his reasons for attending. I disputed the amount of money he was demanding. BAILIFF B threatened that I would be arrested if I did not make an immediate payment. I asked for time to raise the money but he said if he was kept waiting any longer the fees would increase. I had no choice but to ask my daughter to make a payment of £400.00 on her credit card. BAILIFF B processed the payment and took an extra £20.00 as a fee for processing the payment.

 

My wife signed a walking possession order and we agreed to clear the remaining balance the following month.

 

I disputed a £200.00 van fee which had been noted on the walking possession order. The regulations allow for bailiffs to charge a walking possession fee of £12.00 and this case a levy fee of £62.00. Once they have obtained a walking possession order they then have the opportunity to return to remove the goods levied upon. A bailiff cannot charge a van fee on the same day they obtain a walking possession order.

 

The regulations clearly state “where following the levy, goods are not removed”

 

Once a bailiff has levied upon goods he is then at liberty to charge a fee for a van if he is required to return and enforce the terms of the walking possession order.

 

According to the legislation, the purpose of a visit is to levy upon goods and the bailiff can charge either a fee of £24.50 for attending to levy where no levy is made or he can charge a levy fee if he does levy. He cannot charge both fees. The bailiff charged me both fees

 

By levying upon goods the bailiff will be obtaining a walking possession and this "Contract" states upon it that goods will NOT be removed for "AT LEAST 5 DAYS"

 

Thus there is no requirement for a van fee.

 

The statutory legislation as laid down by Parliament provides that he should have "attended with a view to levying upon goods" not the actual removal of goods.

 

To clarify further, for an "attending to remove fee" to be legally applied the bailiff must have previously levied upon goods. There is clear cut case law on this; Evans v South Ribble Borough Council 1991 Court of Appeal. In this case, Justice Simon Brown made the point very clear that Distress consists of 3 separate stages:

 

1. The entry into the property

2. The levying of the goods

3. The removal of the goods

 

On the 20th August 2008 BAILIFF B you had no reason to charge for a van as he was attending to levy not remove. He did not remove any goods requiring a van and he received an immediate payment with an arrangement to clear the remaining balance in full which was maintained.

 

In the alternative, should the court find that the van fee was appropriately charged, I contend that the regulations also state that van fees are to be reasonable. The fee of £200.00 is totally unreasonable and extortionate. Attached are quotations from local companies who are able to hire a van for a full day at rates between £26.00 and £42.00. With a £30.00 (300 mile) allowance for diesel, a reasonable fee would be approximately £72.00.

 

BAILIFF B also charged a £24.50 “No Sale Fee”. I cannot find any reference to a no sale fee in the regulations pertaining to bailiff fees.

 

BAILIFF B levied unlawfully on the 20th August 2008. The levy consisted mainly of basic household items which cannot be levied upon. The levy included items required for basic living as detailed below:

Washing Machine, Dining Table, Dining Chairs, Living Room Sofa and Microwave

 

The above items are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of my family. The value of the goods levied upon was disproportionate to the debt. The walking possession order was for £1323.76 plus fees. The value of the goods levied upon was:

 

Washing Machine £299.00

Living room furniture £2100.00

Samsun TV £699.00

Dining room furniture £150

Microwave £50.00

 

Total value £3298.00

 

Summary of complaint against BAILIFF B

 

• BAILIFF B acted unlawfully by threatening me with arrest.

• BAILIFF B misled me into believing that I would have to pay a waiting time fee if I did not find a way to make an immediate payment.

• BAILIFF B charged a £20.00 card processing fee which is not allowed for in the regulations.

• BAILIFF B charged a £200.00 van fee which is not allowed for in the regulations.

• Alternatively, the van fee was extortionate and unreasonable and should be approximately £72.00.

• BAILIFF B charged a “No Sale Fee” which is not prescribed in the regulations.

• BAILIFF B levied unlawfully on goods that were basic household items and levied disproportionately.

