Rundle & Co Certified Bailiffs

[neil_tp]

Hi, I need some info on my now paid council tax, rundles are still chasing me for their fees, which I have asked for in writing, i have never let them in my house or paid them any council tax I paid that direct to the council.

 

I think they dont get paid from the council!

 

Neil

[Saffronflowers]

Bailiff makes there money from the charges they charge.. You need to send them a Subject Access Request and enclose a £10 cheque. There is a template letter on this site, I will try and find it, if not someone should be long to tell you where it is.

 

SFx

[Guest Herbie]

The bailiff makes money from the fees that they charge to you.

 

A lot of people are of the opinion that because they have paid the council direct that they do not owe fees. This is not so. The fees are still due unless there is a problem with certification !!. I have pm'd you on this.

[Guest HONESTLY]

If you have paid the council direct get a letter off them to confirm that the warrant has been withdrawn. If the warrant has been withdrawn rundells can do screw about it as they have no authority.

[setmefree]

If you have paid the council direct get a letter off them to confirm that the warrant has been withdrawn. If the warrant has been withdrawn rundells can do screw about it as they have no authority.

 

Honestly if the bailiff's have already made a visit ,then they are quite entitled to their fees regardless of if the council take back the debt,this is where many people make a mistake,if the council take back the debt before the bailiff attends then no charges apply.

[calvi36]

If you have paid the council direct get a letter off them to confirm that the warrant has been withdrawn. If the warrant has been withdrawn rundells can do screw about it as they have no authority.

 

 

How do you know it's been withdrawn? Neil-tp could have paid online or by cheque to the council, this doesnt automatically mean the warrant will be withdrawn. As for the Bailiffs fees, if they have actually performed the work as instructed by the council and those fees are the standard feees allowed in law then they are entitled to be paid.

[neil_tp]

hi, I have asked today if the warrant was withdrawn, just a punt! I paid it all online cos the system will accept it!

 

I have got a £22.50 and a £16 for visits at last years prices :o also got a levy £47 and a ninety pound van bill, my concern is that they have not followed any procedures ie putting a bill thru the door, I think that I am also a victim of a illegal distress levy as balliff is not a certified balliff!

 

Mr Rundle is ringing me tommorro

[Guest HONESTLY]

Your choice. Upto you what you choose to pay but if the council has withdrawn the warrant then forget them.

[demon_x_slash]

They are allowed to charge for what they actually performed - so if you received two visits, they are entitled to the visit fees. If they conducted a valid levy, after gaining peaceable entry and listing items allowed by law, then they are entitled to the levy fee. Same with the van.

 

However, if they did none of these things, then they are not entitled to a penny. As saffron suggested, try a SAR and see what they have on record for your account.

[neil_tp]

A result today, Chris Rundle rang me as promise, nice bloke actually, All charges removed £177 worth,as a good will gesture!

 

I would have paid the visits, but the balliff left no paperwork, MR Rundle said they should have done and will be having a mystery shopper dip check on them, I do belive him! He actually said they dont have to have kept copies of visit paperwork, I told him I thought that was not best practice! I will say he seemed very open and honest

[calvi36]

Result Neil! I would say Mr Rundle was a very nice man, only because he realised you had him over a barrel, no paperwork means how on earth could they prove they had actually attended. On the subject of the levy was it ever performed at all? If not then why would they show up with a van? Again this should not have happened. I am chuffed that you are pleased with the outcome.

[neil_tp]

They put a levy on a car and a push bike, never got access to my house peacefully or otherwise, I didnt know why they brought a van to take a car they didnt bring a van anyway, well only their own.

 

my council tell them not to seize goods unless they have their direct permission only happens very rarely,

[neil_tp]

ps but what really concerns me is people who dont know their right!

[exemployee]

I appreciate this is an old thread but would like to state a few truths about Rundle & Co / Birchalls (they trade under the same Parent Company – Vilicus Ltd) who are owned, essentially, by [edited] – previously of Madigans Bailiffs fame (sold them to Equita [Capita]). They are complete [edited]: I know this from personal experience (check the username for a clue).

 

I am sure they’re not alone and would imagine that most similar Certificated Bailiff companies operate using similar tactics. In fact, again, I know it.

 

Firstly, their bailiffs are SELF EMPLOYED and not paid a salary (except levy bailiffs / letter droppers as they’re known within the company / industry). They encourage them to become self employed and the bailiff claims a fee from Rundle / Birchalls for each collection they make – typically well over £100 a pop. A good bailiff can earn around £75k+ a year in fees alone. The rest of the fees go to the company with the remainder (the original debt) going to the Local Authority. They provide the service ‘free’ to the LA but effectively [edited] the debtor by racking up the fees as quickly as possible. Of course, the LA’s don’t’ ‘know’ that their bailiffs are self employed because of their, correct, concerns over the ‘claim culture’ that it would instil within the company. In fact most of the contracts between most LA’s and Bailiffs specifically forbid bailiffs being self employed.

