Phoenix bailiff complaint.RE:CTAX enforcement .next move advice???

[ajd01]

saw him sitting in van,making notes,looking for next addy,sending a txt.could have been writing his autobiography for all i know.

but in this case no i went and got in shower before leaving for work

[ploddertom]

You have to put them to strict proof of the alleged levy, as far as you are concerned this did not take place as the Bailiff never left you a Form 7 - Notice of Seizure.

 

"After seizure the bailiff must hand to the debtor, or leave at the premises, a copy of the relevant sections of the appropriate enforcement regulations, a copy of the schedule to those regulations showing permissible costs, a copy of any possession agreement that the debtor has signed and a memorandum setting out the sums due (reg 45(5) Ct; reg 14(5) NNDR. Alternative documentation will not be acceptable"

 

PT

[ajd01]

oh.

i have just noticed something else.

on the letter he posted through which is dated the 4/11/10,(2nd visit) the total he has written on is that which includes the levy fee and van fee,yet them 2 fees were supposedly made on 5/11/10.

this means he is already charging fees in advance of his actions......now this does seem strange

[seanamarts]

well you have him there as he cannot charge a visit fee and a levy fee on the same day. For him to change it certainly means he is trying to pull a fast one, he will of course say that it was an error of some sort and what his charged still stands.

You owe two visit fee's and that is it.

[ploddertom]

Magic

[ajd01]

cheers again PT,

i am going to send a payment fir the 1st two visits and also a letter contending the other fees.i will also explain the no notice of seizure letter and the dates the bailiff put down fir his charges.would it be worth filing a complaint about the actions?.He could doing this all the time and a ripping alot of people,and thats what really gets under my skin about this.

[ploddertom]

Unfortunately if you want to complain about a Bailiff you have to exhaust the Company's complaints procedure and allow them to put things right. Stinks I know but that's how it is I'm afraid.

 

PT

[Tingy]

Really brought a smile to my face reading this thread through. Talk about them cocking up!

[ploddertom]

I wonder if they will develop a stutter whilst trying to resolve this!

 

PT

[ajd01]

ill keep ya updated on the out come of this.he may actually ring me tommorow.i may answer,tell him im recording the conversation and ask him to explain it all..

[ajd01]

the saga continues.....

He phoned today,still insists he can charge levy and van fee on same day,also said he added all ammounts ie : levy and van fee to the letter he posted rhrough on 2nd visit for when he returned.said if i had phoned and made payment rhat night they would have....wait for it....been honest and took of levy and van fee off.

know that made me laugh

[ploddertom]

Did he sign everything Enid Blyton. This is one who knows he has been caught and is clutching at straws now.

 

PT

[seanamarts]

An honest bailiff!!!!! they dont exist. you have more chance of bumping into the abominable snowman then bumping into an 'honest' bailiff.

[ajd01]

just wondered if this is right and i could apply it to the fact he added charges before he took the action for those charges.found this on an old post on here :-

 

Well this is what the act says:

 

Crime: Fraud

 

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.

[fork-it]

Its not an Act of Parliament, its a decision in the House of Lords, and yes you can cite it.

 

Dont expect the police to get excited about having to interview a bailiff who has been caught cheating with his fees.

[tomtubby]

just wondered if this is right and i could apply it to the fact he added charges before he took the action for those charges.found this on an old post on here :-

 

Well this is what the act says:

 

Crime: Fraud

 

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.

 

Before doing anything you really MUST write e formal Letter of Complaint to the council. This is because, with council tax, the fee and any levy are the responsiblity of the council. The bailiff is merely their agent.

 

In addition, a removal can only take place AFTER a valid levy upon goods, and crucially, although almost ALL bailiffs are now charging a van fee at the same time (as a levy..which is of course wrong), for a removal charge....the INTENTION TO REMOVE MUST BE REAL !!!

[ajd01]

hi there,

some will have read my previous post so will understand a little more.

basically a bailiff called for council tax debt didnt pay them,made full ammount direct to council and they have confirmed all upto date.

now bailiff wanted his fees which i disagree with.rhus is a basic breakdown

 

25/10/2010 ..24.50 first visit

4/11/2010 ...18.00 second visit

5/11/2010 ...levy fee 47.50 + van fee 120.0

 

problem is he added levy fee and van fee on his letter dated the 4th (second visit)

he said he was under the assumption i would not pay and added them.

now i dont agree with levy + van on same day but he says he can do this???

is that correct

also i read the article on fraud act 2006 and from my understanding he has committed fraud by adding fees on the 4th in the hope i pay full ammount no questions asked

am i correvt in thinking this and is this a police matter or simple complain to the courts.

 

cheers

[seanamarts]

He cant add levy fee and visit fee at the same time. I would complain to he council and to the bailiff company first before complaining to the courts.

[brassnecked]

If the full balance of council tax has been paid, directly to the council, and the account balance is up to date, with no arrears, surely the bailiff can be told to foxtrot oscar and as he hasn't actually taken any payment on behalf of the council, his fees are nullified?

[Tingy]

At this stage, this is definitely for the council and bailiffs. I think you have to exhaust their complaints procedures before going to court. I'm going through a virtually identical issue except I paid up about three years ago - now trying to reclaim the over charges. Might be worth doing an SAR and if there's any doubt as to whether the bailiff really visited your property ask for a screenshot.

 

A litte advanced warning - if you SAR the council they try to make it as confusing as possible so you can't work out what happened when! I got about 70 odd pages!

[MARTIN3030]

Sars should specify amongst other things,actual computer screenshots,which are much easier to comprehend.

As posted previously,compliance should include side notes to anything which needs to be explained.

A request compliance should be in intelligible form throughout.

[ajd01]

i already have a breakdown of costs.

they listed levy fee amd van fee on the 5th,so same day.

the other thing is he levied on a car,haow can he have intention to remove,you cant get a car in the back of small van??..

my main issue is the levy fee and van fee being added on the total for the letter he posted through on the 4th,second visit??..if i had phoned and made payment from that letter for total ammount i would have paid fees for something that was not done?

to me that is fraud.

i am ringing the council tomorrow,i want my fees baxk for levy and van,1st and 2nd visit seems fair

[MARTIN3030]

You should be putting something in writing too-and demand the same from them.

Dealing by phone,unless you have recording gear is not a good idea.

[lordsugar]

Be aware that some of the crafty bailiff firms will do a visit in the morning when they levy and return later the same day when they will add the van fee, there is still a whole big debate as to whether you can add the van fee at the same time of having been levied. Standard bailiff practice is that you can and so far the courts have not ruled against it.

[MARTIN3030]

We have not yet seen any input from our more experienced posters in this thread Hopefully they will add something. (No disrespect seanamarts) I am talking of Tomtubby and Co.Who have daily dealing with these things.