outlawla
-
Posts
1,790 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by outlawla
-
Am I missing the point? There is not just one, but here's an example: East Riding of Yorkshire Council: And a bonus (Nottingham):
-
I have. I don't think the legislation could be amended to provide that the local authority may misallocate funds in the way that would resolve the issue in the favour of enforcement agencies and the MoJ knows this.
-
This doesn't really contribute anything does it?
-
No! It's common sense. However, the case I refer to is Peters v Anderson: " A person who is indebted to another on two several accounts, may, on paying him money, ascribe it to which account he pleases.–and his election may either be expressed,-Or may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction . I was under the impression that the Liability Order only included the outstanding monies owed and court costs. The other legislation would appear to relate to debt which the enforcement agent has collected or in the unlikely scenario where the debtor pays the council and gives them permission to give some away to its contractor. If enforcement is in-house then things might be different.
-
Because a billing authority has a legal obligation to allocate funds to the account which the debtor nominates. It is basically theft or abetting theft if it ignores that and gives it away to a contractor. Notwithstanding the above, there is case law on this which is still very relevant.
-
You are saying 'for the Council not to pay the Compliance fee to the bailiff woud be a breach of the Act'. That may be so (I have no idea), but it would be unlawful if they paid it out of money which has expressly been nominated by the debtor to be paid off his arrears.
-
lookinforinfo! Its of no real relevance what the government hoped the new fee structure would achieve. The new regulations don't (and can't see how they could be amended to) provide that a council, which has been clearly instructed to allocate funds to an elected account, pays them into another which is its contractors.
-
Neither Bailiff Advice nor her right hand man, DB, have provided any evidence supporting the lawfulness of a local authority forwarding monies to their enforcement contractor, in respect of bailiff fees which has been paid where a preference has been expressed that it should be made against council tax arrears. Do either of you have it, and if so, where is it?
-
I'm sure people will see this for what it is.....the most pathetic attempt at pulling the wool over anyone's eyes who is prepared to read the propaganda.
-
The amendment is SI 2003/2211, the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2003. Though there is nothing explaining in that amendment the reasons why the forms are no longer prescribed, the explanatory note to the Welsh amendment (SI 2003/1715) does give this as the reason: " .... The Lord Chancellor’s Department have recently conducted a review of the forms used in Magistrates' Courts and now wish to implement a new set of forms which are all to have a consistent style. As part of this process, it is necessary to de-prescribe the forms of Liability Order and of Warrant of Commitment mentioned above ... Presumably the amended regulation, 35(1), is as follows: Thankfully, the provision for dealing with a single Liability Order (for example, where someone wishes to defend costs individually) has not been affected by the de-prescribed forms.
-
Presumably, if 'there are no such forms (Form A and Form B) and neither are they provided for in the regulations', then there has been an amendment to Regulation 35(1) which provides for (or used to provide for) the following:
-
Is the last statement in the above post opinion or fact?
-
What's with the condescending attitude?
-
Interestingly KPMG (Auditor) distanced itself from endorsing the summons costs of its customer NELC. Paragraphs 82 to 94
-
The CAG software automatically changes the 'A' in the word admin to a lower case 'a'. That is all the problem is. On all the apparently broken links you just need to change the 'a' to an 'A' in the word 'admin' in the address bar. EDIT: Just changed the a and the A round in my post above as it was wrong the first time round.
-
I would think there would be very good grounds for challenging the Welsh government as to the legality of legislating for a cap on costs (also England if it were to follow suit); especially when you consider they are described as "costs reasonably incurred" (contradiction in terms). Introducing a cap in such circumstances only confirms that the MoJ must consider this a penalty dressed up as costs, albeit one it has regulated.
-
Annex A of a draft 'Consent Order' intended for a High Court appeal (Statement of reasons for consent order) has some evidence relevant to Haringey. Consent Order Paragraphs 15 and 122 for example.
-
This statement serves to highlight misleading news reports which are the consequence of lazy reporters accepting what they're told by bailiff firm s and councils when they claim 'x' or 'y' amount of £millions have been recovered by bailiffs. Just because £x million was recovered in respect of accounts that have been instructed for enforcement does not mean £x million was recovered by the bailiffs. The majority of that £x million will have been paid regardless of enforcement. People in highly paid positions within local authorities are just too thick to realise.
-
Update: Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates & Haringey Council 10am 30th April 2015 Royal Courts of Justice, WC2A 2LL
-
This is the way Eric Pickles works. If he is personally aggrieved – like for example receiving a parking ticket – he will abuse his ministerial position to influence how laws are passed in parliament. If this man had the misfortune of personally being fleeced by a private bailiff for being late with his Council Tax you could put money on it that he would again abuse his ministerial position to influence laws that would outlaw these opportunists.
-
The liability order would exist in most (if not all) cases in the form specified as 'Form B' in Schedule 2 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. That form relates to the liability of council tax and costs of all people on the complaint list (typically 1,000 plus). The other form specified as Form A in Schedule 2 is used (or should be used) for individual cases where a defendant has turned up to challenge the proceedings or has sent in written evidence/defence. Whether councils use liability order Form A appropriately is another matter. It is logical that the bulk order (Form B) would be thought appropriate only for those cases where the liability is not challenged (for example on the grounds that the costs charged are unreasonable). Regulation 35(1) (SI 1992/613) provides that where representation is made about the costs charged, the relevant person's case should be individually assessed. Not alot of councils would like to admit that.
-
Barking & Dagenham Council must know something that we don't. Reference numbers 988 and 989 (last page) of Barking & Dagenham Council's list of Fees and Charges for 2015/16 APPENDIX A
-
On the 30th April, Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates and The London Borough of Haringey will be heard by a judge in the High Court ... Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates....
-
I'd be interested to know where you learned that a prison sentence for non-payment of Council Tax is technically for contempt of court.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS