Rossendales - I'm Prepared To Go The Distance

[hallowitch]

good luck

[Pendle_dad]

Mmmm - just read back my very first post and there is something I had totally overlooked here...

 

On Monday, when the council checked my account on Rossendales website, it was clear these levy fees had not been added to my account.

 

However - the payment I made to Rossendales on Friday was showing. Therefore the records had been updated at the time of my payment on Monday - would this be sufficient proof that there had been no levy on the Friday ?

 

Also - where the notice of distress is concerned.

 

1 - He is claiming he issued it on Friday. If - for arguments sake - he had left a NOD on Friday, would it be normal practice to issue a "second" yesterday or would he just say "I left you one on Friday".

 

2 - Where do I stand on the "did issue" / "didn't issue" argument. He says he did, he most definitely did not, how do I prove he did not - apart, of course, from not having the bloody thing !

[seanamarts]

to try and answer number 2, 'the did he didnt he issue', why would he need to do another levy if he had already carried one out, they cannot levy twice for the same debt, bailiffs know this to be a big no no. You have him on video saying he is going to levy again. That in itself would look a bit suss to any one who knew what they were talking about. The bailiff was definitely trying to back peddle hoping you didnt know your rights.

[Pendle_dad]

Thanks for the reassurance on that Seana.

 

I will put the video up on my company website as soon as I get it converted and send PM links to those who want to see it and verify the contents/ I don't want it in the public domain at the moment ... mainly because I look dog rough, was pumped on adrenaline and my business name is shown on my shirt

[Pendle_dad]

PS - just a catch up on thanks for those who have contributed to this thread so far, and to the other members who have done all the ground work in the past to make the relevant legislation easy to find. I know how demanding it is on people's time contributing to forums and giving calm, collected and factual advice (as opposed to "I think" or "Maybe" statements).

 

Thanks again.

[seanamarts]

Its what we are here for we dont like them as much as you and we have all been diddled by them, some of us have even been assaulted. So its a mission to stop the barstewards

[Pendle_dad]

Well, today is the 5th working day so hopefully will hear something tomorrow.

 

Whilst we're waiting, can anyone help with this, which will form the basis of complaint number two. I didn't want to include this in the first complaint as I am hoping to show a pattern of serial overcharging where Rossendales are concerned.

 

Again, am only reporting facts which I have written evidence to back up.

 

I am self employed and, like most small businesses it seems, am fighting to keep our business solvent. To cut a long one short, I also have 2 liability orders for business rates on my old office, one for £130 for last year, and this year's of around £800. Back in March, way before I discovered this forum, I had a visit from Rossendales, different bailiff to the one I am currently in dispute with. This one, I must admit, was actually human, very pleasant, happy to discuss terms, honestly could not complain about her behaviour in the slightest.

 

However ! I think she may have goofed (either unintentionally, or under instruction) on her paperwork. I did invite her in, basically because I had no problem at that time, wanted to clear the bill quickly and she acted in a civil manner at all times. Signed a walking posession order without much fuss and kept to the payment plan.

 

When the hassle with the new bailiff started a couple of weeks ago (see my opening post) in connection with my council tax, I pulled out all the documents I had from Rossendales and noticed that when the girl came in March with the 2 liability orders for my business rates, she has charged me a first visit fee on both notices of distress - even though she has only made one visit, which incorporated both liabilities.

 

She filled in both sets of paperwork at the same time, signed and dated at the same time, with the same goods listed on both walking posession orders.

 

As with everything, you read something and then forget to go back to it or take notes ! - but did I read somewhere that if they are collecting on 2 liability orders at the same time they can only charge one visit fee - that is, they can't charge a first visit fee for both, if they are only making the one visit in connection with both accounts ?

 

I know it does sound wrong, but is it legal ?

