Heellpp Please...I Signed LEVY OF DISTRESS AFTER THE FACT AFTER MUM LET HIM IN!

[hardworking_harddoneby]

Right sorry, correct link now!

Off to bed will get the other documents back and post them if I can get to my car!

Thanks Raex

 

 

Night Rach, hope you sleep a bit easier tonight, you soon will if not, Im sure of it,

We're in a right mess too but feel so much better since i've been cagging

 

Hugs

Sarah xxxxxx

[hardworking_harddoneby]

is that amount of charges average/normal for a second visit?

I think he may have said something about being over an hour today -extra charges?

 

 

Nah, I don't know much more than you and am very much learning on the job but i have read on previous and older posts there are strict rules for fees and what they deem reasonable, if you nor I cant find them before bed tonight someone will help tomorrow,

xxx

[RaeUK]

Nope Rach. Off the top of my head - and you'll have better confirmation tomorrow - it's £24.50 for the first visit and £18 the second. There's a letter charge [i think] of about £11. Whatever the true costs - and I'm sure I'm not so far out - you'll find they're less than three digits in size! Have a good nights sleep hunni.

Rae.

[RaeUK]

Ok, seen your first letter now. I wasn't so far out...

I think others may comment on the £60 levy and £24.50 admin.

Impressed that the first letter charges total £139 [mmm...] and the second visit receipt shows - presumably total charges to date - £210. So £71 for that visit? The more I read the more I understand these two words: Bailiff Fraud...

Rae.

Edited January 6, 2010 by RaeUK
tie poo

[seanamarts]

This may be of help

taken from;http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70420w0001.htm

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]

 

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94

 

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

[seanamarts]

Asked by Lord Lucas

• To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of whether the right of a bailiff to break in to domestic premises to enforce a fine, granted to bailiffs in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, is practised with due care and attention to sick, vulnerable and impoverished debtors. [HL831]
  

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): All of Her Majesty's Courts Service civilian enforcement officers and private contracted bailiffs are required to have been trained in the appropriate application of these powers and use of conflict management techniques. Her Majesty's Courts Service also issues instructions to in-house civilian enforcement officers and private bailiff companies under contract to of Her Majesty's Courts Service on how and when to use these powers. The contracts with these companies require them to adhere to these instructions and to refer back to the magistrates’ court before attempting to use them. The contracts also require the companies to withdraw and cease execution of any warrant where

29 Jan 2009 : Column WA70

 

it becomes apparent that the individual falls into one of the categories deemed vulnerable and refer the matter back to the court before any further action is taken. Powers of entry have only been used on two occasions in the last year by Her Majesty's Courts Service contracted bailiffs. Her Majesty's Courts Service issued 625,000 distress warrants to contracted bailiff companies in 2007-08.

[ploddertom]

Hi

 

There appears to be so much wrong with this so far and believe you need to make extra enquiries etc to help you further. You say you have applied for CT Benefit have you chased this up to find out where you are as this will affect how much CT you will owe. Are the Council aware of your current position - the fact you are expecting etc - if they don't know then they can't do much to help. To take things further you need to do most of the following starting today:

 

1. Contact the Council - not just whoever answers the phone but someone with a bit of clout - Head of Revenues for example. You need the following information from them:

a - how far along is your CTB application.

b - advise them of your vulnerable status.

c - how much the Liability Order is for.

d - how much is still outstanding.

e - when it was passed to the Bailiff.

f - point out the blatant lies told to you by the Bailiff and remind them the Council are responsible for the Bailiff's actions as he is their agent.

The Council may trot out the usual - you have to deal with the Bailiff - force the issue with them.

 

2. Contact your local Councillor immediately and inform them of the situation - particularly if the Council are dragging their heels of your CTB application.

 

3. Contact the Bailiff company by email

a - tell them of the lies you have been told.

b - it also appears he has an invalid levy so ask for all fees to be therefore removed.

c - ask at what Court the Bailiff is Certificated as you are also considering a Form 4 Complaint because of the lies you have been told.

d - ask for a statement of your account including screenshot, remind them you are not asking for personal info under Data Protection so no £10 fee for a Subject Access Request is required. Remind them they are obliged to give you this information.

