seanmarts

NOBODY on this thread has encouraged or supported you to make a complaint. You stated in post #25 that your son thinks the fine was for £80 "as far as he can remember". Not only does this comment point towards your son having knowledge of the fine but also that it was for failing to tax/sorn the vehicle, rather than not insuring it. This process involves several letters/reminders, not just one.

Don't believe everything that you read in PMs about me - Not wanting my help would be yet another mistake you have made.

You have a right to follow whichever path you choose.

However, it is disappointing to see the hostility that you display to anyone who disagrees with you or tells you what you don't want to hear. We are only trying to help you. If there are reasons why you are making the complaint that cannot be put on here then you can hardly be critical of us who are acting purely on the facts that you have supplied us with.

Bailiffs enforcing fines rarely need to overstep the mark because they have the power of forced entry to fall back on. look back through the threads and you will rarely see issues with bailiffs who enforce fines.

It is worth noting that the idea of enforcing debts simultaneously applies normally when accounts are received at the same time.

If there has been a significant gap between these matters being allocated to Rossendales, it would not be practical to enforce them at the same time.

Are you able to tell us the date on each notice of enforcement?

You really do need to read what has been written, you get a notice from the DVLA when a car has no insurance, please do look it up. It was nothing to with TAX, they have never had a reminder to Tax or sorn the car.

 

My son was told by the bailiff that it was an £80 fine, she showed it on her tablet on the day she arrived. He said he thinks thats what she said, before that there was no knowledge.

I dont need to be encouraged or to be told when a complaint should or should not be sent. There are reasons that I cannot put in here everything as to why a complaint with regards to this certain bailiff was made.

I am more than aware that Marstons look on this website, I have dealt with them many times before.

 

I am fully aware of who you are and we have crossed paths in the past. I certainly DO NOT need your help because that would be a mistake and that would be the only mistake I would have made. Nice try though!

Seanamarts you cannot incur a fine for not having insurance unless you are caught driving on a public highway, in which case, the penalty would be £200, not £80.

£80 is the fine/penalty that is issued if an owner fails to tax or sorn his/her vehicle, see here:

https://www.gov.uk/pay-dvla-fine

I would imagine that this is what your son remembers and what he appealed back in 2015. When the appeal failed and payment was not made, the matter would most likely have progressed to a court hearing and judging by the figure of around £680 that you claim was paid to the bailiff, it would appear that your son received a fine of around £300.

Having checked, there is a facility to issue a penalty for no insurance. However, this figure is for £100 not £80 and the criteria remains the same, ie that any vehicle that is sorn would be exempt. It would certainly be the case that your son was given the opportunity to sorn the vehicle (or alternatively inform them that the car was no longer owned by him). They wouldn't just bulldoze into issuing penalties without first giving the owner chance to either rectify the matter or sorn the vehicle.

Thank you BA

However, you will note that I did correct myself in post #68.

It is of course totally irrelevant whether the original penalty was for tax or insurance as the amount of correspondence would have been similar and the important thing would have been to either sorn the vehicle or inform DVLA that there had been a change of owner at that point.

Seamanart's son has a court fine from around 2015 which seemed to start life at £80. It is clearly motor related. Whether it relates to not registering the vehicle as SORN, not having road fund licence or being uninsured is actually beside the point and frankly, unimportant.

Correct, which is why I stated:

It is of course totally irrelevant whether the original penalty was for tax or insurance

However, it is worth noting that if a SD were to be considered, the court would no doubt be keen to discover why these documents were not received:

1. V5 notice of sale to DVLA

2. Reminder notices/advisory letter to son

3. Notice of intended prosecution etc to son

Whilst these documents were received:

1. Notice of fixed penalty

2. response to appeal

3. NoE from Marston

So in the case of a SD, the reason for the fine would be very much the point and important.

Finally, the fixed penalty for no insurance back in 2015 was indeed £100

This is very bad luck - Many people struggle, immediately after Christmas and many end up having LOs issued against them for relatively small amounts.

Once a LO is issued, a council really ought to be contacting you to obtain further information from you, to check your suitability to the various enforcement options they have available to them. It's not much use to you now but had you replied to the council, they may well have allowed you to enter into a short repayment plan without the need to use an enforcement option.

Once a case is sent to bailiffs, the pressure is cranked up as far as possible. You are not obliged to deal with bailiffs but it is not a bed of roses to simply ignore them - they are not easily deterred and if you have a car or anything else of value outside, it is in danger of being seized.

I think that you may have jumped the gun slightly by complaining. A request initially may have been all that was needed. I'm guessing that your 2 installments will not include the £310 bailiff fees, which will also have to be paid?

Did the bailiff enter your home?

Does your husband's name appear on the bills and/or LO?

What contact did you have with the council prior to Rossendales turning up?

I think that if you can provide evidence from your neighbours that the post is often sent to the wrong house, you may have a chance of the £235 being removed

what an NS & A NTK got to do with CTAX?

NS are the National Standards

NTK (I'm guessing) is the scribbled notice that was left, which is irrelevant.

