why are councils reluctant to take the case back if you phone them?

[Submarine Washer]

Hi, first post for me

 

Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003 and the Magistrates Courts (Civilian Enforcement Officers) Rules 1990 doesn't mention that it's necessary for a defaulter to pay through a bailiff and so the implied upshot is that the defaulter can still use the court-issued slip from a month or two ago or simply make a personal visit with a bag of money.

 

 

 

Now, when it comes to private bailiffs enforcing for council tax, speeding or business rates, is there any parallel legislation to keep bailiff involvement out?

 

If not, what will the council do when they realise that someone has paid their council tax or rates arrears using last year's or two years ago's pre-printed bank slip issued by them?

 

When they find out, why would they refuse the money? If they accept the money, does it mean that they automatically call off Adolf, Saddam and PolPot Baliffs Inc? Or should the defaulter write to Adolf & Co to say that the pure debt has been extinguished and they can sue for their charges (max £24.50 + £18.00 or whatever)?

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

yep pay the council direct

internet banking and you council tax number should do.

then as you say, the bailiffs can go swing dixie.

they cannot use the liabilty order to get their fees.

 

dx

[sharpgun]

they cannot get in unless you let them in so dont let them across the door threshold( very important)

[D_A_S]

"yep pay the council direct

internet banking and you council tax number should do.

then as you say, the bailiffs can go swing dixie.

they cannot use the liabilty order to get their fees"

 

 

They can if they have visited before you pay the council direct (Tom Tubby has posted many times on this). If they haven't visited - pay the council direct and the liability order is satisfied.

[callumsgran]

they cannot get in unless you let them in so dont let them across the door threshold( very important)

Lol, a bit like vampires in that respect.............in fact a hell of a lot like vampires

[D_A_S]

Never let them in and get rid of all cars. Not a very practical solution but bailiffs exist to levy goods and visit fees alone are not enough for them.

[TonyFedUp]

Interestingly enough I paid a court fine on one of their slips a couple of months after they sent it, they sent a bailiff anyway. I phoned the court payment people and pointed out that it was already paid to the court. They said that the court would return my payment and that I had to deal with the bailiffs. I paid on the 14th April and to date have not had that money returned. I wrote to the bailiffs and told them not to send anyone to my property as I have paid the court but I have heard nothing back from that either.

[Submarine Washer]

tonyfedup

 

No, I was asking about the council, not the court.

I wish to ask a further question:

 

What happens if the bailiffs have already been, THEN I pay the council?

What can I expect?

[spamheed]

You can expect them to spit their dummy out over their fees,

 

if the liability order has been satisfied then they would need to putrsue you for their fees.

 

Bizarre really, there is no contract between you and the bailiffs, n outstanding debts via the liability order, yet they expect you to pay for a service that you didn't ask for and in all probability has been potentially grossly inflated by the "knuckle dragger" shouting through your letter box.

[callumsgran]

"knuckle dragger"

 

 

 

Like it!

[tomtubby]

tonyfedup

 

No, I was asking about the council, not the court.

I wish to ask a further question:

 

What happens if the bailiffs have already been, THEN I pay the council?

What can I expect?

 

Can I just make the point VERY CLEAR about this issue.

 

The legislation concerning COUNCIL TAX states that BAILIFF FEES must be paid first.

 

If for instance the amount on the Liability Order has been paid IN FULL before a bailiff has visited....then this payment can indeed go to the council and this will clear the Liability Order.

 

Lets assume that the Liability Order is £1,000 and the bailiff has made two visits to the property and was unable to either levy upon goods or gain entry into the house. If payment of £1,000 is then paid in full to the COUNCIL , it the council must then to REPAY the bailiff fees over to the bailiff company for the 2 visits (£24.50 and £18.00) .

 

The effect of this is that the Liability Order has NOT been paid in full as there is still £42.50 outstanding and the bailiff can legally then enforce for this small balance.....and do please believe me......they will !!!

[chris600uk]

So..., just for my overworked and lonely brain cell...

 

When the regs say:

 

Distress

45.—(3) If, before any goods are seized, the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount and the levy shall not be proceeded with.

 

Does that mean that (including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) now includes bailiff charges?

 

How did that happen?

 

I thought that only referred to the charges incurred by the council when they obtained the Liability Order.

