http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-5653351/Computers-decide-PPI-victims-payout-explosive-documents-show.html

A very popular enquiry that appears on the forum concerns bailiff enforcement for arrears of council tax in relation to a previous property and where notification of the arrears is only known when a bailiff visits the individuals new address. In the first instance, the vast majority of people pay their yearly council tax by direct debit. When a person moves from an address, there are usual steps that will be undertaken by the homeowner. Taking a reading of the gas or electricity meters is one such obvious step. Another obvious step should be to inform the local authority of the moving out date. The council will then adjust the yearly council tax bill. The council will request a new address so that a final bill can be sent. The individual should not cancel their previous direct debit without first contacting the council. If they do so, and there are council tax arrears, the council may issue a summons and the regulations (in this case, Regulation 35.2© of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992) are very clear, in that the summons is deemed served if sent by post to the individuals usual or last known place of abode. If a Liability Order is granted for the arrears, it can be passed to a firm of bailiffs to enforce. Before a personal visit is made, the enforcement company must send a Notice of Enforcement. Once again, the regulations (in this case, Regulations 8 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013) are very clear in that the Notice of Enforcement is deemed served if it is posted to the address where the individual usually lives. If the individual moves from his previous address and fails to contact the council to settle his council tax bill and provide a new address, then naturally the Notice of Enforcement will be sent to 'the last known place of abode' (i.e. the previous address). If a subsequent complaint is made to the Local Government Ombudsman, it will usually be the case that they will not will find fault with the local authority. The following are two recent decisions from the Ombudsman on this very subject:

There has been much debate on the forum regarding the important subject of 'vulnerability' when a debt (usually council tax arrears) is being enforced by a bailiff. Many posters have different opinions as to whether or not, when vulnerability is identified, the account should be returned to the local authority and bailiff fees removed, or managed by the enforcement companies in house Welfare Dept etc etc. Whilst opinions will no doubt vary on this very important subject, it may be of interest to know what the Local Government Ombudsman's view is of this subject. If a debtor wishes to have a complaint considered by the Local Government Ombudsman, they must first take their complaint to the relevant local authority and exhaust the first stage and second stage complaints procedure. The complaint may then be considered by the LGO. All Local Government Ombudsman's decisions are reported on-line. These reports are made public 3 months after the final decision. The local authorities name is revealed but the complainants details are not.

All Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) decisions appear on the LGO website six months after the date of the decision. Personal information about the complainant is naturally removed but the name of the relevant local authority is made public. For this discussion thread I have only selected important decisions that concern council tax enforcement where a liability order had been obtained and passed to an enforcement company. Although the following decision relates to events prior to the new regulations taking effect (April 2014) it is nonetheless a very important one to refer to. The decision date was August 2014 and was published November 2014. The local authority is London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and the complaint made by the debtor was that: The debtor was vulnerable and the local authority should not have referred to account to bailiffs. That the council forwarded payments to the bailiff company. The council refused to recall debt from the bailiff company.

Approx two years ago the Local Government Ombudsman changed the way in which they record decisions. Previously, when a final decision was made, copies would be sent to the relevant local authority and the complainant. The significance of the change was that all decisions are now made public on the LGO website three months after the decision. There have been quite a few recent decisions made to the Local Government Ombudsman concerning successful Out of Time witness statements to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the position regarding 'bailiff fees'. Up until this decision, most local authorities when notified of a successful Out of Time witness statement will refund some or all of the amount of the PCN...and will then advise the individual that they must contact the bailiff company for a refund. Out of Time witness statements and the Traffic Enforcement Centre are subjects that I am passionate about and this is why I am DELIGHTED to read this very recent decision (made public on 23rd March 2016) from the LGO regarding London Borough of Haringey. The LGO advised LB of Haringey that they should refund Miss X the following amounts: Charge certificate surcharge of £65 TEC court fee of £7 Bailiff fees of £310. Analysis: Item 17: As detailed at Paragraph 15, the TEC’s decision to accept Miss X’s late witness statement ordered that recovery action be taken back to the original PCN. While the Council says it has discretion over whether to refund fees in this situation as the TEC’s decision makes no direction on this point, the TEC’s decision clearly directs the revocation of the order for recovery and the cancellation of the charge certificate. These documents form the basis of the Council’s action from December 2013, as well as the further fees added to Miss X’s debt. Item 18. The Ombudsman considers in this situation that as the TEC has withdrawn the basis for the fees, the Council cannot legitimately refuse to refund them. Had the TEC’s decision not intended to result in this action it would be meaningless as it would have no effect. I therefore consider that the Council’s refusal to refund the fees resulting from steps in the process which the TEC has ordered are cancelled, is fault. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-...ties/15-000-612

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/ofgem-secures-free-energy-npower-customers-late-resolution-ombudsman-decisions So it seems that not only does Npower dishonour it obligations to its customers but it also dishonours it obligations to the Energy Ombudsman as well. Let's hope that Npower's legal clerk- Kenneth Radley Davies is watching Thanks to Eversir for this heads-up

Over two and a half years ago I contacted the CSA to request that my sons father be assessed and asked to pay Child support. To cut this long and frustrating story very short, the CSA made an administrative error, which they have admitted to, which meant that I lost out on payments from Jan 2011 until Dec 2012. In Dec the admitted to this and also paid me £50 compensation for the delay in dealing with my complaint. After my ex had paid six months of CS payments I asked to be referred to the Special Payments Department (on the advice of the Complaints Resolution deparment) to resolve the financial loss I suffered through their mistakes. After much "faffing about" and delay tactics this case has now been refferred to the mysterious Special payment Dept, (they arent allowed to speak to me or the CSA main office....just emails apparantly), and have been waiting for 30 days so far. i have no written acknowledgment of this refferal, although it has been confirmed several times on the telephone, and I appear to be sat in limbo waiting for them to make a decision. Does anyone have any experience of how long this particular stage of the process should take? i have read their guidelines to the payment officers, but cannot find any reference to time limits. i have already spent hundreds (literally) of punds on phone calls during this battle, and cannot seem to find any other agency or body to help. i do not wish to involve an MP as, reading others accounts, this only seems to complicate matters, and I believe that ICE only get involved once a decision has been made. So sick and tired of being penalised for the mistakes of an incompetent and poorly administrated Govt body. I am clearly one of very very many who are suffering because of this. Any advice is appreciated.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22991447 Tribunals in London, Liverpool, Glasgow and Birmingham will offer feedback when they overturn rulings on employment and support allowance (ESA) on appeal. Critics of the test used to determine eligibility claim it is flawed. But ministers say 85% of decisions have been upheld on appeal since 2008. 'Learn lessons' All those in receipt of ESA - formerly known as incapacity benefit - and new applicants are having their claims reviewed in a process begun by the last Labour government and accelerated by the coalition. The Work Capability Assessment conducted by private contractor Atos has proved controversial, with campaigners saying that it has made too many wrong decisions which are overturned on appeal. The explanations provided by the judges will be analysed by the Department for Work and Pensions over the summer. Work and pensions minister Esther McVey said: "With recent changes to disability benefits we need to make sure the appeals process is transparent and working well. "We will use this information to learn lessons and improve the standard of decision-making and appeals processes. It will also be helpful for claimants to understand why an appeal has been allowed or dismissed."

Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre has written a guide on how to challenge a decision which can be downloaded from here: http://www.govanhilllc.com/brtax/ Although written with a Scottish audience in mind, all of the arguments apply equally in England, Wales and NI.