operate a "Free Sugery" near a Council "Customer (mis?-) Service centre.

[jimbo45]

Hi all

Is it not correct that a council has a LEGAL DUTY to COLLECT TAX so how can it "REFUSE" to accept payments when offered.

 

Since payment HAS been offered what is the validity of a "Liability Order" -- how for example can people (Bailiff's) actually charge a Levy against money owed to a Council when the money has been REFUSED by the same Council. -- surely the Law has it's knickers totally in a twist here.

 

In any case don't the council have to send out a Liability Order first if they want to use Bailiff's.

 

I'm no legal eagle - but the duty of the Council is to collect the TAX - and not be lining the pockets of 3rd parties so aren't they LEGALLY REQUIRED to accept payment.

 

Hopefully some good Lawyer here will unearth some obscure clause which says that in the case of a DECENT offer of payment (and I offered over 50% of the arrears) a COUNCIL MUST TAKE THE PAYMENT.

 

Please can someone clear up the whole situation in these cases.

 

I'm aware in any case that one doesn't have to deal with the Bailiff's - so presumably the TAX bill goes back to the council anyway - so why on Earth don't they just take a better deal when it's on the table instead of going the last mile with the Bailiff's by which time people might have been able to get Council Tax benefit in any case -- so they've DOUBLY lost out.

 

Sometimes the Law seems an ASS -- in this case it seems like a whole STABLEFUL of ASSES.

 

Please anybody - Clarification if poss.

Cheers

jimbo

[jimbo45]

Hi all

slightly different problem to the normal post.

 

I have got SO FED UP with the sheer harassement of people by Council Tax bailiff's etc that I took a Laptop with a wireless connection (nice - using the Council's OWN Wi-FI) and sat outside (on a Public Street) one of a well known Council's "Customer" centres.

 

I had a sign saying -- COUNCIL TAX and BAILIFF problems - and have been pointing out to people about this this excellent site. I made it clear on my poster that I wasn't a lawyer but just giving advice and showing people suggested routes to get these THUGS and BULLIES out of their hair.

 

Amazing the number of people who neither knew any rights and had certainly never heard of this excellent site.

 

Some were even in tears at the prospect of the Bailiff's coming.

 

However (and why wasn't I surprised) as three (not 2 but THREE) big Bouncers from inside the "Customer Center" came out and threatened to call the Police as I was

 

a) Practicisng Law without a License - I wasn't -- made it clear that I wasn't a practising Lawyer and recommended people to seek further legal advice in all cases if they had any doubt whatsoever.

 

b) "Street Trading" without a licence -- wasn't charging anybody anything so what "Street Trading"

 

c) "Unlawfully preventing a Council in collecting Tax legally owed to it"

 

d) The typical get out "Liable to Cause a Breach of the peace"

 

e) Causing an Obstruction. _ Well here I suppose I can't complain --at one time I had 30 people around.

 

Should I have stood my ground and let the Police come.

 

I really didn't want my laptop to get smashed so amid BOOS and Cat calls against the Bouncers I decided to leave.

 

Can I actually legally protest to anyone -- the trouble is if it's a "demonstration" then whilst the Police will ensure the peace is kept it's the same Council who has to issue the permit. A bit like seeking absolution from the Devil.

 

What on EARTH are we doing in this country when you are chased away because you are actually trying to HELP people from being harrassed and scarecby THUGS and BULLIES operating under "quasi legal Authority".

 

I've got the bit between my teeth now and I don't see why I should abandon my "Free Surgery".

 

Any advice on next step.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[cirian75]

well if your in a public place they have zero power, I wouldn't move.

 

get a 3g Usb pay as you modem (3 do one on proper pay as you go)

 

and set up a smigen futher away so they can't say jack, but would still get the people.

[jimbo45]

Hi there

 

Will set up shop again on Monday on the next corner -- will also send details to Local Paper and Radio. I need to do it on days when the Council centre is open so I won't do it on a Saturday.

