Claiming back Baillifs charges

[jackburton]

OK, got a reply from the local councillors..

 

They have just recommended to go to the ACEA, which I've heard on here do not really provide any help..

 

Has anyone had any dealings with the ACEA and do they provide resolutions?

 

Thanks.

[jackburton]

Status update.

 

Local Government Ombudsman have not replied for quite some time now...

 

Gonna proceed with complaining to the Baillifs certification court and then issue a Court Claim for the incorrect charges next week after the Bailiff firm just denied all allogations in my SAR.

[jackburton]

Just had a response from the ACEA.. Sent complaint to them last Tuesday (would have received Wednesday)

 

Had response today, so posted Friday.. Basically just copying out responses the Baillifs said in their reply letter and saying in any case they couldn't investigate as the bailiffs would have destroyed all records after I'd paid because of the Data protection act.

 

What a waste of a stamp for a totally un-thorough investigation.

 

Looks like it's now Court and wait (even longer) for the LGO.

 

Really thinking I'm not gonna get this money back, all avenues are coming up on the side of the Bailiff.

[The Watcher]

I've long believed that these "regulatory" organisations (set up BY the industry to claim that they are regulating themselves) are nothing more than a PR exercise.

[jackburton]

Thanks watcher, that's brought me up a bit, especially that the bailiffs pay £200 per year for membership.... (from their website)

[The Watcher]

especially that the bailiffs pay £200 per year for membership....

 

......... a small price to pay for their own publicity machine !

[jackburton]

Ok, I made a complaint against the Baillif in their registered court and now they have come back still defending everything and disputing all my facts again..

 

This time they have also included a copy of a Walking Possesion Order that is marked at the bottom, "refused to sign".

 

Does this mean anything (e.g. to the court).?

[B.A.Ts]

did the bailiff enter your home and write out a list of items that he could take if you defaulted on payment, he is meant to of given you a copy for you to sign, if you did not then he would of put on the wpo that you had refused to sign this. It really all depends how he had gotten this WPO etc

[jackburton]

Nope didn't enter the house. But the WPO details a lease car (which is another area of dispute), so he would not have had to..

 

Also they have already admitted they did not have a WPO and have refunded me the £11 charge.

 

They've just pulled this out for the court basically..

 

I thought an unsigned WPO was useless...

[The Watcher]

This time they have also included a copy of a Walking Possesion Order that is marked at the bottom, "refused to sign".

 

Does this mean anything (e.g. to the court).?

 

How specific is the WPO? Does it list general goods or specifically mention items that he would have had to touch in order to list?

[jackburton]

How specific is the WPO? Does it list general goods or specifically mention items that he would have had to touch in order to list?

 

It lists the car which was on the driveway. Again, this was a lease car but they are claiming that it is not and it was not proved at the time he visited.

[B.A.Ts]

can you prove it was a lease car.. if so I presume that this evidence will be thrown out.. I understood that a bailiff had to walk in the property by peaceful means to obtain a WPO. and a copy of the WPO be left with the debtor with the fees attached and signed by the bailiff.. but if they have already admitted that a WPO was not done and they have reimbursed you with the fee then surely they can not use this as evidence.. looks to me that they atre clutching at straws to cover their backs

[jackburton]

Yep, most definately can prove it's a lease car... They've already seen the documentation which I sent to the court with the complaint...

 

I've even not bothered cashing the cheque yet, will be useful in court...

[The Watcher]

It lists the car which was on the driveway. Again, this was a lease car but they are claiming that it is not and it was not proved at the time he visited.

 

So - he has no actually evidence that a WPO was ever produced (at the time)?

He could simply have made this up himself, and when he says you "refused to sign" - that could be because you didn;t even know of its existence?

[jackburton]

Yep, you are right, but the question is how would the court see this...

[B.A.Ts]

That the bailiff has lied

[jackburton]

Thanks for the reply.

 

Thing is, this is getting serious now, and I can proceed further with the complaint, but the court document warns that I'd then be liable for their costs if I lose..

 

Nothing would upset me more than losing this and giving the bailiff even more money.

 

Should I employ a solicitor to proceed further with this?

 

Any advice appreciated.

[tomtubby]

Sorry I have not had the time to read all of this post.

 

Is the complaint you are making a FORM 4 complaint about the bailiff or are you issuing a writ?

 

The Form 4 does not cost anything and I do not know where the reference to cost is?

[B.A.Ts]

Thanks for the reply.

 

Thing is, this is getting serious now, and I can proceed further with the complaint, but the court document warns that I'd then be liable for their costs if I lose..

 

Nothing would upset me more than losing this and giving the bailiff even more money.

 

Should I employ a solicitor to proceed further with this?

 

Any advice appreciated.

 

I would seriously get some advice from a solicitor but you wouldnt have to have him present that should keep the cost down

[jackburton]

Sorry I have not had the time to read all of this post.

 

Is the complaint you are making a FORM 4 complaint about the bailiff or are you issuing a writ?

 

The Form 4 does not cost anything and I do not know where the reference to cost is?

 

 

Yes it was Form 4.

 

The initial complaint and Bailiffs reply part do not cost anything but the response from the judge says that after reading the Bailiffs comments, should you wish to persue further, then you could be liable for their costs if you lose.

[tomtubby]

If anyone in future is considering a complaint to the court about a certificated bailiff, you will see that I have now provide further details in the STICKY part of the bailiff section.

[jackburton]

Well, bad news.. Looks like the LGO are not going to do anything to the council, so now it's final showdown at the court room early next year.

 

 

The bailiff firm have now supplied "what I believe to be" documentation completed after the event for the benefit of the LGO and court.

 

This is a WPA with the words "REFUSED TO SIGN" and various other notes and documents which were never seen by me at the time.

 

Finally, the "NOTICE of ATTENDENCE" document they left, they have said that this was only so "I had the bailiffs contact details"...

 

Anyway, Court here I come but I'm getting quite dejected now by the constant knock backs, but I'll give it a go and we'll see if their lies convince the judge or not..

[PizzaMaker]

Excuse my ignorance for not reading all threads, but was you left with a copy of the WP agreement?

[jackburton]

Hi..

 

Nope, but subsequently he's produced one for the benefit of the court with the words "refused to sign" at the bottom.

[Guest 10110001]

Remember, when you file the claim, its the authority (the Council) you name as the defendant on the form. The council is liable for its bailiffs. The council will always try to shift liability to the bailiff by trying to get the court to name them as a co-defendant. Once you have been paid, its up to the council and bailiff to settle their differences betweem themselves.

 

I havn't read this thread in entirety, so I am assuming you have done all the procedural checks on the bailiff and the firm he works for, and made a complaint against the bailiff for defrauding you in fees.

 

If you paid the bailiff by credit card, then you can just do a chargeback, using the grounds that you were over-charged - and falls under the remit of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, or under Section 15(a)(1) of the Theft Act 1968 depending whether the offence was committed before January 01, 2006. You will get the whole amount back.

 

A Defendant Refused to Sign comment written on a document by the bailiff does not constitute delivery - see Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.