Ross and roberts CTAX debt and fees

[gramtrad2]

This has been quite a fascinating tale that if it were not so serious then you would think it had come from a book. It appears to me that you have unravelled systematic abuse of power by the Bailiff with his demands for fees. Turning to the company that employs him then they must be complicit in it or otherwise it shows a serious lack of checking to make sure their employees do things correctly. As for the Council it appears they have not a clue and the bailiff & his company have done a grand job of fleecing the residents.

 

For me rather than submitting a FOI which the Council may try to side step, I would be inclined to get the media involved - after all it is the rest of the residents that need informing. I appreciate you found the 1st Bailiff was Certificated but did you ever find any records relating to the 2nd? You could invite the Council to submit a Form 5 Complaint about the Bailiff(s) and see what their response is. As for making a Form 4 yourself I would suggest doing it another way which is to write to the Certificating Court putting everything down first and ask they leave the letter on file so it can be seen when his renewal is due - you never know they may invite you to submit a Form 4 if they deem it serious enough.

 

As for compensation then I fear you may struggle a little as essentially this was something you brought upon yourself. But I certainly would have every last penny you overpaid refunded in full with interest where applicable. It may be worth subjecting R&R to a SAR.

 

Thanks, Ploddertom,

 

First of all, regarding Bailiff 2 - yes he is registered; I checked this with The Taunton court.

 

Yes, I do believe that I have uncovered a systematic abuse of power by the Bailiff company. As for a Freedom of Information Request to verify this, I am quietly confident that it will have some success. I have been following another web site which makes a play of submitting awkward FOI request - "what do they know". Similar requests have been nailed down by pointing out to the council that the bailiff firms is under contract to them to provide the information. So all the council have to do is ask for it from the bailiff company.

 

Media coverage would follow that, if justified by the FOI response, or, indeed, if the request got stonewalled.

 

Regarding putting the bailiff in his place, getting the Council to put in a Form 5 complaint - we would probably have a better chance of seeing cows fly, in my humble opinion. The Council only have my word for what has happened, against the word of the Bailiff. I don't think that they would risk finding in my favour without evidence.

 

The other option that you suggest is writing to the court to have a note put on file. Sure, this could be done and they may or may not invite a Form 4 complaint. However, the lad in question has another 18 months or so before he has to renew; he is a "bad un" and needs to be curtailed long before that. I have given Ross and Roberts a way out - to sort it out amongst themselves. If they do not, I think that a Form 4 is the way to go for a swifter result. I don't care about costs going against me; that said, I am not in any way in the wrong - I and my witnesses know what happened and can confidently file affidavits to that effect without fear of perjury. A bailiff who deliberately lies in an attempt to justify his actions or commission is a danger to the general public. When he appears before the court, which he will if I correctly present the Form 4, he will be faced with perjuring himself in court. Brown trousers and balls of steel will be required!

 

As for compensation, as you can see from the letters from the Council and Bailiffs, they have already put £100 on the table between them. They will also be aware from my correspondence with them ( the Council, that is), that they are now being charged for my time and they may soon be faced with covering my other expenses. They can see the bill increasing. Their best option would be to pay me my compensation now, reign in the bailiff (ie sort the liar out) and be seen to be looking closely at the "admin" expenses that Ross and Roberts are charging. That would stop me in my tracks. Otherwise, they are back to "death by a thousand cuts" and they will almost certainly end up spending more money (and time) in the long run. They should " cut and run", because I won't

[gramtrad2]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43128[/ATTACH]Thanks, Outlawla.

 

Have fixed that. Correct copy now uploaded.

 

Regarding the Ross and Roberts note on 20 visits a day - classic example of them shooting them selves in the foot. That, as you may see from my letters, is a theme that I have identified though out their correspondence!

[ploddertom]

I wonder how much Capita actually control things within your Council?

[outlawla]

I think it's fair to say you've left them no room to manoeuvre. Will be interesting to see their response.

