Newlyn Bailiffs

[seanamarts]

If the debt for the council tax has been cleared then, im sure when I say this, that the bailiff cannot levy for his fee's only.

 

However the council must give you verification that your debt have been discharged with them. They can take the bailiff fee's out of the payment that you have made, which would leave the debt still owing.

 

I would offer or pay the bailiff for the two visits, which are owed. The levy on the vehicle can then be queried. No lawful levy, then no fee above the visit fee's.

 

You stated that the bailiff wasnt a bailiff, did you mean that he wasnt a certificated bailiff.

[seanamarts]

He cannot refuse payment. send the bailiff company a postal order, send by registered mail. They will cash it. keep all the receipts as proof of payment. I would also send copies to the council, with a complaint attached.

[seanamarts]

Bailiff isnt registered as a certificated bailiff. You would need to query this with the bailiff company and the council.

 

I also advise that you remove these details from your post.

 

I have advised the site team of this and they will remove if you are unable

[seanamarts]

Those leaflets are pretty useless, they only outline the different types of bailiffs.

I would email the council back and send them a copy of this

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/bailiffs-enforcement-officers/national-standards-enforcement-agents.pdf

 

pointing out the 'creditors responsibilities'

 

The bailiff is the councils acting agent, there fore they are responsible for their agents actions.

[seanamarts]

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

 

you have every right to ask for identification.

 

what was levied? was it your car?

[seanamarts]

'Anti bailiff ' website ... I giggled at that. Newlyn are obviously following this thread.

 

CAG is not anti bailiff, it is here to help those who are seeking guidance to those who feel that the bailiff has not acted correctly. If CAG was anti bailiff then we would refuse to help those who are seeking bailiff intervention.

 

So Newlyn would you like to comment on here what you are doing right, because so far you have got it wrong and you are well aware of that.

 

1. Invalid levy. Reason= Car does NOT belong to debtor, it belongs to a hire company, you have had proof of this. = No levy fee.

2.No Valid levy no removal fee.

3. Refusal to identify bailiff who attended, read below codes of practice

 

All is owed are the two visit fee's

 

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

The council and Newlyn need to read the above link.

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 ----

SCHEDULE 5

CHARGES CONNECTED WITH DISTRESS

 

A. For making a visit to premises with a view to levying distress (whether the levy is made or not):

Reasonable costs and fees incurred, but not exceeding an amount which, when aggregated with charges under this head for any previous visits made with a view to levying distress in relation to an amount in respect of which the liability order concerned was made, is not greater than the relevant amount calculated under paragraph 2(1) with respect to the levy.

 

B. For levying distress:

An amount (if any) which, when aggregated with charges under head A for any visits made with a view to levying distress in relation to an amount in respect of which the liability order concerned was made, is equal to the relevant amount calculated under paragraph 2(1) with respect to the levy.

 

C. For the removal and storage of goods for the purpose of sale:

Reasonable costs and fees incurred.

 

If the council want to start using their regulations as a guide to whether the bailiff is/has charged the correct fee's then they need to stop relying on what the bailiff states and read for themselves what is and is not allowed to be charged.

You need to ask, where the local taxation team looked to deem the fee's correct. Because they obviously didnt look at schedule 5 ~ The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations.

 

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.

(3) If, before any goods are seized, 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 and the levy shall not be proceeded with.

 

(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.

 

(5) The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority, which he shall show to the debtor if so requested; and he shall hand to the debtor or leave at the premises where the distress is levied a copy of this regulation and Schedule 5 and a memorandum setting out the appropriate amount, and shall hand to the debtor a copy of any close or walking possession agreement entered into.

 

(6) A distress may be made anywhere in England and Wales.

 

(7) A distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order, and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser on that account; and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser from the beginning on account of any subsequent irregularity in making the distress, but a person sustaining special damage by reason of the subsequent irregularity may recover full satisfaction for the special damage (and no more) by proceedings in trespass or otherwise.

 

(8) The provisions of this regulation shall not affect the operation of any enactment which protects goods of any class from distress.

 

(9) Nothing in the Distress (Costs) Act 1817(12), as extended by the Distress (Costs) Act 1827(13), (which makes provision as to the costs and expenses of the levying of certain distresses) shall apply to a distress under this regulation.

 

I would be inclined to send a copy of this to the council. It clearly out lines what a bailiff should or should not be doing.

 

It makes interesting reading. Take notes as well.

 

CIVEA Code of Practice

 

http://www.civea.co.uk/editorimages/CIVEA%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20and%20Good%20Practice%20Guide%20(10.10.12).pdf

 

As suggested before, send payment of the two visit fee's either by cheque or postal order in way of recorded delivery.

 

State why you are only paying this fee, use the information that I have provided, send copy to council. Dont be long winded about it, keep it short and precise. Going off half cocked and too much detail confuses many council and bailiffs employee's.

 

I would make this your last attempt at trying to explain your actions before contacting the Ombudsman again.

 

If you like, before sending the next letter I will look over it for you.

[seanamarts]

The second fee could be questioned then, but as it states here

3) If, before any goods are seized, 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 and the levy shall not be proceeded with.

 

so although this seems a little unclear it does state that as you paid before a levy was made, then no levy should of taken place.

 

The facts are here, plain and simple.

[seanamarts]

Just remember to not add personal details when posting in here.

[seanamarts]

I hope you dont mind but I have written this for you.

