Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5163 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

A picture paints a thousand words ...

 

... especially the bottom one!

 

Clearly, the value of the paper on which the levy was written has a higher value than this suspected high value Japanese import.

 

Is it fair to assume that, in his spare time, the bailiff also acts as a football referee?

 

Send them an advert for specsavers.

 

Best wishes.

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well the 'not very helpful at all' local authority have now replied.

 

 

Basically they have said that:

Rossendales have covered my points in their reply letter.

Rossendales followed normal procedures, that the fees are in line with the 1992 regulations.

 

Finally they say that specific disputers are dealt with via the Enforcement Services Association. (And they give me the telephone number and email address for them)

 

So basically they havent really covered one single point in my complaint, on the grounds that Rossendales have done so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally they say that specific disputers are dealt with via the Enforcement Services Association. (And they give me the telephone number and email address for them)

 

what a load of **** disputes between the bailiffs and debtor are a matter for the council who employ them (fact)

Rossendales have covered my points in their reply letter.

you want the councils response to the matters questioned not rosendales

 

Rossendales followed normal procedures, that the fees are in line with the 1992 regulations.

under these regulations

the bailiff is there to levy distress on a first visit (the car was on your drive therefore the bailiff has a right to assume is belongs to you )

 

the same for the second visit

where the sum due at the time of the visit or of the levy (as the case may be)

the debt was paid on the 21st the levy was the 22nd

if there is no debt there can be no levy

 

the van fee must follow the levy they cant charge a van fee on the same day as levy

 

goods levied must have a value when sold at auction this car does not

 

and if the bailiff thought it had any value it should have been levied on the first visit

I would write back to the council all tell them you are not happy with there reply

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been pondering this. Isnt it somewhat open to interpretation ?

 

C For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed):

Reasonable costs and fees incurred.

 

 

Couldnt that be read as:

They attend with a van with the view to remove goods, make a levy but do not remove any goods ?

 

Im not saying your wrong, just that its not exactly clear cut. Im sure this is the reply im going to get if I throw it at either party here. Of course this doesnt justify 2 visits where they could have done the very same levy, neither does it make the car worth anything, but..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pics:

 

2eaigjn.gif

msiolj.jpg

 

vnmf7k.gif

 

 

The bottom one was taken with the door open else you wouldnt could see inside for the glass. But since the door is open, Mr Van man couldve opened it anyway (and I wouldnt be suprised if he did)

 

Like I said earlier they dont really do its condition justice.... I suspect that even lifting it onto a wagon is going to be problematic - theres little left of the underside !

 

That's mint, a so called bailiff calling a right hooker a jap import, beggars belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Got a letter back from the local council today which said:

 

'I have looked again into this matter and spoken at length to rossendales and it has been decided that on this occasion the van attendance fee and levy fee will be cancelled. The matter is therefore resolved'

 

Woohoo !!!

 

Thanks to all the folks on here who gave advice and such !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three threads merged, Title changed, good stuff :)

 
 

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done. I guess you're now free to sell your highly valued and much prized Japanese import... :D

Best wishes

Rae.

 

Hi Rae

 

The only problem is the OP has had to wait so long it's only worth scrap now.

 

:D:D:D

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...