Newlyn Bailiffs

[outlawla]

Re, post #46

 

5. See the letter sent to you by Mr ****** on 16th August, which explains the position. The Magistrates are not able to hear pleas about financial standing. The matters before the Magistrates are listed in Appendix C of the letter.

 

 

Every householder has the right to attend the hearing and appear before Magistrates in accordance with Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Whether or not Magistrates decide to grant a liability order, should in theory, be entirely their decision. The number of defendants could potentially be thousands in respect of the same hearing so the council discourage defendants from appearing in front of the bench.

 

A couple of interesting points.

 

1) A document sent out by the Justices Clerks' Society, as a consequence of challenges (including from MPs) to the liability order process, revealed:

 

 

Procedure in Liability Order Applications

 

5. Procedures prior to the hearing

 

The Court and its staff should not give the impression that the Council is in charge of the process.

 

 

2) The Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy, in its "Guide to the Council Tax":

 

 

Human Rights Act 1998

 

Local authorities must be careful not to infringe an individual's human rights. Potential areas for problems are:

 

• notice of hearing;

 

• being careful not to appear to stop the taxpayer appearing before the court, if they want only to make a payment arrangement;

 

• not having available a translator for people whose first language is not English; and

 

• not separating the roles of court taking officer and the person who gives evidence of process.

Edited December 6, 2012 by outlawla

[tomtubby]

Outlawla,

 

I have seen the document from the Justices Clerk Society and thank you for making it public.

 

I am very interested in the quote that you have given from the Chartered Institute etc. Do you have a link that you could send over to me.....

[outlawla]

Outlawla,

 

I have seen the document from the Justices Clerk Society and thank you for making it public.

 

I am very interested in the quote that you have given from the Chartered Institute etc. Do you have a link that you could send over to me.....

 

The "Guide to the Council Tax" is accessed through a service offered by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy – TISonline (Technical Information Service online). You can register with CIPFA's website and receive limited information free of charge, however, to access the TISonline resource there's a subscription charge of £75+VAT. I can send a link and some further information relevant to the quote in my previous post.

Edited December 6, 2012 by outlawla

[tomtubby]

I much check but I think I still have a valid subscription to CIPFA.

[Tariq2009]

Guys thanks so much i have now put this matter to the LGO .I hope for better outcome and i do really appreciate for all of your help .GOD bless all

[Tariq2009]

New response from Council after LGO instructed them to investigate.Thanks

[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.

[brassnecked]

Good advice from seanamarts, the council are groping in the dark, and newlyn are clutching at straws for their unlawful fees.

[ploddertom]

It sounds to me as if the letter from the Council has had a lot of input from the Bailiff Company!

[Tariq2009]

I only owe them first fee as i paid the account as i promised to the council which they disagreed with me,the second visit way after the account was paid (Date: 03 October 2012 Time: 17:48).So my point of view is that even the first fee is unfair and visiting me three times as i have all ready paid the balance its out of order .Thanks

[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.

[Tariq2009]

Thanks Seanamarts i really appreciate your help and everyone else on this form i am going to start putting the letter together and i will put it here before sending it to them .

[seanamarts]

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

[brassnecked]

I would say that if the debt including the first visit fee was paid before the bailiff came and levied then they are knackered and they have no levy or right to call.

Edited December 23, 2012 by brassnecked

[old bill]

If the bailiffs are making unnecessary and/or unjustifiable visits, after the original debt has been satisfied, it could reasonably be said that they are acting vexatiously or, even, fraudulently by attempting to charge fees for such visits. Tell Newlyn to take a hike and suggest to the local authority involved that they read the applicable legislation more closely, as you have, due to the legislation being freely available online.

 

I had a Parking Manager from a local authority, in Kent, try to insist bailiff fees for unpaid PCNs were not regulated and there was no schedule available. I advised the poster (on another site I post on) to send the Parking Manager and CE of the local authority involved a copy of the applicable legislation. The poster never heard another peep out of the local authority. A bailiff from the bailiff company involved, Equita, was attempting to blackmail the poster into paying £320 in illegal fees in addition to the lawful fees. One letter to Equita and the bailiff put a stop to it immediately. I won't mention the name of the bailiff on forum, but let's just say his conduct was so serious that a county court judge would not have hesitated to cancel his certificate and a Crown Court judge would have had no hesitation in sending him to prison. I use the word "blackmail" in the legal sense in this post.

[Tariq2009]

I have started to put the letter together please let me know if i need to correct anything Thanks

 

Dear xxxx ,

Another disappointment as lack of profession and interest shown in your response, let me explain how you simply copy pasted all the previous responses and Newlyn response in the letter dating 17 Dec 2012.

 

 

1. The Fees have been checked by the Local Taxation team, and they are satisfied that they have been legally incurred.

 

May I ask how your so called 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: Cannot see why they visited me second time as the account was fully paid on 3rd October 2012 .

 

Levy Fees £20.00 Plus Attendance to remove fee £100 : These fees were imposed on my vehicle which I already have forwarded the copy of legal car documents to your taxation team and Newlyn as a proof that the Vehicle is used as a private hire and it is my only source of income .

