Swift Bailiffs - multiple fees and van fees

[1970]

Hi,

 

Long story which has been going on for years and I have posted here before. However, my situation is coming to a head now and would like clarification on the following:

 

Multiple fees.

I had 3 liability orders. Bailiff attended in regard to all 3 on one visit. I was charged a fee for each even though it was one visit. Is this lawful?

 

Attendance with a vehicle fee.

On one account (seperate visit to the above) a bailiff attended and I signed a walking posession order after paying £400 on the spot and agreeing to pay the rest 4 weeks later. On the walking posession order he left, he charged a "attendance with a vehicle fee with the view to the removal of goods" of £200 along with a levy fee, a walking posession fee and a no sale fee. Can this fee be charged? I dont think he had any intention of removing goods, just wanted money or an arrangement.

 

1970

[outlawla]

Hi 1970!

 

See what you make of this:

 

Levying distress

 

.... Where more than one Liability order is held for a debtor, the bailiff, where practicable, will attend the property for all Liability orders at the same time, with only one set of first and second call visit costs being made. 'First call' and 'second call' visits must be made on different days.

 

Where a levy takes place and there are liability orders for more than one year’s debt, the bailiff is required by law to levy on each individual liability order and charge a fee for each levy.

This was taken from Page 27 of a Manchester City Council document. It appears to be a Code of Practice or represent a service level agreement between the council and its enforcement agent(s). Hope it helps.

Edited January 20, 2012 by outlawla

[seanamarts]

Am I reading that right??

 

I think MCC have it slightly wrong with regards to LO's

 

 

 

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

Distress

 

45.—(1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.

 

(2) The appropriate amount for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the aggregate of—

 

(a)an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

 

(b)a sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connected with the distress.

 

aggregate*

1. To gather into a mass, sum, or whole.

2. To amount to; total.

[outlawla]

seanamarts,

 

I was as surprised as you are when I read, what I considered the bad news about the levy fee situation on multiple year's debt.

 

Hopefully MCC have made a mistake. They state it's required by law. It would be interesting to know which law they are referring to.

[seanamarts]

If all councils have this sort of information then its no wonder they agree with the bailiffs, then again whats the betting the bailiffs gave them this information in the first place.

It would save them from looking it up themselves I suppose, but seriously I would also like to know what law they are referring too.

[outlawla]

Page 51 of Northumberland county council's Corporate Debt Recovery Policy says the same thing.

[seanamarts]

not out sourced to capita are they?? be interested to know.

[dx100uk]

surely council dont make the bailiff rules?

 

is it not in the stickies regarding what can/cannot be charged?

 

dx

[brassnecked]

But does not Leeds v Throssel clarify this and it is not allowed to charge multiple fees if all the orders are enforced simultaneously?

Quoted for clarity

 

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”

 

I will check out Conwy CC's COP when I can find it on the corporate quagmire that is their website

Edited January 21, 2012 by brassnecked

[outlawla]

Can't find anything in the Council Tax Regulations about charging for multiple levies, however, that doesn't mean to say it's not there in the original or one of the amendments.

 

It clearly states though in these COP's that multiple visit fees can't be charged in respect to more than one liability order, nor can more than one visit fee be charged on the same day.

 

I wonder if the fee structure makes the levy fee different to the visits?

 

The percentage the bailiff can charge for levying is on a sliding scale, i.e. it becomes less as the debt outstanding is greater. This would mean on a second levy, the bailiff would lose out on the 24.5% maximum he could charge for the first £100, and more likely be able to harvest 4% if the liability order amounts were combined.

 

Just my theory (hope it's wrong), would be interesting to find the legislation to clear this up.

Edited January 21, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

Can't find anything in the Council Tax Regulations about charging for multiple levies, however, that doesn't mean to say it's not there in the original or one of the amendments.

 

It clearly states though in these COP's that multiple visit fees can't be charged in respect to more than one liability order, nor can more than one visit fee be charged on the same day.

