Local Government Ombudsman:Press report - local authority contractor charges illegal

[hallowitch]

The Council took the first step towards making Mr North (not his real name for legal

reasons) bankrupt for council tax arrears, by serving a statutory demand in

November 2008. As an alternative to being made bankrupt Mr North was then given the

opportunity to make an agreement with the Council to pay the arrears in instalments.

Mr North was told he would have to pay a £400 fee to cover the administration costs of

the instalment arrangement. The fee had been introduced as part of a range of

measures introduced by the Council to improve the collection of council tax; the

collection of council tax was contracted out to a private company called Vertex which

was also responsible for recovery action

http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAxADEANQAzAHwAfABGAGEAbABzAGUAfAB8ADAAfAA1

[lets fight bailiffs]

So that means then that the council took civil proceedings for council tax i have not seen that before.

 

in fact i have never seen a case where any council tax issue has been dealt with in a county court.

 

LFB

[tomtubby]

The Council took the first step towards making Mr North (not his real name for legal

reasons) bankrupt for council tax arrears, by serving a statutory demand in

November 2008. As an alternative to being made bankrupt Mr North was then given the

opportunity to make an agreement with the Council to pay the arrears in instalments.

Mr North was told he would have to pay a £400 fee to cover the administration costs of

the instalment arrangement. The fee had been introduced as part of a range of

measures introduced by the Council to improve the collection of council tax; the

collection of council tax was contracted out to a private company called Vertex which

was also responsible for recovery action

http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAxADEANQAzAHwAfABGAGEAbABzAGUAfAB8ADAAfAA1

 

 

 

BLIMEY Hallowitch you are a clever girl !!!

 

I saw this a week or so ago and am aware that quite a few local authorities are VERY worried about the implications of this !!

 

I will post a longer reply later this evening.

 

WELL DONE !!

[lets fight bailiffs]

HW,

 

who, is the golden girl then, Ha Ha

[hallowitch]

i was reading this thread Local Authority, Council Tax and Business Rates Issues council tax and bankruptcy

 

And thought you don't hear of many councils making someone bankrupt

went for a goggle to see if i could find anything about it and thats what i found (good or what)

 

nice to see you LFB

 

seriously though its shocking and gives a lot of info about what goes on behind closed doors

 

MR North take a bow there are lot of worried people out there because of you and 178 people £400 better off and i suspect more to come

[hallowitch]

BLIMEY Hallowitch you are a clever girl !!!

 

I saw this a week or so ago and am aware that quite a few local authorities are VERY worried about the implications of this !!

 

I will post a longer reply later this evening.

 

WELL DONE !!

 

 

thanks very much

and i look forward to your reply later

[RaeUK]

Thanks HW, interesting read. I noted they'd allowed for someone to check the file each month at a rate of £20 per hour...

Rae.

[jimbo45]

Hi there

 

Call their bluff on this one.

 

If they DO attempt make you Bankrupt then they DON'T get their money if you don't have any and it will COST THEM in any case.

 

Most of this stuff is based on FEAR and GREED.

 

If you CAN'T pay then just go to court as there's sweet F..K A.L they can do.

 

Bankruptcy isn't the stigma it once was -- and if the Council make you homeless THEY have to re-house you at THEIR COST and won't get ANY MONEY at all --in fact it will COST THEM BIG TIME since you will now get 100% Council tax relief and also Housing Benefit as well -- so it's a NO WIN for the council.

 

I'm referring to those who CAN'T pay -- those who WON'T pay will already have got their exit strategy well planned in advance in any case.

 

Another sign of desparate Lawyers trying to cash in on any tiny potential slivers of business going their way.

 

Most Sols are too stuck into their books -- I prefer the "Smith and Wesson always beats four Aces" approach -- If you DON'T have any money then all the Courts on the entire planet can't make you pay any -- and even if they make a ruling that you have to pay xxxxx - with the current economy you aren't likely to have to pay more than 1.00 GBP a month if you are on benefits so you can just tell them to "Make the proverbial move with a Duck".

 

Cheers

jimbo

Edited February 16, 2010 by jimbo45

[the main man]

Not the only one..

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2010/feb/brighton-hove-council-bankruptcy-procedure-flawed/[/url]

 

Credit Today online

Edited February 18, 2010 by the main man

[tomtubby]

The Council took the first step towards making Mr North (not his real name for legal

reasons) bankrupt for council tax arrears, by serving a statutory demand in

November 2008. As an alternative to being made bankrupt Mr North was then given the

opportunity to make an agreement with the Council to pay the arrears in instalments.

