Urgent Help Please - Bailiffs

patman99

You could always get a friend to park their vehicle across your drive in order to prevent your stepdads car being taken. Or, if you have the keys, park it at a friends house as far away a you can.

AngelEyes81

The thing is my family don't even know anything about this whole thing, and in the email they said they need the following proof "bill of sale for the purchase of the vehicle, a current insurance certificate and the registration document"

But do they really need all of this or just one of them?

I don't know whether or not to tell my mum and stepdad about all this, it's embarrassing for my OH but I need my stepdads documents unless I can find them downstairs. God it's all a mess.

We really don't know what to do, my OH said he's fed up of it all and is sending them a cheque tomorrow for whatever they want, but who's to say that will be it then? And he would still be sending them money that he doesn't owe them.

We're really so upset by all of this.

CIS

to the email we sent to them, they said in it that they have 2 cases of unpaid council tax one has an outstanding balance of £217.00 and the other £42.50..........?????????????? What?? The original unpaid council tax was paid in full over a year ago to them, what is all this? and that we have to contact the bailiff not them

Rossendales will take their fees first out of the payments made before passing the remainder to the council therefore its £42.50 council tax owed and not Rossendales costs.

AngelEyes81

I don't really understand everything about all this, all I really thought I understood was that Rossendales had put the notice of distress through the door stating these amounts and for what:

client debt/outstanding costs: £800.00
first & second visit fee: £42.50
levy fee: £24.50
walking possession: £110.00

total: -800.00
= £177.00

the original council tax bill was fully paid last year, so all I can assume is that all of this lately is to do with the bailiff costs and charges or whatever they're trying to make up. We paid the 42.50 but I'm not having my OH paying for what he doesn't owe.

It's all so confusing and I don't want to ring the bailiff as I want everything down in writing so they can't try and confuse us even more, now with the car and everything. Just want it all over with.

leopard85

Just had to reply to this one! Don't have ANYTHING to do with bailiffs! You owe money to the council , not them. Do not contact them. If you want them to disappear you need to call the council and pay whatever the outstanding balance is with them. Ignore bailiffs, never answer the door to them, never pay them, never call... Speak to the council and arrange to pay them back whatever you owe to them directly, even if it's just a small amount every month. If you call the council they will tell you the same thing.

I owed a small amount of council tax a while back, it was only 2 weeks worth and I disputed it so they sent the bailiffs round. The bailiffs then sent nasty letters telling me that I also owed them all sorts of charges etc. I called the council, who told me exactly what I have said above.

Above all, don't worry about them. They will send scary letters, hammer on the door like thugs, pressurise you etc. because essentially they have no powers. If you've paid the council or are making an effort to make monthly repayments then the bailiffs are powerless.

Good luck, and please don't fret.

leopard85

Extra advice here...

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=02_bailiffs_and_council_tax

there is a section called "how do I stop the bailiffs?" which reiterates what I have said - pay the council directly and they will take back the debt.

CIS

The £42.50 was outstanding council tax and therefore the bailiff can take action to recover this balance which is what they appear to have done therefore the extra costs have likely been incurred correctly.

NorthernLas

CIS - Can you explain your comment that 'extra costs have likely been incurred correctly'?

From my reading of the OPs situation, the council tax owing has already been paid and they have sent a cheque to the Bailiff for £42.50. This should cover one of the council tax bills and the OP thinks no more is owing. Can they find out from the council if anything is owing instead of talking to the Bailiff? And the amounts owed in the email, don't match with the breakdown of costs (that says they still owe £800)

Do you mean you think that the levy and walking posession are valid? How can they be if the OP has paid the £42.50?

Do you think the OP would be able to get a straight story from the council, so is it just me who is confused that the bailiffs appear to be saying that they owe different amounts?