[hallowitch]

well 2 liability orders I set of fees

 

Detailed Assessment Judgment of Throssell v Leeds City Council where the District Judge ruled as follows:

“Turning to the taxation it seems to me that notwithstanding the fact that there were three liability orders but one visit was made by one bailiff and the maximum that the Council’s reasonable charges can be is the result of applying the formula contained in Schedule 5 paragraph 2 (1) (b) of the Regulations”

 

they cannot charge so many fees if only one visit is made

they cant levy the same goods twice once goods are levied they belong to the council until the debt is paid

 

so in fact the 2nd levy on the same goods means that the bailiff levied goods belonging to the council

 

what the bailiff should have done was add both debts together and levied against the total amount

[Pendle_dad]

Hallowitch - that's the bit I read, thank you, and it was you yourself who had posted it in the past. Not doubting its legitimacy, but do you have link to where this actually occurred ? I've seen the quote here and elsewhere, but can't find a link to it being quoted in parliament or in court ? Not asking you to search for me, but if you can point me in the right direction ?

 

Thank you.

 

Just had a call form the council to say that a reply from Rossendales (to my council tax complaint) is in the post - interestingly, they also tell me that my council tax account is "on hold for 14 days" to allow time for me to sort it out, so it looks like they are going to try and keep the fees on... will know for definite tomorrow, hopefully.

[hallowitch]

Not doubting its legitimacy, but do you have link to where this actually occurred ? I've seen the quote here and elsewhere, but can't find a link to it being quoted in parliament or in court ? Not asking you to search for me, but if you can point me in the right direction ?

 

I'm sorry i cant i got from someone who used to post on here (i believe they got it from tomtubby)

I have the bailiff book thats advertised on this site and there are a lot and i mean a lot of case references (if i knew how to research them i would i have tried Balli case law search but don't know how do use the site I would even be happy to pay a subscription if i knew how to use it ) Throssell v. Leeds City council (1993) 41 Adviser 22...122,278,279 exactly how its written in the book

 

 

but when i first joined CAG my daughter had same problem 2 liability orders 2 sets of fees 2 notice of seizure with same goods levied and we/she got the fees removed

[Pendle_dad]

OK Hallo...

 

I will wait for the reply to my council tax issue which should be here tomorrow and then start work on the business rates with that information - on the off chance that they concede on the council tax, being able to throw this at them will be the icing on the cake and should really make the council sit up and take notice.

 

More soon, no doubt !

[Pendle_dad]

Well, nothing to report today as the letter that was supposedly sent on Wednesday hasn't arrived... so we wait again...

[Pendle_dad]

Well, I have the letter, it is full of lies, contradictions and ignores totally my concern about the bailiff overstating his powers... I am in the middle of typing a reply, so will update you through the night !

[Pendle_dad]

Just a quick question regarding the Schedule 5 Council Tax Regulations form that they are supposed to leave... can I insist on a copy of this at every visit, or can they say "we gave you one before, that's enough ?"

[Pendle_dad]

Well... another 4-5 hours spent on this

 

First up... here is the reply from Rossendales - have just uploaded a JPEG of the pages, couldn't be bothered typing it all out.

 

The opening page or so is of little importance, it merely states dates and times of the original council tax bill / liability order / first and second visits, none of which is disputed.

 

PAGE 1 : http://www.acaf.co.uk/ctax/PAGE1.jpg

 

PAGE 2 : http://www.acaf.co.uk/ctax/PAGE2.jpg

 

PAGE 3 : http://www.acaf.co.uk/ctax/PAGE3.jpg

 

PAGE 4 : http://www.acaf.co.uk/ctax/PAGE4.jpg

 

I have removed registration numbers and names where appropriate.

[Pendle_dad]

Next we have my reply. It is a long one, but it is possibly the last one I will send as there is nothing left to say to be honest. Will wait for a reply to this before considering my next step. As above, I have removed identifying names / registrations - if you spot one I've missed please let me know !

 

---------------------------------------

 

Dear XXX

 

Thank you for your reply to my complaint, which was received on Saturday 18 September.

 

I appreciate and understand your position in defending the action of your staff, however your letter contains a number of inaccuracies, contradictions and, in the case of comments made by your bailiff, either poor memory or blatant lies. I will provide evidence of this.

 

I also note you have not commented at all on my complaint regarding Mr S breaking the law in connection with overstating his powers as a bailiff and look forward to your views on that.

 

Firstly, regarding the council guidelines regarding bereavement. I accept without reservation that you were unaware of this until Mr S arrived at my home on Friday 3rd September and you will note that I have no qualms about your conduct up to this moment.

