Equita Threat of Baliffs and Prison - CTAX LO

[Leakie]

Thanks PT

the goods he levied on are

Dinning table with four chairs

Pine dresser ( we do not have a dresser)

Panaonic flat screen TV( second hand)

Cream fabric Settee (second hand)

2 Green leather chairs( Second hand )

Pine Mirror (10.00)

Pine Side board (second hand)

Quarts wall clock (£6.00 plastic)

 

That is whet is printed on the form 7 brackets my comments

The comment he made about the enforcement fee is what intrigued me, this is what is agreed with the council that they can charge. other council vary up and down of that amount.

Leakie

[Leakie]

I hate to admit it this bailiff was a nice chap,

But as you always say they lie and I fell for it. he was going to take the items on the form 7

Could he have added more on to the form 7 after it was printed?

Now I have had time to check it out there was no way he was going to take the goods even though he said he would.

Duh stupid me.

 

Leakie

[ploddertom]

Do your settee & leather chairs still have their fire safety labels attached? If the settee, leather chairs & dining room chairs were to be removed do you have any other seating - you need 1 seat per member of the household?

[ploddertom]

Equita are known for front loading all fees regardless & when challenged will then say they are "potential fees" which may be charged.

[sgtbush]

wpa fees outweight visit fees and if their are multiple cases visit fee cannot be added to the the case without the wpa on it. only fee that can be added on this visit is wpa fee.

however on next visit an attendence fee with intention to remove can be added and this will be a lot

[Leakie]

Hi Pt

the seats do not have the fire labels on them, and the only seating left would have been a 2 seater settee

and an office chair.

 

There are 5 in the family 2 adults 2 school age children and a 2 1/2 year old

 

Hi Sgtbush

 

so what you are saying is he has over charged Me with fraudulent fees?

The 2nd LO which is for £1600.00 there are no fees added, this the one I agreed to pay £50.00 per month,

 

Leakie

[ploddertom]

In my view therefore the settee & leather chairs should be removed from the levy for the reasons that no fire safety labels rendering them unfit for sale at public auction. The Bailiff himself should be censured for seizing excess seating that if he had removed them would have left the family without sufficient seating.

[ploddertom]

 

Dinning table with four chairs - is it made of solid wood otherwise of little value

Pine dresser ( we do not have a dresser) - how come it is listed?

Panaonic flat screen TV( second hand) - have they listed as a minimum, size & make of TV - how old is it

Cream fabric Settee (second hand) - previously dealt with

2 Green leather chairs( Second hand ) - previously dealt with

Pine Mirror (10.00) - of little value

Pine Side board (second hand) - is it made of solid wood otherwise of little value

Quarts wall clock (£6.00 plastic) - no value

 

 

I'm not trying to belittle you but my comments above would leave me to believe they would be lucky to acheive £100 in total for what is left. Seeing as the Bailiff was invited in he has not used due diligence to look for anything of value in the house and is probably hoping he has got away with it. For this reason I would argue he has only made a levy in order to gain a financial advantage for himself & his company.

[Leakie]

I did challenge him about the seating, and the fire labels but he did not care, he wanted the £908 or all the goods were going to be taken today,

 

I know it's my own fault for racking up the LO but the family have had a lot of upheaval this last 2 years,

due to financial, and my wife having a mental break down, the kids were taken into care, and we fort hard to get them back which happened after ten months, a lot of meetings an assessment which dragged out, The wife tried to commit suicide whilst the kids were in care, so work took to the back burner, the social services are still involved with the family.

but they are problems I am still working on.

 

Leakie

[ploddertom]

From what you have said there is achance your household may be classed as vulnerable. Do you think SS would elp with a letter outlining your problems? If so the letter should go to the Council with a copy to the Bailiffs.

 

Have you involved your local Councillor(s) over this?

[Leakie]

We have a meeting with the case support worker some time tomorrow,

She is very good and would possibly send a letter to the council,

 

but the main problem I have encountered is because I am self employed, and because of the irregular payments I am receiving the council recovery are not at all helpful because they can not set up an attachment of earnings (so no control)

I have explained in the past that I can not guarantee when the payments will be made. so this is why it gets to the LO and Bailiff stage. its a viscous circle catch up then we start again,

I have checked that they are not Capita staff, Recovery just care what problems you have they just want the money.