 

I wonder if the fee structure makes the levy fee different to the visits?

 

The percentage the bailiff can charge for levying is on a sliding scale, i.e. it becomes less as the debt outstanding is greater. This would mean on a second levy, the bailiff would lose out on the 24.5% maximum he could charge for the first £100, and more likely be able to harvest 4% if the liability order amounts were combined.

 

Just my theory (hope it's wrong), would be interesting to find the legislation to clear this up.

 

Looks like the answer may lie in Case Law, as precedent can turn what is in regulations on it's head

[tomtubby]

The local authorities should be VERY CAREFUL in their advice and should in fact, take into consideration the following Local Settlement report from the Local Government Ombudsman in the case of Rossendale Borough Council and Equita LTD !!!!

 

.

Local Government Ombudsman’s Report:

 

 

Local Authority: Rossendale Borough Council

 

 

Bailiff Company: Equita Ltd

 

 

Date: 15th December 2010

 

 

 

Approximately 25% of complaints to the Local Government Ombudsmanare resolved though a “local settlement”. This is where an “agreement” is reached between the LGO and the relevant Local Authority and nearly always, is on the basis that the local authority agrees to the recommendation of the Ombudsmanby agreeing to change the practice that had been the subject of the complaint to the LGO.

 

Although Local Settlements made by the LGO are not legally binding, it is important to be aware that according to the LGO, 99% of all “local settlements” are complied with in full.

 

 

For the above reason, “Local settlements” do not result in a public report or a formal finding of maladministration. Accordingly, a copy will not be made available on the LGO website.

 

On 15th December 2010 the LGO provided their final written report regarding a complaint made to them concerning Rossendale Borough Council and their agent; Equita Ltd. This particular complaint resulted in a “local settlement” and as mentioned above, a public report is not published.

 

 

I have a copy of the full report and permission from the complainant (Mr H) to provide the following details. Please note that the underlining is not from the LGO report.

 

 

The Complaint by Mr H concerns the following:

 

 

· Charging “multiple” fees to Mr H’s account for enforcing two Liability Orders

· Charging for visits that Mr H disputes ever took place

· Levying upon a vehicle that did not belong to Mr H and failing to provide a Notice of Seizure.

 

Paragraph 21 of the Ombudsman’s report states:

 

 

· “I am also concerned that there are fees charged to both of Mr H’s accounts in relation to one visit on 2nd July 2009. Although there were two Liability Orders in place, I do not consider it reasonable to charge twice for one physical visit”

 

Paragraph 23 states:

 

 

Thirdly, I am concerned that the bailiffs levied on a vehicle parked in the street which did not belong to Mr H. The bailiffs are required to leave an inventory of the goods seized with the customer at the time of the levy and the Council confirmed that the bailiffs will check the ownership of a vehicle with the DVLA before seizing it.

 

 

Legally, bailiffs can distrain on goods in a public place (in this case a vehicle parked in the street) if they have reasonable cause to believe that the goods belong to the debtor and are not needed for the debtor's work.

 

 

I do not consider the fact that a vehicle is parked in the street outside someone's home to be sufficient evidence of the bailiff to have reasonable cause to believe the vehicle is owed by the occupier of the house. It is recognised that there is some onus on the customer to advise the bailiffs if the vehicle listed on the inventory does not belong to them. However there is also some onus on the bailiffs to take reasonable steps to check the vehicle's ownership.

 

 

Paragraph 24:

 

 

I have consulted the Ombudsman and it is her view that although contacting the DVLA would be the most effective way to check ownership of the vehicle, she would accept other documented or supporting evidence such as the bailiff having witnessed the customer using the vehicle regularly

 

 

 

Paragraph 25:

 

 

There is no evidence to show that letters were left with Mr H on 4th and 12th June 2008 and so I consider that Mr H should not have been charged for these visits.

 

 

Paragraph 26:

 

To remedy this injustice it is recommended that the bailiff’s charges of these dates are removed from Mr H's account.