 

What particularly stood out and thought worth a quote:

"

.....

I have not yet added statutory interest, but will consider the same if they continue to drag their feet. That said, I am quite sure that they will be familiar with the concept of the cost going up at each stage of the process!

[matt v atos]

IMO Calls to Councils regarding CT arrears that have been passed to bailiff are passed to Capita and the like who have a office within the council I think thats why so many get fobbed off with NO YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE BAILIFFS GO AWAY !

[brassnecked]

I would hazard a guess that in a council infested with Crapita and or Ross 'n robbers 99.99% of callers would be told by crapita to contact the bailiff, and none would actually get through to an actual genuine council official. crapita like to keep everything in house.

[matt v atos]

I would hazard a guess that in a council infested with Crapita and or Ross 'n robbers 99.99% of callers would be told by crapita to contact the bailiff, and none would actually get through to an actual genuine council official. crapita like to keep everything in house.

 

OK all good so far so with that in mind the general advice is to call the council and pay council direct, but most are unable to get past this point so what can we do to resolve this brick wall and advise a poster who needs help !

[gramtrad2]

I wonder how much Capita actually control things within your Council?

 

I get the impression that the Council have little idea what is going on and rely heavily on Capita (aka Ross and Roberts) to guide them. My letters seem to have opend their eyes a bit and they seem to be seeing the light. Now that I have slowly teased out the facts of the case, I sense that they are having reservations about Ross and Roberts and are clearly concerned about the possible knock on effects of a major issue being brought to light. (Ie the charging of a visit fee at the same time of a levy fee). I can't wait t see how they respond to my last letter!

 

The only way that they are going to get out of it (for now) is to fold. If they don't - they are screwed.

[matt v atos]

I get the impression that the Council have little idea what is going on and rely heavily on Capita (aka Ross and Roberts) to guide them. My letters seem to have opens their eyes a bit and they seem to be seeing the light. Now that I have slowly teased out the facts of the case, I sense that they are having reservations about Ross and Roberts and are clearly concerned about the possible knock on effects of a major issue being brought to light. (Ie the charging of a visit fee at the same time of a levy fee). I can't wait t see how they respond to my last letter!

 

The only way that they are going to get out of it (for now) is to fold. If they don't - they are screwed.

 

Ive never seen once where bailiff fees have been correct !

[gramtrad2]

Hi All,

 

I have now had a reply from the Council and have duly responded; both letters uploaded.

 

The Council have messed up big time. In trying to dissuade me from putting in a Form 4 Complaint they have been led by Ross and Roberts and mistakenly said that the bailiff incident, which resulted in my argument that my car had not been clamped, took place over 14 months ago. In fact it took place only 2 months ago. Their superficial and inaccurate response indicates that they have not taken my complaint seriously and shown a basic lack of understanding as to what went on.

 

They have been led by Ross and Roberts !

 

In addition, they have knocked me back on the further refunds that I requested (£227.50 for earlier visits - enforcement fee, header fees and visit fee). As you will see from my letter I have torn into them and threatened legal action. I will now be taking advice and the council will ultimately have to pick up the bill.

 

I have also told them that I will be looking into a much earlier case that I had forgotten about, but was reminded of by Ross and Roberts (in line with their policy of shooting themselves in the foot!).

 

On the wider front, they continue to ignore my request that they should check if Ross and Roberts have charged others a visit and a levy fee at the same time. So I have now proceeded with a FOI request to ascertain how many times that this has happened.

 

Watch this space.

[MagnaCarta]

Hi All,

 

I have now had a reply from the Council and have duly responded; both letters uploaded.

 

The Council have messed up big time. In trying to dissuade me from putting in a Form 4 Complaint they have been led by Ross and Roberts and mistakenly said that the bailiff incident, which resulted in my argument that my car had not been clamped, took place over 14 months ago. In fact it took place only 2 months ago. Their superficial and inaccurate response indicates that they have not taken my complaint seriously and shown a basic lack of understanding as to what went on.

