Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by tomtubby

  1. Having provided assistance to probably thousands of fine defaulters over the past 7 years the fact remains that one of the most frequent reasons for defaulting on a court fine is where payments were being deducted at source from benefits and where the debtor came off benefits for one reason or another. The problem that arises is that DWP are supposed to write to the debtor to advise that payments have stopped and although this seems to be the case....delays occurs etc. The magistrates court take the view that it is for the debtor to contact the court in such cases and arrange to pay monthly etc (the amount by law cannot be lower than £5 per week). For your friend to have got to this stage (of the debt being £345) means that the should have first received a Further Steps Notice from the Magistrates Court and next to receive a Notice of Enforcement form Collectica Ltd. If you friend did not receive one of this letters it is understandable.....but not to have supposedly received both (one form the court and one from Collectica) is not so easy to understand !!! Has your friend moved house? I am deeply concerned at a debt of £45 being passed to bailiffs and I will look into this later today. Can you check with your friend about the missing letters etc.
  2. Without knowing the fees actually charged it is very difficult indeed to advise. However, what I would say is that on the matter of charging 'multiple fee' this is not permitted at all and was the subject of a highly critical public report from the Local Government Ombudsman. Since 6th April this year the fees that can be charged are so much more easy to understand and this is leading to an astonishing reduction in the level of complaints but unfortunately in your case the fees were difficult at best to understand. One point that I would make from the little information that you have provided is that the previous legislation (and this one) do not permit for a 'default' charge and in reality, this fee would have almost certainly been an 'attending to remove' fee. However.....and this is important, a bailiff can only charge ONE ATR fee and if a 2nd one were charged to the same account this may ONLY be done in cases where goods were actually removed. Has R & R offered to refund any of the fees to avoid a court hearing?
  3. I would like to make the following statement: I noted that the debtor had made a post on the relevant website last week that the bailiff who visited his property was Mr Grxxxby and that it is his belief that the bailiff may not be legally certificated. His name does not appear on the HMCS Bailiff Register and whilst that is disappointing it is sadly the case that the register is not as up to date as we would like. I made enquiries myself today with Bromley County Court (this is one of two County Courts used by Chandlers for certification purposes) and they confirmed by email that the bailiff is indeed a Certificated Bailiff. He was granted his certificate to work for Chandlers Ltd on 11th April 2014 and his certificate expires on 11th April 2016. I hope the above avoids any further confusion.
  4. Charlotte, In order to provide an accurate response can you provide the following: Was the debt for council tax or a unpaid PCN (I am assuming council tax) Was a 'levy' made upon goods and if so, when? Was a walking possession signed? Can you post back with a list of fees and most importantly, the dates on which fees had been applied. Have you given R & R an opportunity to repay the fees that you consider are wrong? Did you complain to the local authority?
  5. The following explains the background (courtesy of Outlawla): http://www.assemblywales.org/Laid%20Documents/SUB-LD8430-EM%20-%20The%20Council%20Tax%20and%20Non-Domestic%20Rating%20(Amendment)%20(Wales)%20Regulations%202011%20-%20%20EXPLANATORY%20MEM-25022011-211281/sub-ld8430-em-e-English.pdf
  6. In fact in almost every case of a Liability Order that we come across from Wales it is the case that the amount charged is exactly £70.
  7. The relevant statutory instrument has been discussed on this thread a few times. It is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2011/528/made?view=plain
  8. For the life of me I still cannot understand the reason WHY the matter of these 'costs' has not been settled under a Statutory Instrument. In Wales, the amount that can be charged by way of summon costs/liability order costs is enshrined in statutue law and is capped at a total of £70 and this statutory regulation was put in place 3 years ago !!!! Interestingly, if a creditor wished to take legal proceedings in the county court against a debtor and the debt was under £1,000 the court fee payable is also £70.
  9. I read the story last night and it was only this morning that I realised that the letter was not addressed to the pensioner and neither did it have his correct postcode. Only the address was correct. This would also very likely be the reason why he did not receive a Notice of Enforcement from the bailiff. As part of their investigation I would hope that Somerset Council also look into why the pensioner did not receive a Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate or Order for Recovery from the council. It is not clear which company this was but it is known that Somerset Council use Ross & Roberts.
