Sounds like the agreement was informal (nothing signed) and made over the phone, i.e., no visit until the one in respect of that which they decided to fleece you. The only sum in my opinion that the bailiff would be entitled to would be the levy (£30.46). EDIT: If the balance had been reduced (£50 weekly instalments) from the £248.94 on the liability order at the time of the levy then the levy fee I guess should be less accordingly.

Levy fee on £248.94 liability should have been £30.46. Looks like they added £12+ oddments for a walking possession agreement (that you didn't agree).

Good question! Bear this in mind though. A bailiff can only charge either a visit fee or a levy fee (one or the other). If a first visit, this is £24.50. If your % works out at less than £24.50, you could see this as a bonus as he can't also charge a visit fee. EDIT: There's probably a minimum levy fee though, maybe around £25 so there's not much in it.

Nottingham City Council is continuing the theme: Nottingham City Council stands up as government plans to quadruple charges for debt collection Council tax debtors face disproportionate rise in bailiff charges

Page 12, 3rd paragraph of this bailiff action consultation could explain why the new fees structure is so extortionate:

In debt families in Bedford to face higher bailiff charges " ..... Bedford Borough Council uses bailiffs to recover council tax and business rate debts. In 2012/13, the authority referred more than 5,000 council tax cases and around 400 business rate cases to bailiffs. However, in a major change to the system, the Government is raising the fees payable by debtors from £24.50 to £310, a 1,165 per cent increase. Bailiffs will also be able to levy 7.5 per cent of the value of any goods seized of more than £1,500, limiting the ability of residents to pay what they owe..... .

What seems to be the police's other get-out-of-jail free card with regards not investigating allegations of bailiff fraud (when not the old favourite, "it's a Civil matter") is the Home Office circular 47 / 2004. The problem that presents itself for the police by quoting this – apart from being stated in the memo that: "Nothing in these guidelines should be taken as preventing the police from investigating any case that they consider it appropriate to investigate" – is that many of the bulleted points listed under the heading: "Priorities For The Investigation Of Fraud Cases", fit exactly with what is relevant to the bailiff situation: " • Frauds involving substantial sums of money. [ Note: this would likely run into many millions of pounds if fully investigated] • Frauds having a significant impact on the victim(s). • Frauds affecting particularly vulnerable victims (eg the elderly, people with disabilities, businesses providing key services in difficult circumstances) or in distinct communities. • Frauds giving rise to significant public concern (possibly highlighted by a high degree of press interest). • Frauds where law enforcement action could have a material deterrent effect. • Frauds which indicate a risk of more substantial / extensive fraud occurring.

Well that only tells us that the police force is corrupt doesn't it?

There is another article in the Plymouth Herald (November 15, 2013), which together with the current one and a Freedom of Information request, highlights how profitable the "Welfare Reforms" have been for local authorities and the Court's Service. It was quoted in the Plymouth Herald article, November 15, 2013 (see below) which is an admission in anyone's language that Plymouth City Council was profiting, therefore breaking the law, with the income generated from magistrates' court costs: " The panel recommended cutting the charge of a liability order from £83 to £60, which is close to the break-even point for the council Admitting to the press that they profit (and get away with it) highlights the lack of control, and provides evidence that Magistrates' courts accept, without evidence, that the expenses claimed have been incurred. However, in one of the responses to the FoI request, it stated that "Plymouth City Council are not liable or responsible for what is published in the local press" and could "verify that the overall cost spent on recovery action exceeds the income that we receive from liability order charges". It had previously submitted the calculation below to support its claim that the overall expenditure for recovery action exceeded the income received from liability order charges: Apart from it being obvious that the figure was made up, i.e., 30.2% of the overall Council Tax budget being attributable to recovery, the data and the way it was calculated relating to summons and liability order costs was completely botched. If it had used figures for 2012/13 obtained from CIPFA, then even with the dubious £0.8m claimed as recovery expenditure, the calculation would be have shown a £46k surplus as a profit for the council. However, the whole situation changes drastically if you substitute actual data obtained from the Plymouth Herald (11 Feb, 2014), which incidentally relates only from April to December 2013 (an incomplete year for 2013/14): • Notional budget spent on recovery £0.800m • Number of Summonses for 2013/14 (part year): 18,262 • Number of Liability Orders for 2012/13 (part year): 10,993 • Summons income for 2013/14 = £1,095,720 • Liability Order income for 2013/14 = £252,839 • Total (part year) income for 2013/14 = £1,348,559m As you can see from the calculation (still using the unrealistically over estimated £0.8m claimed as recovery expenditure), there would be £548,559 surplus which will be substantially more when costs are added in respect of the remaining three months recovery income.

