Revenue Sheriff - goods seizure

They wouldn't have been called in unless (a) the debt existed and (b) revenue hadn't made repeated attempts to recover it
Click to expand...

We didn't get any warnings, just a letter from the county sheriff. The default setting for the revenue is that company owners are criminals.

I don't know what size company the OP has, but look at how other countries treat small companys
http://tinyurl.com/22hafc

the removal of automatic penalties for all those firms with turnovers of up to £150,000, who will instead first be offered help and advice when they are late with their VAT payments;
Click to expand...

The Irish revenue, and their ruthless, heavy handed approach certainly is the average small business owner's biggest enemy.
 
I am not at all familiar with the baliffs powers - what can he do now? could he still seize goods - PAYE has been paid up to date. Is there room for bargaining from the €800 downwards -seeing as he did not call to the premises.
 
Roadrunner, did you get letters saying that you owed money? Command's advice seems to be the best as he has experience of this.

My advice is to try again to talk to the revenue, maybe somebody higher up who can stop the bailiff, but if you get no joy why not negotiate say 400 with the bailiff. Those guys prefer a bird in the hand etc... and it's better to get them off your back now or costs could escalate hugely. Then later pursue it in writing (by registered post) with the Revenue, better in writing than by phone call using some of the arguments listed in previous posts - then they have to tell you officially why you are liable for the bailiff. Would be interesting to know the Revenue's powers here.

Ang - I'd be surprised if the banks don't have to right to take all your money, bet it's in the small print of the mortgage. Those guys cover all bases.
 
What is the chain of command here - Revenue forwards debt to Sheriff and Sheriff on to baliff? Revenue & guy who was going to call were in direct communication - does that mean he was the Sheriff or are they the same.
 
Aileen2 said:
Ang - I'd be surprised if the banks don't have to right to take all your money, bet it's in the small print of the mortgage. Those guys cover all bases.
Click to expand...

Too true! On reflection you're probably right. It was more the point of engaging collection agents without informing you, which definitely seems wrong.

They do have a Customer Service Charter and various appeals procedures, so it might be worth trying those.

My inclination would be to pay the baliff (no harm in negotiating the amount) and then trying to recover the cost from Revenue on the basis that procedural mistakes were made (i.e. you weren't informed beforehand). I really don't think you'll get anywhere though with claiming the amount simply wasn't owed.

Believe me, I'm not that keen on being in a position of defending Revenue, but my own experience of dealing with them has been reasonably good, provided you keep them informed of what's going on.
 
ang1170 said:
Too true! On reflection you're probably right. It was more the point of engaging collection agents without informing you, which definitely seems wrong.

They do have a Customer Service Charter and various appeals procedures, so it might be worth trying those.

My inclination would be to pay the baliff (no harm in negotiating the amount) and then trying to recover the cost from Revenue on the basis that procedural mistakes were made (i.e. you weren't informed beforehand). I really don't think you'll get anywhere though with claiming the amount simply wasn't owed.

Believe me, I'm not that keen on being in a position of defending Revenue, but my own experience of dealing with them has been reasonably good, provided you keep them informed of what's going on.
Click to expand...

I can understand your frustrations but Ubiq. is right. Unless you can prove that you gave a direct instruction to the revenue to offset the taxes you do not have a case. Even then they will break your heart trying to prove it. The bailif/sheriff's expenses are predetermined and relates to what actions they take and what level of tax is outstanding. In my office we try to convince client's that where possible you are as well off paying a debt rather than having it offset. One mistake will cost you big if you have to pay interest and/or sheriff's fees. Despite being given specific instructions the revenue will often allocate whatever way they like and will issue demands and sheriff for small debts even when large refunds remain outstanding for longer periods. Any system that has the rate of interest paid on an outstanding debt way higher than the rate you get on an outstanding refund is severely flawed. Same system states that you cannot get refunds more than 4 years back is flawed and totally unjust. But as previously stated 'who cares'. The electorate dont. Some of these bailifs are frightening guys. One guy that turned up at a client's premises was 6'8', 20 stone plus, skinhead, sleeveless leather jacket, tattoo, earing and doc martens and a thick attitude to boot.
 
How can they justify €800 for a couple of phone calls - they didn`t actually call to premises - have I an angle to work with here? this guy is ringing back first thing tomorrow to seek payment so need something to argue.
 
Can you clarify 1 item, had the revenue actually requested the funds to be paid prior to the involvement of the bailiff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top