Newlyn Bailiffs

[old bill]

If the bailiff is trying his luck with fees that are either excessive and/or not in accordance with legislation, this raises questions as to the fitness of the bailiff to hold a bailiff certificate.

 

A Formal Determination is one route that can be taken. A formal complaint to the local authority involved with pressure to submit a Form 5 is another. Another route is to write a letter to the District Judge at the bailiff's certificating court. The DJ will either reject the complaint, or ask that a Form 4 be submitted or discharge (cancel) the bailiff's certificate without a Form 4 or hearing.

[Tariq2009]

i was going through all the paper work and the recording of the calls none of the timing they told me that matches with the letters .

 

i paid the council tax full on 3rd of oct and which i also informed bailiff and council about it then why i got visited me on 9th oct and on 12th of oct well the question is now can bailiff legally charge me for those 2 visit after paying the Council TAX ???

 

I am also attaching the letter from the guy who claimed to be bailiff left with his name that i searched on http://certificatedbailiffs.justice.gov.uk/CertificatedBailiffs/ which he dont show on this site database .

 

do anyone think i got a strong case against them for claiming bailiff certified as he was not .Thanks

Edited November 20, 2012 by ims21

[old bill]

Newlyns Removal of Goods Notice is of dubious legality, IMHO. I also very much doubt the bailiff whose name allegedly appears at the foot of the letter is a genuine name. It is becoming apparent that certificated bailiffs are tendering false names to debtors, Marston Group bailiffs enforcing on behalf of HMCTS being the worst offenders. It would not surprise me if they are doing this to avoid a Form 4 complaint. If this is, indeed, the case, I think it shows just how much certificated bailiffs fear being reported under the Form 4 procedure.

 

Also, I would strongly advise you to send an email to cbregister@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk and insert the words CERTIFICATED BAILIFF ENQUIRY in the subject box of your email browser. Double check the bailiff isn't registered.

Edited November 19, 2012 by old bill

[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

[brassnecked]

Definitely something wrong with that notice, since when did the law put the "Final Decision" about anything in the hands of the bailiff, the implication there is he could ignore any apparent vulnerability and clear the house. Also I would ask the site team to leave the name there, Alex Tronic, is obviously a pseudonym. Its Formal Complaint time to all the bigwigs, and MP, along with OFT credit fitness complaint, as in information designed to mislead.

[ims21]

Attachment in post #27 removed

[Tariq2009]

Newlyns Removal of Goods Notice is of dubious legality, IMHO. I also very much doubt the bailiff whose name allegedly appears at the foot of the letter is a genuine name. It is becoming apparent that certificated bailiffs are tendering false names to debtors, Marston Group bailiffs enforcing on behalf of HMCTS being the worst offenders. It would not surprise me if they are doing this to avoid a Form 4 complaint. If this is, indeed, the case, I think it shows just how much certificated bailiffs fear being reported under the Form 4 procedure.

 

Also, I would strongly advise you to send an email to cbregister@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk and insert the words CERTIFICATED BAILIFF ENQUIRY in the subject box of your email browser. Double check the bailiff isn't registered.

 

just got email cbregister@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Thank you for your enquiry.

 

I am unable to locate Mr X on the bailiff register.

 

If you have a complaint about the conduct of a Private Bailiff, you should ask the Bailiff in question which court they are certificated by (this will probably be your local county court and NOT Northampton County Court). The Bailiff must supply this information on request. You should then address your complaint to the Court Manager at the relevant County Court. You may also wish to contact the Enforcement Services Association on 0870 300 7255 for advice.

 

If you wish to recover money already paid to a Bailiff, you should contact the Bailiff in question in the first instance and/or the Local Authority which issued the Penalty Charge. If you are unable to resolve the matter to your satisfaction, we would recommend that you seek qualified legal advice. The TEC cannot assist in this matter.

 

Please find the attached EX345 guidance leaflet entitled About Bailiffs and Enforcement Officers.

 

Regards,

Edited November 26, 2012 by ims21

[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.

[Tariq2009]

got response from Newlyn any idea what to do now thanks .

 

 

[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?

[ploddertom]

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?

 

I agree with seanamarts. On top of that the fees are wrong anyway, Levy Fee on £776-40 is £48-00 not the £20 they say. Also they have charged an ATR at the same time of £100 - not allowed as they have not given you an opportunity to pay. If the vehicle levied upon is not yours or if it is and subject to HP or similar then the levy will be held to be invalid. They will more than likely tell you to prove it if the vehicle is not yours. Time to stop pussyfooting around and tell the Council straight it is their responsibility to sort this out and remind them of the recent LGO report of Blaby District Council & Rossendales, along with their recent Focus Report on this same matter.

 

If they are refusing to divulge the name of their Bailiff they either have something to hide or is it he did not leave a Notice of Seizure at the time of the "alleged" levy on the vehicle. Another thought comes to mind also, if the vehicle was yours was it present at the time of his 1st or 2nd Visit.

[outlawla]

Attendance to remove: Once a levy has been performed, no more visits are performed. Any further attendances to the property are considered attendances with a van and as such you are charged accordingly to the fee structure.

 

I can't believe they've incriminated themselves by putting this in writing. What made them think they can just make up their own fee structure?

 

I think you've got them here along with several thousand other cases. Maybe a Freedom of Information request to find out just how many.

