swift bailiff and CTAX debt has levied on my car

[reallyinthecrap]

and as if by magic, i have just received an email from the LA about taking the complaint to stage 3....

 

they have specifically asked:

 

"However in the meantime it would be helpful if you could send me an e-mail to identify which elements of your complaint have not been properly dealt with and the outcome you would wish to see in pursuing your complaint."

 

The main crux of my complaint is firstly that the deny completely that I made an offer of payment on 2 occasions but the main complaint is regarding the "Attending with a vehicle with a view to removing" charge of £170.

 

My understanding is that this fee cannot be charged the same day the levy is issued, is this the best way to describe my complaint?

 

Can anyone help me compose a response please?

 

Many thanks

[Conniff]

hi guys, sorry, it's me again, im still worried...

 

I have been reading back through a previous posting on CAG which is slightly similar to my situation.

 

In the posting there is a comment from a Cagger saying:

 

"Also, a bailiff cannot levy upon the SAME goods twice."

 

Im not sure if i am reading the above correctly but if I have had a levy on my car once before and paid that off in full can they then levy against the car again?

 

just looking for some extra ammunition to use at Stage 3 of my complaint as I have heard nothing back from the LA since i emailed saying i want to progress to stage 3

 

Thanks

 

What a nice thought. Get a debt and let it go to bailiff stage and have a levy on all you possessions and then pay off the debt and wont have to worry about bailiffs ever again.

 

What it actually means is that it can't be levied twice ie bailiff one has a levy, bailiff two can't come and levy it as well.

[brassnecked]

They should not levy on the same goods twice, but there are many instances when they have, and the council swear blind that their agent, who is holier than thou the bailiff, can do just that very thing.

[reallyinthecrap]

after a long hard think. ive decided im out.

 

i just cannot seem to find full proof evidence to support what i believed is correct.

 

the bailiffs have lied.

 

the LA are denying my complaint has any validity.

 

my AM doesnt seem to be interested.

 

time to pay and move on.

 

good luck to anyone else in my position.

[reallyinthecrap]

this is the bottom line...

 

Iconfirm that the amount of fees that a bailiff can charge are contained withinSchedule 5 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations1992. The regulations state the following:-

‘Forone attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods(where, following the levy, goods are not removed), reasonable costs and feesare incurred.

[seanamarts]

Please dont give this up, it is what they are expecting you to do.

 

Have a read through these.

 

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

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/schedule/5/made

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/article/10/made

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/article/11/made

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/article/12/made

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/schedule/1/made

 

Have a read through these something may pop out at you ok. Please dont give up.

[reallyinthecrap]

Ive spent all day today looking deeper into this in the hope I can find details on what I need to fight my corner.

 

I just cannot find anything.

• It appears that the Walking Possession Agreement is valid even though it is not signed.
  
• The £170 they charged for "Attending with a vehicle with a view to remove goods is valid as well.
  

If anyone can possibly find any information to prove the above incorrect I would love to hear from you.

 

Otherwise, I cannot possibly how to continue to fight this.

 

Thanks

[outlawla]

I've just had a quick scan through your thread and noticed this charge:

 

"Removal fee / Where no sales takes place: £22.50"

 

Did they ever remove anything? If not, is it still listed as being owed?

[reallyinthecrap]

their answer to this fee was:

 

"A “Where no sale takes place” fee of £22.50 has been charged. The fee is payable under heading “H” of the legislation where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender and is payable once the account has been paid in full."

[outlawla]

their answer to this fee was:

 

"A “Where no sale takes place” fee of £22.50 has been charged. The fee is payable under heading “H” of the legislation where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender and is payable once the account has been paid in full."

 

I should think they are deliberately trying to mislead you.

 

This fee compensates the bailiff firm for out of pocket expenses incurred for advertising levied goods which have to be returned to the debtor because of settlement of the outstanding debt.

 

Releasing the goods back to the debtor's control is a consequence of the debt being settled before a sale has taken place, which in any case has not occurred (?).

 

This may not agree with your council/bailiff's interpretation of schedule 5 of the regulations but then it's in their interest to have interpreted it to suit themselves.