 

Thanks for your advice PT

 

Leakie

[tomtubby]

Leakie,

 

I am a bit confused so please bear with me. The bailiff has clearly overcharged you by adding an 'enforcement fee' but getting the company to agree to this is difficult to say the least. To save time in explaining please read my reply on another thread (post number xxx) below:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419353-JTR-Collections-and-Brighton-Council-Tax(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

From your post it 'appears' that you have paid the first Liability Order and the bailiff fees....is this correct?

 

With regards to the 2nd Liability Order did you sign a Walking Possession for this debt or was this debt included in the seizure notice?

 

Being very honest here getting the bailiff to accept payments of £50 per month against a Liability Order of £1,600 is exceptionally good and I would urge you to make sure that you do not default on such an arrangement. However, it is vitally important that you CHECK with the council to ascertain the exact amount of the Liability Order passed to Equita. Please post back once you have spoken with the council and let us know the figure.

[Leakie]

Hi Tomtubby

 

Thanks for your reply

 

As far as I am aware the £1600.00 is correct ( but I will check)

It is also the older of the 2 LO's

 

At first he wanted the full amount, including charges for both LO's

But when I started questioning him on the levy his ID etc he changed his tune, he was getting quite frustrated at 1 point

he then stated that he would accept payment for the smaller amount, once I told him I could not cover any of it,

unbeknown to me my mother had said she would help out whilst I was travelling back home.

whilst we were waiting for my mother I told him about my circumstances,

I am waiting for the child Tax and working tax credit forms, when complete I should be receiving just over £900.pcm

once I had taken out rent new Council tax amounts that left me with just over £100.00 left

so he agreed £50.00 pcm normally it had to be paid over 1 year.

He even gave the option of handing it back to head office.A payment book is meant to be sent to me and I will pay on line.

He is a self employed Bailiff from London but registered in Reading

 

I'm starting to get worried now that I fell for his tricks.

He even suggested I became a Bailiff saying I was quite knowledgeable on Bailiff law.

 

Hope this helps

 

Leakie

[tomtubby]

For a completely different reason I would be very interested to know whether the amount STATED by the bailiff as being the amount of the Liability Order is correct and I therefore look forward to your response asap.

 

For anyone watching this thread, in 3 weeks time when the new fee scale is released, there are some serious clauses that have the potential to lead to complaints at a level never better witnessed. One 'small example' is that under the new regs the requirement of a Local Authority to write to the debtor to advise that a Liability Order has been obtained and that to avoid bailiff enforcement payment (or payment proposals) must be made within 14 days.......DISAPPEARS !!!

 

Accordingly, after receiving a summons to indicate that a Liability Order will be applied for, the next letter to be received will be from the BAILIFF COMPANY (and with it a fee of £75 applied). Instead of being allowed to make payment in 14 days.....this will be REDUCED to 7 days.

 

The above change has very serious consequences indeed.

[Leakie]

Hi All

I have been onto the council to check the amounts owed

The Oldest LO £1611 was incorrect it is £1585.14

The Lo I have paid was the correct amount, But I have found out that I have been charged for 5 1/2 months CT,

The council were informed that I moved out at 3 months CT,

The must have known because I received a letter from the Bailiffs at the forwarding address but after I had moved out

 

I have tried to call Eqita to check the amount the bailiff quote to me was correct,

and to see if a payment plan had been put in place. but can not get through

 

PT reference post 10

I some how missed that one

 

I agree it would not fetch much,

The table is not solid wood

The Dresser I think was miss quoted as I have a solid pine cupboard

The pine side board is solid wood

and no size on the TV which is about 5 year old as we got that second hand

 

Thanks

 

Leakie

[The Starving Taxpayer]

TT & PT-May I just add the following:

 

 

1. PT is going in completely the correct direction in assessing the value of goods levied upon. If these goods were sold at auction, they would not fetch the cost of removal, storage & auction fees, let alone paying off anything towards the debt. (I note that no remote control is listed on the inventory, making the TV next to worthless at auction

 

 

2. PT is also correct regarding the families vulnerability

 

 

3. Equita appear to have adopted as standard procedure a "letter fee" which of course is not allowed for anywhere within Schedule 5.

 

 

4. From what has been mentioned so far, it seems that only 1 visit has occurred-This certainly means that fees under both Head A & Head B cannot be charged for a single visit.

