Quickie: Original Council tax Debt paid before bailiff attended, do I still have to pay their charge?

[TheBoyDave]

Hi folks

 

A quick question I hope.

 

I owed some council tax arrears from 2008-09. The debt was passed to Rossendales around December 2009.

 

I made repeated offers to pay by installments (using a slightly tweaked version of Zooman's excellent template letter), but they refused to accept them until their bailiff had attended.

 

As Rossendales would not accept my offer of repayment, I made my first promised monthly payment direct to the council in January 2010.

 

Following a change in personal circumstances, I was able to clear the entire sum of the arrears. I paid it direct to the council using their online payments system. This transaction is therefore provable to have been made on a specific date.

 

The bailiff finally attended on the very next day after I had cleared the arrears. Both the council and Rossendales have confirmed in writing that I no longer owe any arrears for council tax, but both say that I owe £24.50 for the bailiff's visit.

 

I know that this is the fee allowable under statute, but I am unsure as to whether I have to pay it. As I see it, Rossendales played no part in the council recovering the debt; I can prove that I made repeated offers to pay (everything done by email); I can prove that I paid the day before their bailiff attended; and I am not sure that they can actually *prove* that he did attend at all.

 

So good people, what do we think? Do I laugh in their faces and tell them "better luck next time", or do I grin and bear it an offer them £0.01 per month for the next 2 1/2 years?

 

Dave

[ploddertom]

If you have a receipt that says you paid on 31 December for example and the Bailiff comes on the 1 january then as far as I can see then that is just tough for him and he should buy a new dummy. The Council sometimes speak Bailiff so that is where that may come from. Tell them to go to the Foreign Office if you can definitely prove when you paid.

 

PT

[Don_puppyd7]

I did a simular thing 2 years ago, the bailiffs Equita(who i was dealing with at the time) claimed i still had to pay them 42.50 for just getting one letter and following some great advice on here i emailed my local MP with a copy of the recipts from paying online and the head of revenues for my area and it was dealt with without having to pay their fees.

 

Hope this helps.

[TheBoyDave]

Thanks very much for the replies.

 

I'll post back with Rossendale's reply...

 

Dave

[dx100uk]

hehe

well done.

unless rossers want to take you to the small claims court, there is stuff all they can do about it.

 

dx

[TheBoyDave]

I've just found that according to The Council Tax (Adminstration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 Part VI paragraph 45 (3):

 

(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.

 

...which as I see it makes it absolutely clear that as the appropriate amount including charges (ie the arrears + 0) was paid, at that time it was game over.

 

So unless anyone can tell me if this particular regulation has been repealed, I am home free! I've looked on the Statue Law Database but they don't track amendments to Statutory Instruments.

 

Thanks again for the help folks

 

Dave

[RaeUK]

There was a thread about that recently. May - or may not! - be of interest...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/249141-councils-refusing-take-back.html

 

Best wishes.

Rae

[tomtubby]

I've just found that according to The Council Tax (Adminstration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 Part VI paragraph 45 (3):

 

(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.

 

...which as I see it makes it absolutely clear that as the appropriate amount including charges (ie the arrears + 0) was paid, at that time it was game over.

 

So unless anyone can tell me if this particular regulation has been repealed, I am home free! I've looked on the Statue Law Database but they don't track amendments to Statutory Instruments.

 

Thanks again for the help folks

 

Dave

 

 

The statutory instrument has not been repealed. There have been various amendments over the years that affect the amount of fees chargeable.

 

Our company specialises only is providing bailiff advice to the public and I will say that anyone paying council tax DIRECT to the local authority needs to be VERY CAREFUL.

 

This is because, unlike all other enforcement...bailiff fees are are paid first from any payment made. What this means is this.

 

Assuming that a Liability Order was issued for £150 and one visit had been made by a bailiff to leave a notice and as soon as the debtor came home, contacted the council and paid the £150 on line to the council. This DOES NOT mean that the Liability Order has been paid in full.

 

This is because the local authority are under a legal obligation to ensure that they pay the fee of £24.50 to the bailiff company. What this means is that the Liability Order has NOT been settled because only £125.50 has been paid and the bailiff company are legally entitled to CONTINUE with enforcement action for the balance. IN YOUR CASE £24.50.

 

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen this happen!!!

 

In fact, 2 years ago there was a case here on CAG on exactly this position where the bailiff did return for the BALANCE OF THE LIABILITY ORDER of £24.50 and clamped a vehicle. The police were called and the debtor was arrested and CHARGED with obstructing the bailiff. He was kept in cells for many hours being going before the court and has a criminal record.

[TheBoyDave]

Thanks for the information Rae and Tomtubby.