 

 

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

For fees incurred in respect of advertising

Either:

 

(i) £24.50

(22.50)

, or

 

(ii) the actual costs incurred, to a maximum of 5% of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made.

 

whichever is the greater.

They are charging the minimum fee of £22.50 for advertising the levied goods which means they would have to had incurred £22.50 or less.

 

You could of course ask for the receipt proving the amount they incurred for this advertising.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Have a look at this:

 

Freedom of Information Reply – Head H fee.doc

Edited May 4, 2012 by outlawla

[reallyinthecrap]

my main concern is the £170 for attending with a vehicle with a view to remove goods.

 

some people have commented that you cannot levy and charge that fee on the same day/visit but there appears to be no evidence i can find to support this.

[outlawla]

I appreciate you would be more concerned about the much higher fee of £170, but I'm trying to focus on what you have as ammunition to put your council/bailiff firm at a disadvantage.

 

If you can prove to the authority that the bailiff is trying to defraud you with the head H fee, I'd guess the council would more likely want to drop the whole case and fees.

 

By the way, £170 for attending with a vehicle when not necessary doesn't sound a very reasonable charge.

[outlawla]

I noticed 3 charges were made on the same day. Second visit, levy and the attending with a vehicle fee.

 

Were any of these resolved? From what I believe, a levy and visit fee can not be charged at the same time. If they levy, they can't also charge you a visit fee.

 

I also take it the bailiff must have been speculating that he would need a vehicle to remove goods if he had not already made a valid levy. To speculate at your expense (£170) is neither responsible nor reasonable, and certainly reckless of your council if they continue to support their contractor to impose this charge.

[reallyinthecrap]

I noticed 3 charges were made on the same day. Second visit, levy and the attending with a vehicle fee.

 

No, this was their 3rd visit. I was out when they visited the 2nd time.

 

Were any of these resolved? From what I believe, a levy and visit fee can not be charged at the same time. If they levy, they can't also charge you a visit fee.

 

Nothing has yet been resolved.

 

The fees relating to their 3rd visit were:

• £36.00 "Levy fee to scale schedule"
  
• £170.00 "Attending with a vehicle with a view to removing"
  
• £22.50 "Removal Fee / Where no sale takes place"
  

a number of people in this thread have said that a levy and a the £170 fee should not happen at the same time..

 

but i'm yet to be able to find any real evidence to back that up.

 

I also take it the bailiff must have been speculating that he would need a vehicle to remove goods if he had not already made a valid levy. To speculate at your expense (£170) is neither responsible nor reasonable, and certainly reckless of your council if they continue to support their contractor to impose this charge.

 

i very much appreciate you help.

 

if im right i will fight. if im wrong, i will somehow get the money to pay.

 

im not looking for false hope. if what has been done is correct then i need to face the facts.

 

sorry

[outlawla]

I found this on the net some time ago. It was CAB advice but there's no reference to it that I can find today.

 

"

.....A van to remove goods may be charged for, but only for one visit and only if a levy has been made.

"

 

Schedule 5 states "Reasonable costs and fees incurred". Could it be argued that they are not reasonable?

[brassnecked]

I found this on the net some time ago. It was CAB advice but there's no reference to it that I can find today.

 

"

.....A van to remove goods may be charged for, but only for one visit and only if a levy has been made.

"

 

Schedule 5 states "Reasonable costs and fees incurred". Could it be argued that they are not reasonable?

 

No levy means there are no goods to carry off in a van, so it is pointless to attend with a van to remove no goods then attempt to charge for it, the regulations don't permit it, but they still try it on anyway.

[seanamarts]

The purpose of a levy is in case that you do not pay the amount owed in a reasonable time or you refuse to pay etc. So basically it gives you a time for you to pay the amount and they hold your goods to ransom in case you dont. After this time has passed and they then come out in the view to take your goods then they can make that charge. What is the point of a levy if only to make more money for themselves.

 

The Head H fee is as others have pointed out and quite clearly states in sch 5 what this fee is for and that is basically a fee for their trouble for advertisements etc to sell your good just in case they have made arrangements to have your goods sold.