 

I'm currently out of contract so why not pass my day trying to do something USEFUL for a change. I can't BELIEVE some of the horror stories I've been getting from People --many who are so scared they almost feel like sticking their heads in the gas oven and ending it.

 

What on Earth as a soceity have we become now --- Never mind "Mag---S Children" -- We've regressed EVEN MORE it seems.

 

There doesn't seem to be any shortage of people who are having "Bailiff Problems".

 

I'll also get the USB "Mobile" - I think if I take a contract out some Telcos even throw in a Free Laptop -- might be ideal in case it gets broken when I'm being chased around the streets by possibly some people who actually work for the Bailiff's and won't like what I'm doing to reduce THEIR XMAS BONUS'ES.

 

Thanks and Cheers

jimbo

Edited December 11, 2009 by jimbo45

[jimbo45]

Hi all

I'm doing my bit to rid everbody of these Bullies and Thugs by attempting to operate a "Free Sugery" near a Council "Customer (mis?-) Service centre.

 

Been moved on once but am better prepared for "the next instalment".

 

However whilst I'm rapidly coming up to speed on some of this stuff I am not a Practising Lawyer and can only refer people to relevant areas of legislation.

 

Can anybody help me with exactly what constitutes "Vulnerable People"

 

The reason I need this is that a in a lot of cases the Council will HAVE to take back the bill since many will fall under "Vulnerable" category.

 

I also need the legal definition especially in relation as to what constitutes "The Elderly".

 

 

For example I'm over 60 now - have a Bus pass etc - but far far fitter now than when I was 40 - and can even give some 30 year olds a run for their money.

 

Presumably by definition I'm classed as "Elderly" but I doubt whether any Medical Doctor would call me that now.

 

I would like to know so I can give correct advice in the "Free Sugery".

In the case of "Vulnerable People" the Council must call of their Dogs so it would help to have the real LEGAL definition of who these actually are.

 

(If "Elderly" means in receipt of a Pension -- then this has to be flawed as some people - unfortunately not me - have got theirs at 50 - a well known Scottish Banker comes to mind here - but that's another story) while others don't qualify AT ALL so have to apply for Social Security etc etc).

 

I'm sure when I get going with this there will be people out there waiting for me to make the SLIGHTEST SLIP UP to get me to shut down.

 

Any Lawyer out there - would be really greatful on clarification of this issue.

 

Thanks

 

Jimbo

Edited December 11, 2009 by jimbo45

[hallowitch]

there is list of vulnerable persons it is part of The nation standards of Enforcement agents 2002 (lost my link to it someone will post it for you I'm sure )

NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ENFORCEMENT AGENTS MAY 2002

 

Those who might be potentially vulnerable include:

• the elderly;
  
• people with a disability;
  
• the seriously ill;
  
• the recently bereaved;
  
• single parent families;
  
• pregnant women;
  
• unemployed people; and,
  
• those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English
  

List A

 

1) The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from distress at the instance of a creditor in respect of a debt due to him by the debtor-

a) clothing reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household;

b) implements, tools of trade, books or other equipment including a car or van reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household in the practice of the debtor's or such member's profession, trade or business, not exceeding in aggregate value £1,000 or such amount as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;

c) medical aids or medical equipment reasonably required for the use of the debtor or any member of his household;

d) books or other articles including a computer reasonably required for the education or training of the debtor or any member of the debtor's household not exceeding in aggregate value £1,000 or such amount as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;

e) toys for the use of any child who is a member of the debtor's household;

f) articles reasonably required for the care or upbringing of a child who is a member of the debtor's household.