 

4 - When the Bailiff comes round again refuse to let him and tell him as his previous levy is invalid you are within your rights. He may threaten and cajole but it is all hot air. He doesn't need to come him to use the loo, the phone. If he decides to have apoplexy or a heart attack while you tell him this leave him outside for the Ambulance to scoop up.

 

5 - Do as you have been told re the car.

 

6 - Keep us up to date on progress.

 

7 - do not believe anything the Bailiff or his Company tell you. Come back here first.

 

PT

[Rach:)]

Wow..

thanks guys!

Will get on it today.

Rachel

[RaeUK]

Hi Rach, glad you're sounding well. You're in very good hands with Nintendo and Plodder. I've done what little I can for you - I'm just the Receptionist here really - but I'll be keeping an eye on your progress.

Best wishes.

Rae.

[Rach:)]

Thanks Rae.

[Rach:)]

So can he charge me £150 as he said he had been there for over an hour waiting for me to meet him, from work?

[tomtubby]

Have I missed something here ?

 

From the document that I have seen the debt oustanding is £1,296 and the fees are stated as £24.50, £18.00, £12.00 , levy fee of £60 and a further Head H fee of £24.50

 

 

Can you confirm what additional fees have been charged or better still copy the link to the document with the fees listed.

[RaeUK]

These are the only ones so far, and probably the ones you've seen...

 

http://s854.photobucket.com/albums/a...4.jpg&newest=1

 

and

 

http://s854.photobucket.com/albums/a...isitletter.jpg

 

Rae.

Edited January 6, 2010 by RaeUK
linky things.

[Rach:)]

Sorry I am snowed in at the moment and do not have access to the paperwork, will have it thurs or Fri.

THanks

[tomtubby]

So can he charge me £150 as he said he had been there for over an hour waiting for me to meet him, from work?

 

Has this fee been charged to you ?

 

There are a lot of responses to your original question and I am just trying to ascertain what fees have actually been applied to your account by the bailiff and I am assuming that these are as quoted on the letter left by the bailiff which I have listed on my previous post.

 

That is why I am confused by the mention of the charge of £150.

Edited January 6, 2010 by tomtubby

[Nintendo Pü]

So can he charge me £150 as he said he had been there for over an hour waiting for me to meet him, from work?

 

The law does not provide for bailiffs to charge you waiting time, he can wait all he wants but the statutory visit fee is still £24.50.

[Nintendo Pü]

I am assuming that these are as quoted on the letter left by the bailiff which I have listed on my previous e-mail.

 

What email?

 

Is there something we should know about?

[tomtubby]

What email?

 

Is there something we should know about?

 

No, there is nothing you should know about.

 

I may be making myself very unpopular but I have a lot of concern for the response that is being provided to this thread and indeed many others.

 

The poster CONFIRMED that his mother allowed a bailiff into his property (sadly this is legal) and that he had returned and signed a Walking Possession.

 

In Post number 20, Rach confirmed that he had paid the bailiff £200 in cash and almost immediately you posted back to say:

 

"Did you get a receipt for the cash?. It is looking more like the bailiff has swindled you and probably embezzled your £200 for himself"

 

This is an extraordinary statement and one that is very dangerous to make on a public forum .

 

And then in post number 59 you are stating that the bailiff is"well and truly screwing you with his fees" and that Bach needs to go the "Happy C route"

 

This of course refers to Happy Contrails who stopped posting at the same time as you started posting !!

 

In post 59 you have stated that the bailiff cannot charge any more fees than £24.50 and £18.00. And yet you will be aware that Bach made the point VERY clear in his first post that he had signed a Walking Possession and this would therefore allow the bailiff to apply a "levy fee" which is what the bailiff has charged (£60).

 

In the short time since you replaced Happy Contrails it is CLEAR that in almost all threads ( not posts) you advise the poster to make an allegation of FRAUD and for the bailiff to "pass a truth test".

 

Frankly, this is VERY DANGEROUS and could expose the person making the enquiry to a threat of libel from the bailiff or his employer.

 

A bailiff is an agent of the local authority and it is always the case that if there is a dispute regarding fees etc that this needs to be put in writing to the bailiff company and copied to the Chief Executive of the relevant local authority and marked as a Formal Complaint.