The only reference to counsel opinion on the ATR fee I've seen is one where Alastair Tomson QC stated that in his view "a separate fee is chargeable for attendance with a vehicle on a visit where a levy takes place in respect to that Liability Order", where in opposition to that Opinion an argument was made.

Van/attendance fees (Update) Some more data in (confirmed after almost a year) regarding Attendance to Remove fees charged in respect of the same visit that an attendance to levy was made. Between years 2009/10 to 2012/13: East Lindsey District Council (Rossendales/ Jacobs) Figure submitted: 2,616 | van fee: (No agreed sum) + (Unknown/£ per hour)

Excellent! What did you say that clinched it?

There's plenty in reserve for those already in receipt of many of the details. The right moment will not be too far in the future I doubt.

The £1,000s spent in respect of the time opposing this th*ft (for which no support is offered by the government) is never going to defeat the self serving immoral f*l*h like, for example absent Chief Constables, Police & Crime Commissioners etc. etc. Included in the aforementioned are those who have recently been highlighted (today) dealing with complaints who have no reservations to respond to the public as if they were morons. Now officially recorded, this includes the Head of the Economic Crime Unit of the Humberside Police Farce who must now be realising she has taken on more than she bargained for when she thought she could get away with treating people like six year olds. I doubt it would be going too far to say that government ministers (and many following their orders) in particularly the Home office in this case, are thie*ing from the taxpayer with their families benefiting from this deceit who are probably unaware of the many millions suffering misery at the hands of their breadwinners.

An up-date regarding Humberside polices fraud department's involvement in the matters raised in this thread. The police strung its response out and eventually concluded after several months (as anticipated) that it would not investigate the allegations. The Detective dealing with the matter, after it was requested that he escalate a complaint to the Chief Constable, forwarded all the correspondence to the Force's Professional Standards Branch. Also as expected, the Detective Inspector in charge of the Economic Crime Unit, tasked with investigating itself, concluded that the decision still stands. It might be entertaining to see the response and be made aware of the standard to which Humberside police's fraud unit works, which entails asking the council (the authority against who allegations were made) if it was guilty and taking it at its word when it said no. What would really be interesting to know is who the person was that Detective Inspector Welton visited in 2009 at their home to explain the reasons why the allegations were not of a criminal nature. Outcome of complaint >>>> " I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the complaint you made on 24 November 2013 regarding the Forces decision not to investigate an allegation of Fraud. Humberside Police is committed to providing a quality of service to all members of the public and I am grateful, therefore, that you have taken the trouble to bring this matter to Force’s attention. Accordingly, the matter causing you concern was recorded as an organisational issue and I was appointed to enquire into it. I am the Detective Inspector in charge of the Economic Crime Unit and therefore this matter has been passed to me to deal with. I am in receipt of a large amount of correspondence from you and Detective Sergeant Wood which I have examined in great detail. I am aware that your allegations are that of fraud against Rossendale’s bailiffs and the North East Lincolnshire Council. I have also liaised with Detective Inspector Welton, who dealt with the same complaint you made to Humberside Police in 2009. You may recall he visited you at your home and explained the reasons why your allegations were not of a criminal nature. [ This statement is completely untrue ] In making the decision whether to investigate an allegation of fraud I have to bear in mind the Home Office guidelines documented in the circular number 47 of 2004. The decision on whether or not to investigate an allegation of fraud and the resources to be devoted to any investigation rest solely with the police. The police will only investigate in circumstances where there are good grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed. In some cases some form of preliminary inquiry may assist the police in determining whether the case is suitable for full investigation. In making the decision the police will have regard to the resources available, government and local priorities, and the competing priorities of other fraud and criminal cases already under investigation. I also have to consider whether it would be more appropriate for this matter to be referred to the appropriate regulatory body to deal with the allegations. DS Wood carried out extensive research into your submission. He also met with members of the Council Tax Department at the North East Lincolnshire Council and has spoken with their counterparts at the Hull City Council. The council have made no report of criminal wrongdoing by the bailiffs. Therefore my decision still stands; Humberside Police will not be pursuing an investigation into this matter for the reasons outlined in DS Woods’s email dated 9th November 2013. Please be aware that as your complaint refers to an organisational issue there is no right of appeal against the outcome of this process. This is in accordance with Paragraph 8A Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002. Yours sincerely, Professional Standards Branch Christine Calvert T/Detective Inspector 1487 Humberside Police Major Crime Unit, Hessle.

