Equita council tax bailiffs advice urgently needed please

[tomtom013]

Hi all,

 

Some urgent advice needed please. I and my partner have council tax arrears of approximately £1000. This has been passed onto the baillifs, Equita. My partner, over the phone, made an arrangement with Equita of £100 per month with an immediate payment of £100 and monthly payments to be made on the 28th of every month. My partner consequently made payment online using the Equita website on the 28th, as arranged. However, (in hindsight somewhat predictably) it took nearly 10 days for the payment to reach Equita (even though it was on there website) and thus they sent us a number of threatening letters requesting full payment or else. My partner rang them numerous times but they fobbed her off for a number for weeks until eventually Equita said they wanted full payment and would under no circumstance take payment by installments. More recently Equita have threatened to seize goods and although I know they can't do this they are definatley cranking up the pressure/harassment and so i need to reslove this quickly.

 

This is were I have become more involved because my partner, bless her, is at her witts end with these bunch of legal mobsters. I thought sod you Equita and therefore made my next monthly payment direct to the council online. I would appreciate advice on the following points.

 

1) I intend to send one joint letter to the Bailiffs and Birmingham council (by email and recorded delivery) instructing them that I will only make my monthly payment to the council and that I will, under no circumstance, deal with the intimidating thuggish behaviour of Equita. Is this approach advisable?

 

2) Having read many and various threads on the issue, I have quickly learnt that many bailiffs LEVY on cars, clamp and even towe away cars that they know don't belong to them. We have 2 cars which are both on HP and therfore in law are exempt from being LEIVED ON. I have a strong feeling that Equita may Levy, clamp or even towe our cars at some point down the line. My question is do I risk informing Equita that we have 2 cars but also notify them that they can not be LEIVED ON, CLAMPED OR TOWED because they are on HP.

 

3) Lastly, I want to make monthly payments but think £100 per month will be too much given future council tax bills also need to be met. What kind of period do the council generaly view as acceptable. For example 6, 12 or 24 months.

 

Many thanks in advance

[ploddertom]

Hi all,

 

Some urgent advice needed please. I and my partner have council tax arrears of approximately £1000. This has been passed onto the baillifs, Equita. My partner, over the phone, made an arrangement with Equita of £100 per month with an immediate payment of £100 and monthly payments to be made on the 28th of every month. My partner consequently made payment online using the Equita website on the 28th, as arranged. However, (in hindsight somewhat predictably) it took nearly 10 days for the payment to reach Equita (even though it was on there website) and thus they sent us a number of threatening letters requesting full payment or else. This is typical particularly in this day and age and even more upsetting when the Faster Payments Scheme is in operation - one could even say it is a ploy by the Bailiff Company to extract more from you, did they at any time tell you about time scales either verbally or in writing. My partner rang them numerous times but they fobbed her off for a number for weeks until eventually Equita said they wanted full payment and would under no circumstance take payment by installments. More recently Equita have threatened to seize goods and although I know they can't do this they are definatley cranking up the pressure/harassment and so i need to reslove this quickly.

 

This is were I have become more involved because my partner, bless her, is at her witts end with these bunch of legal mobsters. I thought sod you Equita and therefore made my next monthly payment direct to the council online. I would appreciate advice on the following points.

 

1) I intend to send one joint letter to the Bailiffs and Birmingham council (by email and recorded delivery) instructing them that I will only make my monthly payment to the council and that I will, under no circumstance, deal with the intimidating thuggish behaviour of Equita. Is this approach advisable? No reason why not although it will upset the Bailiff & the Council will say you can't do it.

2) Having read many and various threads on the issue, I have quickly learnt that many bailiffs LEVY on cars, clamp and even towe away cars that they know don't belong to them. We have 2 cars which are both on HP and therfore in law are exempt from being LEIVED ON. I have a strong feeling that Equita may Levy, clamp or even towe our cars at some point down the line. My question is do I risk informing Equita that we have 2 cars but also notify them that they can not be LEIVED ON, CLAMPED OR TOWED because they are on HP. Have copies of the appropriate documents ready in case of this eventuality.

