The quote below is from page 19 of my attachment called to poor to pay (Council Tax)

"Four London boroughs (Bexley, Brent, Islington and Southwark) now have a policy of not using bailiffs for council tax support claimants. These authorities clearly recognise the negative impact of bailiffs on potentially vulnerable people, and instead pursue other means of enforcement. It is interesting to note that these authorities’ collection rates are close to the London average, while Lambeth, the authority that used bailiffs against the second most claimants in 2014/15, has a significantly lower collection rate than the average. This suggests that it is perfectly possible for authorities to refrain from bailiff use for council tax support claimants without adversely affecting their collection rate. "

Info from here http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FtkP42_6BaYJ:z2k.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/TooPoorToPay-FINAL.pdf+&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

This attachment is so up to date it even quotes The Rev: Nicholson case see page 19: Para 2

"Some authorities say they have to charge costs at a high level because they act as a deterrent against non-payment. This is not only untrue, as the experience of Bexley and Islington demonstrates, but we believe that charging costs in such a manner is clearly unlawful. As Mrs Justice Andrews made clear in her recent judgment in the case R (on the application of the Reverend Paul Nicolson) v Tottenham Magistrates’ Court, the costs charged may only be those reasonably incurred in obtaining a liability order.1 In light of this judgment, we would urge all authorities to re-examine the level of costs charged to ascertain whether they are a true reflection of the actual costs incurred in the collection process."

Well this illustrates that the councils use Liability Orders and bailiffs to make a profit on court fees and potential backhanders from the bailiff firms. Just shows there is another way.

Well I hope that this shows what I have said on several threads that there is another way. Now maybe others will see this too.

Thanks BN For your reply

Well I hope that this shows what I have said on several threads that there is another way. Now maybe others will see this too.

 

Thanks BN For your reply

Thanks MM, I regard Council tax as regressive as it impacts more harshly on low income families, Enforcement via Liability Order and bailiff makes the situation worse.

 

"Four London boroughs (Bexley, Brent, Islington and Southwark) now have a policy of not using bailiffs for council tax support claimants. These authorities clearly recognise the negative impact of bailiffs on potentially vulnerable people, and instead pursue other means of enforcement.

 

This suggests that it is perfectly possible for authorities to refrain from bailiff use for council tax support claimants without adversely affecting their collection rate. "

 

[/url]

I appreciate that the policy referred to above is only in relation to claimants who are in receipt of council tax support but nonetheless, I am most disappointed to read that just four London boroughs (out of a total of 34 London boroughs) have a policy of refraining from sending cases to bailiffs. The remaining 90% of London boroughs that do refer such cases to bailiffs should hang their heads in shame. I somehow doubt that they will though.

Thx for the reply BA...

It does show that there is always a work around available for defaulters and this has always and should used for all low income households. Yes it is a shame that all LA's cannot or will not work fully with the defaulter, I know that this is always going to be a touchy subject for some readers and posters but all we can do is try to help those in desperate need.

Paying an EA when other options are available should always be used, but at the end of the day each LA will want the money that is due... What can we actually do to get these LA's to look deeper in to this issue?

I appreciate that the policy referred to above is only in relation to claimants who are in receipt of council tax support but nonetheless, I am most disappointed to read that just four London boroughs (out of a total of 34 London boroughs) have a policy of refraining from sending cases to bailiffs. The remaining 90% of London boroughs that do refer such cases to bailiffs should hang their heads in shame. I somehow doubt that they will though.

\Yes it has always been so, the LA will chose what they consider to be most appropriate way to collect the debt really.

The option to enter into a payment arrangement has been available since they first fell into arrears as mentioned in the last god knows how many letters they would have received. You can perhaps understand why some are reluctant to offer the option at such a late stage

Just to be clear an offer and acceptance of a repayment offer is not the same as an attachment of earnings, the former is a voluntary arrangement and the latter is enforcement. The amounts calculated using the formulas are often quite high and can form a substantial part of the families income, it is by no stretch of the imagination the soft option.

I would agree that the AoE maybe higher than an arrangement to pay if you paid when it was actually due, but would you agree that the use of the EA is not cost effective for the defaulter, with the EA out of the picture the debtor will save the fees and 2nd stage enforcement fees as well sale fee of £110.00, so therefore it is a cheaper method and saving up to £400-00+ in fees to the EA? Not only that the defaulter would not lose any personal property which in the end is best all around!

The AoE almost is the almost perfect enforcement guaranteeing payment for the debts and helping the defaulter in the long run? This can be done via benefits and salary...

Finally the use of the EA for CT enforcement only adds to the problem for current and other arrears....

Would people agree with this?

 

It does show that there is always a work around available for defaulters and this has always and should used for all low income households.