 

However, all actions, comments and threats taken by Mr S occurred after he was made aware of this, which you have confirmed in your letter and which Mr S has acknowledged in the interview you had with him.

 

The actions I refer to that were taken after Mr S became aware of this include :

 

- demanding full immediate payment of a sum of over £900

- insisting he will walk in to my house and remove goods

- demanding the remaining balance be paid within 72 hours after I paid £200

- threatening to add further costs (God knows what ?) if the balance wasn't paid on Monday 6th September

 

 

In addition - after paying a further £530 on Monday 6th September and, of course, still being aware of my bereavement, we had the scenario on Thursday 9th September when Mr S returned and again

 

- demanded a further £221

- threatened to clamp my vehicles

- refused to discuss the issue in a civilised manner

- again refused to give me a detailed breakdown of costs incurred on my account.

 

I again refer to Pendle Borough Council's Guidelines :

 

6. DISTRAINT EXEMPTIONS – VULNERABLE PERSONS

(COUNCIL TAX)

6.1 The bailiff company must at all times assess the personal and financial circumstances of the debtor.

6.2 The following class of persons should not be subject to distraint action: -

(d) Persons who have suffered the recent bereavement of an immediate family member.

6.3 In all the above circumstances, cases should be returned to the Council. Costs incurred by the bailiffs to be in accordance with the agreed scale.

 

Whatever the circumstances prior to the visit on Friday September 3rd, the above is clear and without ambiguity. It does not state "but feel free to go back 6 days later and try and clamp a vehicle whilst demanding another £200".

 

 

 

I quote from your letter :

 

"The bailiff states he advised of the reason for his attendance... The bailiff states you advised him of your mother's passing and confirms that you showed him newspaper clippings in respect of the same."

 

The above is the opening of your interview. At no stage is there mention of any levy being made.

 

 

 

You continue : "The bailiff states that... you could not make payment and would not allow him entry to the property, and {you} asked how he planned on gaining entry. The bailiff states he advised you that his intention was to walk into the property"

 

Again, at this stage there is no mention of a levy being made, and, as stated, Mr S is fully aware of my circumstances.

 

 

 

You continue : "The bailiff levied upon a Renault Camper Van... thereby accruing a fee... of £42.00"

 

This did not occur, but in any case, please note the figure of £42.00 mentioned here. It is also mentioned in a letter you sent on September 9th with the breakdown of charges on my account. I will return to this further down.

 

 

 

You continue : "The bailiff confirms that he left an attendance notice and a copy of the Notice of Distress which lists the balance outstanding and associated fees subsequently applied to your account"

 

This also did not occur - the bailiff left an attendance notice only which can be seen here : http://www.acaf.co.uk/ctax/1REMOVALNOTE.jpg

 

 

You will see clearly that Mr S has added the note "£747 + recovery charges"

 

This is the ONLY paperwork left by Mr S on the day of the visit of September 3rd. Again, there is no breakdown of costs attached. However, this gives further concern as the total he has requested includes the disputed fee - and he has also added "PLUS RECOVERY COSTS" - a figure he has already incorporated into the outstanding balance. I must ask, what these recovery costs are that he intended to add before I took this issue up with the council. Note that this states "PLUS RECOVERY COSTS" - it is not ambiguous, it clearly does not state a figure or a breakdown, and it does not state "there may be additional costs". So please advise what these "PLUS RECOVERY COSTS" are and why Mr S intended to add them ? We shall, however, return further down to the notice that Mr S gave me on Thursday 9th September which he claims is the one he left on Friday 3rd September.

 

 

You continue : "I must also advise that notes made by the bailiff at the time of his attendance states that he spoke to you and was refused entry. He noted that he levied upon a vehicle and you requested it was not clamped."

 

This, I am afraid, is a total fabrication. Mr S was unaware at the time of any vehicles that could have been levied upon. The camper van was positioned away from the house due to my neighbours moving home and needing space for removal vans. My wife's Laguna was parked immediately outside the house. Further, as the camper van is used primarily for transporting stock for my memorabilia business and as I have no shows planned until next March it has been mothballed for the winter. It would not have concerned me in the slightest if Mr S had clamped this - and when he threatened to do so when he returned on Thursday he was actually told to "go ahead" (I have this on video).