 

3) Lastly, I want to make monthly payments but think £100 per month will be too much given future council tax bills also need to be met. What kind of period do the council generaly view as acceptable. For example 6, 12 or 24 months. The Council will be looking to have it paid by the end of this financial year, 31 March 2011. This is no doubt unrealistic for you, you do need to formulate an affordable payment on a regular basis and stick to it - £10 per week on a Thursday as an example. Don't forget in your calculations next years CT bills will start to arrive mid-March onwards.

 

Many thanks in advance

 

PT

[ploddertom]

Don't forget also that your Council employ a Company called Capita for back office services, probably including Council Tax administration. They in turn happen to own a Bailiff Company called Equita and there are payments from the Council to them totalling many £K since September this year. Don't know whether a FOI request may show what they were for, I was always under the impression that bailiffs got paid on their results without payment from the Council.

 

Intriguing to say the least.

 

PT

[tomtom013]

Thanks for the quick reply. To answer your question, no we wern't informed in anyway that it takes 10 days to process payment.

 

One last thing, from a legal perspective If I was to inform them that my cars are on HP but they still decided to clamp or even towe my car(s) could I involve the police. If so, and prempting this event should I inform the Bailiff/Council that I wil not hesitate to call the police in the event the cars were clamped or towed.

[ploddertom]

Thanks for the quick reply. To answer your question, no we wern't informed in anyway that it takes 10 days to process payment. That's an arguing point to take up with the Council.

 

One last thing, from a legal perspective If I was to inform them that my cars are on HP but they still decided to clamp or even towe my car(s) could I involve the police. It will not be a criminal matter so the Police will refuse to become involved. If so, and prempting this event should I inform the Bailiff/Council that I wil not hesitate to call the police in the event the cars were clamped or towed.

 

The Bailiff will levy first as he is allowed to presume you own the vehicles, you then provide the proof they are on finance, Bailiff should then remove levyfee and any associated charges. It is more important to prevent him gaining access to your property. If you have any other goods outside remove them NOW and put under lock & key. It is not an instant process and you may have to play letter tennis with both Bailiff & Council for some time yet. Never speak to the Bailiff on the phone unless you can record the call, if he calls don't open the door but speak through the letter box or an upstairs window.

 

PT

[tomtom013]

Okay well this is the joint letter about to be emailed and posted. Made possible with help and extracts from this site.

 

I fully understand Birmingham City Council has appointed you, Equita, to recover my Council Tax Liability arrears for 2009/2010. Although I dispute the outstanding balance that Equita currently quotes.

 

Firstly, I would like to inform Equita that I am acutely aware of my rights and you (Equita bailiffs) will not gain entry to my home under any circumstances to levy goods. I am also acutely aware of bailiffs fees allowed under statute and when these fees can be applied. For example £24.50 for the first visit where no entry is gained and £18 for the second visit, totalling £42.50. Any further fees including those involving a levy or those first requiring a levy will obviously require you first gaining peaceful entry to my house of which you will never be permitted. With this in mind could Equita please provide an itemised statement of account that clearly shows what charges have been added to my account and why. May I remind Equita that you are required in statute to supply this information within 14 days.

 

I am also writing to inform both Birmingham City Council and Equita that all future payments will be made exclusively to Birmingham City Council. My reasons are at least two fold but in essence stem from Equita’s reluctance to act in a civilised manner but more importantly because Equita will not allow me to pay by monthly instalments. Equita may argue that a gentleman’s agreement was brokered between me and Mr X of Equita) over the phone of which an immediate payment of £120 was paid with further monthly instalments of £100 on the 29th of every month thereafter. I therefore paid £100 on the 29th September, as promised, using Equita’s online payment resource. However and frustratingly it took 10 days for my payment to reach Equita. For this reason, even though Equita could clearly see when payment was made they (Equita) deemed me to have made a late payment and thus, unjustly in my view, cancelled our agreement of monthly instalments and demanded unreservedly thereafter payment in full. Obviously if it was made clear either in writing or on Equita’s online payment service that it takes ten days for payments to clear I would have sought an alternative payment method.