 

They have been led by Ross and Roberts !

 

In addition, they have knocked me back on the further refunds that I requested (£227.50 for earlier visits - enforcement fee, header fees and visit fee). As you will see from my letter I have torn into them and threatened legal action. I will now be taking advice and the council will ultimately have to pick up the bill.

 

I have also told them that I will be looking into a much earlier case that I had forgotten about, but was reminded of by Ross and Roberts (in line with their policy of shooting themselves in the foot!).

 

On the wider front, they continue to ignore my request that they should check if Ross and Roberts have charged others a visit and a levy fee at the same time. So I have now proceeded with a FOI request to ascertain how many times that this has happened.

 

Watch this space.

 

Gramtrad, you really are dealing with a bunch of idiots. My situation is very similar to yours but with Swindon Borough Clowncil and Ross & Robbers. Report them to Action Fraud, I have done and they do take you seriously unlike the Councils. Ross and Roberts have a shock coming to them soon.

[MagnaCarta]

Just out of interest, is one them got a similar sounding name to Monty?

[outlawla]

You obviously have them sussed from reading you're correspondence. However, the council miraculously manage to side step certain issues as you pointed out in this latest letter. Each authority is without doubt, a carbon copy of one another. Their excuses in fobbing you off are instantly recognisable; the fact they have selective memories is convenient and that it happened too long ago for it to warrant investigating.

 

It's by far the easier option to favour their bailiff’s blanket assurance that charges are in accordance with the law over anyone's challenge to their creativity. The response appeared rehearsed, word for word from some policy that exists in an identical form in all town halls – a script specifying they deny everything and admit nothing and requiring the officer investigating the complaint to be obstructive, lie and misinform residents about its contractor’s malpractice.

Edited April 19, 2013 by outlawla

[MagnaCarta]

Agreed Outlawla! When you get involved with the council, meet them face to face, even if it's the likes of Capita. Get something like this http://compare.ebay.co.uk/like/160721687399?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar&_lwgsi=y&cbt=y&adtype=pla&crdt=0&ff3=1&ff11=ICEP3.0.0&ff12=67&ff13=80&ff14=63&ff19=0 its invaluable and worth every penny.

[outlawla]

I like it. Taking a James Bond approach to dealing with your amiable local council.

[gramtrad2]

Hi All,

 

Just had a reply from the Council regarding my Complaint against Ross and Roberts; please see uploaded letter.

 

It looks as though I am going to have to press ahead with legal action since they have stonewalled me on refunding the outstanding costs.

 

I have one query which I should be grateful for an informed view on :

 

Visit fees are not supposed to be charged at the same time as levy fees. This is something that I have successfully challenged on and obtained refunds for earlier episodes of bailiff action (see earlier comments in this thread). However, on the remaining visit fee - the Council quite rightly point out that the bailiff attended twice, albeit on the same day (at an interval of something like 45 mins). This is what they say in their letter:

 

".....Visit Fee £22.50 – I have again consulted my Colleagues in Revenues who have advised me that the Bailiff can make numerous visits on the same day but can only charge one visit fee per day and that if as in this instance he gets a reply at the property on the same day but at a different time he can levy on the goods and there are fees for that action. They also advise that as far as they are aware both fees were not charged at the same visit......"

 

My research suggested to me that they could not charge a visit fee and a levy fee on the same day. Am I correct or not?

 

Also, the Council invite me to ask for an Independent review. Is there any point in that? I guess I would get stonewalled again!

 

Aside from that I am still awaiting a statement from Ross and Roberts regarding an earlier visit that they had identified. I have also submitted a FOI request in an attempt to identify how many other tax payers within my area have been charged with a visit fee and a levy fee at the same time. In addition, I am working on my Form 4 complaint in respect of the bailiff that lied about clamping my car.

