swift bailiff and CTAX debt has levied on my car

[reallyinthecrap]

Hi Sean,

 

I can see you are getting frustrated with me. Please accept my apologies. But I am at total loss.

 

When I read the legislation I totally agree with you but how come the LA are determined that I am incorrect and answer as follows:

 

 

In bullet point 2 of your e-mail dated 8 May 2012 you state "Iconsider that the levy and the "attending with a vehicle with a viewto removing" should not happen on the same visit." I have beenadvised by Mr X XXXXX, Revenues Manager, that there is no discretion on thisand that under Schedule 5 of the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement)Regulations 1992 it specifically states that it should happen.Youdisagree with it - however the Council’s representatives are applying aregulation which by law they have to do.

 

in a previous reply they state:

 

The bailiff hasconfirmed that he attended your property with a vehicle and levied on goods,your car, but did not remove it. Therefore reasonable costs and fees werecharged amounting to £170.00.

Edited May 20, 2012 by reallyinthecrap

[reallyinthecrap]

in their latest letter they say I have 7 days to agree something with them or they will re-instate action...

 

I" would therefore remind you that it is yourresponsibility to ensure that your payments are made on the due dates andwhilst this matter is ongoing you must continue to pay your council tax asrequired by Government Regulations. As a result unless you contact the Councilwithin 7 days in order to make a satisfactory arrangement to clear the fullbalance, including all costs, then further recovery action will be taken."

[reallyinthecrap]

they are quoting this page

 

http://legislation.data.gov.uk/uksi/1993/773/made/data.htm?wrap=true

[seanamarts]

Not getting frustrated with you at all

 

they need to read and understand their own interpretations

 

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

This clearly states that after a levy has been made not at the same time. They cannot make the rules fit for their purpose.

[seanamarts]

By the way did the bailiff turn up with a tow truck? if not how can they state that this was a reasonable fee.

 

I will help you write a letter if you wish.

[outlawla]

Re, http://legislation.data.gov.uk/uksi/....htm?wrap=true

 

 

"(

C)

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

"

It doesn't state that the levy and the charge for attending with a vehicle can be on the same day.....it states "following the levy"

[seanamarts]

I have a feeling that this has been added as in the original here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/schedule/5/made it makes no reference about attending with a vehicle.

[reallyinthecrap]

Re, http://legislation.data.gov.uk/uksi/....htm?wrap=true

 

 

"(

C)

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

"

It doesn't state that the levy and the charge for attending with a vehicle can be on the same day.....it states "following the levy"

 

but the angle that they are using is that neither does it state that the levy and attending with a vehicle cannot be on the same day. it just states that the levy must happen first and nothing about timeframes

 

[outlawla]

And hallowitche's reference to case law in an earlier post (Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1......)?

"

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of

distress

and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage

."

 

[reallyinthecrap]

And hallowitche's reference to case law in an earlier post (Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1......)?

"

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of

distress

and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage

."

 

 

but again, i can see how they can easily say they are not charging for removing, they are charging for "attending with a vehicle with a view to removing" so i don't see the above being relevant to my argument.

[hallowitch]

let me explain something

 

When a bailiff attends a debtors property he is there to levy distress (NOT TO REMOVE GOODS) exactly how do you think the bailiff knows you had a car before his visit home to levy

 

legislation and case law state a van/attendance to remove following a levy

 

I personally am disgusted with this local authority and quite frankly ALL SWIFT BAILIFFS know they cant charge this fee on the day of the levy and must be rubbing there hands with glee that the head of revenues hasn't got a clue

 

do you think they get away with charging this when they are collecting for other local authority's NO they don't

 

please take this to the ombudsman

[outlawla]

I'm out of ideas except for just one more observation....

 

It's obvious that this "Head C" charge is for the bailiff's out of pocket expenses for turning up 'unnecessarily' with a removal van, because the debtor either settles the debt there and then, or enters into a payment agreement/walk in possession.

 

However, despite bailiffs typically never removing goods on the levy visit (council tax), they must – as the regulations state – be attending with a view to remove goods.

 

To fulfil that view, the bailiff is obliged to turn up in a vehicle suitable for a house clearance which would incur costs accordingly.

 

If he turned up in one of those Noddy vans, which I suspect he did, this would not be complying with the regulations and the charge under schedule 5's "Head C" would be unlawful.

[brassnecked]

I'm out of ideas except for just one more observation....

 

It's obvious that this "Head C" charge is for the bailiff's out of pocket expenses for turning up 'unnecessarily' with a removal van, because the debtor either settles the debt there and then, or enters into a payment agreement/walk in possession.

 

However, despite bailiffs typically never removing goods on the levy visit (council tax), they must – as the regulations state – be attending with a view to remove goods.

 

To fulfil that view, the bailiff is obliged to turn up in a vehicle suitable for a house clearance which would incur costs accordingly.

