Bristol & Sutor Over Council Tax

[leeward30]

It was yesterday the balliff came in.

 

He just aksed if we had certain stuff and we said yes. It seemed like a standard procedure.

 

No he just sat in the living room but did say he can go up stairs to check what we say so make sure it is right. In otherwords he would not have a clue what is up stairs

 

 

 

In your initial post you have listed the fees charged but do you also have the dates on which they were made? When you let the Bailiff into your home did you allow him to move freely around the house?

[brassnecked]

It was yesterday the balliff came in.

 

He just aksed if we had certain stuff and we said yes. It seemed like a standard procedure.

 

No he just sat in the living room but did say he can go up stairs to check what we say so make sure it is right. In otherwords

 

he would not have a clue what is up stairs

 

So did he physically see the wardrobe and bedside cabinets? if not the levy is becoming more shaky, did he list the TV's as in make model? He really should list the serial numbers as a black TV is a black TV, did he list the remotes, as a TV is useless these days without the happy gun, if the remote isn't listed he cannot take it even if he takes the TV.

[leeward30]

No he did not go upstairs at all.

 

Yes he did list the tv as a sterling flat screen tv, but not the controller.

 

He also did not list any of the controllers for any other of the tv's.

 

flat screen tv (kitchen) no model or make

 

normal portable tv (bed room) no model or make

[brassnecked]

No he did not go upstairs at all.

 

Yes he did list the tv as a sterling flat screen tv, but not the controller.

 

He also did not list any of the controllers for any other of the tv's.

 

flat screen tv (kitchen) no model or make

 

normal portable tv (bed room) no model or make

 

So you told him what the other household contents were, and he didn't see or touch them? Naughty Naughty, he has to see them and list them correctly.

 

He is living up to the name Bonkers & Stupor

[leeward30]

That is correct he did not see any of them up stairs or like I said the model of the tv in the kitchen or even the microwave, dishwasher or tumble dryer. He just asked if we had one.

[brassnecked]

That is correct he did not see any of them up stairs or like I said the model of the tv in the kitchen or even the microwave, dishwasher or tumble dryer. He just asked if we had one.

 

Sounds like the bailiff has a "constructive levy" which could well be void, along with therefore his fees especially the dodgy ones, if that is the case the levy would fail, and he would be entitled merely to a First Visit fee of £24.50, and he could not re-enter the premises on the strength of his discredited former levy

 

Unless he physically sees the goods in the property and lists what he sees the levy could well be invalid. ( a constructive levy would also occur where a bailiff peers in through a window, without gaining entry and lists what he can see)

 

Other Caggers will help to clarify this and pinpoint the best way forward.

Edited November 14, 2013 by brassnecked

[leeward30]

Ok thankyou

 

Sounds like the muppet has a "constructive levy" which could well be void. Unless he physically sees the goods in the property and lists what he sees it could well be invalid. ( a constructive levy would also occur where a bailiff peers in through a window, without gaining entry and lists what he can see)

 

Other Caggers will help to clarify this and pinpoint the best way forward.

[brassnecked]

Ok thankyou

 

Hopefully ploddertom, and other regulars will give some further pointers, but try not to worry, all is not lost.

[ploddertom]

I think BN has summed it up quite adequately so far. Challenge the levy initially with the Bailiffs - after all when they come back & say nothing wrong ask them to provide proof as to the types of items they claim to have levied on - material, colour, size etc. Insist they remove the levy fee and ALL associated costs. This will go on for a little while as they will fight & argue over it.

[brassnecked]

I think BN has summed it up quite adequately so far. Challenge the levy initially with the Bailiffs - after all when they come back & say nothing wrong ask them to provide proof as to the types of items they claim to have levied on - material, colour, size etc. Insist they remove the levy fee and ALL associated costs. This will go on for a little while as they will fight & argue over it.

 

Thanks PT, as levy is in effect void, bailiff has no right of re entry either; so now you know the pack drill leeward30, keep him out and keep any car (s) away so he can't levy it. You could also send a Formal Complaint to the Head Of revenues copied to CEO, leader and your MP, stating that as the bailiff has misled you and has a void constructive levy, you cannot trust Busted & Stupor to deal fairly with you, and as there is no law that states you MUST deal with a bailiff you propose to pay the council direct £x per week, a sum you can afford to pay and refusal to accept the payment as the account is with bailiffs is unlawful also, and could eventually lead to a complaint to the LGO..