Rundle / Birchalls prefer them to be self employed to make them more ‘hungry’: the more they collect, the more they get paid and the more income the company has (let alone stop them having to pay their NI contributions etc etc). In fact the company employs very few staff– the robots in the call centre and a few admin people to ensure the computer system is generating the work correctly etc. Of course the LA think they employ lots of staff as they’re told all the bailiffs are actually employed by Rundle / Birchalls.

 

Their computer system is very efficient and ensures that as soon as an agreement is broken / a set date passes a letter / allocation to a bailiff is carried out automatically. This means their desire to rack up the fines quickly is achieved. It’s also what leads to a case being falsely re-assigned to a bailiff that they’ve already handled or given extra time to etc.

 

Secondly, and in particular reference to Road Traffic debts (the crème-de-la-crème for any bailiff company due to the extortionate fees / income they provide) they charge the debtor for a visit before they’ve even visited. Let me explain: A case is received and entered onto the computer. The next day a letter is sent to the debtor at the address provided stating that they have received the case and ‘have attended’ today to seize goods ‘but nobody was in’ – a £50+ fee is automatically placed on the account. If the debtor doesn’t respond / the letter is returned to sender after a week or two, they are assumed to be verified as living at that address - a £90 fee is automatically added to the debtors account. That’s £140 for sending out a letter (second class!). Of course if a debtor argues that no bailiff attends, they’re ‘lying’ (of course the council thinks them dishonest for not paying / committing the offence in the first place). Then a bailiff is allocated and the fees ratchet up astronomically. A £65 parking fine would often be worth over £500 (not including the original debt) to the company within a matter of weeks. Multiply this by, say, 15000 cases a year per LA (and companies like Rundle / Birchalls have around 20 LAs) and you can see how much they’re bringing in!

 

In addition the letters they send to debtors are completely different to those they tell the council they’re sending. They print ambiguous, misleading statements on them designed, obviously, to scare people into paying. Things such as ‘we will attend with the Police to gain entry to remove goods from your house unless you pay by xxxx’. This is technically illegal, of course, but I’d pay if I received a letter like this (providing I didn’t know better of course). The LA receive and agree, at the start of the contract, what can be stated on the letter. Once agreed this is simply kept on file in case anything crops up but otherwise ignored totally.

 

Their bailiffs encourage you to pay by credit card to stop any further fees being added to your account which holds true – although they also charge you (around 5%) for the privilege – again without the LAs knowledge. Without being 100% sure, I also think it’s charged by the credit card company as a cash advance which obviously attracts an extortionate interest rate.

 

Finally, they will ‘never’ remove items so don’t panic on that front. They’re of no use as the second hand auction value of them is worthless – by the time they’ve paid storage / auction fees they’d effectively get nothing (even on a car this is pointless). Besides, the bailiffs don’t own vans to remove anything in. They do it all by car due to the inconvenience of driving a van (the company owns one van ensuring it meets certain criteria set by the council – this is usually loaned to another company within the owners empire of businesses). They’re only interested in money and simply pass the case back to the LA for further action. By being passed to companies like Rundle / Birchalls you do not get anything bad on your credit rating. Only once the case is returned to the LA and they take further court action is your rating affected. The staff in the office will not, of course, tell you this because it’s in their interest to not let it go back to the LA as they wont bring in the money for the bailiffs.

 

And why does none of this ever get stopped? Well, essentially, because the industry is not very well regulated and is money influenced. Whilst LA’s don’t like receiving the complaints companies like this inevitably generate, as soon as they see the money they bring in using such unscrupulous tactics they’re most willing to turn a blind eye (and of course the bailiff company wines and dines them, takes them to their corporate box at the rugby / football / horse racing / cricket / lap dancing club etc etc and generally encourages them to let them, the friendly bailiff company, look after things – even though many LA workers are ‘not allowed’ to receive corporate hospitality, they disguise them as ‘meetings with the bailiff company’ from the powers that be whilst they go on a nice little jolly). That way, when the contract’s up for renewal, they award it to the same company again – that’s why there’s very few changes in the bailiffs LAs use from year to year.

 

In the meantime, horror stories such as blind little old ladies being harassed for money will continue – especially in a climate when official Government funding is being cut to LA’s and they have to provide things from their own financial sources. It’s ultimately the taxpayer that foots the bill, it just happens in a round-about way that people don’t know about.

