Mardy bailiff and CTAX LO

[fwog]

Regardless of what they say about the SAR there are no dispensations for them just because it's the Council. The legal requirement is to comply within 40 days - and the time starts from when they receive it.

 

Thanks PT.

 

It was a bit of an 'Errr......,Ummmm......' conversation. I felt a little relief as it seemed as though I'd pulled back the curtain of Oz Not many answers and the ones forthcoming were kind of lead by me.

Even though the RM's records show 'in transit' this does mean it has been verified at their end? I wouldn't want it 'disappearing' and a hole tumult of cobblers coming back through my letterbox.

[ploddertom]

Not sure how long ago you sent it but have you checked to see if they cashed your £10. May also pay to send them a reminder now they have confirmed they have it.

[fwog]

Not sure how long ago you sent it but have you checked to see if they cashed your £10. May also pay to send them a reminder now they have confirmed they have it.

 

The cheque has not been cashed yet. The letter was received 2 weeks ago , according to them. Is it an official reminder I need to send, or is it just an informal 'I've sent XXXX, please look into it' .

 

Or is it better to keep schtum and hope the 40 days elapse before they realise?

[ploddertom]

If it was only received 2 weeks ago I would do nothing yet. The fact they have not cashed the payment yet is not your problem. I would wait another 2- 3 weeks before sending them a reminder which is just along the lines of:

 

Dear Sir

 

Please be aware that I am still awaiting the results of my Subject Access Request received by yourselves on (DATE). I must remind you that you only had 40 days in which to comply, failure to comply may result in a complaint being made to the ICO Office or an action commenced in the County Court for non-compliance.

 

Regards

[ploddertom]

You have to be seen to be giving them every opportunity so even when the 40 days are you should allow "postage time", then another letter giving them just 7 days.

[fwog]

Thanks PT! I know the tempo and wording of correspondence is key, so thenks for the guidance .When 'The Letter' that was referred, to arrives, I will furnish with details.

[fwog]

Cheque cashed on 12/07/2013. The clocks ticking......

[lamma]

As the cheque (A Bill of Exchange - see the 1882 Act) was not repudiated (dishonoured) then the payment date is the date of receipt of the cheque NOT the date it is cashed nor the date is it received by the bank. The clock ticks from then.

[fwog]

Thanks Lamma!

[fwog]

Well thats 40 days from the cheques encashment........not a dickybird

[ploddertom]

Have you sent them a reminder they have not complied, if not do so ASAP - by email followed with a letter in the post and then give them an additional 10 days with the proviso that if nothing heard then without any recourse to them you will commence action via the ICO or County Court for compliance.

[fwog]

Hi PT,

I'm trying to compile a letter, but what would be the procedure if it does go to ICO? Would it incur courts costs for me?

[ploddertom]

There are 2 methods for trying to enforce compliance for a SAR.

 

1 - make a complaint to the ICO - under their own admission they are swamped and may take several months until they get round to it. Even if found in your favour they can still ignore it so back to square one.

 

2 - file an action in the Small Claims Court - usually seen as a non-money claim so could cost £150 initially but you could claim this back. May also take several hearings so plan on it taking several months. If on certain Benefits or a low wage you may be able to have the Court fee(s) waived.

 

Out of the 2 above I used the second one and got a lot of other stuff they showed me that I didn't know about.

[fwog]

Amazing how they expect compliance for a randomly generated letter within 7 days or face bailiffs. When you retort with a recognised request,within their framework of duty, they cash the cheque and just ignore it

 

Thanks PT will get on with it today.

[fwog]

Received a letter today dates 30/8/13. It states 'we are dealing with your issue and are awaiting data'

[tomtubby]

Given the length of time that they are taking to respond I suspect they are a bit worried.

 

Looking forward to reading their response.......when it eventually arrives !!!

[fwog]

The story continues....