 

It is very important to point out that while I am not refusing to pay my council tax arrears I will be making future payments to Birmingham City Council only irrespective of any future correspondence from Equita.

 

Birmingham City council may have noted that when Equita refused to take my last payment of £100 on 28/10/10 I instead made payment to the council using there online payment service. As outlined above I will continue to make all future payments using the same method in order to reduce my council tax 2009/2010 arrears. In order to be in a financial position to make future council tax payments for the 2010/2011 period I advocate making monthly payments of £60.00 toward my current arrears starting from 29/11/10 and monthly thereafter. I hope Birmingham City Council can accept my repayment plan as it is one that I feel I can currently afford and therefore not likely to default on as you may understand that trying to pay all my bills, house, feed and clothe my 2 children is becoming increasingly difficult in the current economic climate.

 

Finally, I find it very important to inform both Birmingham City Council and Equita that any vehicles that maybe parked on or near my drive or premises do not belong to me or my partner. Indeed the cars that although registered in ours names are actually on Hire Purchase with British Credit Trust. If either Birmingham City Council or Equita require documentary evidence of such then please request this by mail and I will gladly provide you with this information. With this in mind any levy and consequential costs made on above mentioned vehicles will obviously be meaningless and void as the owners are British Credit Trust.

 

May I also point out that I am aware of the current tactics deployed by bailiffs even when they clearly know that the vehicle does not belong to the debtor. I have therefore attached an extract from the INSIGHT magazine written by Andrew Hobley (Senior Investigator with the Local Government Ombudsman) in order to remind Birmingham City Council and Equita of there duties. Please read below.

 

April 2010 Insight – Local Government Ombudsman

 

 

As it has become increasingly difficult for bailiffs to gain access to debtors’ homes for the purpose of taking goods for council tax, the practice of levying on vehicles in the absence of the debtor has grown. These vehicles may be parked on the debtor’s property or in the road outside. This practice, if abused, can lead to the Local Government Ombudsman finding fault with the bailiffs and the council employing them.

 

The Ombudsman has dealt with at least four unreported complaints when cars parked in the road were levied on, but did not belong to the debtor. In each case the bailiffs assumed that the vehicle belonged to the debtor, but did not check ownership before making the levy. In one case, having levied on the car, a notice was put through the debtor’s letterbox including the fees. As the debtor did not respond, the bailiffs returned to remove the car, but found it was no longer there. Despite not being able to levy on the goods the bailiffs charged a “van fee” (under head C of Schedule 5 of the 1992 Administration and Enforcement Regulations, as amended) of £105, and posted a further notice through the letterbox to advise the debtor of the new, higher debt.

 

In three other complaints, involving a different authority, the same thing happened – with levy and van fees being charged for cars not owned by the debtors. In those cases the debtors contacted the bailiffs to say that they did not own the cars. The bailiffs acknowledged this, but still insisted that the levy and van fees were payable. When our investigator queried this with the council, they were told that the bailiffs would have checked with the DVLA before moving the car, but even if the debtor did not own the car the levy fees would not have been removed.

 

These practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman. There is no question that when bailiffs have carried out a relevant action, they are entitled to the fees the law allows them to charge. However in these cases the levy and van fees were being charged for goods that the bailiff would not have removed - had the car been found and the bailiffs checked before removal, it would have been found they belonged to a third party.

 

A council may say that a check would be made before any removal, but this does not prevent possible fault. Some debtors will pay when they receive the levy or other notices, and will pay fees that should not have been charged to them. Levying on a car parked on someone’s drive may appear less problematic as it is more likely to belong to the debtor. But if it does not, and levy and van fees are charged and paid, then the debtor has suffered the injustice of paying fees that were not due.