 

Hope this inside knowledge helps with the advice you give.

[demon_x_slash]

It's good to have an ex-insider on the forums - welcome

[emmasgirl]

THANK YOU for this 'inside info' - explains alot, and eases some worries!

[calf573]

I found this thread when I googled my local friendly bailiffs (rundles) as they have been threatening my 85 year old confused mother. I followed the advice on asking the local authority to withdraw the warrant and after a bit of persuasion they did!! the bailiff had told them that they had made 2 visits which is not true, they have sent 2 threatening letters. i'm now waiting to see if i hear any more, many thanks to this site, you've saved my mother £42.50

[Guest PASTTACTICS]

Just a quick one. Rundell and co have bought out ccs enforcement services .The bailiff company on whistleblower in sept 06.

[falcon185]

Does that mean any bailiff previously employed by CCS can work for Rundles without changing his Certificate? Or does he have to have his certificate changed to Rundles?

[tomtubby]

He MUST under section 12 change his certificate,

 

In addition when he leaves his previous employer his bailiff bond is invalid.

 

He can ONLY hand deliver a letter. That is it!!!

[falcon185]

Hi Tomtubby,

thank you for that, so just to clarify a point, his old company is bought out by Rundle so he has to change it regardless even though CCS is now part of Rundles?

 

Thanks in advance B

[tomtubby]

Rule 12 is very CLEAR.......if there has been ANY change to the bailiff's certificate, the he MUST apply to the court to change his certificate to reflect the changes......

[niceinvention]

I had a recent visit from a charming representitive from the afforementioned Rundle & Co (relating to my ongoing debt of owed council tax totalling to about £2000) and like an idiot I let him in. As I did not know what powers he really has or otherwise. I asked him for written evidence of what he was legally able to take from my home and he had nothing but his word. I also said I thought he had no right to take my car as I am self employed but he said he did. I have since done a bit of research (Too late)! and it seems he is not legally entitled to take it?...

He said he would not leave until I had paid the smallest of the ammounts off (£380), (Saying this was doing me a favour). or he would seize various goods including my car. Being in the extreme position I was in I was forced to ring my father and he kindly paid this £380 off by credit card. I was then obliged to sign a "Notice of seizure of goods" inventory agreement that says I will pay the remainder of the debt @ £340 a month for six months, and if I default he will return to seize the afforemntioned goods. I won`t have a hope in hell of meeting that without borrowing more money and feel like I`m being "legally" extorted! Also I spoke with him on the phone beforehand and told him I would have to leave my work early so as to be present when he called as my wife being home with our two children (18 months and 3yrs old) would be in no position to deal with him and her english is not perfect being from Slovakia. To which he replied that it didn`t matter if I was there or not as her name is on the debt too. So he would have done the same to her without me presnt!! If there are "minors" in the home is this not also another reason for them not to be allowed to enter?

 

Would any of this make the aggreement I signed invalid?

 

Sorry this is so long. Anyone help?

[niceinvention]

I had a recent visit from a charming representitive from the afforementioned Rundle & Co (relating to my ongoing debt of owed council tax totalling to about £2000) and like an idiot I let him in. As I did not know what powers he really has or otherwise. I asked him for written evidence of what he was legally able to take from my home and he had nothing but his word. I also said I thought he had no right to take my car as I am self employed but he said he did. I have since done a bit of research (Too late)! and it seems he is not legally entitled to take it?...

He said he would not leave until I had paid the smallest of the ammounts off (£380), (Saying this was doing me a favour). or he would seize various goods including my car. Being in the extreme position I was in I was forced to ring my father and he kindly paid this £380 off by credit card. I was then obliged to sign a "Notice of seizure of goods" inventory agreement that says I will pay the remainder of the debt @ £340 a month for six months, and if I default he will return to seize the afforemntioned goods. I won`t have a hope in hell of meeting that without borrowing more money and feel like I`m being "legally" extorted! Also I spoke with him on the phone beforehand and told him I would have to leave my work early so as to be present when he called as my wife being home with our two children (18 months and 3yrs old) would be in no position to deal with him and her english is not perfect being from Slovakia. To which he replied that it didn`t matter if I was there or not as her name is on the debt too. So he would have done the same to her without me presnt!! If there are "minors" in the home is this not also another reason for them not to be allowed to enter?

 

Would any of this make the aggreement I signed invalid?

 

Sorry this is so long. Anyone help?

[sillygirl1]

As you have small children you can ask the council to take the debt back as they are making a false levy on goods they cannot take. I'd send a PM to tomtubby if I were you as they are the expert on this.