 

 

Paragraph 27:

 

 

I have additional concerns about the way this case was handled by the bailiffs. There is no evidence that an inventory was left with Mr H when the levy was made on a vehicle. In addition, the vehicle levied against was not his and the notes recorded by the bailiff are insufficient to show when visits were actually made what information was left with the customer.

 

 

Paragraph 29:

 

 

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2 July 2008.

 

 

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.

 

 

Paragraph 30:

 

 

The vehicle levied on does not belong to Mr H and he was not required to pay the costs associated with the levy visit.

 

 

Paragraph 34:

 

 

I remain of the view that bailiffs should make reasonable enquiries to establish the ownership of a vehicle before levying against it.

 

 

The person receiving the levy must accept some responsibility for advising the council or bailiff if the vehicle levied upon does not belong to them.

 

 

Paragraph 42:

 

 

The council has stated that a levy form was supplied. The Council has never produced a copy of the levy inventory.

 

 

The Council's complaint response to Mr H advised that the bailiff has not retained a copy of the levy form. Surely this document is essential if the bailiff were ever to proceed to seizing a vehicle? Mr H was not aware of what had been levied against until he received the Council's response to his complaint which commented on a levy having taken place, in relation to the silver Audi. At this point he was able to advise the Council we did not own such a car. I therefore remain of the view that there is no evidence of the levy inventory was left at the property.

 

Paragraph 53:

 

 

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2nd July 2008.

 

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.

 

 

Paragraph 54:

 

The council has accepted the recommendations and has agreed to apologise to Mr H for any procedural errors the bailiffs have made. I consider this a satisfactory way to resolve this complaint and so I have discontinued the investigation and closed the complaint.

 

XXXX

 

Investigator, on behalf of the Ombudsman

[ploddertom]

Hi TT

 

Thank you for showing that LGO report again. However some are arguing the point it only applies to that LA & Equita. We all know different but differents LA's & Bailiffs are trying to flannel the less knowledgeable.

 

PT

[outlawla]

Just looked at tomtubby's post and consequently read the original post (more carefully).

 

It's the VISIT fees for multiple liability orders that are in question, not multiple LEVY fees as I first thought.

 

Considering this, could the information from Manchester City Council and Northumberland county council's documents be correct, with respect the levy fee being charged for each Liability Order?

 

Levying distress

 

.... Where more than one Liability order is held for a debtor, the bailiff, where practicable, will attend the property for all Liability orders at the same time, with only one set of first and second call visit costs being made. 'First call' and 'second call' visits must be made on different days.

 

Where a levy takes place and there are liability orders for more than one year’s debt, the bailiff is required by law to levy on each individual liability order and charge a fee for each levy.

 

[brassnecked]

thanks TT and PT, yes it would appear that other LA's and bailiffs are saying that that is local, and they can ignore it and do what they want. Well another will get bitten on the bum for just this error very soon imho

[1970]

Many thanks everyone for your input. I now have some good references in regard to multiple visit fee's which I shall include in my documentation to the LGO.

 

The final issue is the vehicle fee.

 

In my view there should be due process and each stage of the process attracts a fee of some description.

 

Upon a single visit, the bailiff charged me a visit fee, levy fee and a fee for attending with a vehicle with the view to removng goods. There was also a no sale fee.

 

How did he know there were goods to remove? What right did he have to remove goods if I had not already signed a WP?

 

Are there any references or case references in regard to vehicle fees?

 

The fee charged was £200.00. Multiply this by an approximate 5 visits a day over monthly period then each bailiff could afford to purchase a new van every month.

 

This does not represent reasonable costs.

 

I've challenged swift on this matter and they claim reasonable costs also includes company overheads.

 

On the first visit surely there should be a visit fee and a levy. If the walking posession agreement is not honoured then the bailiff has the right to return with a vehicle at my cost to collect the goods listed on the WP.

 

Correct?

 

Thanks.