The way it seems (from a legal angle) is that the service is contracted out, not the fees and charges; they are always the local authorities. The contract between the bailiff firm and council will presumably (in most cases) detail that the bailiff firm will be allowed to retain the fees collected, or alternatively may invoice the authority for whatever they're entitled. I can't see how the bailiff firm would be legally entitled to levy distress in respect of fees alone when they are in law the councils; that is unless the council instruct the bailiff to do this on the grounds that the council would like paying its fees. The problem then is that the local authority has no interest in doing this because it already has its money. It would also be dubious in law if the council were to instruct bailiffs to levy for their fees when in fact the council has done no work.

You need to bear in mind that the regulations refer to the local authority's charges, i.e., "...(including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender)". When enforcement is contracted to a private firm, the fees remain the local authorities in law and would therefore question whether it would be lawful for the bailiff to levy on behalf of the council (in respect of fees) because the council has not made the visits or incurred the costs – a catch 22 situation really.

Sorry I cant be more constructive, but you were clearly speaking the bailiff's language.

Sorry, I made the comment completely ignoring how the government relies on playing the stigma card to its advantage, or in other words holding the threat over them of having people (neighbours, employers etc.) find out how burdensome they are to society; even though they may well have paid far more into the system than their fair share in better times. It was also neglected about how the Home Office influence Police forces to turn a blind eye, and also the Criminal Prosecution Service who would never compromise their position by taking on cases which might dilute their performance figures. If you are wondering what I'm talking about it's the cases not 100% of a certain successful prosecution. EDIT: I seems you're willing to let the corrupt system win as a trade off for keeping a low profile?

Would it not in that case then, be far more gratifying to allow tossendales to take the vehicles and then for J. G-Js to be answerable to a criminal offence, namely theft?

I forgot to add that the liability order which the Magistrate will rubber stamp, is likely (depending on the council) to include an amount additional to the summons (£50). Normally, the amount (if any) will be stated on the summons (standard sum), and like the summons costs, the billing authority is taking for granted that the court will award this sum. It is becoming standard practice for local authorities to front load the latter charge (so called liability order costs) to the summons so that the income generated from taking residents to court is vastly increased.

Assuming the outstanding debt is being paid, less summons costs, the council are likely to proceed and make the application for a liability order on the day of the hearing for a sum equal to the costs under the provision of Regulation 34(8) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. The order will almost certainly be granted without it even being known to the Bench that the outstanding debt, according to the local authority, is only an amount equal to the standard summons costs sought. Regulation 34 provides at paragraph 8 that the court shall, subject to an application by the billing authority, grant an order for the costs alone, where payment of the council tax has been made after the issue of a summons but before the liability order has been made by the court: “ (8) Where the sum payable is paid after a liability order has been applied for under paragraph (2) but before it is made, the court shall nonetheless (if so requested by the billing authority) make the order in respect of a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in making the application. You are of course entitled to appear before the bench and present your defence which could be that the authority applied for a liability order knowing that the Council Tax was in dispute and although legally entitled this is bad practice according to the LGO (Local Government Ombudsman) and others. Or, you could just insist on witnessing proceedings without presenting any defence (you may be sceptical). Additionally, the regulations state that a billing authority MAY "apply to a magistrates' court for an order against the person by whom it is payable". It was therefore open to the authority to use discretion and not bring about court proceedings under such circumstances. You could also raise the fact that an amount was added to your council tax liability in respect of court costs without any being awarded the council, i.e., before the court hearing. It may be however, that after going through all this bother, the bench will just ignore all your defence and side with the council and all you will have achieved is witnessing just how fair our justice system is.

In that case you could ask for proof it was posted. However, the likelihood of the council being able to prove that is pretty remote. The best it may possibly do is produce a copy of the Certificate of Posting, which would only prove that 'x' number of Summonses in relation to the bulk application were sent by its mailing contractor. EDIT: Is there nothing in the council tax regulations specifying the requirements for serving the summons, or failing that, general rules/guidelines (paragraph 8) which apply?

Potential for another High Court ruling with regards local authorities inappropriately profiting; similar to the Barnet case only with court costs revenue surplus to their expenditure as opposed to parking revenue.

Something to throw at them if the council states it doesn't have to prove the summons was served. Section 55 of the Magistrates' Court's Act 1980 Non-appearance of defendant