 

How can they charge this fee if they have only just made a levy, bailiffs are not fitted with a crystal ball.

 

Have you looked at the links I posted #85.

 

Ask you council, where it states in theThe Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 that they are allowed to charge these fees in the time that they have stated.

[outlawla]

Some thoughts on the "Reasonable costs and fees incurred" for attending with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed).

 

All fees and charges detailed in Schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations are the council's fees in law, both those that are prescribed and those that are simply stated as being "reasonable" in the legislation.

 

Part of the authority's contractual arrangements with the bailiff company will detail the fact that the council will allow the bailiff firm to retain the enforcement fees themselves. In fact external bailiff fees do not exist in the collection of council tax debt, they are always the council's enforcement fees.

 

Bearing in mind the above and assuming it was the council enforcing payment. The associated costs 'reasonably incurred' in connection with attending with a vehicle would be limited to those additional to what the council would incur in any event. In other words, internal bailiffs would be salaried so could not attribute costs to man hours while attending with a vehicle.

 

Because councils outsource enforcement to private companies, these firms have overheads such as in the case of Rossendales, a millionaire chairwoman's lifestyle. However, creating millionaires [on the back of struggling householders] is not what the fees and charges connected with distress was intended. The council can not expect householders to meet the additional costs of sustaining private companies purely because it is convenient for councils to have this arrangement.

 

Another point:

 

If these costs are to reflect those reasonably incurred, why do they vary so much from one bailiff firm to another?

 

For the bailiff firm to justify that £170 was the reasonable cost incurred, the vehicle would have needed to have been purposely hired, solely for attending your home without other visits to any other debtors. I doubt this was the case, why not call them on it?

Edited May 5, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

As they would hire a pantechnicon, for multiple collections, it would have to be pro rata of the hire cost split amongst the debtors, and it would not be reasonable to hire a 16 ton furniture van for £170 when a self drive Transit Luton is around £50 per day.

[seanamarts]

Some thoughts on the "Reasonable costs and fees incurred" for attending with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed).

 

All fees and charges detailed in Schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations are the council's fees in law, both those that are prescribed and those that are simply stated as being "reasonable" in the legislation.

 

Part of the authority's contractual arrangements with the bailiff company will detail the fact that the council will allow the bailiff firm to retain the enforcement fees themselves. In fact external bailiff fees do not exist in the collection of council tax debt, they are always the council's enforcement fees.

 

Bearing in mind the above and assuming it was the council enforcing payment. The associated costs 'reasonably incurred' in connection with attending with a vehicle would be limited to those additional to what the council would incur in any event. In other words, internal bailiffs would be salaried so could not attribute costs to man hours while attending with a vehicle.

 

Because councils outsource enforcement to private companies, these firms have overheads such as in the case of Rossendales, a millionaire chairwoman's lifestyle. However, creating millionaires is not what the fees and charges connected with distress was intended. The council can not expect householders to meet the additional costs of sustaining private companies purely because it is convenient for councils to have this arrangement.

 

Another point:

 

If these costs are to reflect those reasonably incurred, why do they vary so much from one bailiff firm to another?

 

For the bailiff firm to justify that £170 was the reasonable cost incurred, the vehicle would have needed to have been purposely hired, solely for attending your home without other visits to any other debtors. I doubt this was the case, why not call them on it?

 

Excellently explained sir Maybe the OP can copy this and send it to the council

[outlawla]

Excellently explained sir Maybe the OP can copy this and send it to the council

 

Use it incorporating brassnecked's comment, it would be interesting to see what they'd come back with. There's an edited addition in there just for extra effect.

 

Also been thinking about the ambiguity of the way Head C of schedule 5 is worded:

 

C. For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed):

Reasonable costs and fees incurred

This, I should think would mean that a levy (valid or otherwise) must have needed to already been made for the bailiff to form a view that there was any point in incurring costs of hiring a vehicle to remove goods. To do otherwise, i.e. turn up with a removal van without first levying, would be done intentionally for the purpose of making a gain for himself or his company.