[FairPlay77]

Can I just make the point VERY CLEAR about this issue.

 

The legislation concerning COUNCIL TAX states that BAILIFF FEES must be paid first.

 

If for instance the amount on the Liability Order has been paid IN FULL before a bailiff has visited....then this payment can indeed go to the council and this will clear the Liability Order.

 

Lets assume that the Liability Order is £1,000 and the bailiff has made two visits to the property and was unable to either levy upon goods or gain entry into the house. If payment of £1,000 is then paid in full to the COUNCIL , it the council must then to REPAY the bailiff fees over to the bailiff company for the 2 visits (£24.50 and £18.00) .

 

The effect of this is that the Liability Order has NOT been paid in full as there is still £42.50 outstanding and the bailiff can legally then enforce for this small balance.....and do please believe me......they will !!!

 

I DO NOT doubt that what you say is legally correct, but in my case the council DID NOT pay the bailiff fees out of the money I had sent them.

 

Moreover, the bailiffs gave up without me paying them a £42.50 charge or anything else.

 

This may be because I was the 'customer' from hell from the bailiffs' point of view and refused to give them a microsopic fraction of a centimetre let along an inch, but I suspect that in many cases where the amount demanded has been dishonestly inflated above the lawful £42.50, the bailiffs will not pursue the matter once they are aware that the debtor is wise to their tricks and that they will, eventually, give up.

 

I also feel strongly that in any case where the bailiffs have overcharged, there is no longer any moral obligation on the victim of this fraud to pay them anything: one bad turn deserves another!

[chris600uk]

Doesn't anyone have a sustainable point of view that challenges it?

 

[Submarine Washer]

I understand all of that, but the question still stands: When I called the council, they wouldn't take my money, saying "It's with the bailiffs now".

 

Why?

 

It doesn't makes sense. I owe them, so I tried to pay them and they won't take it.

[dx100uk]

pay it by internet banking.

the bailiff cannot use the liabily order to then get his fees, it then becomes a civil matter between you and him.

 

i've done this three times in about 7 yrs

 

you get the normal aggro, butthey just give up inthe end as there is nothing they can do about it.

 

dx

[letsmakeamark]

Bailiffs think that the debtorsare their bitches. Hey did i say that ?

[fwog]

I understand all of that, but the question still stands: When I called the council, they wouldn't take my money, saying "It's with the bailiffs now".

 

Why?

 

It doesn't makes sense. I owe them, so I tried to pay them and they won't take it.

 

So your not willingly refusing to pay, and the council are not accepting the payment of the amount they say they're owed.

 

Im sure there must be a statue to say something like:

 

'..... creditors must not willingly allow debtors further charges/debts/distress on refusal of debt satisfaction'

 

Surely the debt is satisfied and closed?

 

 

Also, if the bailiff is adding charges,this cannot be added to the debt as its a new debt ? ie council distress/debt over 2 years/gone to court .Resolved by bailiff. For bailiff to demand payment ,surely they should have to go through due process, not just add it to the debt?

 

Fwog

[Vannie]

Don't bother phoning the Council. In my case they were working in a Call Centre and were very sympathetic, but when I wrote in as advised I was told the debt was with the Bailiff and I needed to contact them.

 

The Council DID take back the debt (eventually), but only after I'd completed an I&E form - which they ignored and denied my request. However, after I'd emailed them quite upset stating that my debt was from 2006 - 2007, I'd paid them direct after Equita and Newlyns wouldn't take my payments, and subsequent council tax bills were paid in full - they took the debt back this week - all £269 worth.

[spamheed]

Im sure there must be a statue to say something like:

 

The council have a contract with the bailiffs, they have engaged their services to collect the debt, therefore they have to allow the bailiff to do it.

 

The bailiffs will generally only have a small period of time to collect the debt (3 to 6 months in most cases) if they cannot collect the debt within that period, the account is returned to the council and you can then make an arrangement to pay the council directly.

 

The key is to ask the council to take the debt back, they can do this and do so quite often, but will state the opposite. Make it plain that you are not refusing to pay, but you will not deal with the bailiffs for whatever reasons you have.

[sharpgun]

sorry posted on wrong thread

Edited May 16, 2009 by sharpgun