[Nintendo Pü]

No, there is nothing you should know about.

 

I may be making myself very unpopular but I have a lot of concern for the response that is being provided to this thread and indeed many others.

 

If your website is anything to go by then I would be very concerned about the advice you are giving - and charging them for it!. I can see why your site has been banned by the administrators of this forum.

 

I am discovering this is not the first time you have come to the attention of the forum administrators.

 

The poster CONFIRMED that his mother allowed a bailiff into his property (sadly this is legal) and that he had returned and signed a Walking Possession.

 

I disagree with that advice, so the OP must now decide for herself who is right on whether somebody else can sign to agree for her goods to be levied in her absence.

 

 

In post 59 you have stated that the bailiff cannot charge any more fees than £24.50 and £18.00. And yet you will be aware that Bach made the point VERY clear in his first post that he had signed a Walking Possession and this would therefore allow the bailiff to apply a "levy fee" which is what the bailiff has charged (£60).

 

The levy fee is £12, but since she didnt sign it then its not valid. You say it is, so the OP must decide whether or not to concede and pay £60 as you suggest.

 

In the short time since you replaced Happy Contrails it is CLEAR that in almost all threads ( not posts) you advise the poster to make an allegation of FRAUD and for the bailiff to "pass a truth test".

 

Frankly, this is VERY DANGEROUS and could expose the person making the enquiry to a threat of libel from the bailiff or his employer.

 

Why is is 'dangerous'? It doesnt contain anything that is libelous, It doesnt even make any reference to publicity. It has a perfect success rate at attaining a fast resolution without entering into a volley of protracted correspondence. I dont hide the fact Happy Contrails wrote it, nor to I take the credit. We are not immediately related, but are of the same dynasty. Nephew/Uncle.

 

A bailiff is an agent of the local authority and it is always the case that if there is a dispute regarding fees etc that this needs to be put in writing to the bailiff company and copied to the Chief Executive of the relevant local authority and marked as a Formal Complaint.

 

I now understand you learned this fact from none other than - Happy Contrails.

[Rach:)]

Sorry Tomtubby, I am snowed in and do not have the docs on me at the moment, but he keeps saying if he has to wait for over an hour (which he did once as I was coming back from work to meet him) an extra fee will be due (which I believe* was £150).

 

I am sorry I do not have the full facts and figures, but it appears that I do have a chance at getting this looked into).

I really do appreciate the help and advice I have been given.

[Nintendo Pü]

Rach, given that your tread has been turned into a flame war, and it apears another user has established contact with you by PM, and may be advising you privately, I suggest this is a bad idea because that advice you receive cannot be challenged by others.

[tomtubby]

Rach, given that your tread has been turned into a flame war, and it apears another user has established contact with you by PM, and may be advising you privately, I suggest this is a bad idea because that advice you receive cannot be challenged by others.

 

If you are referring to me. Then you are wrong. I have NOT sent a PM to the poster.

 

Thank you.

[RaeUK]

Mmmm. Now, it's not for lil ole me to say, but could I just ask all involved to respect the needs of the OP?

This may not be a practical solution, but where a difference in interpretation or methodology arises would it not be better all round to start a new thread to debate it? For example - Re: Heellpp Please...I Signed... LEGAL DISCUSSION

That way the OP has a clean(ish) thread, you clever guys can debate off-thread, and then post with a resolution.

Ah, what do I know? I'm just the Receptionist. Refreshments anyone?

Rae.

[wonkeydonkey]

Rach:

Who actually signed the WP you or your mother?

Did the bailiff carry out the levy in your presence?

[wonkeydonkey]

Mmmm. Now, it's not for lil ole me to say, but could I just ask all involved to respect the needs of the OP?

This may not be a practical solution, but where a difference in interpretation or methodology arises would it not be better all round to start a new thread to debate it? For example - Re: Heellpp Please...I Signed... LEGAL DISCUSSION

That way the OP has a clean(ish) thread, you clever guys can debate off-thread, and then post with a resolution.

Ah, what do I know? I'm just the Receptionist. Refreshments anyone?

Rae.

Large scotch please m'dear and if you can see your way to a cheese sarnie I would be grateful

excellent receptionist skills if I may say