[brassnecked]

If they turn up with a van and they were coming with the intention to remove and they have no levy, they could not charge a van fee until they had levied, and given time for the debt to be discharged. One thing is certain the small VW vans and small Transits, often used by bailiffs as their regular transport, are not of themselves large enough to remove any significant amount of goods on a levy, especially if it is furniture, so it may be that most of the van fees charged are not strictly lawful, as they don't specifically hire a vehicle large enough to effect a removal. they could only get a TV and small electrical goods in one of those vans. If they were calling on multiple debtors with an intention to remove, they would need a larger vehicle like Luton or pantechnicon, or they would be going to and from a debtors and the auction house on every call

[reallyinthecrap]

thanks guys.

 

lots and lots of interesting stuff. will reply in more detail later tonight.

[reallyinthecrap]

I found this on the net some time ago. It was CAB advice but there's no reference to it that I can find today.

"

.....A van to remove goods may be charged for, but only for one visit and only if a levy has been made.

"

 

i know the thread you are on about. read it from start to end but as you say, the wording has now changed on the CAB site.

 

spoke to the CAB on Friday, they quoted this verbatum.

 

So not expecting much help from them....

 

The purpose of a levy is in case that you do not pay the amount owed in a reasonable time or you refuse to pay etc. So basically it gives you a time for you to pay the amount and they hold your goods to ransom in case you dont. After this time has passed and they then come out in the view to take your goods then they can make that charge. What is the point of a levy if only to make more money for themselves.

 

^^

This is what I think the most important bit is.

^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

The last time this happened I was caught on the hop and ended up getting the sames fees applied even though the bailiff was paid £100 cash on the spot, a payment plan agreed, and i paid if off without missing a payment.

 

The Head H fee is as others have pointed out and quite clearly states in sch 5 what this fee is for and that is basically a fee for their trouble for advertisements etc to sell your good just in case they have made arrangements to have your goods sold.

How can they charge this fee if they have only just made a levy, bailiffs are not fitted with a crystal ball.

 

totally agree!

 

Have you looked at the links I posted #85.

 

i did read them. about 4 times. found the stuff i think is relevant but it's not clear on the points of period of time between levy and charges.

Ask you council, where it states in theThe Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 that they are allowed to charge these fees in the time that they have stated.

 

I will but i dont think they will have the answer.

 

again, based on advice i saw on CAG, on Friday, I sent the following email to the LA..

 

"In the meantime I would like to request a copy of the fee schedules you have agreed with your enforcement officers and bailiff contractors effective as of 1/4/2012 to be delivered to me within twenty working days as prescribed under Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000"

 

i fully expect this just to detail what they have published on their website but who knows.

Edited May 5, 2012 by reallyinthecrap

[reallyinthecrap]

Some thoughts on the "Reasonable costs and fees incurred" for attending with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed).

 

All fees and charges detailed in Schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations are the council's fees in law, both those that are prescribed and those that are simply stated as being "reasonable" in the legislation.

 

Part of the authority's contractual arrangements with the bailiff company will detail the fact that the council will allow the bailiff firm to retain the enforcement fees themselves. In fact external bailiff fees do not exist in the collection of council tax debt, they are always the council's enforcement fees.

 

Bearing in mind the above and assuming it was the council enforcing payment. The associated costs 'reasonably incurred' in connection with attending with a vehicle would be limited to those additional to what the council would incur in any event. In other words, internal bailiffs would be salaried so could not attribute costs to man hours while attending with a vehicle.

 

Because councils outsource enforcement to private companies, these firms have overheads such as in the case of Rossendales, a millionaire chairwoman's lifestyle. However, creating millionaires [on the back of struggling householders] is not what the fees and charges connected with distress was intended. The council can not expect householders to meet the additional costs of sustaining private companies purely because it is convenient for councils to have this arrangement.

 

Another point:

 

If these costs are to reflect those reasonably incurred, why do they vary so much from one bailiff firm to another?

 

For the bailiff firm to justify that £170 was the reasonable cost incurred, the vehicle would have needed to have been purposely hired, solely for attending your home without other visits to any other debtors. I doubt this was the case, why not call them on it?

 

thanks. great help. lots of help!