 

2) The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt from distress if they are at the time of the distress in a dwellinghouse and are reasonably required for the use in the dwellinghouse of the person residing there or a member of the household-

a) beds or bedding;

b) household linen;

c) chairs or settees;

d) tables;

e) food;

f) lights or light fittings;

g) heating appliances;

h) curtains;

i) floor coverings;

j) furniture, equipment or utensils used for cooking storing or eating food;

k) refrigerators;

l) articles used for cleaning, mending, or pressing clothes;

m) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse;

n) furniture used for storing-

(i) clothing, bedding or household linen;

(ii) articles used for cleaning the dwellinghouse; or

(iii) utensils used for cooking or eating food;

 

o) articles used for safety in the dwellinghouse or of household articles

3) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations add to the list set out in subsection (2) above, or delete or vary any of the items contained in that list.

We consider that under 1(b) and 1(d) the preferable aggregate value might be £1500.

 

List B

 

Such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary for use personally by the tenant in their employment, business or vocation and such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions are as necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the debtor and his family.

 

Information and confidentiality

 

• All notices, correspondence and documentation issued by the agent/agency must be clear and unambiguous and to the satisfaction of the creditor.
  
• On returning any un-executed warrants, the enforcement agent should report the outcome to the creditor and provide further appropriate information, where this is requested and paid for by the creditor.
  
• All information obtained during the administration and enforcement of warrants must be treated as confidential.
  
• Copies of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents must be freely available from the offices of enforcement agencies, or agents on request and wherever possible from creditors.
  
• Enforcement agents should provide clear and prompt information to debtors and where appropriate, creditors.
  
• Enforcement agents should, so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to anyone other than the debtor. Where the debtor is not seen, the relevant documents must be left at the address in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor.
  
• Enforcement agents will on each and every occasion when a visit is made to a debtor's property which incurs a fee for the debtor, leave a notice detailing the fees charged to date, including the one for that visit, and the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary. If a written request is made an itemised account of fees will be provided.
  
• Enforcement agents will clearly explain and give in writing, the consequences of the seizure of a debtor's goods and ensure that debtors are aware of the additional charges that will be incurred.
  

Times and Hours

 

• Enforcement should not be undertaken on Sundays, on Bank Holidays, on Good Friday or on Christmas Day, unless the court specifically orders otherwise or in situations where legislation permits it.
  
• It is recommended that enforcement should only be carried out between the hours of 6.00am and 9.00pm or at any time during trading hours, existing legislation must be observed.
  
• Enforcement agents should be respectful of the religion and culture of others at all times. They should be aware of the dates for religious festivals and carefully consider the appropriateness of undertaking enforcement on any day of religious or cultural observance or during any major religious or cultural festival
  

[jimbo45]

Hi Hallowitch

Thanks again for your usually very very helpful posts etc.

 

However I still have a question with "The Elderly" -- is there a LEGAL as opposed to a Medical definition as to who these actually are.

 

As I said I'm over 60 but far far fitter than I was when I was 40 and can still slug it out (sport wise ) with some 30 year olds.

 

Thanks again

 

Cheers

jimbo

[palomino]

Jimbo,

 

You had better be careful with your surgery. You need a license to dispense legal advice. You need to be registered to deal with credit issues although it depends exactly on what you do. You need to be licensed to give financial advice.

 

Unless you have the appropriate licenses then you might be buying a heap of bother. Imagine if you gave someone advice which turned out to be wrong or inadequate. You could personally be sued off the face of the earth.

 

However, I have every sympathy and support for what you appear to be doing. I have actively considered doing the same myelf.

[palomino]

I had a sign saying -- COUNCIL TAX and BAILIFF problems - and have been pointing out to people about this this excellent site. I made it clear on my poster that I wasn't a lawyer but just giving advice and showing people suggested routes to get these THUGS and BULLIES out of their hair.

You have another thread on the go where I've also made a comment. You say you are 'giving advice'. If you are not qualified or licensed to do so then that is unlawful. The goons had a good point but, not to put too fine a point on it, they have no legal rights to stop you. Only the poilice can do that.

 

What will clear you is not 'giving advice' but helping people to get advice elsewhere [lawyer, CAB, National Debtline etc., etc.].