 

 

5. The £167 is contentious as we have to assume it is under Head C & from the same visit as the levy was made. Unfortunately, with CT regs, it is unclear what time should elapse between levy & ATR. Whilst the council have agreed that Equita may charge £167 under Head C (the LGO may beg to differ BTW) I would ask the council whether it encourages its bailiffs to attend with a view to remove before a levy is in place-Surely the council would encourage a timescale between visits in order to afford the debtor the opportunity to pay? I would go further & suggest that if Parliament intended Head B & Head C to be charged at the same time, there would be no need for separate headers within legislation.

 

 

My feeling is that the debtor is clearly from a vulnerable household-This is a genuine case & a formal complaint should be raised immediately. This would hopefully suspend action whilst it is investigated.

 

 

As TT stated, the agreed repayments must be honoured at present.

[Leakie]

Thanks for all the advise and comments

 

Where do I go from here

Is it worth perusing the Council,

1- for the overcharge for the amount of CT (51/2 months instead of 3)

2-The levy possibly invalid

3- The letter and 1st visit fee of £42.50

4- The enforcement fee

 

The bailiff as above

and check that the bailiff has put the agreement in place for £50.00 pcm

 

 

Leakie

[Leakie]

Just received 2 paying in books from Eqita,

So I guess that is the answer to one of my questions in the previous post

 

Leakie

[The Starving Taxpayer]

Thanks for all the advise and comments

 

Where do I go from here

Is it worth perusing the Council,

1- for the overcharge for the amount of CT (51/2 months instead of 3)

2-The levy possibly invalid

3- The letter and 1st visit fee of £42.50

4- The enforcement fee

 

The bailiff as above

and check that the bailiff has put the agreement in place for £50.00 pcm

 

 

Leakie

 

 

Go for it. Formal Complaint into the Council. They may well suspend enforcement action but I'd still continue to pay the agreed instalment. Advise of the families vulnerability & the circumstances behind it. Ask the council if they encourage their enforcement agents to remove goods without giving the debtor the opportunity to settle first & if not, why are they allowing Equita to charge under Head B & Head C for the same visit.

 

 

In addition ask for a breakdown of fees, including the date that the fee was incurred & the header under Schedule 5 that it was applied. Remind Equita that they should provide this information, as stated in the National Standards for Enforcement Agents (Equita don't like providing these breakdowns)

[Leakie]

Hi all

 

Back again

 

Had a visit from Equita this morning

 

For once a very polite conversation

Talked to him out side so he did not try to access the property

 

My wife walked out on me at the End of April last year, left me with the children,

so it has been a struggle to get too work and get an income

everything got on top of me and I forgot to inform the council,

stupid I know,

 

Any way he left telling me that a removal team will be here tomorrow morning,

Am I correct in saying they are not allowed to enter as the bailiff has not been in the property? unless I give them access.

 

This is the kick up the backside I need to try and get things sorted,

I have tried in the past to speak to the council but they are not interested.

I did set up a payment plan with Equita made the payments as asked but they claim I did not pay on the correct date, because it did not show on there account until the following week, it was an instant payment made on online banking so would have shown within 2 hours.

I was played by them

I am at the moment trying to sort work out but do not have transport, so it makes things difficult.

 

The last 6 years have been a complete night mare as soon as I try to get on top I get kicked back down again.

 

Thanks for reading and for any advise offered.

 

Leakie

[brassnecked]

Has he ever been in your home and listed goods, on a Controlled Goods Agreement, or a Notice of Seizure pre April 6 2014? if not then his removal van is premature imho

[Leakie]

They had for a previous LO, but not this years CT which he acting on. the previous one was settled .

I still have one more to deal with as well as this one

 

I talked to him out side, with the front door shut so he could not push his way in.

 

I did give him my ex wife's address so she will not be happy with me.

[brassnecked]

They had for a previous LO, but not this years CT which he acting on. the previous one was settled .

I still have one more to deal with as well as this one

 

I talked to him out side, with the front door shut so he could not push his way in.

 

I did give him my ex wife's address so she will not be happy with me.

 

He can't use a previous levy or CGA then for this one, he may well claim he can and bring the van anyway, but as he hasn't been i and got a CGA it would be pointless bringing the van.

[ploddertom]

Did you not get a Notice of Enforcement letter before the visit?

[Leakie]

Yes I have had several, but buried my head in the sand trying to cope with work and the children,

They have all been playing up in there own way as they miss there mother, who will visit when she feels like it

and often cancels at the last minute.

I am trying to fit my work around all this but have had to let people down and lost the client because of what has been happening,

I should have contacted Equita sooner but after the last experience kept putting it off.