 

If he turned up in one of those Noddy vans, which I suspect he did, this would not be complying with the regulations and the charge under schedule 5's "Head C" would be unlawful.

He would need to turn up with at least a 7.5 tonne box van, and as many bailiffs didn't pass their driving test before 1997, would need an LGV to drive it, a 3.5 luton may be enough, but no way would one of the VW transporters or Toyotas they use be big enough to ground a van fee.

[reallyinthecrap]

so. what next?

[reallyinthecrap]

By the way did the bailiff turn up with a tow truck? if not how can they state that this was a reasonable fee.

 

I will help you write a letter if you wish.

 

no, he turned up in a small van.

 

if you could draft a response that would be much appreciated

[seanamarts]

cant take a car in a small van.

 

Ok give me a while and will get some thing drafted up.

[reallyinthecrap]

let me explain something

 

When a bailiff attends a debtors property he is there to levy distress (NOT TO REMOVE GOODS) exactly how do you think the bailiff knows you had a car before his visit home to levy

 

legislation and case law state a van/attendance to remove following a levy

 

I personally am disgusted with this local authority and quite frankly ALL SWIFT BAILIFFS know they cant charge this fee on the day of the levy and must be rubbing there hands with glee that the head of revenues hasn't got a clue

 

do you think they get away with charging this when they are collecting for other local authority's NO they don't

 

please take this to the ombudsman

 

ive hunted high and low for clarification on what a levy really means and what is really meant by "following" in the legislation.

 

"following" means to the bailiff "on the next line" literally.

[Conniff]

I think irrespective of what or who decides it means, that is irrelevant - have they levied on your car? Did a car transporter arrive to take away that car?

 

If the answer is no then the charge has been unlawfully added.

[brassnecked]

If it is a car they come for, no van, small box truck or other will do, has to be a vehicle recovery truck. No truck no fee imho

[seanamarts]

I have quickly put this letter together, if you wish to change anything or I have missed out anything then please do so. If any other poster feels that I have made a mistake in anything then please do correct it.

 

 

Dear Sir/madam.

 

Re; Escalation stage 3 complaint, acc no; *************

 

In response to your last letter/email dated the ********.

 

I feel that the council have not fully understood the regulated fee's and charges set out by, The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

 

I fully understand that I owe the first two visit fee's of £24.50 and £18.00, I am also in agreement with the levy fee of £****.

 

However I have received further advise on the H head fee and the attending to remove fee. I feel that the bailiff Mr ****** ******* has no authority to charge these fee's.

 

The head H fee is charged so the bailiff can cover his cost when items have been recovered and then returned to the debtor, after the debt has been satisfied by the council. This cost would cover the advertisement for the resale of the goods returned to the debtor.

 

As the bailiff had not taken any goods from my property for resale, he cannot charge this fee to cover any cost's that did not incur.

 

I am also in disagreement with the attendance to remove fee.

 

It states in schedule 5©

 

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 is meant to follow the levy once it has been made, not at the same time the levy was made.

The purpose of the levy is to give the debtor time to either make arrangements for a payment plan or for payment to be made.

 

I would like to bring to your attention the case;

In the Central London*county court*- Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants).

Before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

I am sure that you can familiarise yourself with this case.

 

I would also like to bring your attention to;

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

No person shall be entitled to charge, or recover from, a tenant any fees, charges or expenses for levying a distress, or for doing any act or thing in relation thereto, other than those authorised by the tables in Appendix 1 to these Rules.

 

Therefore the bailiff, again cannot charge for this fee.

 

I would also like to bring to your attention that the bailiff in question turned up at my property with a small van, if however he was turning up with the intention to remove my vehicle he would not of been able to take my car, that he had levied. So again he cannot make a charge for attending to remove.

 

It also states reasonable cost's. I would like to know how £170 is a reasonable fee and also how the fee is broken down.

Unless of course you agree that this fee should not be included in the charges laid out by the bailiff.

 

I would also like to see a copy of the attending bailiff's certification, I have the right to see this at no cost.

If you feel that my explanations to why I should not be made to pay these fee's not justified still, then you give me no other option other to contact the Local Government Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely.

[reallyinthecrap]

thanks sean.

 

the LA have said they are not willing to take this complaint further and that i need to take the bailiff to court to so i can prove the charge is reasonable OR take it to the ombudsman.

[seanamarts]

send this to them first, if they still want to play silly buggers then get on to the ombudsman. you need to show the LGO that you have requested the 3rd stage.

[seanamarts]

The council need to be reminded that they are fully responsible for the bailiff, why should you take him to court? they need to be told what is what not listen to what the bailiff tells them.

[seanamarts]

Put at the bottom of the letter that the council needs reminding that they are responsible for the bailiffs actions, this includes the costs that the bailiff has stated.

[brassnecked]

If they rejrct the escalation and send a reply in writing that you should sue the bailiff include a copy of this in your submission to the Ombudsman.

Edited May 21, 2012 by brassnecked
really must get a new keybrd