I owe around £500 to my local council in council tax arrears - balliffs conduct

[Thermometer]

??

[Wallenstein]

Sorry I haven't posted for a while.

 

The court seem to be telling me that they can't supply me with copies of the warrants because they dont keep duplicates.

 

Can this possibly be right?

[Guest buda01]

just thought i would ask. whats the problem with naming bailiffs.

[davefirewalker]

come on......

 

think about it

 

do the terms LIBEL, SUE, COURT CASE, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER...ETC...ETC

 

have any meaning.

 

Plus we only have the posters view of things (which could be tainted)

 

would not be a good idea

 

whereas bailiff companies is a different ball game

 

Dave

[Guest buda01]

come on......

 

think about it

 

do the terms LIBEL, SUE, COURT CASE, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER...ETC...ETC

 

have any meaning.

 

 

 

 

no not a lot. posters on this site who complain about bailiff behavior seem to have genuine reasons for doing so. if a bailiff doesnt like whats being said, then tough, let hm try and make a civil case in court to disprove what are usually facts.

[tiglet]

No, it would still be opinion and although "facts are facts" there will always be a personal element which will to some extent cloud a poster's opinion. It is absolutely impossible to be dispassionate under these circumstances.

 

Although a lot of poster's would stick to the truth, there would always be those who would exaggerate or add to their story, so in order to be fair to everyone, the best way is for no-one to post bailiffs personal details on here - no matter how tempting it may be.

[demon_x_slash]

CAG as a site would also be jointly liable in any such case, as the medium through which the libel/defamation occurred.

[tiglet]

Indeed - posting the names simply gives the mods more to do in terms of removing them - any action against this site would be counter-productive.

[Bailiffchaser]

That was indeed the case until very recently. I am not sure that the economy has yet quite reached the stage at which it is kept going by fines ripped off motorists, although we all know that this is a key moneyspinning venture.

 

I had issues with the police/courts concerning these two fines which I was not prepared to discuss with Drakes or their predecessors. I had no intention of letting them into my property at any time - period.

 

I'm baffled by your standpoint anyway. Surely a 'Bailiff Watchdog' is supposed to protect the public against the excesses of bailiffs, not to 'see both sides'

 

If I were charged with some offence in court and found my lawyer were busy 'seeing both sides' I don't think I'd be very happy, do you?

 

I cant figure this out either. If you are working against the bailiffs then why defend them ? Surely this means that there is something else going on in between ?

[Wallenstein]

I still don't have copies of the Distress Warrants. However Drakes state they were issued on 24 11 2006 and obviously not executed until three or four months later.

 

I am pressing both Drakes and the Court for copies of the warrants. Isn't it rather suspicious that they haven't provided them yet?

 

What important legal points arise with regard to warrants. Is it necessary, for example, that the warrent be issued to a named bailiff?

[The Watcher]

I wonder whether the bailiff firms issue the details to several bailiffs (not all of whom can be in possession of the warrant)?

 

Sounds fishy to me.

[Guest Herbie]

Wallenstien, I have pm'd you with further information on the matter of Distress Warrants.

 

PS You have every right to inspect the warrant.

[Guest buda01]

so let me get this right, you cant name bailiffs cus they might get upset, but its alright to name companies cus they wont be [edit]ed off at the complaints and adverse publicity.

[tiglet]

A company will expect a certain amount of adverse publicity - naming an individual can cause personal distress, which makes a stronger case for defamation of character etc.

[streetgang]

Hi everyone, quick question about what a bailiff can charge as a levy.

 

I originally owed approximately £1,000 in council tax when it was given a liability order. By the time the bailiff came to visit and make a walking possession order it had decreased to £629 (including their fees).

 

When making the levy, should / can they make the levy based on the original liability order of £1,000 or should it be the £629 (excluding charges) ?

 

As far as I understand it. they can charge £22 for the first hundred, 4% for the next 400 and the 2.5% for the last £1,500.

 

Any help gratefully received before I go back to the firm with my questions.

Thanks

[Markiemark1]

I would say it will be on whatever you owed, i.e. the £629.00. However, practically its a difference of about £9.00 but do dispute it!!

[streetgang]

thanks Repoman, I know it is only small change, but I dont want to give them a penny more than I need to, and the charges go straight into the coffers of the bailiff company.

 

If anyone has hard and fast knowledge of exactly what the bailiff can legally levy then I would be very grateful.

The original liability order was £1,000 but by the time they came to levy it was around £629, I just need to know if the levy should be on the outstanding liability or on the original liability as assigned by the court.

 

Thanks again for all help.

[streetgang]

Having looked at the Statutory Instrument "Statutory Instruments - 1992.

SI 1992 No.613 - The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992" the wording seems definitive...

 

2. (1) b.

Where the sum due at the time of the levy exceeds £100, 20% on the first £100 of the sum due, 4% on the next £400, 2.5% on the next £1500, 1% on the next £80000 and 0.25% on any additional sum; and the sum due at any time for these purposes means so much of the amount in respect of which the liability order concerned was made as is out standing at that time.

 

This seems to imply that, in my case, the levy made onthe liability order should have been to the outstanding amount of £629 and not the original £1,000.

If someone can clarify I would be grateful, helpful to know I am on sure legal footing before going back to the bailiff and the council on this one.

Thanks

[Guest Herbie]

The levy fee can ONLY be on the figure of £629, NOT £1,000.

 

I am aware that this is only a difference of £9.00 but I can personally buy two bottles of wine for this amount....and I know where I would rather spend my money......

[streetgang]

Thanks again Herbie for the advice, i will get that letter off to the bailiffs tomorrow morning.

Best wishes