 

Yes it is a shame that all LA's cannot or will not work fully with the defaulter, I know that this is always going to be a touchy subject for some readers and posters but all we can do is try to help those in desperate need.

 

Paying an EA when other options are available should always be used, but at the end of the day each LA will want the money that is due... What can we actually do to get these LA's to look deeper in to this issue?

I have to agree with you MM that there are indeed alternative options but the sad fact is, (and as highlighted by you in the above report), even when faced with the most desperately low income familes, just 10% of London Boroughs are willing to refrain from sending cases to bailiffs. It is beyond belief that 90% of London boroughs continue to refer accounts to bailiffs in relation to families who are known by them to be in receipt of council tax support.

Whether anyone likes to hear it or not....by and large, local authorities are revenue chashing and expect the enforcement agents to identify debtors who may be vulnerable.

A shocking example of 'revenue chasing' is a case that I was dealing with last night concerning a London borough that has decided to put their toe in the water and use 'in house' bailiffs for road traffic debts.

Each year, this London borough remove a high number of vehicles from the street that may be illegally parked. The cars are towed to their own pound that is situated within the borough. A charge is not made for the 1st night and all following days are charged a storage fee of £35 per day.

This very same London borough are allowing their in-house bailiffs to remove cars (as is their legal right) and those cars are taken to the SAME POUND and instead of the debtor being charged the usual rate of £35 per day for storage.....they are allowing their in-house bailiff team to charge an astronomical fee of £50 per day for storage....and the 1st day is also charged !!!

BA we both know the touchy subject of the EA will always have a heated discussion but what gets my blood on the boil is that LA's still refuse to follow a set down procedure and help, some do some don't, the ones that don't are the ones that have a massive shortfall in available funds to help those in need, I cannot go into detail on this matter but checking out the ones that are prolific are the LA's in the deepest dire.

The methods of collection and enforcement really need a review sooner rather than later, a time when the saying of "I have a bigger stick I will beat you" is now over and a thing of the past.

The law is there to protect not to profit from....

BA what has surprised me is that you agree with my analysis of the report in post #1 the fees structure is still wrong and hopefully the review will maybe reduce it or curtail heavy enforcement, I doubt it....

I would agree that the AoE maybe higher than an arrangement to pay if you paid when it was actually due, but would you agree that the use of the EA is not cost effective for the defaulter, with the EA out of the picture the debtor will save the fees and 2nd stage enforcement fees as well sale fee of £110.00, so therefore it is a cheaper method and saving up to £400-00+ in fees to the EA? Not only that the defaulter would not lose any personal property which in the end is best all around!

 

The AoE almost is the almost perfect enforcement guaranteeing payment for the debts and helping the defaulter in the long run? This can be done via benefits and salary...

 

Finally the use of the EA for CT enforcement only adds to the problem for current and other arrears....

 

Would people agree with this?

I don't want to dwell too much on Attachment of Earnings as this subject has been debated on the forum at very great length only a few months back so I will try to be brief:

The current position (which may or may not change later in the year after the 'One Year Review' had been analysed) is that enforcement agent fees cannot at present be added to the AOE. Accordingly, less attachments are actually carried out by enforcement agents than ever before. That is a fact.

The second problem that we have (and one that is a major problem) is that under the new regulations, the government REMOVED the obligation on the local authority to write to the debtor to advise that a Liability Order had been granted. The effect being that once the LO is granted, it can now be immediately sent over electronically to the enforcement agent. Instead of receiving a letter from the local authority, the debtor receives a Notice of Enforcement. If the debtor then calls the council to ask about an Attachment of Earnings the usual response given is that 'you need to speak with the bailiff'.

I have been posting on here for a very long time and regulars will know that I will always stress the importance of contacting the local authority (or the court) at the earliest possible stage. After all, a Liability Order cannot be granted until there have been at least TWO defaults in paying the monthly council tax bill. Therefore, two reminders letters would need to have been sent. The next step is for notification to be sent that a summons is to be issued.

If it is the case that the debtor has kept their 'head in the sand' that it not a crime but once again, I will always stress the importance of responding to the Notice of Enforcement within the strict time period to outline a sensible payment proposal and support this with a simple Income & Expenditure. Yes....the debtor will be liable for a Compliance fee of £75 but at least this avoids an enforcement visit and the fee rising by £235.

BA what has surprised me is that you agree with my analysis of the report in post #1 the fees structure is still wrong and hopefully the review will maybe reduce it or curtail heavy enforcement, I doubt it....

I have not actually agreed or disagreed. Reading your post number one I cannot see that you have made any analysis. Instead you have pasted the wording from page 19 of a report from Z2K.

