Are these Bailiff fees correct?

lightisfading

Please can someone in the know advise me as to whether these bailiff fees (Rossendales) are correct.

Visit fee 1 £24.50
Visit fee 2 £18.00
Levy fee £52.00 (car)
Sch 5 Head H £24.50 (what on earth is this?!)
Attendance with van £110

I've been hunting on the internet but struggling to find information (or information that I can understand, not good with legal talk!)

Re. attendance with a van, where a walking possession has not been taken (he has never been in our home), but the car *has* been levied on - From what I can find the attendance with a van is for attending with a view to remove property listed in the walking possession - however can they justify £110 of costs for attendance with a van where they aren't removing property (no previous walking possession) They clearly aren't going to remove a car with a white van (I watched it outside! it wasn't a tow truck)! If it makes any difference, we never signed the levy/walking possession for the car (and for that matter they never put it through the letterbox, they waited til i demanded it!)

I am in the process of writing them a letter to arrange repayment (£300 p/m on a debt of £1065, if you include all their fees), but obviously don't want to bow down to them if they aren't entitled to charge some of these fees.

Tixy

I don't know the answer but think you might be able to find out what you need to know at baliffadviceonline website.

handyman123_2

Hi Lightsfading, I've been trying to find a post from @ 1-2 months ago by RobertoMoire, If I remember correctly he posted a list of charges that Bailiff's are allowed to levy. It might be worth sending him a pm, though I dont think I've seen him around lately.
Again If I remember correctly someone else was being done over in a similar way to yourself.

Keep us updated to how you get on.

Best wishes and good luck, handyman.

lightisfading

Have had a look on bailiffadviceonline website, thanks, but still can't find quite what I'm after which is:


Can they charge for attendance with van, if they only have a levy on a car (therefore not removable with a van, which I saw!)

Can they charge for attendance with van to remove, based on a walking possession on car, if the WP was not signed?

What on earth is Sch 5 Head H?

- I've found the following "As the fee is effectively charged for the return of the goods listed on the levy, to your control, this must happen when the bill itself has been settled." - if this is right surely theyre trying it on charging to return a vehicle, which has never been taken away, that we never signed a levy for, before we'd paid the debt off! Maybe I misinterpret though...

I'm going to try ringing the council / debtline tomorrow, this is driving me nuts!

lightisfading

Hmm more digging yields this:

This must be in line with normal van hire rates. Bailiffs cannot bring a van to your home and try to charge you for it before they get a 'walking possession agreement'.
http://www.advicenow.org.uk/advicenow-guides/consumer-and-money-problems/dealing-with-bailiffs/what-bailiffs-can-charge-html,621,FP.html


Normal van hire rates round here seem to be a maximum of £60/day, so £110 seems a little excessive.

The crux of the matter still seems to be whether or not they can charge it if the walking possession on the car isn't signed.

Time for bed, could stay up all night reading legal mumbo jumbo on this!

jlarge

I think this might be the thread that people have been looking for it was posted on the 27th of november last year but I cant seem to cut and paste the whole thing. I am in a similar situation and have sent an email to the company and to the council with my calculation and am now waiting for their reply.
Good Luck.

The law provides £11.20 for a letter. Only one letter fee can be charged.

Then its 28% on the pcn each time he visits you (max 3 visits). If no goods of yours have been moved in a van to be auctioned, then the bailiff cannot possibly have any reasonable costs for using his van or apply any other charges.

The law provides no other bailiffs fees.

If a bailiff is trying to swindle you then he commits an offence.s2 Fraud Act 2006. Bailiffs always try it on and try charging you hundreds of pounds pretending they are lawful. Bailiffs tend to give these charges some rather inventive names but the law doesnt say you have to pay them.

TY NP That's very intersting indeed. It's making sense now:

1. For a parking ticket they have no right of forceful entry as i have not signed any walking possession or let em in before.

2. I owe the council money and the company 'reasonable' fees in their tariff and the 2003 act.

3. the 200+ extra charges is a figure the bailiff has invented.

4. they are playing on fear. power games eh!

5. it's game on now..... i'm not letting these bstds get to me


1. No right to break in, provided you never let the in the first place.

2. Lawful fees are 28% of the ticket each time abailiff visits you plus £11.20 for one letter. Reasonable costs only applies if a bailiff transports your goods in a van and selling them at auction.