 

In my case I paid the entire sum before the bailiff attended, and can prove that I did so.

 

(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.

 

I'm a systems engineer by trade and an epistemologist by training, so to put the regulation into logical speak:

 

IF p1 = TRUE

AND p2 = TRUE

THEN C

 

So where p1 = no goods have been seized

and p2 = the appropriate amount including charges up to the time of the payment is paid

then C = the authority take the money and the levy is not proceeded with

 

I'm confident enough to tell them to go away, but to be sure I have asked them (CC'd to my council) to tell me if I am required by statute to pay the fee, bearing in mind that I cleared the debt before they visit. This gives them a choice of committing an offence under the fraud act and providing me with proof of their guilt, or telling me outright that I don't have to pay. We'll see what happens...

Edited March 3, 2010 by TheBoyDave
accidental post

[TheBoyDave]

Well, days have passed since I queried whether the fee is due considering I had already paid, and Rossendales have not replied. I've now issued an ultimatum: if I don't hear back from them before a week is over, I will assume that they're happy that I owe nothing.

[Zamzara]

The statutory instrument has not been repealed. There have been various amendments over the years that affect the amount of fees chargeable.

 

Our company specialises only is providing bailiff advice to the public and I will say that anyone paying council tax DIRECT to the local authority needs to be VERY CAREFUL.

 

This is because, unlike all other enforcement...bailiff fees are are paid first from any payment made. What this means is this.

 

Assuming that a Liability Order was issued for £150 and one visit had been made by a bailiff to leave a notice and as soon as the debtor came home, contacted the council and paid the £150 on line to the council. This DOES NOT mean that the Liability Order has been paid in full.

 

This is because the local authority are under a legal obligation to ensure that they pay the fee of £24.50 to the bailiff company. What this means is that the Liability Order has NOT been settled because only £125.50 has been paid and the bailiff company are legally entitled to CONTINUE with enforcement action for the balance. IN YOUR CASE £24.50.

 

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen this happen!!!

 

In fact, 2 years ago there was a case here on CAG on exactly this position where the bailiff did return for the BALANCE OF THE LIABILITY ORDER of £24.50 and clamped a vehicle. The police were called and the debtor was arrested and CHARGED with obstructing the bailiff. He was kept in cells for many hours being going before the court and has a criminal record.

 

Interesting, I was under the impression that a levy for the charges alone is illegal. In JBW v Westminster the court described bailiff fees as 'not a debt like other debts':

 

They become payable but are not a debt like other debts. In re Long, ex parte Cuddeford (1888) 20 QBD 316 a judgment debtor sought to add the costs of an abortive execution to the judgment debt to reach the £50 necessary to support a petition for bankruptcy. It was held he could not do so. Lord Esher MR relied on the case of The Marquis of Salisbury v Ray (1860) 8 CB(NS) 193, but that case is not helpful here, I think, as it turned on whether under section 123 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 the expenses of a previous execution by fi. fa. could be added to those of an execution by ca.sa., it being held they could not. But Fry LJ stated:

"It seems to me that these costs can only be recovered out of a particular fund, viz., the fruits of the particular execution, and that the debtor is under no personal liability for them."

Thus the bailiff gets paid only through the process of execution: if he becomes entitled to charge fees, but does not continue with the execution process, he will not recover them and he cannot sue the debtor for them.

Once the amount on the liability order is paid, there is no longer any debt which can be levied on.

[TheBoyDave]

Very interesting Zamzara. Thanks for the tip!

 

As an aside, having been asked to prove that they attended, they said that their bailiff took a description of the property, and quoted it. But by the sounds of it, he went to someone else's house! It just gets better...d:)

[fluffy_bunny]

Interesting, I was under the impression that a levy for the charges alone is illegal. In JBW v Westminster the court described bailiff fees as 'not a debt like other debts':

 

Once the amount on the liability order is paid, there is no longer any debt which can be levied on.

 

The above refers to Parking debts so is irrelevant

 

As stated by Tomtubby this is unique to Council Tax

 

I agree that you do not owe them a thing as you paid before a visit took place and have evidence of this

[Zamzara]

I know it applies to parking, but both have the same ancient common law roots, so in the absence of a difference in the regulations the principle is the same. I can't see anyhting in the council tax enforcement regulations covering this: I suspect it's part of the contract with the local authority, which means it isn't worth the paper it's written on for proving what the law is.

[TheBoyDave]

Hi folks

 

Thanks again for all the advice and information.

 

The council have now confirmed that they are satisfied that the fee is not payable, and have removed it from my account.

 

Many thanks again for all the posts, very much appreciated .d:)