 

BAILIFF COMPANYABC

 

BAILIFF COMPANY ABC claim a bailiff visited my home on 29th January 2009 to collect on account number 1111. A bailiff did not visit me on these dates nor did a bailiff post any letters through my letter box. I have been charged £18.00 for this visit which did not take place. Furthermore, there was no need to visit my home regarding this account as an attachment of earnings was in force from October 2007. I had already informed BAILIFF COMPANY ABC of this fact on the 6th November 2007 and the 12th November 2007.

 

BAILIFF COMPANY ABC claim a bailiff visited my home on 29th January 2009 to collect on account number 2222. A bailiff did not visit me on these dates nor did a bailiff post any letters through my letter box. I have been charged £24.50 for this visit which did not take place. There was no need for a visit to my home to collect on account number 2222 as this account had been paid in full in October 2008. I have no idea why BAILIFF COMPANY ABC claim they visited my home on the 29th January or why they have charged a first visit fee of £24.50.

 

BAILIFF COMPANY ABC claim a bailiff visited my home on 29th January 2009 and again on 27th April 2009 to collect on account number 4444 and account number 3333. A bailiff did not visit me on these dates nor did a bailiff post any letters through my letter box. I have been charged £85.00 for these visits which did not take place.

 

I have paid £809.73 to account number 1111 by way of an attachment of earnings order. BAILIFF COMPANY ABC say they have contacted The Borough Council to establish whether I have made these payments. They claim I have not made these payments and continue to threaten enforcement.

 

I have also made the following payments:

 

£68.75 Cleared through my account 28th May 2008 Cheque Number 100161

£69.75 Cleared through my account 4th July 2008 debit card payment

£75.00 Cleared through my account 7th August 2008 Cheque Number 100184

 

BAILIFF COMPANY ABC denies receiving these payments.

 

When BAILIFF B obtained a walking possession order on the 20th August 2008 for account number 2222 he took an immediate payment of £420.00 by credit card. £20.00 was retained by BAILIFF COMPANY ABC as a card processing fee. £300.00 was applied to account 2222. The remaining £100.00 is unaccounted for and BAILIFF COMPANY ABC refuses to answer my request for the whereabouts of this money.

 

Summary of complaint against BAILIFF COMPANY ABC

 

• I have been unlawfully charged £18.00 on account number 1111 for a visit that did not take place. A visit should not have taken place in any case as the matter was being handled directly by The Borough Council by way of an attachment of earnings.

• I have been unlawfully charged £24.50 on account number 2222 for a visit that did not take place. This account was paid in full in October 2008.

• I have been unlawfully charged £85.00 on accounts 4444/3333 for visits that did not take place.

• Account 1111 has not been updated to reflect the payment of £809.73 I have made. BAILIFF COMPANY ABC are continuing with enforcement action.

• BAILIFF COMPANY ABC deny receiving £213.50 and refuse to allocate these payments to my accounts.

• £100.00 is missing from account 2222.

 

Conclusion

 

BAILIFF COMPANY ABC claim I still owe £1414.26. They have misappropriated funds paid to them. They have applied unlawful charges for work that has not been done. They have ignored the proven fact that I had cleared account number 2222 and they have ignored the proven fact that The Borough Council obtained an attachment of earnings order resulting in payments of £809.73

 

I calculate these errors and unlawful activities to amount to:

 

Unlawful fees for visits that did not take place or were unnecessary due to an account being paid n full or payments being made by an attachment of earnings.

£127.50

 

Payments made to which they fail to recognise.

£213.00

 

Van Fee.

£200.00

 

Payments made to account 1111 by attachment of earnings order.

£809.73

 

Account 2222 No Sale Fee – no prescribed law or regulation for this fee.

£24.50

 

Missing £100.00 from £420.00 credit card payment made on the 20th August 2009.

£100.00

 

Credit card transaction fees as no prescribed law or regulation allows for such fees.

£20.00

 

Total £1494.73

 

I have written 12 letters to BAILIFF COMPANY ABC since November 2007 explaining the above complaints. None of the points raised have been acknowledged or upheld by BAILIFF COMPANYABC.

Edited July 27, 2009 by 1970

[hallowitch]

to much info the judge wont read half that

don't quote legislation to the judge

[1970]

Hmmm, I'm mindful its a lot of info but they have done a lot wrong. I'll see what I can do to condense it.