 

 

 

If Mr S thus claims he levied against my camper van on Friday 3rd September, it is my belief that a DVLA check was not made prior to the visit as he made a phone call whilst at our property asking "someone" if they could do this check. I believe that it takes longer than 15 minutes for this information to be provided by DVLA.

 

Whilst Mr S believes "I can add whatever I want" (his words, not mine) is, for example, Mr S allowed to levy on goods / vehicles or any other item that is used exclusively for business purposes ? Has, for example, Mr Shaw even checked to see what the camper van is used for ? The answer, of course, is no. Mr S has, therefore, failed in his duty to enquire as to ownership and any exempt status. I note from your interview that at no stage has Mr S said that asked me about ownership or enquired as to exempt status.

 

 

You continue : "I can confirm we are in receipt of your email dated 5th September... which was referred to a Team Leader on 7th September. The decision had been taken to contact the bailiff in respect of the matter, however, owing to personal reasons he was uncontactable..."

 

Whatever Mr S's personal reasons were, he managed to contact me the following day and the day after that so I find it difficult to understand how his employers were not able to contact him. If this is the case, was he acting outside of his work remit when he contacted me on the 8th and 9th of September ?

 

There is also a clear contradiction in your following statement : "The bailiff has confirmed that he did attempt to contact you and proceeded to attend at your property... however he states this was prior to our instruction to withold action on the account."

 

IF MR S WAS UNCONTACTABLE FOR "PERSONAL REASONS" ON THE 7TH, 8TH AND THE MORNING OF THE 9TH SEPTEMBER, HOW, THEN, WAS HE AWARE THAT I HAD PAID £530 TO THE COUNCIL ON MONDAY 6TH SEPTEMBER ?

 

 

 

You continue : "I note your comments that the bailiff did not leave a copy of the Schedule 5 Council Tax Regulations, however this... should have been with paperwork left by the first call bailiff"

 

Whether it should have been or not is irrelevant as distraint was allegedly made by Mr S on September 3rd and not the first call bailiff.

 

In addition, the only paperwork your 'first call' bailiffs leave if there is no answer to the door is the Removal Letter. Most importantly - I asked Mr S for it. He was the bailiff who was demanding money at the time. Or levying distress, if he still insists that is what happened. He did not provide one as you clearly acknowledge above. This is a statutory obligation and is a clear breach of the following :

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/45/made

 

The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority, which he shall show to the debtor if so requested; and he shall hand to the debtor or leave at the premises where the distress is levied a copy of this regulation and Schedule 5 and a memorandum setting out the appropriate amount, and shall hand to the debtor a copy of any close or walking possession agreement entered into.

 

 

 

You continue : "The bailiff instructs that he completed a second levy on a Renault Laguna... and he advised of his intentions to clamp said vehicle"

 

Indeed he did. He also pointed at the camper van and said "have I to clamp this as well ?" - to which, as previously mentioned, the response from my wife was "go ahead".

 

At this stage, therefore, we are told that a levy has been applied on both the camper van and the laguna - vehicles worth in the region of £4,000. The sum outstanding at this point is allegedly £212, that is, the amount that has been added for Friday's visit.

 

As the following day, Friday, was the day we were scattering my ma's ashes at her countryside caravan, the car was required for my wife and children's attendance. I was not prepared to let the car be clamped and my wife did indeed move it. However, I waited a further 10-15 minutes for Mr S to carry out his threat to clamp the camper van in order to record the action and ask again for the correct documentation to be presented to me. Mr S chose not to return to the van and also chose not to give me the itemised breakdown that I had, at this stage, requested on at least 6 occassions. Mr S then left and I contacted Pendle Borough Council to ask why, despite assurances to the contrary, I was still being harrassed by Mr S . I believe at this stage Pendle Council contacted your office.