3. Yes, bailiffscome up with al sorts of fictitious stuff to increase their fee. They are not statutory fees.

4. yes.

5. dont play their game. Just keep them out and make your car safe.

ty NP! I have written to them saying i will pay what they had asked for, before the bailiffcame round, plus 28% + £11.20. That comes out at £150 less than the bailiff wanted! i'll keep u posted how it goes and will make a donationtoo.

ps. i have promised myself to never park on yellow lines, lol


Update; I've written to them, told the bailiff the situ in a polite but firm-ish 'I know my rights and you are having a laugh matey' kind of way. He seems to have backed off and I'll pay them next week. Also, I'm submitting a claim for a refund from a previous case last year when they totally ripped me off for £300+

Herbie21

lightisfading wrote: »

Have had a look on bailiffadviceonline website, thanks, but still can't find quite what I'm after which is:


Can they charge for attendance with van, if they only have a levy on a car (therefore not removable with a van, which I saw!)

Can they charge for attendance with van to remove, based on a walking possession on car, if the WP was not signed?

What on earth is Sch 5 Head H?

- I've found the following "As the fee is effectively charged for the return of the goods listed on the levy, to your control, this must happen when the bill itself has been settled." - if this is right surely theyre trying it on charging to return a vehicle, which has never been taken away, that we never signed a levy for, before we'd paid the debt off! Maybe I misinterpret though...

I'm going to try ringing the council / debtline tomorrow, this is driving me nuts!

The purpose of the visit was to "levy upon goods". The bailiff has done that . He was not there to REMOVE.

In addition, to TRY to make it simple:

The bailiff can ONLY remove goods that he has PREVIOUSLY levied upon. In your case, he had NOT levied on goods on a previous visit.

You need to ask the council if they have permitted this bailiff company to charge this Head H fee and if so WHY!!!

I am aware of MANY COMPLAINTS that have been made to the Local Government Ombudsman on this very charge.

BOTH charges need to be brought to the attention of the local authority as they are WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE for the charges and the levy of their agents.

Bailiff Advice Online

mr.ton

If these bailiffs have not been sent by a court then they have as much authority as the milkman quite frankly.
Report them to the OFT & trading standards if they havent been & even the police if need be (not 999 unless they turn up again)

lightisfading

I sent off two letters today. One to the bailiff offering to pay the amount we agree with, and contesting the 2 dodgy charges (inc list of charges council gave me) - and one to the council copying in the bill from the bailiff with a list of complaints (fees and not providing paperwork etc).

The van charge is worded in the council approved charges thing as 'attendance with a van ... to remove goods levied on'. I have stated that they cannot possibly have attended to remove these goods as the only goods levied on was the car, which you couldn't remove with a van! Have also asked them about 'Sch 5 Head H'. I've requested they respond letting me know if those two fees are correct and legal.

It'll be interesting to see how both parties respond...

lightisfading

mr.ton wrote: »

If these bailiffs have not been sent by a court then they have as much authority as the milkman quite frankly.
Report them to the OFT & trading standards if they havent been & even the police if need be (not 999 unless they turn up again)

They state in their letters they have authority of the magistrates court, unfortunately. We totally accept our fault in getting behind with the council tax and are intending to repay it, it's just the dodgy made up charges we're not happy with!

RobertoMoir

lightisfading wrote: »

I sent off two letters today. One to the bailiff offering to pay the amount we agree with, and contesting the 2 dodgy charges (inc list of charges council gave me) - and one to the council copying in the bill from the bailiff with a list of complaints (fees and not providing paperwork etc).

The van charge is worded in the council approved charges thing as 'attendance with a van ... to remove goods levied on'. I have stated that they cannot possibly have attended to remove these goods as the only goods levied on was the car, which you couldn't remove with a van! Have also asked them about 'Sch 5 Head H'. I've requested they respond letting me know if those two fees are correct and legal.

It'll be interesting to see how both parties respond...

Whether or not they attended in a Van, a removal truck or on horseback escorted by outriders on elephants is irrelevant. Don't waste your time on that, instead focus on stuff that is likely to help you.

The question is whether or not the charges are correct in themselves, and Herbie has given you very good advice, as herbie usually does. In the case of the "van fee", the question isn't about their choice of transport but rather about whether or not the conditions were satisfied to apply that charge at that point