I was confused as he had stated that you weren't in (that suggested that the bailiff was looking for you) but then you said it was he who had complained to the council.

As you have already issued a complaint, anything else is a little hypothetical as you can't change anything. As you have made one payment and expect to clear the debt in a months time, it will hopefully be enough to convince the council to allow this.

As I said earlier, you may need a bit more evidence of the postal issues that have been going on for 10 years. If you are successful in that aspect, the £235 will be removed from your account, which will still leavea a £75 compliance fee to be paid of course.

Sorry a bit at crossed purposes as my heads all over the place! The council tax is in joint names. Its ironic that my husband is on leave at the moment other wise Mr [removed] would have probably terrorised our 13 year old daughter!!!!!!!!

There's absolutely no need to apologise. What you said was fine, I just needed to double check, that was all.

Thankfully, your daughter did not have to meet the bailiff.

The complaint is very clearly twofold. Firstly that a repayment plan has been flatly refused and secondly the no NoE has been received.

One would hope that a request to pay over 2 or 3 months will be accepted.

As stated previously, the NoE issue is a little tougher and may well require further proof.

However, now a complaint has gone in,

nothing more can be done until the outcome of the complaint has been revealed

. If the council told you that they were going to add the extra month to next years bill bus subsequently didn't, then this may be worth questioning as well.

Again, it is too late at this point and should be re-considered if the complaint outcome is not favourable.

A liability order does not have a shelf life although a debtor may question it, if it has lain dormant for more than 6 years. It will be interesting to discover what has gone one in the 12 months prior to Rossendales calling though.

A car on finance is not safe from enforcement.

Only cars that are still owned by the original company (ie lease cars, HP cars etc) are safe from enforcement.

Sarah

The LGO expects the council to rely on the NS so I wouldn't worry about them not being legally binding. The only time to worry about something being legally binding is when a legal process or action is entered into.

If the council have told you that 1 months arrears will be added to next years bill then of course it would be reasonable to expect them to do so and of course it would be reasonable to complain if they subsequently don't do so.

Finally, the council are required to act proportionately when deciding which method of enforcement is used. This explains why charging orders and bankruptcy are not first options.

Regarding your car, could you get to and from work without it? Is it essential for your work?

Hi Sarrah, how does the authority rely on the NS ?

Please read the post made by BA regarding payment of abortive bailiff fees

Sarah

I think that you are getting a bit ahead of yourself.

A complaint has gone in which hopefully suspends enforcement. You may wish to check with the council that this is the case. I would also text the bailiff and tell him not to return until the complaint is resolved.

It is regrettable that some seem determined for you not to be able to rely on the LGO. Councils adhere to LGO decisions in 99% of upheld complaints. In your case, I can't see the council fighting a LGO decision just to get £235 into Rossendales bank. The council couldn't give two hoots about Rossendales.

Also, as now accepted, the council are not at liberty to choose which method of enforcement they use.

Regulation 45 has been completely changed but hopefully the council will have placed a hold on enforcement.

I would see if you could dig out some paperwork relating to the HP agreement and send it to the council.

Sarah

The letter isn't great but it won't affect you in any way, other than it may wind up Rossendales.

Your car is in no greater danger now than it was before. The only thing that has changed is that it negates any argument that you may have about goods taken into control being proportionate to the debt.

It is doubtful whether your complaint regarding non receipt of a NoE would have been upheld without evidence, so you would have to have written to the council again in any case.

For now, the important things are firstly to confirm that enforcement has been placed on hold and then after that, hope that your offer of repayment is accepted.

Once those two things are confirmed, you can focus on the £235 fee.

Recorded delivery is not an option as it does not guarantee delivery within the very strict time schedule - The letter is only delivered if someone is in. If nobody is in, the letter is held at the sorting office until it is collected. For some people, the sign that the postman has been trying to deliver a recorded letter is confirmation that an NoE has been issued and will therefore ignore the invitation to collect the letter.

Furthermore, the fess have been in place for 3 years now. Bailiffs will be chomping at the bit to see them raised. There is no way that the price of paying for a recorded (or tracked) letter will come out of the existing £75.

What should be included in the £75 is some kind of an attempt to verify that a debtor lives at the address that the bailiff has been given. Far too often, bailiffs are sending NoEs to previous addresses and (wrongly) claiming that this is all that is needed to satisfy legislation.

Ring sussex court and ask what its about and where the claimform was sent to

I agree with this.

If you have changed address or the court state a wrong address, you should ask that they place enforcement on hold to allow you time to submit a s14 SD.

The officer will visit you AFTER 14 days, NOT WITHIN 14 days.

It is vital for you to get the wheels in motion before this deadline, even sooner if possible.

If the court agree to place enforcement on hold, you should contact Marston via email and inform them of the position.

As you only have one NoE, it would appear that only one LO has been issued against you.

I am concerned that you have the exact details of the LO because that would not be detailed on the NoE. How do you know the details of the LO?

Whilst there is no limitation on the lifespan of a LO, the council would still have some explaining to do if they have simply sat on it for more than 6 years. It could well be deemed maladministration and you could complain to the Local government Ombudsman.

