Thank you for your replies. I did say I could pay half this week but he said he could not accept it and that was the end of the conversation. I don't have a car or anything of value.

 

When I spoke to the council to check to see if there was an update on my exemption form, I said how much rossendales wanted me to pay and that I wouldnt be able to and she was dismissive and said there was nothing they could do and I had to deal with the bailiff.

Councils are generally unhelpful and uncaring once they've passed the debt onto bailiffs. It's amazing how their attitude changes once they are in receipt of a formal complaint. All of a sudden, they do become helpful and caring.

Did you have any contact from the council prior to rossendales contacting you? The council should have written to you, notifying you of the liability orders and asking you to provide them with further information about your income

Whilst AOBs may not be popular with councils, the repayments to bailiffs will only be for the same amount. In the absence of there being any goods to sell at auction, the council will almost certainly be forced to implement an AOB in any case.

I would point out that some councils do not use bailiffs to recover debts from those on benefits. To me, it makes no sense to attempt to force people who are living on the breadline to find money that they just don't have.

It is also worth remembering that whilst the council may use bailiffs, there is no legal obligation on your friend to deal with them. Depending on her frame of mind, you might want to suggest to her to refuse to speak with the bailiff and inform him that he doesn't have permission to enter the premises. The more of a fight your friend puts up, the less of a fight the bailiffs will respond with. They do not like awkward debtors, they prefer those who are scared and intimidated by them.

I also believe that it's worthwhile putting in a formal complaint to the council.

Rosie. My feeling was that you would have been justified in making a complaint rather than pussyfooting about in the hope that someone at the council will listen to you. You are no further forward tonight than you were when you first posted this morning and another phone call tomorrow is little more than a gamble that someone will act. All the while, the clock is running down until the next bailiff visit.

You are well within your rights to issue a complaint as this is a clear case of maladministration. The council have inadvertently allowed disproportionate use of the Schedule 12 procedure (enforcement) and in doing so, have failed to ensure that the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards (NS) have been adhered to. Furthermore, they have clearly failed to act in a timely way today given the crisis point you are at and the pressure that you are under. It is simply not good enough. The bailiff is demanding PIF not because the council want it but because he only gets his full payment when the debt is collected in its entirety. I would say that it is 99% certain that Rossendales have been told that the council will accept repayments over 3 months, if not longer. By telling you otherwise, the bailiff has lied to you, which is also a failure to adhere to the NS.

In your shoes, I would certainly not waste any more of my time by chasing people who couldn't care less - I would exercise my right to complain. As stated, I'd bet my life that the council have told Rossendales that they will accept repayment plans. Section 25 of the NS states:

"Where a creditor has indicated that they will accept a reasonable repayment offer, enforcement agents must refer such offers onto the creditor.

The council will actually face problems of their own if they claim not to have instructed Rossendales to accept repayment plans so your complaint would be a virtual slam dunk. There has been further guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government that states that councils should have arrangements in place to safeguard against bailiffs forcing debtors into punitive repayments. The NS also cover this point at Section 24.

Once a complaint enters a councils complaints procedure, enforcement is usually placed on hold as a matter of course which takes all the stress away from the powder keg situation.

There is no excuse for demanding PIF from a full time student who has just settled another debt which was being enforced simultaneously.

I would certainly consider issuing a complaint, as suggested in post #3. It costs nothing and (IMO) will see enforcement suspended and ultimately see you being accepted into a repayment plan. You may wish to include a realistic offer to repay within your complaint. 3 months would guarantee acceptance but if that is too ambitious, anything up to 6 months ought to be accepted given your financial circumstances and the fact that you paid the other debt off straight away.

For clarity regarding the NS, enforcement agents recovering Government debts are bound by way of entering into contracts to enforce in accordance with the NS - There is no choice, adhering to NS is not optional. It is also worth noting that Government agencies, unlike private individuals are also bound by the NS. Furthermore, as we are talking about maladministration here and not legal action, the old bailiff "get out of jail free" claim of the NS not being "legally binding" will not hold up in a complaint procedure, nor a subsequent local Government Ombudsman investigation. In short, an argument that the NS are not legally binding is not worth the paper that it is printed on.