 

 

Regarding your claim that I was notified of costs on the Friday when I was allegedly handed a copy of the levy. Well, as no levy was made on the Friday, this was, in fact, not possible. However, if you wish to believe that Mr S did leave me the paperwork and that I "handed it back to him" on Thursday, then I draw your attention to the figures he has written on the sheet. This can be viewed here :

 

http://www.acaf.co.uk/ctax/1NOD-CHARGES.jpg

 

As you can see, there is no specific breakdown of all the costs that I have been asked to pay as I requested on Friday and a number of times thereafter - there is, however, a breakdown of the levy fee. Unfortunately, this figure contradicts the sum you gave me in writing on Thursday September 9th, one hour after Mr S left my property (the £42 highlighted at the start of this letter). As you can see, Mr S has entered a sum of £47 as a levy fee. You advised me of a sum of £42. It is my belief that this incorrect figure makes the levy invalid - or there is an attempt to defraud a further £5 from me. Or is it possible that Mr S really can, as he stated on video, "add whatever he wants" and decided I wouldn't miss another £5 ?

 

There are no figures entered for first or second visit fees.

 

There is a figure entered for "other". This is clearly NOT a breakdown as requested on Friday - but equally importantly - if this is the document that Mr S claims was left on Friday, then I draw attention to the rear of this sheet which is totally blank : http://www.acaf.co.uk/ctax/1NOD-REAR.jpg

 

You continue : "The bailiff advised you stated he had neglected to leave appropriate paperwork with you, the bailiff states he pointed out that you had handed paperwork left during a previous attendance back to him"

 

Fortunately, I have this conversation on video. Mr S clearly states "I also left you one on Friday" - he does not state "You have just handed this back to me."

 

The incident in question, however, actually happened the other way round ! Mr S gave me the levy which he should have left on Friday (had any levy taken place).

 

Had the incident occured as Mr S claims, when I pointed out to him that he had just handed me a levy that he had backdated to Friday, he would have stated "No - I gave you this on Friday". Whereas he clearly states on video "Yes, but I also left you one on Friday". So just what was it that he gave me on Thursday - a new levy (which he clearly admits to on camera) or the one he allegedly left on Friday ? It cannot possibly be both.

 

There are too many inconsistencies in the statement given by Mr S for it to hold any credibility.

 

I note in your closing comments that Mr S has been asked to withdraw from this account and that you have set an arrangement to clear the "outstanding" balance over a period of two months and that confirmation of this will be issued to me under separate cover.

 

I look forward to this and will respond accordingly. At this stage I continue to stress my intention and willingness to pay any and all monies that I am legally obliged to.

 

In closing, I request one final time that these charges be removed as there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the legitimacy of their addition to my council tax bill.

 

I also thank you for your closing apology and for your kind condolences regarding my ma.

 

I remain,

 

Yours sincerely

 

Pendle_dad

Edited September 21, 2010 by Pendle_dad

[Pendle_dad]

Comments / tweaks appreciated ... best get to bed now !

[seanamarts]

I am such a nerd sometimes but the word 'un-contacable' as Rossies have written, is an 'urban' word and not a proper word (it is not in the Oxford dictionary) It should have been 'unable to contact with'. Poor grammar indeed. Just shows how unprofessional these people are and their lack of intelligence. They cut corners with their words as they do their business.

Neat letter by the way.

[ploddertom]

I've read and reread this to see what they are trying to do. I assume they have not given you a proper breakdown as yet detailing dates and times they were done. If as they say you were charged a levy etc on the 3/9 then there should also be a time stamp for when this was done.

 

I'm tempted to say because of all the aggro you've had over this you are now Charging them for your time to sort this out. Rossendales plainly now they are not allowed under any circumstances to charge for Waiting Time on collection of CT accounts. The Council should also be aware of this and if not I would insist on the relevant members of staff being sent for retraining.

 

As it is the Council's responsibility I would give them fair warning that you will name them as Co Defendant in any future action you may take. One thing I have not noticed but realise I may have overlooked - do the Council pay the Bailiff or is that your responsibility. In most cases the Council pay the Bailiffs first before any sums come off your CT debt.

 

PT

[Pendle_dad]

I've read and reread this to see what they are trying to do. I assume they have not given you a proper breakdown as yet detailing dates and times they were done. If as they say you were charged a levy etc on the 3/9 then there should also be a time stamp for when this was done.

 

PT - they are trying to get me to pay for the levy that was allegedly charged on the Friday (3rd Sept). The detailed breadkdown was finally received an hour after the bailiffs final visit on September 9th.