Again, the fee structure is a subject that has been debated on here many times over the past year. I cannot see that the fees will be lowered under the One Year Review.

As I have stressed many times, bailiff fees can be avoided altogether by the debtor engaging with the local authority before the Liability Order is granted. If this is not possible, then bailiff fees can be kept to a mimimum (£75) by engaging with the enforcement company on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement.

BA we both know the touchy subject of the EA will always have a heated discussion but what gets my blood on the boil is that LA's still refuse to follow a set down procedure and help, some do some don't, the ones that don't are the ones that have a massive shortfall in available funds to help those in need, I cannot go into detail on this matter but checking out the ones that are prolific are the LA's in the deepest dire.

 

The law is there to protect not to profit from....

On this point I do agree with you. Local authorities should do a lot more to protect vulnerable debtors and others but it is not happening as they are merely 'revenue chasing'.

Most importantly, it is also not helped by the fact that there is very little ACCURATE guidance given to local authorities. Take for example the following 'Guidance' from Eric Pickles that was issued 3 weeks before the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 (June 2013) was laid in Parliament:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210478/Guidance_on_enforcement_of_CT_arrears.pdf

It is a well know fact that this 'guidance' was hastily put together in response to a series of questions raised in the House of Commons by Bob Blackman MP regarding the dreadful matter of 'kickbacks' paid to Harrow Council by bailiff companies.

The Guidance is more or less totally ignored by LA's. It is outdated and inaccurate. An an example take paragraph 3.1 which states the following:

The last statutory notice referred to by Eric Pickles is the '14 day' letter and is the very same notice that his own department REVOKED under Schedule 12 (and 13) of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 !!

The Taking Control of Goods (National Standards) is to be revised under the 'One Year Review' and it is hoped that this will lead to major improvements in the way in which local authorities and enforcement agents behave.

I agree BA lets not go down either route again. I just wanted to put the info out there for others to read so I have done that and will move on for now...

Has a date been agreed for the review yet?

I have been posting on here for a very long time and regulars will know that I will always stress the importance of contacting the local authority (or the court) at the earliest possible stage. After all, a Liability Order cannot be granted until there have been at least TWO defaults in paying the monthly council tax bill. Therefore, two reminders letters would need to have been sent. The next step is for notification to be sent that a summons is to be issued.

I should check this but I thought the council could legally get away with sending only one reminder in certain circumstances before sending notification of the intention to summons. Something in the council tax regulations I think.

Has a date been agreed for the review yet?

The review is ongoing at present and is being conducted by specialist analysts (as opposed to the MOJ Enforcement Review Team).

The final date for submissions was a few weeks back and it is generally thought that a response will be published towards the end of the year and any changes made to legislation around the same time.

PS: I have submitted a very detailed presentation.

I would just add that looking from the isue from all angles. When deciding which enforcement method to use the LA must take a realistic approach. If the debtor has ignored the previous correspondence or even defaulted no previous arrangement (which is usually the case) they are hardly likely to accept an arrangement to pay on a voluntary basis. That is just the way it is.

As said they may chose the EA because they feel that a repayment arrangement made with them, will have more weight behind it, and if the debtor sticks to it the additional cost will be £75.

They will know what the price of defaulting will be so this is incentive for them to stick to the arrangement.

There is work to be done in ensuring the LA and the EA accept reasonable arrangements at compliance, but the TCE was intended to provide better communication between the two and perhaps in time this will happen. I believe that the knee jerk advice not to interact with the EA is now misplaced, equally I believe that many of not most bailiffs simply do not get it, and it will take some work and good will on both sides before things start to work as they should.

Since bailiffs are not gong away soon, this is the best we can hope will happen.

I should check this but I thought the council could legally get away with sending only one reminder in certain circumstances before sending notification of the intention to summons. Something in the council tax regulations I think.

Thank you for your input. Yes, you are sadly correct. Just one reminder is required.

It may be so but most authorities issue at least three warning, i know here we get three in various coloured envelopes the last one being red, before it is sent to the Magistrates court on application for a LO.

To which no liability order is ever forthcoming, but a liability order notification..

LO's are issued to the LA not the debtor.

But reading these stories list below the use of the EA is on a significant rise...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3212233/Councils-using-bailiffs-Number-debts-referred-councils-16-two-years-figures-passes-two-million.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/council-use-bailiffs-debts-soars-two-years-reports-charity

As an added discussion the EA's are now going to have a new site created in the Autumn called CEAA see here http://ceaa.co.uk/ its not up yet but will be interesting to know what will be loaded on this site, maybe BA has insider knowledge of this and maybe able to share this if they do?

The site will be called Certificated Enforcement Agents Association (CEAA)