As a Government agency, the council were bound to act proportionately when recovering a debt, taking into account a debtors circumstances; pursuant to section 8 of the NS. To demand PIF when a more than reasonable offer has been made from a single mother and full time student is reprehensible and most certainly should be raised as a formal complaint.

As Rossendales will almost certainly have been told that the council will accept payment installments over a 3 month period (if not longer), the bailiff has lied to the OP by claiming that he is "not allowed to accept" installments. This is in direct conflict with Section 20 of the NS which states that bailiffs must not be deceitful.

In the extremely unlikely event that the council would not uphold the complaint, a Local Government Ombudsman investigation most definitely would.

Exercising a right to complain when maladministration has occurred is not by any means antagonistic - In my quite extensive experience, it is the most rapid and effective way to obtain a desired outcome when the council have not acted correctly. There has been quite a serious breakdown in this case and as a result, a single mother is claiming that she is "terrified", so much so that she has seen fit to join this forum and ask for help. A formal complaint will see enforcement stopped immediately and ultimately see the OP granted the opportunity to pay the second debt in installments. A phone call to the councils switchboard or a request in writing will not be taken in the same way that a formal complaint is, indeed the formal complaint is always taken far more seriously.

It is important to remember that simple being in debt is not a crime and that just because you are in debt, it does not mean you lose the right to complain. If a debt is not being recovered as it should be or Parliment intended it to be, resulting in alarm and distress for a young woman who is doing her best to settle, then the right to complain should be exercised. How many times do we read of councils telling debtors that it is nothing to do with them and they have to deal with bailiffs? By coincidence, in EVERY instance that they receive formal complaints, as if by some miraculous turnaround, the council do investigate.

Instigating a formal complaint is the quickest and most effective way to enable the OP to get on with her life. As we saw last week, pussyfooting around trying to have nice cosy chats with council employees rarely produces desired outcomes. I am interested in the best possible scenario for the OP and this usually means (in council tax matters) a formal complaint. We should also bear in mind that the clock is ticking here and another bailiff visit is imminent. This should be the most important thing to focus on, not personal vendettas.

Nobody has ever claimed that the NS are legally binding (there's another clue). Authorities have no choice - They MUST enforce debts in accordance with NS. The claim that the NS are not legally binding is not fit for purpose unless you are entering into a legal course of action. Councils are aware that the Ombudsman expects them to enforce in accordance with NS so for the purpose of enforcing debts.

The bailiff is already demanding PIF. What possible harm could a formal complaint do? The matter cannot be made any worse so there is absolutely nothing to lose by complaining and absolutely everything to gain. A wrong has occurred here and it needs to be righted.

Sorry, beat by the time out.

 

In any case, I do not see how guidance is not being followed in the above case. Bailiffs do not have to accept any agreement offered if the authority feels that no plan is appropriate, as said, the guidance only states general principles, not specific rules that must be adhered to in all circumstances.

The guidance states that any reasonable offer MUST BE REFERRED BACK TO THE CREDITOR. The bailiff in this instance has not done so, in fact, he has lied to the OP.

In the case of council tax, the council do. A general rule of thumb would be to see the debt repaid by the end of the current tax year if enforcing for that particular year or 6 months if enforcing for a previous year (a few councils require payments over a 3 month period). Anything over that and the bailiff is entitled to refuse. However, the debtor may still contact the council directly and provide evidence of exceptional circumstances as to why a longer period is needed.

In this particular case, the bailiff was enforcing 2 separate debts simultaneously. It is salient that the OP went to great lengths to ensure that the first debt was settled promptly as soon as she had contact with the bailiff. This clearly has made it impossible to find the funds to settle the second debt. To her credit, her swift action in paying the first debt is unimpeachable and should have great bearing on how the second debt is enforced. If she had not paid either, then it may have been possible to level a degree of sympathy towards the bailiff and his duty to collect the debt. However, the fact that the first debt was paid immediately should greatly influence the approach as to how the second debt is recovered.