 

I understood it was common practice to quote legislation and case law in order to eliviate the judge of the burden looking it up???

[dixxychick]

HELP!! Rossendales are chasing me for a second visit fee which in my opinion was not warranted as the bailiff didn't even knock on the door but just posted letters through my door, after i'd contacted them to say i was paying in full on a certain date. I settled the bill as promised including the first visit fee however they are still chasing by phone for the second visit fee.

 

The national debt line recon they can't enforce this fee? Is this the case???

[1970]

Any further ideas on whether I should condense post #32?

[1970]

Tomtubby, I'd be interested to hear your view on:

 

A. Should I geve them one more chance (following 12 letters) to srt this out before form4? My last letter threatened form 4.

 

B. Is post 32 over kill? Too much for the court to go through?

 

Thanks,

 

1970.

[seanamarts]

HELP!! Rossendales are chasing me for a second visit fee which in my opinion was not warranted as the bailiff didn't even knock on the door but just posted letters through my door, after i'd contacted them to say i was paying in full on a certain date. I settled the bill as promised including the first visit fee however they are still chasing by phone for the second visit fee.

 

The national debt line recon they can't enforce this fee? Is this the case???

if you have paid in full before he came to visit the second time then he dosnt have a leg to stand on, in other words he cannot inforce it

[1970]

Any further comments on post 32?

[hallowitch]

Payments made to account 1111 by attachment of earnings order.

£809.73

 

Unlawful fees for visits that did not take place or were unnecessary due to an account being paid n full or payments being made by an attachment of earnings. £127

 

 

 

visit fees charged date xxxx no visit required as payment being made by attachment of earnings )

visit fee charged date xxxx acount paid in full before visit

 

 

Payments made to which they fail to recognise.

£213.00

if these payments were made to the council then its nothing to do with the bailiff

the bailiff gets a liability order from the council for £xxxx thats what they are told to collect it

[1970]

Payments made to account 1111 by attachment of earnings order.

£809.73 [paid to council but bailiff still trying to enforce when no need to. they didn't atcually visit. they just added the charges to the account which was revealed when i got a screen shot]

 

Unlawful fees for visits that did not take place or were unnecessary due to an account being paid n full or payments being made by an attachment of earnings. £127

 

 

 

visit fees charged date xxxx no visit required as payment being made by attachment of earnings ) [will update]

visit fee charged date xxxx acount paid in full before visit

 

 

Payments made to which they fail to recognise.

£213.00 [paid direct to bailiff - have proof of bank statement etc but they still wont recognise the payments]

if these payments were made to the council then its nothing to do with the bailiff

the bailiff gets a liability order from the council for £xxxx thats what they are told to collect it

 

 

 

 

 

 

1970

[1970]

Ok, having given it some thought I have decided to go with the Form 4 Complaint as per my text in post 32.

 

I think there is a chance the bailiff will sort the problems rather than have to explain to a judge and it appears they have 14 days to reply to the judge regarding my complaint. I assume they will reply saying dont worry Judge - all sorted.

 

Although I would want to get some satisfaction out of them being slapped for sending an uncertified bailiff and for applying unlawful fees my main objective is to get the accounts cleared and out of thier hands. With the missing payments etc I will end up with all my accounts cleared with them.

 

Here goes.

 

1970

[rumnraisan]

Would be interested to know how this one turned out..i have the same problem with Swift at the moment...was charged £125 for Attending with a vehicle with a view to removing...i let them in and signed a Notice of Seizure of Goods ,and agreed repayments. I have not yet finished repayments ...i have spoken to Swift and they confirm that the fee is correct....are they correct?

[ploddertom]

Would be interested to know how this one turned out..i have the same problem with Swift at the moment...was charged £125 for Attending with a vehicle with a view to removing...i let them in and signed a Notice of Seizure of Goods ,and agreed repayments. I have not yet finished repayments ...i have spoken to Swift and they confirm that the fee is correct....are they correct?

 

As the thread is some 2+ years old it would be better if you started your own thread for a better targetted response.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=168

 

PT