Thanks

hallowitch

The car does NOT belong to you bailiffs can only levy Good's belonging to the debtor

if you have paid the amount of the liability order and the £42.50 bailiff fees there can be no more fee added to this account


you sent a letter to the bailiffs informing them that the car did not belong to you did you do as advised by RAS and copy in the council


by the way a walking possession agreement fee is £12 and can only be charged if it is signed

hallowitch

you may find this of interest it was posted on another site by Herbie 21

Has a bailiff "levied" upon a car that is NOT owned by you ??... LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN'S Report !!!!

We have a commercial business advising the public with bailiff enquiries and it is a FACT that we receive more enquiries from the public concerning the practise of a "levy" being made by a bailiff on a car that is not owned by the debtor.

If the goods levied upon are not owned by you then the levy is not valid and accordingly, the company must refund the levy fee and all associated charges resulting from this levy.

This "practice" of levying upon a vehicle is now so widespread that complaints have reached the Local Government Ombudsman and this in turn had lead to Andrew Hobley, the Senior LGO Investigator writing in last month's IRRV (Institute of Ratings, Revenues and Valuation) INSIGHT Magazine on this very subject where he confirms that "these practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman

The IRRV have very kindly provided our business with a copy of the article and they have confirmed that they are happy for it to be referred to but that we should acknowledge that it has been provided by the IRRV and is from their INSIGHT Magazine.


PS: The final paragraph is very important and I would suggest that when writing a letter of complaint that a copy of this article is provided to them as well. You should also copy your letter to the local authority and ensure that it is marked as a FORMAL COMPLAINT and addressed to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

.



April 2010 Insight – Local Government Ombudsman


As it has become increasingly difficult for bailiffs to gain access to debtors’ homes for the purpose of taking goods for council tax, the practice of levying on vehicles in the absence of the debtor has grown. These vehicles may be parked on the debtor’s property or in the road outside. This practice, if abused, can lead to the Local Government Ombudsman finding fault with the bailiffs and the council employing them.

The Ombudsman has dealt with at least four unreported complaints when cars parked in the road were levied on, but did not belong to the debtor. In each case the bailiffs assumed that the vehicle belonged to the debtor, but did not check ownership before making the levy. In one case, having levied on the car, a notice was put through the debtor’s letterbox including the fees. As the debtor did not respond, the bailiffs returned to remove the car, but found it was no longer there. Despite not being able to levy on the goods the bailiffs charged a “van fee” (under head C of Schedule 5 of the 1992 Administration and Enforcement Regulations, as amended) of £105, and posted a further notice through the letterbox to advise the debtor of the new, higher debt.

In three other complaints, involving a different authority, the same thing happened – with levy and van fees being charged for cars not owned by the debtors. In those cases the debtors contacted the bailiffs to say that they did not own the cars. The bailiffs acknowledged this, but still insisted that the levy and van fees were payable. When our investigator queried this with the council, they were told that the bailiffs would have checked with the DVLA before moving the car, but even if the debtor did not own the car the levy fees would not have been removed.

These practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman. There is no question that when bailiffs have carried out a relevant action, they are entitled to the fees the law allows them to charge. However in these cases the levy and van fees were being charged for goods that the bailiff would not have removed - had the car been found and the bailiffs checked before removal, it would have been found they belonged to a third party.

A council may say that a check would be made before any removal, but this does not prevent possible fault. Some debtors will pay when they receive the levy or other notices, and will pay fees that should not have been charged to them. Levying on a car parked on someone’s drive may appear less problematic as it is more likely to belong to the debtor. But if it does not, and levy and van fees are charged and paid, then the debtor has suffered the injustice of paying fees that were not due.

In all four cases the Ombudsman recommended the same remedy. The levy and van fees should be refunded and the council should ensure their bailiffs check ownership of vehicles with the DVLA before levying on them. Debtors should pay what they owe, and if a vehicle belongs to the debtor (and any levy would not be excessive) then levying and charging reasonable fees would not be questioned by the Ombudsman.

All councils are encouraged to ensure their written policies say that bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership. Failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be the subject of a public report against the authority.


Andrew Hobley is Senior Investigator with the Local Government Ombudsman.