The OP has tried to discus this with the council only to be told that she had to deal with the bailiff. The OP then tried again on Friday, only to be let down by way of a failed promise of a returned call. This has obviously led to a very stressful weekend.

Regardless of whether a council have to adhere to the NS (they do in any case), if they fail to ignore valid guidance or advice, it is deemed maladministration, as is allowing excessive/disproportionate enforcement to take place. The council have hardly covered themselves in glory here and a complaint needs to be instigated. The question of the NS being legally binding is only relevant if a legal path is to be pursued. Clearly that is not the case in this instance. There has been no breaches of statute so legal redress is not suitable. The only course of redress is for maladministration and that means that ignoring the NS is very relevant.

There's no need, there is already a sticky on National Standards at the top of the page which more or less confirms what I have posted. The only difference is that I have developed the situation somewhat in order to highlight the ability to rely on NS when instigating a complaint of maladministration against a local authority.

I would however point out that the sticky is not entirely accurate. Not all creditors are bound by National Standards. In the case of CCJs, only frequent judgement creditors are bound by NS. Those who are enforcing one off or occasional judgements are not bound by NS.

I think you really need to try to get your head around the fact that we are not claiming that the NS are legally binding, nor that the law has been broken - If it had have been then the courts would have been the correct avenue of redress.

What we are looking at is maladministration on the council's part. The bailiff is contracted to work in accordance with NS, the Ombudsman expects the council to work in accordance with the NS, the MOJ expect the council to work in accordance of the NS and if the council fail to ignore the guidance, then maladministration takes place. It is not even open for debate. There is simply no choice in the matter as far as the council are concerned, they MUST operate in accordance with the NS, it is not optional.

In addition, the council have inadvertently (still their ultimate responsibility) allowed excessive enforcement to take place.

Final post from me - You're on your own now but the key is to try to get ideas of law breaking out of your train of thought. Nobody is suggesting this. The key is maladministration. You need to focus on this as I have done, rather than allow yourself to be distracted by thoughts of any legal process. I have relied upon the work of Alan Murdie, a highly respected barrister who specialised in the area of local taxation.

For the benefit of anyone who may be confused by this chain of posts that have appeared today, the situation regarding the enforcement of council tax is as follows:

The council are BOUND to enforce in accordance with the National Standards - The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) requires them to do so and a failure to do so is deemed maladministration. Unlike the enforcement of other debts, the council have no option and no choice in the matter, they MUST enforce in accordance with National Standards. In theory, the council could face an investigation by the LGO. In practice, this is never necessary as councils will rectify the matter at complaint stage, knowing that they are in the wrong and wishing to avoid dealings with the LGO.

The confusion has arisen by the inability to understand that the term "legally binding" is irrelevant in complaints. The term only becomes relevant if and when a matter enters a legal process. A council's complaints procedure and subsequent LGO investigation is in place to cater for matters that cannot be dealt with by the courts - If the matter contains legal issues then the LGO cannot look at it and the correct course of action is through the courts. Hence, in this matter and other similar such matters, it is not required to use legally binding material. Complaints of maladministration are usually concerned with wrongdoing by councils that are not serious enough to trouble the courts but nevertheless have resulted in an injustice.

In essence, if a council fail to adhere to the NS, they WILL expose themselves to the potential of an unfavourable LGO decision if (in the extremely unlikely event that they refuse to rectify the wrongdoing themselves)

Before submitting any applications to the court, you may wish to speak with them directly and try to arrange a repayment plan that is affordable and sustainable. It is important to do this straight away so that you avoid a bailiff visiting you, which will add further fees to the debt. This is of course provided that you accept that you owe the debt.