  10. Very interesting document from East Kent Housing. This is a COMPANY controlled by 4 local authorities. I wonder which actual body (ie EKH or the local authorities) actually issues the Liability Orders....
  11. Outlawla, Thank you for updating the thread. I have not spoken with the Reverend for a few weeks. The route that he is going (ie; with the external auditor) is the correct route and there are a quite a number of similar investigations ongoing with other local authorities regarding other fees. There are many significant developments right now.
  12. Really!! You are 'clutching at straws' and know perfectly well that 'proceeds' include money. What will be your next 'gootcha clause'....that money is only cash and does not include a debit card !!! This thread was started to demonstrate that this debtor (and others) was wrongly advised that bailiff fees do not need to be paid and that if a bailiff company wanted to recover their fees that they would have to take civil proceedings in the County Court under section 92.8 of the County Courts Act 2003. Strange.....that not one of the 'new posters' has even bothered to comment on this serious matter. Not one of you.
  13. A person has been arrested and it is only right that you rely upon facts. In fact, what the debtor said is that he did not even know about a Liability Order until after he had received a supplementary Notice of Enforcement but by this time he has paid the council tax debt to the council. Now, common sense alone will tell you there is something wrong here. If as he says he did not know about a Liability Order then are we to assume that he has not paid the summons costs or the liability order fee as well? All of these are simple questions (just like the dates on the notices) and should have been asked of him. If an error has been then it can be corrected. What we have now is that this poor debtor is facing paying between £1,500 and £2,500 for legal representation. Once again, this case has proved how important it is to not ignore correspondence. If as he says the debt had been paid to the council and he then received a letter from a bailiff company then it is crucially important to make contact with either the local authority or enforcement company. Again, nobody has even bothered to ask the debtor whether he did this.
  14. Outlawla, You more than anyone else will know from the astonishing work that you have done via FOI requests that almost every local authority that you approached interpret the statutory regulations in exactly the same way in which Birmingham are doing (who are the 4th largest local authority in the country).
  15. You missed it all right. You need to start reading regulation 4 and 5 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) 2014. To make the task easier for you I have copied regulation 5 below: Stages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered – enforcement other than under High Court writs 5.(1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows— (a) the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;
  16. Mark, You are unable to grasp the fact that the Regulation 13 imposes a legal obligation to apportion the payment in the way outlined (which I have explained very clearly). How that Compliance fee is physically passed over to the enforcement agent is wholly irrelevant. What is clear is how the payment is to be allocated. If it is allocated incorrectly by the court or magistrate court then the enforcement company could take legal action against the creditor. The fact remains, that Regulations 13 outlines the way in which the payment must be allocated. How it is actually done is in practice is of no importance.
  17. Yes it is and this is why it is better to leave it to those that understand the regulations....instead of trying to misinterpret what they say.
  18. It should be made clear the reason why I started this thread but one important point to make here is that I have not named the website that reported this story (and there are MANY websites) that it could relate to. Although some regular posters on here may know which website, the other 1,000 visitors would not be aware and that is very important. Anyone reading my posts will know that I will always ask a number of questions from any poster to ascertain the background to their dispute and this is vital so as to ensure that an accurate response can be provided. This will naturally include dates of notices and how payment was made and whether any previous visits had been made and crucially, whether there is any vulnerability. In the case of the debtor who had been arrested, he confirmed that he had not known about a Liability Order until he received a Notice of Enforcement from the bailiff company. He did not state the date of the NoE and none of the posters on the website even bothered to ask the question. He made payment on 8th Sept direct to the council but did not pay the Compliance Fee of £75. He confirmed that he then received a supplementary Notice of Enforcement. Again he does not give the date....and nobody bothered to ask the question. As there was still a balance due of council tax of £75 a bailiff visited the property on 17th September and a dispute arose that led to his arrest under section 68.1 of Schedule 12 of the TCEA 2007. Crucially, without even asking any questions the website advised the debtor that the only way in which bailiff fees can be recovered is for the enforcement agent to take 'civil action' against the debtor and by way of 'evidence', the website quoted section 92.8 of the Courts Act 2003. This incorrect misinterpretation section 92.8 has been banded around 'debt avoidance'/Freeman on the Land websites for a long time now and in the public interest, I highlighted why this 'advice' is wrong.
  • Create New...