Edited April 25, 2013 by gramtrad2

[outlawla]

".....Visit Fee £22.50 – I have again consulted my Colleagues in Revenues who have advised me that the Bailiff can make numerous visits on the same day but can only charge one visit fee per day and that if as in this instance he gets a reply at the property on the same day but at a different time he can levy on the goods and there are fees for that action. They also advise that as far as they are aware both fees were not charged at the same visit......"

 

Sorry if you've detailed this earlier, but what proof was there of any visits? Was anyone in/answer door to either of them?

 

On what basis are the Head H fees being charged? From memory, no goods were advertised or removed.

Edited April 25, 2013 by outlawla

[gramtrad2]

Sorry if you've detailed this earlier, but what proof was there of any visits? Was anyone in/answer door to either of them?

 

On what basis are the Head H fees being charged? From memory, no goods were advertised or removed.

 

The visits were some time ago. I do recall that there were two - a first one when I was not there and then, a little later when, obviously, I was there. I have a vague recollection that they put a note though the door (so no one answered) but cannot recall any more!

 

As for the Header Fees, you are correct in saying that no goods were removed.

[outlawla]

I can't understand the attendance to remove, unless this was in relation to a separate year's account/liability order they'd already levied for on a previous visit. But then there were 2 head H fees?

[gramtrad2]

I can't understand the attendance to remove, unless this was in relation to a separate year's account/liability order they'd already levied for on a previous visit.

 

The attendance to remove fee, or enforcement fee as they call it, relates to a previous year. Having got them to refund all of such fees in the recent years charges, I then asked them for a refund in respect of an earlier years charges. Problem here is that it is all a bit hazy and I cannot remember what transport they turned up in! I made the mistake of cutting them some slack on this and asking them to check; however, they sidestepped checking and just quoted the regs at me!

 

All that said - the enforcement fee was charged at the same time as the levy, which I understand is not correct. They should levy first and then charge an enforcement fee, if appropriate, surely. An Ombudsman's case backs this up.

[outlawla]

I agree! The attendance shouldn't be charged on the same visit as the levy. There's also the improbability that the costs were reasonable, especially as the council or R&R admitted to charging up to 20 of these in a day (potentially £3.2k), and the van would be one of those Noddy types.

 

The visit fee charged on the same day as the levy I suppose in those circumstances could be argued till the cows came home. These grey areas are often detailed in Service Level Agreements between the clowncil and bailiff firm. Is it worth tagging this on to your FoI request and see if they have one/disclose it?

 

If it's lawful to incur charges this way it would almost certainly be considered exploiting the fees schedule. The LGO, if investigating such actions would probably consider the reasonableness rather than the lawfulness, but bear in mind only a token number of complaints are ever investigated by the LGO. The best you can realistically hope for is a LGO report already exists that you can use as a lever as you've already done.

Edited April 25, 2013 by outlawla

[outlawla]

What do you think?

 

Bailiff attendance "with a vehicle fee"

"

Our enforcement bailiffs always use a van which is capable of effecting a removal therefore each time a van fee was incurred there was a bailiff in a removal van present.

[brassnecked]

What do you think?

 

Bailiff attendance "with a vehicle fee"

"

Our enforcement bailiffs always use a van which is capable of effecting a removal therefore each time a van fee was incurred there was a bailiff in a removal van present.

 

What the Berlingo doubling as a TARDIS that is bigger on the inside so as to hold as much as a 17 tonne Pentechnicon? Ballcocks!

[outlawla]

What the Berlingo doubling as a TARDIS that is bigger on the inside so as to hold as much as a 17 tonne Pentechnicon? Ballcocks!

 

Rossendale's Universal Goods Transportation Services

[brassnecked]

Rossendale's Universal Goods Transportation Services

 

have they issued Tossendales bailiffs with Duke Nukem's shrinker ray to fit an entire household's contents and a brace of cars in that sorry excuse for a van?