I would contact them today on the number provided and explain your current financial situation and how you wish to avoid a bailiff visit given that it will add further sums to a debt that you are already struggling to deal with. The chances are that you will be required to send in proof of your ESA and any other income. I would suggest that you make an offer of £20 per month with a view to reviewing it periodically or if your circumstances change. If they don't accept this then you need to come back and we'll look at "plan B"

I would be interested in knowing the date of the notice that you received on the 21st.

If I'd have paid the £40 as agreed by Lowell would the bailiffs still be coming?

So do I still go ahead submitting the form? The forms aren't going to get there before Wednesday before the bailiff says they are coming.

A bailiff is required to give you 7 clear days notice before visiting. Given that you only received notice on 21st, I strongly suspect that they have not given you 7 clear days. This renders the notice defective. Although this in itself would not be enough to stop enforcement, it would certainly be enough to invalidate the authority of any visit made on the 26th or the following couple of days. They are highly unlikely to visit on the 26th and far more likely to give you a few days longer (at the very least) before visiting. If you read the notice carefully, it probably states that the will visit on OR AFTER the 26th or something like that, NOT that they will visit on 26th.

As you have no car, there is little the bailiff could do if he visited you anyway. He has no right to force entry and all that he is lawfully permitted to do is enter your home peaceably. This may be by 2 methods: Firstly he discovers an external door that is unlocked and walks in (so keep all doors permanently locked) Secondly he may enter if you invite him in which you should never do. Personally, I would not even open the door to him and if I wanted to speak with him, I would speak to him through an open window.

Don't worry about all this though - I'm sure whatever you decide to do will be received by the court prior to any visit taking place.

By my calculation, a bailiff may not visit your home seeking to take control of your goods until next Monday, 31st July.

Technically he could visit on the Sunday (30th) but this is highly unlikely.

If speaking to Lowell, you might wish to remind them of their responsibility as a frequent judgement creditor under the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 and in particular Section 8 which states;

Creditors should act proportionately when seeking to recover a debt, taking into account debtors' circumstances

They are required to give you 7 clear days notice excluding Sundays) before they may visit you. I have allowed 2 days for the notice to be delivered, in line with CPR time scales for service of documents. I calculate your timeline as follows:

Wed 19th posted

Thu 20th

Fri 21st Received

Sat 22nd 1st clear day

Sun 23rd

Mon 24th 2nd clear day

Tue 25th 3rd clear day

Wed 26th 4th clear day

Thu 27th 5th clear day

Fri 28th 6th clear day

Sat 29th 7th clear day

Sun 30th First day that a bailiff may visit although 99.99% unlikely that your first visit would be on a Sunday

I am receiving esa benefits because I have epilepsy, and one of the major triggers for me is stress. And I also suffer from severe anxiety. Do I mention that to them?

Yes - You should mention this to them. It will not stop the bailiff visiting but it may well impact on his approach to recovering the debt. it may also help in persuading Lowell to accept your offer of repayment at a lower rate.

You obviously have not had many dealings with Lowell they would sell you grandmother for a £100 judgment to recoup payment.......submit an n244 and ask for a redetermination of the judgment amount £50...whether you wish to submit the n245 also to stay the Warrant is your choice for good measure.

 

This way the Court controls the monthly payment...not the DCA

 

Andy

No Andy, I haven't so I accept what you are saying.

My own feeling was that it may have been worthwhile contacting the bailiffs directly. There is no vehicle outside and no automatic right to enter the premises. With that in mind, it may have been possible for common sense to prevail and an affordable and sustainable repayment plan to be set up without the need to submit any applications to court. Lowell do have responsibilities under the National Standards and if enforcement fails, they will be running out of options to enforce the debt. If it were me, I would accept £20 per month rather than risk recovering nothing at all.

ok, I've managed to get the link working on my laptop, I shall fill out the form, although some of the questions I am unsure of. After I have completed it do I download it to my laptop (clicking the download button on the page) and email it to the appropriate address at bradford combined courts?

