Thought on Van Fees

[caledfwlch]

Just something that occurred to me whilst browsing threads today.

 

PT (I think) and others have pointed out, that even with a valid Levy, at least regarding Council Tax Arrears, a Bailiff may not enter to remove goods without a (rarely granted) Warrant to force entry from a Magistrate, if you don't let him in.

 

So technically speaking if you go by the letter of the law, can/should a Bailiff actually be able to charge Van fee's if he turns up to remove goods and the debtor knows their rights and refuses peaceful entry?

 

Because the Law says he cannot get in, in this case, therefore he cannot bring his van to remove goods, and as a trained "professional" (snigger) he should know the law he is operating under.

 

Just a little thought.

[reallyinthecrap]

i am finding that the term "van fee" is used less and less nowadays. i think it might be defunct

 

it seems that this charge has now turned into the "more slippery" term "attending with a vehicle with a view to remove". So now these cowboys always travel in small vans and if they cannot trick you into letting them into your house they will levy against anything they can find outside. I've read examples ranging from petrol strimmers in the garden, to, in my case, my car, and being hit with addtional fees of £170

 

but you i do tend to agree, if you follow the key recommendation of NEVER talking to a bailiff, letting them in or letting them get access to your car there seems to be very little they can do.

[brassnecked]

If the bailiff has no levy, and if he has a dodgy one on a random motor belonging to next doors cat, he cannot charge an "attending to remove fee" as there are no goods under his control to remove. After his first and second visit fee, if there is no levy, he can try to add all the fees under the sun, but none would be valid imho

[reallyinthecrap]

the problem is that the way the regulations are currently worded it does not clearly state that a "attending with a van with a view to remove" cannot be charged at the same time as a levy.

 

in my case, the first WPA/Levy/Attending happend on the second visit!

 

the next WPA/Levy/Attending happened on the third visit.