[brassnecked]

Time for the Formal Complaint, to Head of revenues CEO, Leader councillor copied to MP, stating the fees are not in line with the Statutory regulations, and as mentioned by seanamarts and ploddertom, mention tyhe Blaby Council LGO report.

[Tariq2009]

they cant come to my house as i have informed them with the letter of proof that my wife got depression so the guy who talk to me said he will clamp my car even though i have also send them legal paper work for the car that it is private hire car for my earning and i also have legal document of proof to the council and the council is refusing to resolve this matter council said to me that i need to pay or newlyn will charge council and they add this to my next year council tax .Thanks

[outlawla]

.....council said to me that i need to pay or newlyn will charge council and they add this to my next year council tax .Thanks

 

I wouldn't think for a second this is lawful. I hope someone can verify my view.

[ploddertom]

The Council are well out of order, they employ the Bailiff to act for them so therefore remain 100% liable for the actions & charges their contractor makes. have you tried getting in touch with your local Councillor(s)? In my view they cannot clamp your car anyway, otherwise why have they not done it yet. I assume when you speak to the Council it is just someone who answers the phone, you need to speak to someone in authority.

[Tariq2009]

The Council are well out of order, they employ the Bailiff to act for them so therefore remain 100% liable for the actions & charges their contractor makes. have you tried getting in touch with your local Councillor(s)? In my view they cannot clamp your car anyway, otherwise why have they not done it yet. I assume when you speak to the Council it is just someone who answers the phone, you need to speak to someone in authority.

 

i have spoke to the MP he agrees with council.The council i have took the complain on second stage which they replied back with same rubbish that they are right i was trying to find the letter but i have miss placed it some where .I will call them and will ask them to resend me the copy of it and i am also going to call LGO to get involved in this matter THanks

[Tariq2009]

found the letter i am going to post them now in few minutes

[brassnecked]

i have spoke to the MP he agrees with council.The council i have took the complain on second stage which they replied back with same rubbish that they are right i was trying to find the letter but i have miss placed it some where .I will call them and will ask them to resend me the copy of it and i am also going to call LGO to get involved in this matter THanks

Send the Formal Complaint marked Third Stage Complaint, and indicate that as this will exhaust their complaint procedure, if you don't get a satisfactory response you will be referring the matter to the Ombudsman without further notice, remind them yet again about the LGO Focus Report on bailiffs along with the Blaby Council/Rossendales findings.

[brassnecked]

I wouldn't think for a second this is lawful. I hope someone can verify my view.

 

More fairy stories from the Brothers Grimm Tales Of Enforcement and Associated Legends.

[Tariq2009]

[tomtubby]

There are a number of points to consider here:

 

Newlyn are WRONG. The legislation quite clearly states that the PURPOSE of the visit by a bailiff is TO LEVY UPON GOODS. In order to do this, a visit would need to be made in order to first IDENTIFY goods on which a levy may be made. It is for this precise reason that a bailiff CANNOT charge an "attending to remove" fee to the account.

 

This is by far the most important part of your complaint.

 

On a personal note, I am stunned to read the contents of the letter from your MP; Mr Jonathan Djanogly !!!

 

For the past couple of years, Mr Djanogly had the role of Minister of State and was tasked with trying to implement the most radical overhaul of the bailiff industry. In the Autumn re-shuffle he lost his position and has been replaced by Helen Grant MP.

 

From reading Mr Djanogly's letter, I now have a much clearer understanding as to why this bill was not introduced !!!

[brassnecked]

Obviously Jonathan Djangoly subscribes to the Brothers Grimm Enforcement fees handbook, and obviously thinks that collection of council tax By Whatever Means including unlawful action is fine and dandy, so long as a debtior remains unaware of the regulations and their rights. We will see if his replacement is any better sorting the thorny issue of distress.

[tomtubby]

With bailiff enforcement the most important points to consider are the following:

 

The local authority are wholly responsible for the levy undertaken by their agent and the fees that are charged by them.

 

The Distress for Rent Act CLEARLY provide that a bailiff may ONLY charge fees that are outlined in the statutory fee scale.

 

A fundamental principle of bailiff law is that fees may ONLY be charged for services ACTUALLY UNDERTAKEN.

 

This last point is important for many reasons:

 

For example; if a bailiff is to charge a fee for "attending to remove" ( many times falsely covered up by calling it a "van fee" or "enforcement fee") then the bailiff MUST attend the premises "tooled up" ready to remove the goods. Some bailiff companies are found to charge my "favorite fee".....an "ABORTED REMOVAL FEE" I personally challenge this dreadful fee every day.

 

If a bailiff company charge such a fee, then they MUST provide evidence that they have been charged this amount by an outside contractor....and proof also that they have PAID the contractor this sum !!!!

[brassnecked]

@ tomtubby "For example; if a bailiff is to charge a fee for "attending to remove" ( many times falsely covered up by calling it a "van fee" or "enforcement fee") then the bailiff MUST attend the premises "tooled up" ready to remove the goods. Some bailiff companies are found to charge my "favorite fee".....an "ABORTED REMOVAL FEE" I personally challenge this dreadful fee every day.

 

If a bailiff company charge such a fee, then they MUST provide evidence that they have been charged this amount by an outside contractor....and proof also that they have PAID the contractor this sum !!!!"

 

How often can they actually prove they have done just this? never would be my guess, and the fee is removed quietly to avoid further investigation. it is high time some enterprising copper tried to press charges of fraudulent misrepresentatation to gain a pecuniary advantage, on one of these bailiffs and their company!