 

I'm tempted to say because of all the aggro you've had over this you are now Charging them for your time to sort this out. Rossendales plainly know they are not allowed under any circumstances to charge for Waiting Time on collection of CT accounts. The Council should also be aware of this and if not I would insist on the relevant members of staff being sent for retraining.

 

PT, I've looked into this waiting time thing and whilst I can't see any mention of it specifically in regulations, I believe it could be argued under the "reasonable costs" heading. As this is open to interpretation and I'm not overly optimistic that any court would side with me against the council, I'm not persuing this particular charge singularly. As far as I am concerned, the whole charge is wrong and that is the only resolution I am seeking. However, once this situation is resolved, whichever way that may be, I refer you to the title of the thread...

 

As it is the Council's responsibility I would give them fair warning that you will name them as Co Defendant in any future action you may take. One thing I have not noticed but realise I may have overlooked - do the Council pay the Bailiff or is that your responsibility. In most cases the Council pay the Bailiffs first before any sums come off your CT debt.

 

PT

 

As far as I am aware, when I make payments to the bailiff, they take their cut first. I'm not sure about payments made direct to the council.

[ploddertom]

PT, I've looked into this waiting time thing and whilst I can't see any mention of it specifically in regulations, I believe it could be argued under the "reasonable costs" heading. As this is open to interpretation and I'm not overly optimistic that any court would side with me against the council, I'm not persuing this particular charge singularly. As far as I am concerned, the whole charge is wrong and that is the only resolution I am seeking. However, once this situation is resolved, whichever way that may be, I refer you to the title of the thread...

 

They are only allowed to charge what the CT Regs allow and Waiting Time is not on there at all. They often charge Credit or Debit card fees, these also can be overturned as they are not listed.

 

 

As far as I am aware, when I make payments to the bailiff, they take their cut first. I'm not sure about payments made direct to the council.

 

You need to ask the Council.

 

 

PT

[Pendle_dad]

PT - what line are you thinking along for this, out of interest ?

[ploddertom]

PT - what line are you thinking along for this, out of interest ?

 

If the Council pay the Bailiffs then you will not have discharged your Liability as the fees are paid first. From what has been said it looks as if your Council does not do this.

 

If it is up to you to pay the fees after the Council are paid then the Bailiff is not allowed to take any further enforcement action to recover his fees. He would have to put you through the Small Claims route to do this - I actually doubt they will as they will then have to prove all the Fees they say are due are actually lawful.

 

Because of the time you have spent proving your case I think you have good grounds to charge them for your time. The way I see it is that you should have been charged a 1st Visit fee only and the rest have been fabricated. If your account showed you had paid money on the first visit why did it not show all the extra charges they are claiming. I appreciate at the end of the day it is your word against the bailiffs but you have extra compelling evidence to prove your case in the video(s) you have.

 

There should be trail that can be followed but I would imagine they will not want to reveal this as it will show what dates & times the charges were applied. They know full well Waiting Fees can not be charged and you should challenge them to prove where in the CT Regs it allows them to charge for it.

 

PT

[Pendle_dad]

OK... have changed the start of the letter and sent it off this morning.

 

Had a meeting with CAB who were gobsmacked. Also spoke to a solicitor.

 

Start of the letter now begins...

 

Dear Ms XX

 

Thank you for your reply to my complaint, which was received on Saturday 18 September.

 

Following legal advice taken this week, I must state my intention is to instruct my solicitor to commence legal proceedings in relation to this case unless it is resolved within 7 days.

 

I intend to name Pendle Borough Council as co-defendant. I intend to seek compensation for harrassment and costs incurred in trying to resolve this amicably.

 

I also intend to file a Form 4 court complaint against your bailiff unless a written apology is received within 7 days as I have sufficient evidence now to prove he is unfit for certification due to negligence in following guidelines and legislation, irregular accounting, overstating his powers, harrassment and attempting to obtain money by fraudulent means by way of overcharging.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Pendle_dad
spellink mistooks

[Pendle_dad]

Not overly optimistic to be honest, so looks like my comic collection will be going on ebay this week. Not giving up though. Hope some of you will come to court for a bit of moral !