Wording on a bailiff letter

[dementedfeline]

Hi all

 

If the first you knew of any bailiff action was finding the following on your doormat (capitals/bolding/underlining all original), no bell having been rung..........

 

"I have attended today with the intention of removing your goods and chattels as are necessary to discharge the above debt and any additional ENFORCEMENT COSTS incurred.

 

PLEASE NOTE - No further arrangements are acceptable and payment is now required in full by CLEAR FUNDS ONLY.

 

"I will re-attend at your address at my convenience and may REMOVE goods even in your absence."

 

would this fall foul of law/guidance in terms of a) not offering the option of some sort of payment plan and b), that last sentence about removing goods in your absence - isn't that misrepresentation? I believe, but am happy to be corrected, that they can't remove goods in your absence and especially if they don't have a signed Form 7?

 

Thanks all

[i hate bailiffs]

Standard letter to panic you to contact them

The only goods they can take are outside unless you leave the door unlocked

 

What is the debt about council tax at a guess

Keep your car away from property from now on

[dementedfeline]

don't worry, (but thanks for reassuring) - this is now a technical exercise in anticipation of kicking some backsides, and I'm trying to gather some ammo.

 

I've read various bits about bailiffs not being allowed to misrepresent their powers, etc - my understanding is that to remove goods, they have to levy first and then sieze/remove which would involve a Form 7 and a Form 9.

 

The scare letter is inherently misleading, no? Does anyone know if this sort of wording has ever been challenged in court?

[Ian olney]

"may remove goods"

 

A clever play with words-They are not saying that they will remove goods.

 

Not misrepresentation unfortunately. Just a bluff, designed at scaring the weak, vulnerable & ignorant

[dementedfeline]

Yup, clocked the use of "may". However, that implies that they have the legal right to do so and it is down to them whether to choose to or not.

 

But, they can't, can they? If they haven't got a levy, they can't remove goods - or am I completely getting the wrong end of the proverbial stick?

[Ian olney]

They can't remove goods without a levy but they would argue that they could remove goods when they return.

 

The bit about "even in your absence" is more debatable.

 

It sounds like an Equita letter. You would think they would have had some form of legal advice before producing these standard letters en-masse & if so, will have their backsides covered.

 

EDIT- They would argue that they could levy & remove goods upon their return on the same visit. In practice, they wouldn't & wouldn't really want to. They want your money.

[dementedfeline]

yes, it's the whole sentence - they sneak the letter through the letterbox and say they may remove goods even in your absence. BUT if you're not there and there's nothing outside (usually car), they can't levy on anything and they have to levy before they remove, don't they?

 

Also, although this is in relation to road traffic debt, I'm pretty sure I've recently read something regarding council tax where a judge specifically said that there had to be an interval between levy and seizure to allow for possible payment, but I can't find my reference at the moment.

 

UPDATE: it's a local government ombudsman report -focus report on bailiffs nov 2012. I think the specific reference is to council tax rather than road traffic debt, but it says:

 

We have seen examples where bailiffs have charged for actions they have not taken. For example a ‘van fee’, better known as a Head C fee,12 which is charged for one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the

removal of goods. The Schedule makes it clear that a bailiff can only charge such a fee where they have entered a property and levied on goods but not removed them. Levying on goods without being in a

position to remove them is called ‘constructive levy’ and is illegal.

 

and

 

The same firm of bailiffs charged two separate council tax debtors – Mark and Tom – for the costs of attending with a van. But the bailiffs had not entered their properties or levied on any goods, and so they were not entitled to make such a charge.

Edited November 16, 2013 by dementedfeline
found reference to add

[Ian olney]

The Focus Report is guidance, NOT law.

 

You need to find some legislation that makes it illegal for a bailiff to levy & remove on the same visit. One of the forms of impounding that may take place is the removal of goods at the end of the first visit.

 

It is highly unlikely that this would ever happen but unless there is something written in law then the bailiff MAY do this.

 

I suspect you will not find anything in law-The bailiff company would not make such a foolish & elementary mistake as it would leave the door open to 100's if not 1000's of successful claims.

[renegadeimp]

Is this a county court bailiff or a magistrate? Fines and bailiffs have different rules from council tax debts

[dementedfeline]

road traffic debt so county court.

 

in Culligan v Simkin & Marstons 2008 (only at county court level, i know), judge said

"Secondly, I note that r.12(2) and (3) of the 1988 Rules clearly envisage two stages. The first is the levying of the distress and the second is the removal of the goods. This gap between the two stages, and the requirement that forms 7 and 9 should be given, must be in order to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due at each stage.

Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not, and as a matter of law cannot, take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure."

 

So, how could bailiff legally return and remove goods in person's absence if no intervening contact is made?

[Ian olney]

The judge is quoting from distress for rent rules. The issue was regarding a charge for attending to remove. The letter that the bailiff left did not mention charges for ATR.

 

Why don't you put a complaint in to the council quoting that particular case & then let us know the response?

[dementedfeline]

Ian, but doesn't the Schedule 1 fees come under the distress for rent rules?

 

I'm not querying the validity of various fees here, but wondering if the wording on the letter is tantamount to misrepresentation as without a levy how can the bailiff remove goods in your absence? Is he allowed to proceed directly from this letter to removing goods with no intervening steps (which to me, is what the letter implies)? Or have I missed something glaringly obvious?

 

This is a completely new subject area to me so I'm reading a lot and trying to understand, not trying to be deliberately "this is my opinion and you must agree with me".

 

Thanks

df

[lookinforinfo]

Dementedfeline, the first thing you have to realise is that bailiffs want you to pay them. That letter was probably delivered by one of the office staff [ie not a bailiff] so could not engage you in conversation but the

bailiff company hoped that the letter would put the fear of God in you and you would rush around friends and relatives etc to collect the money outstanding. This hasn't worked in your case but it does in so many

instances. In the latter case, the bailiff would have got the money the Court had demanded, plus got paid for a visit [£24.50] to which he was not entitled, leaving him free to go after the ones like you who are

more difficult to collect from, or who cannot raise the required amount of money.

 

As you have read, bailiffs do take goods without the necessary lawful backing, but most people react by raising the money somehow to recover their goods rather than take the bailiff to Court. Bailiffs rely on

intimidation, fear and shame mostly to get the money. And some bailiffs lie to get the result they want.

 

No doubt if pressed in Court about that letter to you, they would argue that they missed out the bit about making contact with you in between "I will re-attend at your address at my convenience and may REMOVE goods even in your absence."

[tomtubby]

By the way when a bailiff states "may remove good "even in your absence" what they mainly mean is that they could if they wish remove goods that may be in the garden or on the driveway.

 

All letters and notices can be challenged in court but as to whether a court would make a finding of mis-representation is quite something else.

 

All of the notices used by bailiffs SHOULD be amended to tie in with the new regulations that come into force on 6th April next year. The Ministry of Justice are still working with Stakeholder Groups to get the notices finalised.