Beckz Earlier on today, I suggested that you phone the court and ask whether you can enter into an affordable repayment plan of £20 per month. BA also suggested that you phone Lowell with the same proposal.

Why don't you try one (if not both) tomorrow morning?

If you are successful, it means the matter is resolved and takes away all the hassle of sending in the N244 and hoping that you've filled it out correctly. You also need to obtain a HWF code if you are asking for help with fees. You will also need to fill that form out online as well.

I don't know why you don't just try the phone call first thing tomorrow. They can't get blood out of a stone can they? It will cost you nothing and might just save you a lot of aggro.

i have come across this link for help with the fees and costs.....http://www.gov.uk/help-with-court-fees

can i use this to fill in the form instead?

yes you can apply online using that link. At the end you will be given a unique code that begins HWF. At the top of the N244, you will see a box where this code should be entered.

Please be aware that if you are also planning to submit an N245, you will need another code as the code you are given is specific to the form that you are applying for help with. You must ensure that you don't get the 2 codes mixed up.

If you look at your claim form or judgement, the claim number starts B6.... You will see that this is the same as the case number on the Notice of issue of warrant.

Claimant is Lowell. Don't worry about the ref

You are the Defendant, again, don't worry about the ref.

Most of the info that you require is on the claim form and/or the judgement

On the judgement letter Bryan Carter solicitors is also mentioned?

In Box 9 you should put "The Claimant and Brian Carter Solicitors LLP

In Box 9a you should put the name and address of Carters (as per the Judgement)

wow! this form seems alot simpler

Excellent

As you are now only sending in one form, you will be able to use an E signature as posted in post #83. (This must be a signature, NOT just your name typed out.)

Clearly you will be ticking both boxes in the first section.

Make sure that you use the correct HWF code

This time, you should enter County Court Business Centre as the name of the court.

In section 5, I live with my parent so does that come under lodgings?

It's not the ideal answer is it? It's the nearest to your situation though so yes.

It also means that the debt was almost impossible to enforce as I imagine that very little inside the home belongs to you.

I normally head the email: URGENT followed by the case number followed by the parties ie Lowell v Beckz

Then in the email itself I write something like:

Dear Sirs

URGENT (case number) Lowell v Beckz

Please find attached an application for suspension of a warrant and variation of an order (N245 form)

Kind regards

Beckz

You will find the correct email address on HMCTS court finder (CCBC)

In relation to my previous posts I did follow up on the advice given which has led to the Council requesting a financial statement, which brings me on to this query.

 

As for not continuing with the payments, the council flatly refused to accept the £20 a month and advised me that I had to deal with the Bailiff company, to which I told them no as the Bailiff company won't accept £20 a month and wanted the whole balance and no less.

 

The council a short while ago got back to me advising that they will accept £20 a month but I have to pay this to Penham Excel, who I refuse to have anything to do with.

And you are correct to refuse to have everything to do with them.

Contrary to the advice already given, my advice would be to not pay anything at this stage. It should be noted that since the new enforcement regime came into force in April 2014, it is possible for payments made directly to the council to be passed straight over to the enforcement agents who in turn will ensure that their compliance fee(s) are paid first before anything is offset against the debt. Even then, the payments may be offset pro-rata meaning as little as 65% of what you pay goes towards the debt, with the remainder going towards enforcement fees. If the debt is eventually returned to the council (which I suspect will happen eventually here), all bailiff fees will be wiped off the debt. This means there is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for you to pay money at this point UNLESS the council confirm in writing that any monies paid directly will go 100% towards the debt.

If I recall, you stated that you had a car. Just be aware that they may target this, even if it is just to try to hold you to ransom.

Now that you are a single parent, are you receiving the single parents discount? Also, was your husband on the bills? if so, it is possible to ask the council to pursue him rather than you.

The council have requested a financial statement from you, not the CAB. This could well be because the are considering an AOE, as I told you in the other thread.