 

Which part of the country are you in? I'd like to see any media coverage that might happen On the other hand I fully understand if you wish to remain anonymous.

[hallowitch]

jimbo45 write to the council and ask them for a copy of there code of practise for the enforcement of council tax debt

 

sometimes you can find it on there web site

 

I remember reading one that didn't allow bailiffs to levy the TV if it was a single parent home (cant remember what council it was )

[jimbo45]

Jimbo,

 

You had better be careful with your surgery. You need a license to dispense legal advice. You need to be registered to deal with credit issues although it depends exactly on what you do. You need to be licensed to give financial advice.

 

Unless you have the appropriate licenses then you might be buying a heap of bother. Imagine if you gave someone advice which turned out to be wrong or inadequate. You could personally be sued off the face of the earth.

 

However, I have every sympathy and support for what you appear to be doing. I have actively considered doing the same myelf.

 

Hi there

 

It states quite clearly that I'm NOT a lawyer and all I am doing is referring them to publicly available advice that they might not be aware of and they should always take LEGAL advice before taking serious action.

 

I'm not advising on Credit issues - this is another area completely but purely advising people that they DON'T have to let a bailiff in, Referring them to the Scale of Fees, and suggesting to them that they get the Council to take back the debt.

 

As a matter of fact I have 2 Lawyer friends in the City who might also give me a hand with this - "Unofficially of course" - Seems that SOME lawyers have a conscience too.

 

Thanks also Hallowitch -- have already written to the Council for their "Guidelines" - but "Guidelines" are just that.

 

I'll have the lawyers read up on this and post back if I can get any definitive rulings in case law.

 

Thanks all

 

I'm more than fired up to run with this now - a bit of the late 1960's rebellion streak in me now again :-x.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[palomino]

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to criticise, merely to point out the hazards.

I see you're pretty well covered on this so good luck.

 

I would just point out (although I doubt I need to) that people will be gunning for you in a big way. You have to be seen to be sqeakier than squeaky clean.

[jimbo45]

Hi there

the legal niceties are full of traps and minefields I agree.

 

However I made it clear I was only referring them to other sites and "sources of Information" -- more like "an Information Bureau" rather than an "Advice Centre".

 

I managed to avoid making that mistake with my first outing.

 

Will spend the weekend looking up as much legal stuff as I can -- I'm SICK of people being trodden on etc etc by Jobsworths and Bullies.

 

Cheers

jimbo

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Bump

[pussycat10]

Altho I don`t know if they can or can`t refuse payment, an interesting fact has come to light in my own case. I have found out over the weekend that our Council use`s an outside company called Capita to handle all of their Concil Tax affairs, collection of tax etc. When I had my own issue with a bailiff claiming over £200 in additional fee`s , I called the "council" , who were in fact Capita, and I was told that I had paid all of my council tax, however I still had to pay the bailiff fee`s direct to the bailiff altho I had paid the origional debt direct to the council. I have since found out that Capita seem to have a link with Equita , the bailiff concerened so it would be in Capita`s interest to enforce the bailiff fee`s. In your case it may be a similar set up which would be why they want to keep the debt with the bailiff.

[tomtubby]

It is a very crazy situation but a huge number of local authorities use Capita to manage the payment of council tax and yet many local authorities use Equita Ltd who are WHOLLY OWNED by Capita !!

 

In fact, I understand that in many cases when you think that you are telephoning the council tax department...you are actually being diverted to CAPITA !!!

 

Try to work that one out !!

[pussycat10]

I wonder if there could be any legal case to answer possibly as direct conflict of interest ? It is a bizare situation and one that can only compound this issue of paying the council direct

[pink_eeyore]

the council's very often let companies such as Capita (Liberata, Vertex etc) appoint the bailiffs so the contract is with them and not the council. Naturally Capita will always appoint Equita

[ncf355]

Advice to all - where possible, go to the actual COUNCIL office

 

Thats what I do

 

That way I see a COUNCIL employee who has no vested interest in giving me BS

[High Court Enforcer]

I know that many councils will not deal with the debtor once it is passed to the bailiffs.