 

 

Dear xxxx ,

 

Thank you for your response dated 17 Dec 2012.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to again remind the council that they are wholly responsible for their acting agents.

 

I have given proof to the council that full payment was made on the 3rd of October. The council failed to inform their agent that payment had been made.

This incurred a further visit from the council's agent which a further fee of £18.00 was added unnecessarily.

 

May I remind the council that once the debt has been satisfied all bailiff intervention should cease. This did not happen. please refer to The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 - Distress.

 

3) If, before any goods are seized, 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 and the levy shall not be proceeded with.

 

 

With regards to the above legislation, may I ask how your professional team are claiming that the fees are legal?

 

Visit Fee 1 £24.50 1st Oct 2012: which I offered to pay Newlyn.

 

Visit Fee 2 £18.00 9th Oct 2012: No reason for this visit as payment had already been accepted by the council.

 

levy Fees £20.00

Attendance to remove fee £100 :

 

Firstly, as I have already explained, no visit after the 3rd of October was necessary as the debt had already been satisfied.

 

A levy can only be made on items belonging to the debtor, the vehicle that the levy was placed on is a hired vehicle and therefore the bailiff cannot seize. The levy is therefore unlawful and no charge can be made.Proof of this was sent to the council.

 

I would like to refer to the LGO focus report with regards to levying on vehicles.

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2012/nov/lgo-highlights-problems-bailiff-action-behalf-councils/

 

You have accused me of attempting to evade payment of the legitimately incurred bailiff fees, when in fact these fee's are not legitimate, please refer to the above link of the LGO focus report.

 

I suggest you also send this report and links to your taxation team so that they can amend their records.

 

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

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...chedule/5/made

 

http://www.civea.co.uk/code-of-practice.htm - 'CIVEA Code of Conduct and Good Practice Guide'.

 

A copy of this letter/email will be sent to the LGO for their perusal.

 

The questions I have raised with regards to information on the bailiff, are not from an 'anti bailiff' website.

 

Please refer to links above, it clearly states that I have a right to see the bailiffs identification, I am sure that you are well aware that a bailiff has to be certificated before he visits a debtor to collect on a debt.

I have the right to make sure that this bailiff was certificated, You as the council you employ said bailiff should also be aware whether the bailiff is certificated. If not this could be a cause for some serious consequences.

 

 

Regards

 

I dont think I have missed anything out.

 

If you have already sent an email, then just send this as well if you want to.

[seanamarts]

Please make sure you send a copy to the LGO.

 

Will look forward to see what they have to say. but then again Im sure they will read it on here

[seanamarts]

Ha they have just shot themselves in the foot. Show them the proof with regards to the vehicle and they will instruct the bailiff to cancel the levy fee. no levy fee no removal fee etc.

 

By the way when was the levy made, was this the same time as the 2nd visit or a later date.

 

I would pay the fee's to the council and tell them to pass it on to their agent.

 

Did you send a copy to the Ombudsman

[seanamarts]

To be honest I would pay what they are asking, £42.50. Then carry on with the complaint. The know they are in the wrong and are back tracking hoping you wont take it any further.

 

But its a good result.

 

No further fee's can occur.

They cannot levy for their fee's only. Which is what they technically did on the 12th of November.

[seanamarts]

Why dont you just tell them that the information they have received from bailiffs/DVLA is a complete lie. because you are the registered owner, so the details are yours and so they will not be in breach of data protection. Tell them to explain that one.

[seanamarts]

They always get defensive when they are proved wrong.

 

They are reading this forum. I can see a few red faces on this one.

[seanamarts]

This could well be a sore point with Huntingdonshire District Council. It seems its reputation is taking somewhat of a battering at the moment.

 

Have they responded yet outlawla

[seanamarts]

This is a good result. It is fair what the LGO has said.

 

For the sake of £18.00 I would settle for that, however If you wish I would still push for the name of the bailiff. Be interesting to see if they are certificated.

[seanamarts]

I wonder if this formal complaint will register as a black mark on the record or if Huntingdon District Council will get away with this.

 

Although the LGO has acknowledged failure of the council, they should have gone further and slammed some action to be taken and considered that several months unnecessary battling with the council is actually an injustice. It's not just a matter of £18.

 

Although the council eventually removed most of the fees, they wouldn't have done if the OP had given up or they'd levied the right vehicle. The levy/removal fee on the same day was never even considered because of this.

 

I'd liked to have seen something more along these lines:

 

I would like to see more of these sent to the councils.

[seanamarts]

Dear Mr ***,

 

They do not belong to a specific court, as they are not High Court bailiffs.

 

I’m afraid I’m not in the office from 10am, but you may find what you want on the Ministry of Justice website.

 

Regards

 

 

Are they serious!!

 

Council workers really need to learn about the job they do.

[seanamarts]

hi guys back again need your opinion i didnt gave up i kept hassling Newlyn to give me bailiffs names .

I have complained CIVEA they asked me to write final letter stating Formal Complaint at the top and then after that response CIVEA will take the case on board now i got the letter listed below as in response from newlyn i called the county listed on the letter they dont have these names on their list any help guys to take this further .You guys must be wondering why i haven't i dropped the case as they have waived the charges well i am doing it for the other people that may have or will suffer in future by these [problem]mers .Thanks

 

[EDIT]

 

Please can you edit the letter so that ALL names including your's are not visible please.

When you have done this you can then replace it.

 

Thank you

 

seanamarts

 

Site Team