They've compiled the the SAR. The 'write off' policy in place at the time was '....if a debtor was not traceable' . As I wasn't at the address to answer, and the only contact was recently, I'm not sure how I wasn't seen as 'untraceable'

They currently do not have a write off policy. No sign of any court paper evidence of a summons or liability order. They've ask me to 'get in touch with the court' for this, I have and was told they do not keep records back that far.

It seems they're just being a PIA for the sake of it, they've been notified this isn't enforceable as they have no copy of the original liability order ,but they've not sent out a letter stating there's no case to answer.

God knows they need this money ,if only to fund their wasteful department that employs 90% of its time chasing their tail.

[ploddertom]

It is up to them to prove the debt exists.

[fwog]

I can accept this, but I'm sure they will not. Even though the debt cannot be proven ,I'm sure it will be outsourced to the bullyboys. I seem to be getting nowhere fast on this.

[tomtubby]

The story continues....

They've compiled the the SAR. The 'write off' policy in place at the time was '....if a debtor was not traceable' . As I wasn't at the address to answer, and the only contact was recently, I'm not sure how I wasn't seen as 'untraceable'

They currently do not have a write off policy. No sign of any court paper evidence of a summons or liability order. They've ask me to 'get in touch with the court' for this, I have and was told they do not keep records back that far.

It seems they're just being a PIA for the sake of it, they've been notified this isn't enforceable as they have no copy of the original liability order ,but they've not sent out a letter stating there's no case to answer.

God knows they need this money ,if only to fund their wasteful department that employs 90% of its time chasing their tail.

 

 

Have a look at the posts that I have made today on the thread regarding a debt going back 19 years.

[fwog]

Have a look at the posts that I have made today on the thread regarding a debt going back 19 years.

 

Hi Tommytubby,

 

What bit? It relates to debts not being statute barred, but in my case they cannot provide a copy of the liability order.

[unclebulgaria67]

Hi Tommytubby,

 

What bit? It relates to debts not being statute barred, but in my case they cannot provide a copy of the liability order.

 

If they cannot evidence the debt or a liability order, there is no debt. I would suggest that you make sure that the council have logged a complaint for LGO purposes, advising them that if they choose to continue this further you will continue the matter with the LGO.

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Fwog, one would have thought that being unable to provide a copy of the L/O would be fatal for them in any Court case.

 

These are the relevant posts fro Tomtubby on the thread where the Council were chasing a 19 year old Council tax debt-

Unfortunately, a Liability Order ( and indeed a distress Warrant for an unpaid court fine) are NOT covered by the Statutes of Limitations Act.

 

Interestingly, although this is the legal position I have come across many cases recently where the council have seen sense and cancelled very old debts when provided with a leading case ( on a different subject) from the VTE which dealt extensively on the 6 year rule.

The Council did in fact cancel the 19 year old debt though I suspect that part of the reason there was the original debt was for £19 . I expect there were other factors too, but it is good that you can see that

there has been a recent precedent where an old debt has been cancelled.

 

Tomtubby then posted again saying The VTE case is also now used by the Ombudsman and I will post more on this next week.

 

For clarification, a Liability Order over 6 years old s NOT statute barred but most councils will consider cancelling ( and in the cases that I have dealt with) always do so once channelled by the VT case.

[lookinforinfo]

I don't know if you looked at the 19 year old thread, but I have provided a link to it so that you can see the different documents etc to ask for in order for them to prove their case. If they cannot produce them

it would be an uphill task for them to prove in Court.

One thing you should ask is what, if any, enforcement policy they used back then. Since if they didn't send in the bailiffs at the time, it is my understanding-and hopefully Tomtubby willl confirm, that they cannot

now instruct bailiffs 11 years on because of the Limitations Act

[tomtubby]

Hi Tommytubby,

 

 

In my case they cannot provide a copy of the liability order:

 

.

In my answer on the other thread I had stated that the LOCAL AUTHORITY and NOT the Magistrates Court actually print the Liability Order. It is therefore for the LA to provide a copy and if they cannot do so then there can be NO PROOF at all that the court granted the Liability Order and on which date it was "supposedly" granted.

 

The "Liability Order" is a "Statutory Form" . If you require a copy, let me know.