 

1970

[ploddertom]

The purpose of the Visit from the Bailiff is to levy on your goods either within the home or externally - usually a car. If you are not in or he cannot gain entry for whatever reason and there are no goods outside which he may levy on then he is permitted to issue a 1st Visit Fee of £24-50. If on a subsequent visit the same happens he is then entitled to charge a 2nd Visit Fee of £18-00. No matter how many more visits he makes, if the same happens he can charge you no more.

 

If on the other hand he does make a levy, then he is entitled to charge a Levy Fee which is calculated according to how much the debt is, if you are present and agree to sign a Walking Possession he may charge an extra £12. If he has made a levy then he must give you time to raise the monies to pay the debt. He cannot charge for a Van Fee at the same time.

 

You say he charged a "no sale fee" - I assume this is a Header H Fee of £24-50. For this to happen he must have organised a sale of your goods & removed the same to where they will be sold. You in turn then pay in full including all charges and the goods are then released back to you. If this has not happened then he cannot charge it.

 

PT

[1970]

thanks PT. Very clear.

 

To clarify, following a SAR I noticed a £24.50 fee appear on the account some months after the account was paid in full. I questioned this and was told it was a fee where no sale takes place - in other words, Header H fee as you describe above. I shall have them for that too.

 

Many thanks.

[outlawla]

thanks PT. Very clear.

 

To clarify, following a SAR I noticed a £24.50 fee appear on the account some months after the account was paid in full. I questioned this and was told it was a fee where no sale takes place - in other words, Header H fee as you describe above. I shall have them for that too.

 

Many thanks.

 

Regarding your unlawful "Header H fee", I am attempting to collect a number of cases where such fraudulent attempts have been made by bailiffs collecting for councils. If you feel like contributing evidence please donate here.

[ploddertom]

You have to remember what the process is to make a proper levy. First of all the Bailiff must seize whichever goods he thinks he can which will satisfy the debt, he must then impound the said goods - take them under his control. He must also give or leave you a Notice of Seizure detailing the said goods along with a list of his charges.

 

PT

[lamma]

the view of the Bailiffs:- http://www.civea.co.uk/news-5.htm pretty weak stuff from tem. a paid for opinion, no evidence or facts. Surprised not.

[ploddertom]

This is where you need to read the appropriate Fee Scale under Schedule 5:

Where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender in the Circumstances referred to in Regulation 45(4);

And Reg 45(4) states:

(4) Where an authority has seized goods of the debtor in pursuance of the distress, but before sale of those goods the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount, the sale shall not be proceeded with and the goods shall be made available for collection by the debtor.

 

This clearly says "the goods shall be made available for collection" which means they have had to have been removed in the first place. It is also clear that a sale must also have been arranged.

 

PT

[1970]

Hi PT,

 

The document I have is two sided, on the front it says notice of seizure of goods and inventory which lists his fees and the goods he itemised when gaining entry. On the back it says walking posession agreement and has terms and conditions along with the regulations for fees.

 

So, on the front the charges are:

 

Debt £1323.76

 

Levy to scale fee £62

Attending with a vehicle with the view to removing £200*

Walking posession fee £12

Removal fee where no sale takes place £24.50*

 

Payment made by credit card on the spot £400 (they only credited £380 to the account as there was a £20* charge)

 

Balance due £1222.26 with an agreement to pay in 30 days (which I did).

 

The items with a * are the ones I deem unlawful and intend to claim back.

 

This was the first and only visit.

 

I sent a SAR and there are no other charges on this account - ie first visit fee which in my view should have been the only fee for this visit as I paid £400 there and then and followed up with a full and final payment 30 days later.

 

1970

[1970]

Regarding your unlawful "Header H fee", I am attempting to collect a number of cases where such fraudulent attempts have been made by bailiffs collecting for councils. If you feel like contributing evidence please donate here.

 

Interesting. I've just been reading some FOI requests on this very matter.

[ploddertom]

May be me but I don't see if you have listed the goods seized exactly as described on the Notice of Seizure?

 

PT