Edited November 14, 2013 by brassnecked

[leeward30]

Ok I will do what you said.

 

 

When I keep them out will my cost go up and can they force entry or will it go back to the council to be recovered a different way?

 

Thanks for all your help.

[brassnecked]

Ok I will do what you said.

 

 

When I keep them out will my cost go up and can they force entry or will it go back to the council to be recovered a different way?

 

Thanks for all your help.

If the levy is void and you keep them out and they cannot get a levy on anything else, the most B & S can lawfully claim is £42.50 in total for two visit fees. you need to pay the council an amount you can afford to pay on a regular basis, pay something in asap using the online system, as they cannot refuse payment that way.

[leeward30]

Ok I am very clear on this now thankyou.

[Ian olney]

My advice is slightly different & I believe the debtor is being given false hope in thinking the levy will be removed.

 

The debtor has allowed the bailiff into the property and entered into a signed agreement. Nick picking on selected items on the inventory will not render the levy void. In the meantime, should the debtor pay directly to the council, the bailiffs will return with the intention of removing goods.

 

With regards the items upstairs, the bailiff was inside the property, had access to the items, made his intentions clear and the debtor aware that he was placing the items into the custody of the law. A quote from Noseworthy v Campbell (1929) 1 DLR 964 is as follows:

 

"..... to constitute seizure it is not necessary that there should be physical contact with the goods seized....Some act must be done to intimate that seizure has been made."

 

This is a very contentious issue and the debtor would (IMO) be on very shaky ground to contest this. Certainly it would be a mistake to stop paying the bailiff after entering into a walking possession. Sometimes people need to accept that there is not a magic formula that enables you to wriggle out of agreements and as BN said originally, damage limitation is the best course of action.

 

There would of course be no harm in a "pay & claim" method which would mean paying the sum agreed and claiming it back either within the LGO complaint or separately through the court. Would someone wish to issue proceedings for £58? I personally wouldn't and there is the added concern as to whether costs would be awarded against the debtor as per the sticky above.

[brassnecked]

I see where you are coming from Ian, "With regards the items upstairs, the bailiff was inside the property, had access to the items, made his intentions clear and the debtor aware that he was placing the items into the custody of the law. A quote from Noseworthy v Campbell (1929) 1 DLR 964 is as follows:

 

"..... to constitute seizure it is not necessary that there should be physical contact with the goods seized....Some act must be done to intimate that seizure has been made.""

 

So you consider that writing down goods he hasn't seen is sufficient using that case from 1929? You could use it to justify a levy on goods seen through a window where there has been no entry, in other words a constructive or generic levy

 

There is nothing wrong per se with leeward30 paying the bailiff, and challenging the fees.

 

bear in mind

Evans v South Ribble Borough Council [1992] QB 757 may have overruled Noseworthy in certain circumstances, where levies based on generic lists of goods without any detailed inspection of premises could be invalid, this levy could well be generic as the bailiff listed goods without seeing them.

 

 

However OP needs to limit the damage, so it is up to them to choose the path, other Caggers will no doubt give further useful advice.

[Ian olney]

BN you should be aware that in the case of Evans v South Ribble, the bailiff had not gained entry to the property & that Mrs Evans was out at work at the time. This is why the levy failed in that particular case. The Evans case actually removed the notion that a bailiff may levy on goods through a window.

 

With regards the case in question, entry had been gained.

 

I am not considering the bailiffs actions in this particular case to be sufficient or insufficient-Untill it is tested in law, we shall never know. I am just pointing out that the bailiffs would not take this lying down & giving examples of the type of things they could come back at you with. For all I know, the bailiffs may well be aware of more recent case law.