[RaeUK]

I know that many councils will not deal with the debtor once it is passed to the bailiffs.

 

I agree with what you're saying, HCE, this is often an initial stance. But is there anything in law to state they can't? I suspect not - but don't know hence the question. [Genuine, not 'lets hit the bailiff with a pigs bladder' type question]. My impression is that stance is more procedural and it's the easiest answer to give. Or perhaps it forms part of a council / bailiff contract. But is there any real legal basis to this position? Curious.

 

Also curious about what's been said about possible conflict of interest. That a council farms out ct handling is rotten enough, that it is farmed out to a company that owns bailiff companies stinks higher than a pair of students socks...

 

Rae

[crockie]

Another one I will be watching with interest.

 

I have square eyes from reading because although I have manned my Barricades so to speak, I would rather stop Mr Bailiff from calling again.

 

The following is part of Local Government Finance Act and there is very similiar stated in Council Tax (admin and enforcment thing)

 

17) 1 Regulations under paragraph1 (1) above many provide that in case where

 

(a) proceedings under the regulations have been taken as regards the receovery of any sum mentioned in 1(1) above and

 

(b) the outstanding amount is paid or tendered to the authority to which it is payable:

 

the authority shall accept the amount, no further steps shall be taken as regards it's recovery, and any person committed to prison in pursuance of the proceedings shall be released.

 

2) the outstanding amount is an amount equal to the sum concerned or to so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be)

 

3) in a case where costs and charges are relevant the outstanding amount shall be treated as augmented by a sum (of a prescribed amount or an amount determined in accordance with precribed rule) in respect of cost and charges incurred in the proceedings up to the time of payment or tender.

 

Can anyone explain this in plain english?

 

To me that reads if I pay in full or offer payment then they have to call off the dogs but I will have to pay the Bailiff fees.

 

In my particular case (hello again Jimbo ) we have had one letter through the door, immediatley contacted council and made offer, they said they would accept payments but would not call off the bailiff. I have made first payment and sent letter to council confirming my offer and have written to Bailiff saying I will only pay council.

 

I havent attempted to use there own regs against them yet as I am waiting for the council to say no first but as I have 3 young children who dont deserve to be harrassed in their own home, I will try anything that may have success.

Edited December 15, 2009 by crockie
my spelling is terrible as I am feding the baby

[High Court Enforcer]

I agree with what you're saying, HCE, this is often an initial stance. But is there anything in law to state they can't? I suspect not - but don't know hence the question. [Genuine, not 'lets hit the bailiff with a pigs bladder' type question]. My impression is that stance is more procedural and it's the easiest answer to give. Or perhaps it forms part of a council / bailiff contract. But is there any real legal basis to this position? Curious.

 

Also curious about what's been said about possible conflict of interest. That a council farms out ct handling is rotten enough, that it is farmed out to a company that owns bailiff companies stinks higher than a pair of students socks...

 

Rae

 

It is purely a procedural decision but an understandable one. The debtor is given every chance to pay and/or make arrangements to resolve the debt. It is only when Bailiffs are instructed that it is taken seriously and they then try to take it back a step. That may sound harsh, but for the majority of cases I see, it's true.

 

If the councils didnt farm out CT handling, nationally they would lose millions. Then the public are all to quick to bash them for cuts...

[Zamzara]

The debtor is given every chance to pay and/or make arrangements to resolve the debt.

 

This is untrue, at least in my local area. Once an installment is missed a liability order is obtained for the whole year and bailiffs sent in as a first resort, regardless of ability to pay.

 

I cannot see how a council can refuse payment. The power to use distress comes from The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 as amended. Regulation 45 gives the council the power to levy the distess; the bailiffs are the alter ego/agents of the council. It also states that they shall accept payment at any time, although it does also say this must include charges as well.

[High Court Enforcer]

I did say for the majority of cases I see....