Mr North was told he would have to pay a £400 fee to cover the administration costs of

the instalment arrangement. The fee had been introduced as part of a range of

measures introduced by the Council to improve the collection of council tax; the

collection of council tax was contracted out to a private company called Vertex which

was also responsible for recovery action

http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAxADEANQAzAHwAfABGAGEAbABzAGUAfAB8ADAAfAA1

 

As I said in my response yesterday..CLEVER GIRL for finding this.

 

The implications of this report are so important that I have asked if the moderators would be able to CHANGE THE NAME of the thread because this report should be brought to the attention of as many people as possible.

 

I have a lot to say about the report and would not want to have to repeat the advice so if the moderators are unable to change the name then if you don't mind I will start another thread later today.

 

HW. Before responding in depth can you do me a favour ( you are so good on finding previous posts of mine!!). Can you find the post where I provided details on how to make a FORMAL COMPLAINT to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

 

Thank you. S.

[hallowitch]

tomtubby do what is necessary with this thread i have no objections

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/212401-important-if-you-need.html

[ukaviator]

Changed the title of the thread as requested TT. I have had to shorten it though.

 

Regards uk . .

[Dodgy Geezer]

Great to see the fightback is continually gathering momentum.

 

Keep up the good work folks.

[tomtubby]

Changed the title of the thread as requested TT. I have had to shorten it though.

 

Regards uk . .

 

I am preparing a response for later today on this thread.

[tomtubby]

Report can be read here:

http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAxADEANQAzAHwAfABGAGEAbABzAGUAfAB8ADAAfAA1

Further news release:

Credit Today online

 

 

This report by the LGO is very important indeed and is causing concern with many local authorities who I understand are not happy that the press release states that Thurrock Council charges an illegal fee of £400 to 178 people who were facing the prospect of being made bankrupt for non payment of council tax.

 

This "illegal fee" was being charged as an "administration fee" effectively for setting up and monitoring a payment plan after the debtor had been served with papers threatening bankruptcy. For further details of the precise details, the LGO Report needs to be read and the link to Credit News is vitally important as well.

 

 

From the Report you will see that the fee was charged by a company called VERTEX who are a huge "back office" "business process outsourcing" company who are mainly known for their Contract with City of Westminster, Lambeth Council and many other local authorities.

 

 

In effect, Vertex and a other "back office" providers manage the entire collection tax collection. This means that they issue the yearly demands, and manage the entire process including the Liability Order stage through to the payments etc. They manage the entire day to day running of the council tax department. Many people posting on CAG will say that they have called their "council" to discuss their account or crucially to complain at the bailiff only to be told that they must "speak with the bailiff". More often than not, this telephone call is answered by a "back office" provider such as "Vertex" Crucially, they will also "deal with" letters of complaints ( more on this later).

 

The LGO found that with regards to this “administration fee”, there was no "legislation which allows for this fee to be charged" and this finding by him is crucial (this is confirmed in Paragraph 49 of the report).

 

In the report the LGO refers to VERTEX as Thurrock Council. This is because VERTEX is acting in the capacity of agents to Thurrock Council and as the Ombudsman's report confirms, the "ultimate responsibility (for the charges) remains with the Council".

 

 

In precisely the same way as above, all bailiff companies are acting as agents to the local authorities and as confirmed by the LGO Report, they are "wholly responsible" if their agent (bailiff company) charges fees that are not provided for in legislation.

 

 

I have repeatedly said on so many occasions that if there is a serious complaint that this must be made in writing and that it should be copied to the Chief Executive of the local authority and marked as a "Formal Complaint". This is because, the authority granted to the Ombudsman under the 1974 Local Government Act specifically provides that he can only investigate a complaint if the matter had been bought to the attention of the local authority and that they "had an opportunity to consider the complaint and to respond".

 

 

This LGO report has far reaching implications for local authorities who allow their bailiff companies to charge fees that are not provided for in legislation. With council tax recovery this would include such charges as follows:

 

 

Waiting Time: (quite common)

 

Default charge (extremely common at the moment)

 

Letter fee (not permitted for council tax)

 

Bounced cheque fee ( not allowed)

Edited February 18, 2010 by tomtubby

[ncf355]

I'm intrigued by this, whilst a slightly different aspect, is the charge a council makes when they take the arrears to court lawful?