 

The Evans case confirmed the 3 stages in conducting levies: Entry, Seizure & impounding. The critical stage in this case is the Seizure. In this case it would be fair to label the items seized from upstairs as a "constructive seizure". There is nothing in law to say a bailiff may not seize goods in this manner. In addition, for point of argument, if it was successfully argued that the goods should not have been levied upon, all that would happen is they would be scrubbed from the inventory & the remaining items would still form the levy. You are then left to scrape the barrel by arguing over the value at auction of the remaining goods. Unless you are an auctioneer, the opinion given will always be open for debate.

[brassnecked]

BN you should be aware that in the case of Evans v South Ribble, the bailiff had not gained entry to the property & that Mrs Evans was out at work at the time. This is why the levy failed in that particular case. The Evans case actually removed the notion that a bailiff may levy on goods through a window.

 

With regards the case in question, entry had been gained.

 

I am not considering the bailiffs actions in this particular case to be sufficient or insufficient-Untill it is tested in law, we shall never know. I am just pointing out that the bailiffs would not take this lying down & giving examples of the type of things they could come back at you with. For all I know, the bailiffs may well be aware of more recent case law.

 

The Evans case confirmed the 3 stages in conducting levies: Entry, Seizure & impounding. The critical stage in this case is the Seizure. In this case it would be fair to label the items seized from upstairs as a "constructive seizure". There is nothing in law to say a bailiff may not seize goods in this manner. In addition, for point of argument, if it was successfully argued that the goods should not have been levied upon, all that would happen is they would be scrubbed from the inventory & the remaining items would still form the levy. You are then left to scrape the barrel by arguing over the value at auction of the remaining goods. Unless you are an auctioneer, the opinion given will always be open for debate.

 

Case law is open to interpretation and if a bailiff levies next doors car they will rely on Observer v Gordon when the irate neighbour has to go to the auction yard to reclaim their car.

 

Yes there is the fact that the bailiff had entry, but so long as OP pays they are in a position to challenge, if they wish.

 

The fact remains that anything on that levy not seen by the bailiff could be open to challenge, as in I tell a bailiff I have a bedside cabinet, he lists it, what he doesn't know as he hasn't checked is that the bedside cabinet is actually an old banana box covered by a cloth and worth sod all. The whole levy if you remove exempt items is probably worth 100 - 150 quid at auction, so it could be regarded as soley to garner fees for the bailiff, there being insufficient goods to cover even the fees

[ploddertom]

In my view I would write to the Bailiffs first challenging the levy, they in turn will no doubt write back saying nothing wrong. Then I would write to the Council giving them the opportunity to sort it out but also making them aware they put themselves at risk of a Regulation 46 Complaint about the "supposed" levy.

[brassnecked]

In my view I would write to the Bailiffs first challenging the levy, they in turn will no doubt write back saying nothing wrong. Then I would write to the Council giving them the opportunity to sort it out but also making them aware they put themselves at risk of a Regulation 46 Complaint about the "supposed" levy.

A good option PT, so long as Op pays what they can afford preferably to the council, the danger for Ian's information is that if the bailiff is paid they will deduct all their fees first, so they will get to keep even the dodgy ones.

[Ian olney]

Not sure what the general feeling on here is regarding magistrates courts but I believe them to be a kangaroo court.

 

Challenging the levy on such flimsy circumstances as this case would be hard enough in a county court-I'd say there is little or no hope of any result from a magistrates court (that's the same magistrates court who list the council amongst it's biggest customers-No conflict of interest there eh?)

 

I'm sorry to be such a party pooper but this is the battle you are up against-The whole system is crooked & all they care about is extracting as much money as possible from you.

 

The cost to bring the case before magistrates would be greater than the £58 in question as well btw with no guarantee of winning

[brassnecked]

Not sure what the general feeling on here is regarding magistrates courts but I believe them to be a kangaroo court.

 

Challenging the levy on such flimsy circumstances as this case would be hard enough in a county court-I'd say there is little or no hope of any result from a magistrates court (that's the same magistrates court who list the council amongst it's biggest customers-No conflict of interest there eh?)

I'm sorry to be such a party pooper but this is the battle you are up against-The whole system is crooked & all they care about is extracting as much money as possible from you.

 

The cost to bring the case before magistrates would be greater than the £58 in question as well btw with no guarantee of winning

 

the levy is challenged on it's content with the council, if B & S are bolshie, who are wholly liable for their agents actions. If there are serious doubts about a levy or a bailiffs actions a Regulation 46 can be started with the council as defendant as someone is aggrieved by the levy done by their agents.