 

 

You accused me of attempting to evade payment of the legitimately incurred bailiff fees, I am fighting for my rights.

 

 

My Source is legal and it proofs that the fees that incurred by Newlyn are not legal, which I am going to share with you today please read attached CIVEA Code of Practice and also do let your Taxation team to have a look at the link below Thanks .

 

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

[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.

[Tariq2009]

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Thanks I have not sent email yet I was waiting for your response thanks for adding extra bits I will email this today and wait for there response

[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

[brassnecked]

For clarity, I think the vehicle is a "Private Hire" Taxi, not a vehicle on hire or lease from a finance company, but of course a taxi can also be bought or hired as per any other vehicle if so and was not under any finance agreement would still likely be exempt from seizure as it is the primary tool of the OP's trade, as in no vehicle, it's JSA time and Newlyn can whistle for their fees.

 

Actually as the debt has been paid prior to the second and subsequent visits which were probably then unlawful, the press would likely put headlines up to the effect of Council and Newlyn Bailiffs Chase Taxi Driver for debt that had been paid, Threatened to, take his taxi and added extra fees to a debt which was not now not owed.

 

As you are likely following this thread, do you reckon it will make you look good in the public eye if this came out in the press?

Edited December 28, 2012 by brassnecked

[outlawla]

I consider it always worth a poke around to see if you can obtain any agreements between the bailiff and council. Although there's often enough evidence of breaches of the law, the contents of contracts can usually add leverage to an argument when complaining.

 

For example Oldham Council's bailiff Code of Conduct states at paragraph 14:

 

14. Before attending with a van in order to remove goods, the bailiff must send to the debtor, a letter warning of the intention to send a van and also warning of the costs involved in such a van attendance....

 

 

While on the subject of Oldham council, an interesting article appears in the Mirror today, on a point of bailiff entrapment by the Labour council leader.

Edited December 28, 2012 by outlawla

[old bill]

I consider it always worth a poke around to see if you can obtain any agreements between the bailiff and council. Although there's often enough evidence of breaches of the law, the contents of contracts can usually add leverage to an argument when complaining.

 

For example Oldham Council's bailiff Code of Conduct states at paragraph 14:

 

 

 

 

While on the subject of Oldham council, an interesting article appears in the Mirror today, on a point of bailiff entrapment by the Labour council leader.

 

I wonder which bailiff company got the push by Oldham Council? Full marks to the leader of the council for entrapping the buggers. It's a pity other councils don't do that, especially with a certain Mr Jamie Waller's company.

[Tariq2009]

i have received the response today from council below

 

 

Dear xxxx,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Unfortunately, Mrs xxxx is not in the office at this time, and so I have answered the points that you have raised, on her behalf.

 

Please see below text in green.

 

We await contact from the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

Yours sincerely

 

xxxx

Assistant Local Taxation Manager

Huntingdonshire District Council

 

 

Dear xxxxx ,

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.

We accept that responsibility.

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.

You made a payment on 3rd October 2012, in response to the bailiff’s first visit on 1st October 2012. The fee of £24.50 was correctly incurred.

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

The second visit fee was added due to your failure to pay the fee incurred during the first visit.

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.

Bailiff action will cease once you pay the fees. The fees have increased because of your decision not to pay, and currently stand at £162.50.

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.

No goods have been removed at this time.

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

Please refer to the various letters sent to you over the last six months.

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.

The first visit fee has still not been paid. Methods of payment were provided to you at the time that the fee was incurred, but you chose not to make payment. This led to a second visit being made and a further fee (£18.00) being incurred. Your continued decision, not to make payment, has led to the additional fees being charged.

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.

No proof has been provided to the council. If you provide proof that you do not own the vehicle, then we will instruct the bailiff to remove the levy fee of £20.

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 fees are not legitimate; please refer to the above link of the LGO focus report.

No further comment.

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/1992/613/schedule/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.

Your complaint has been reviewed according to Huntingdonshire District Council’s Complaints Procedure. We await contact from the Local Government Ombudsman as to whether they require further information before making a decision in this case.

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

No further comment

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.

All bailiffs working within this area are certificated. The bailiffs carry identification at all times. If you had wished to see it at the time of the visit, he would have made it available to you, but you did not make a request at the time.

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.

The bailiff that attended your property has been working within the Huntingdon area for several years. He is a fully trained, professional bailiff, with a valid certificate.

Regards

[i hate bailiffs]

Bailiff fees of £162.50 not sure where they get that from

the debt is all paid to the council before bailiffs visits

 

With regard to the bailiffs fees they have no powers at all as liability order satisfied

 

i would say wont be long till the bailiffs write it off and move on to the next victim

If they want there fees i would invite them to take you to court

[old bill]

Bailiff fees of £162.50 not sure where they get that from

the debt is all paid to the council before bailiffs visits

 

With regard to the bailiffs fees they have no powers at all as liability order satisfied

 

i would say wont be long till the bailiffs write it off and move on to the next victim

If they want there fees i would invite them to take you to court

 

That is what I would do. Newlyn would have to prove their fees were lawfully incurred and that they acted lawfully at all times. Can anyone see them taking that risk? I can't.