 

I had two CT accounts taken to court (judgment given in absence - dont think even they attended) and was charged £70 on each as fees

 

Are these £70 charges lawful?

[tomtubby]

I'm intrigued by this, whilst a slightly different aspect, is the charge a council makes when they take the arrears to court lawful?

 

I had two CT accounts taken to court (judgment given in absence - dont think even they attended) and was charged £70 on each as fees

 

Are these £70 charges lawful?

 

 

It would be much better if you started this as a new thread entitled: Council Tax Liability Order summons fee...is it lawful ( or something like this)

[ncf355]

Thats fair comment TT will do

[tomtubby]

Taking the above report into consideration, the LGO has found that local authorities cannot permit their agents (to include bailiffs) to charge fees that are not in accordance with the fee scale that is laid down by Parliament and that if they do so, the LOCAL AUTHORITY are liable to repay any "illegal fees".

 

It is therefore vitally important that if a person believes that he has been charged a fee that in not in accordance with the statutory fee scale that they ensure that they make a complaint to the LOCAL AUTHORITY and that the complaint is marked as FORMAL COMPLAINT and addressed to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

[ncf355]

Do we have a link to the statutory fees?

[hallowitch]

Do we have a link to the statutory fees?

 

Hope this helps

 

http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/docs/Enforcement_Agent_Charges.pdf

[ncf355]

[tomtubby]

Report can be read here:

http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAxADEANQAzAHwAfABGAGEAbABzAGUAfAB8ADAAfAA1

Further news release:

Credit Today online

 

 

This report by the LGO is very important indeed and is causing concern with many local authorities who I understand are not happy that the press release states that Thurrock Council charges an illegal fee of £400 to 178 people who were facing the prospect of being made bankrupt for non payment of council tax.

 

This "illegal fee" was being charged as an "administration fee" effectively for setting up and monitoring a payment plan after the debtor had been served with papers threatening bankruptcy. For further details of the precise details, the LGO Report needs to be read and the link to Credit News is vitally important as well.

 

 

From the Report you will see that the fee was charged by a company called VERTEX who are a huge "back office" "business process outsourcing" company who are mainly known for their Contract with City of Westminster, Lambeth Council and many other local authorities.

 

 

In effect, Vertex and a other "back office" providers manage the entire collection tax collection. This means that they issue the yearly demands, and manage the entire process including the Liability Order stage through to the payments etc. They manage the entire day to day running of the council tax department. Many people posting on CAG will say that they have called their "council" to discuss their account or crucially to complain at the bailiff only to be told that they must "speak with the bailiff". More often than not, this telephone call is answered by a "back office" provider such as "Vertex" Crucially, they will also "deal with" letters of complaints ( more on this later).

 

The LGO found that with regards to this “administration fee”, there was no "legislation which allows for this fee to be charged" and this finding by him is crucial (this is confirmed in Paragraph 49 of the report).

 

In the report the LGO refers to VERTEX as Thurrock Council. This is because VERTEX is acting in the capacity of agents to Thurrock Council and as the Ombudsman's report confirms, the "ultimate responsibility (for the charges) remains with the Council".

 

 

In precisely the same way as above, all bailiff companies are acting as agents to the local authorities and as confirmed by the LGO Report, they are "wholly responsible" if their agent (bailiff company) charges fees that are not provided for in legislation.

 

 

I have repeatedly said on so many occasions that if there is a serious complaint that this must be made in writing and that it should be copied to the Chief Executive of the local authority and marked as a "Formal Complaint". This is because, the authority granted to the Ombudsman under the 1974 Local Government Act specifically provides that he can only investigate a complaint if the matter had been bought to the attention of the local authority and that they "had an opportunity to consider the complaint and to respond".

 

 

This LGO report has far reaching implications for local authorities who allow their bailiff companies to charge fees that are not provided for in legislation. With council tax recovery this would include such charges as follows:

 

 

Waiting Time: (quite common)

 

Default charge (extremely common at the moment)

 

Letter fee (not permitted for council tax)

 

Bounced cheque fee ( not allowed)

 

 

Looking at questions that have been made in the past few weeks here on CAG it is clear that many people should take the above complaint from the Local Government Ombudsman into consideration by making a FORMAL COMPLAINT to councils if a bailiff charges fees that are not in accordance with the statutory regulations.