 

It is not the only option open, your suggestion of sucking the fees down and the potential for them to spiral if a single payment is missed, is valid. no one disputes that. But beware a late payment even by a day; and a default is also created if you pay TOO EARLY, but it is better to get the bailiff out of the equation if at all possible. That is all I propose to say. Other Caggers will no doubt have opinions and advice for leeward30

[dx100uk]

Not sure what the general feeling on here is regarding magistrates courts but I believe them to be a kangaroo court.

 

Challenging the levy on such flimsy circumstances as this case would be hard enough in a county court-I'd say there is little or no hope of any result from a magistrates court (that's the same magistrates court who list the council amongst it's biggest customers-No conflict of interest there eh?)

 

I'm sorry to be such a party pooper but this is the battle you are up against-The whole system is crooked & all they care about is extracting as much money as possible from you.

 

The cost to bring the case before magistrates would be greater than the £58 in question as well btw with no guarantee of winning

 

yes mark

 

dx

[Ian olney]

BN-My point is that the council will back it's bailiffs and the magistrates will back the council.

It is a viscous circle.

Sadly, anyone who pins any hope in a magistrates court being impartial is in for an unpleasant surprise.

I'm not personally convinced that a levy could be made invalid in these circumstances anyway.

 

It would be interesting to see some figures on findings in council tax cases

heard in magistrates courts compared to county courts.

 

Likewise, a "not guilty" verdict in a magistrates court trial is like gold dust compared to trials heard in crown courts

by impartial members of the public. Bringing a case before magistrates is by no means cheap.

 

We could more than likely get the Heads A & H returned in this case via the LGO.

This leaves £58 outstanding.

 

I honestly believe it would be extremely hard to get these fees overturned in any avenue of redress

and maybe the debtor should take it on the chin and put it down to experience?

[brassnecked]

Ian Mark or whoever you are, we are here to give options, yours is as valid as any other, a Regulation 46 is a last resort, and LGO can be better, If Op wishes to pay the bailiff fine, if they wish to pay and dispute , fine, they have been given the information. Nothing wrong with a Formal Complaint highlighting discrepancies, as Caggers have found fees have often removed when a bailiff has been caught out with a dubious levy, even with a peaceful entry when the levy is mostly exempt goods or of such a low value that it could be seen as soley to garner fees without going anywhere near magistrates. In fact they use the Council complaint system.

 

If this was disputed it would be highly unlikely to end up with magistrates.

[Ian olney]

Ian Mark or whoever you are, we are here to give options, yours is as valid as any other, a Regulation 46 is a last resort, and LGO can be better, If Op wishes to pay the bailiff fine, if they wish to pay and dispute , fine, they have been given the information. Nothing wrong with a Formal Complaint highlighting discrepancies, as Caggers have found fees have often removed when a bailiff has been caught out with a dubious levy, even with a peaceful entry when the levy is mostly exempt goods or of such a low value that it could be seen as soley to garner fees without going anywhere near magistrates. In fact they use the Council complaint system.

 

If this was disputed it would be highly unlikely to end up with magistrates.

 

BN I would be very interested to read about any formal complaint that has resulted in a council removing fees for "dubious" levies. The only instance I can think of is when a doormat was levied upon & even then, it took the intervention of the LGO for something to be done about it.

 

You need to read and fully understand regulation 46 and it's reference to an aggrieved person applying to a magistrates court for redress. Why you should think that it is highly unlikely that this case would end up with magistrates, especially after originally agreeing with PT's reference to Reg 46 is beyond me.

 

The Evans case you reffered to previously was heard & dismissed by magistrates-It took an appeal in the county court for common sense and justice to prevail.

 

People need to understand that there is not a magic formula every time a bailiff comes knocking to get fees removed. Put yourself in the debtors shoes, would you want to risk your own money paying for a court hearing on the back of a "dubious" levy that you have no legal argument to state is irregular/illegal?

I certainly wouldn't. Especially for such a small amount as £58 and again, I refer you to the sticky where it states that costs can be awarded against you if your case fails as well.