In practice, what usually happens is that a debtor disappears off the radar for a period of time and then resurfaces. If that is the case in this instance, then you really have to accept that it is you who is to blame by the delay in enforcement.

There appears to be two separate tax years here. I would contact the agency straight away and state that given the considerable length of period between obtaining the LO and enforcement (6+ years), you wish to contact the council to clarify a few things. Ask that under the exceptional circumstances, enforcement be placed on hold whilst you try to get to the bottom of this problem.

Copy the council in on the letter/email and add further questions that you require answering:

1. Is there only 1 LO issued against you?

2. If so, from what dates does it cover regarding the tax owed?

3. What is the total figure that the LO covers?

4. What steps have the council previously taken to attempt to recover this debt in the previous 6+ years?

Also, on the NoE, can you tell us the date that you have been given in which you must contact the agency/pay the debt (this is usually at the top of the 2nd page headed "when to make payment"

Failure to act in a timely manner is maladministration.

If the council have failed to act for a period of more than 6 years, a complaint would most definitely be looked at. Simply using an excuse that "local authorities are desperately short of funds" is sadly no excuse for ignoring a complaint of maladministration. If they are so short of funds then they should enforce these debts in a timely manner - This would be one reason WHY they were short of funds.

You yourself suggested that the OP should question why it took more than 6 years to enforce the debt (post #7) - What would be the point in asking this question if it would not help the OP?

A delay in enforcing of more than 6 years would certainly need to be considered as an abuse of process and the amount involved is irrelevant. To suggest that it would be acceptable to write off a figure of £100 but not a figure of £1000 is quite frankly laughable. Maladministration is maladministration is maladministration.

It 'may' be - it's not automatically maladministration just because there's been a delay.

 

We don't know what the Local Authority has been doing in the meantime - they may have tried and failed to locate the OP until now. Until the question is asked why there's been a delay, which is what is suggested in post#7, then the information won't be known.

 

Craig

Thank you Craig.

That is why I stated in post #8 that if the OP had simply disappeared off the radar, it would be his/her fault.

However, if for whatever reason, the council had simply done nothing., then the fault lies with them

Honest, C Tax payers expect their Council to collect as much unpaid C Tax as possible, perhaps not 1-2 months. The Omdudsman advice is eminently reasonable and would apply to any complaint received. Defaulters can go to prison.

Honest tax payers also have a right to be treated fairly.

The OP came here for help. He/she sure as hell won't get any from either the council or the bailiff so it's left to us to furnish the OP with the information that neither the council nor the bailiff would want them to know.

If councils do their jobs properly (and let's face it, they're paid enough) then there will be no problem.

If the OP moved without leaving a forwarding address, there is no leg to stand on. However, if the council have been at fault, why should the OP be made to pay for their maladministration?

I would add that defaulters CANNOT go to prison.

Imprisonment for council tax applies to those who are guilty of wilful refusal or culpable neglect, NOT those who default.

True but I think that 6 years is pushing the boundaries, even allowing for the snails pace that most councils run at.

To suggest that "nothing can be done short of a judicial review" is of course wholly inaccurate. Indeed, the correct course of action would be to seek determination by way of a valuation tribunal. Personally, I would suggest a complaint to the LGO though.

It is also misinformation to suggest that purely defaulting can result in imprisonment, just as it is that people cannot be imprisoned for civil debt. Council tax is a civil debt and people are imprisoned for non-payment. Imprisonment is not for contempt of court as has been previously claimed - It is a facility that is implemented in accordance with Regulation 47 of the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended):

47.—(1) Where a billing authority has sought to enforce payment by use of the Schedule 12 procedure pursuant to regulation 45, the debtor is an individual who has attained the age of 18 years, and the enforcement agent reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the debtor to enforce payment, the authority may apply to a magistrates' court for the issue of a warrant committing the debtor to prison.

 

(2) On such application being made the court shall (in the debtor’s presence) inquire as to his means and inquire whether the failure to pay which has led to the application is due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect.

(3) If (and only if) the court is of the opinion that his failure is due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect it may if it thinks fit—

 

(a)issue a warrant of commitment against the debtor, or

(b)fix a term of imprisonment and postpone the issue of the warrant until such time and on such conditions (if any) as the court thinks just.

So not only must enforcement have been attempted but the debtor MUST be guilty of willfully refusing to pay or of culpable neglect.

Furthermore, case law has determined that magistrates must be satisfied that a debtor has the means to pay, therefore a proper means inquiry must take place.

A debtor must be blameworthy to even be considered for committal to prison and even then, all other means of enforcement available to the authority must have been explored. To suggest that a person may be liable for imprisonment purely for defaulting is so very wrong and quite frankly reprehensible.

Finally, it is also worth noting that under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it would be illegal to imprison a parent of a young child:

Right to respect for private and family life

 

1Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

 

2There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Imprisonment for council tax is a virtual non starter at the best of times. To suggest that anyone will be imprisoned simply for defaulting is ridiculous.

Apologies

I omitted the link:

http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2001/july/r-on-the-application-of-stokes-v-gwent-magistrates-court