 

In all four cases the Ombudsman recommended the same remedy. The levy and van fees should be refunded and the council should ensure their bailiffs check ownership of vehicles with the DVLA before levying on them. Debtors should pay what they owe, and if a vehicle belongs to the debtor (and any levy would not be excessive) then levying and charging reasonable fees would not be questioned by the Ombudsman.

 

All councils are encouraged to ensure their written policies say that bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership. Failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be the subject of a public report against the authority.

 

 

I look forward to your response

Yours Sincerely

Edited December 20, 2010 by IdaInFife
name removed

[seanamarts]

nicely done, keep us informed of your progress.

[tomtom013]

Hi all,

 

I need some advice please. Do I contact my local counciller or locally elected MP to ask for help with my council tax and to complain about Equita and the Council.

 

Cheers:!:

[fork-it]

The local Government Ombudsman. Your MP would only send you there after sitting on your complaint for a month or two.

 

Keep your complaint brief and factual.

[tomtom013]

Hi all, quick update

 

Still waiting for a reply from BCC but have continued and will continue to make payments to BCC, ONLY, using there online payment system. How this must frustrate both BCC and Equita.

 

Equita have very recently sent a letter confirming reciept of my communication and that an investigation will be carried out and conveyed back within 14 days. Interstingly, we have had about three letters form Equita stating many things including, final demand, bailiff removal, levy, van fees, full payment only and that we will remove and sell our goods even if you are not in. However, I have had more letters over the past few days which uses a much milder manner and seems more open to negotiation (why?????? when they have demanded payment in full in previous letters) even though I have no intenetion of ever dealing with them.

 

One other thing is that the debt has dropped by about £250 in a few weeks??

 

I also sent an email to my local MP and got what seemed to be a very sympathetic response, stating that my concern will be persued by his secretary and requested our contact details to do so. Fingers crossed they help my cause.

Edited December 10, 2010 by tomtom013
addition

[Vicki202]

Hi it seems your moving along pretty well have they provided you with the breakdown of what is on your account yet? and if not this could be where your debt has dropped they may of relised you no what you are talking about and are taking some charges off that they no should not be on there.

[ploddertom]

Here's someone else having the same problem with the same Council and the same bailiffs - might it pay to join forces or compare notes?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?284990-Help!-Equita-bailiffs-and-council-tax/page2&p=3225396#post3225396

 

PT

[tomtom013]

Hi all,

 

Quick update:

 

My partner recieved an unsolicted phone call from someone she descibed as very helpful and pleasant working for Birmingham council tax office. He said that Equita had been wrong in suggesting that we had defaulted on our payment plan with them and that payment dates should be logged by date when payed and not when cleared.

 

He then went on to say that he could see we had been making regular payments to BCC using there online system and suggested that we should carry on making regular payments (although he did not point out who i should make my payments too). He then sais that he would speak to Equita and that I should also ring them and try to organise another payment plan with them. I quickly stated that all previous attempts with Equita resulted in them requesting full payment only but he suggested that this would not the case. Interestngly, he also metioned that if BCC were to take the debt back I would still need to pay Equita's charges.

 

So in summary, I really see this as a positive phone call with recognition from BCC that Equita have been acting unfairly, have been making regular payments and that the prospect of BCC taking back the debt is beggining to enter debate.

 

He has given me his direct number and I have decided to ring him tomorrow. I will inform him that after overnight consideration with my partner I really don't want to deal with Equita and that I wish the debt to be passed back to BCC. I will also tell him that I am happy to pay any reasonable and lawful fees payable Equita.

 

I hope to update again tomorrow, fingers crossed.

[ploddertom]

Sounds like a good result so far. As for the charges it will obviously depend on what they are trying for and you spot on with your observations.

 

PT

[tomtom013]

Hi all,

 

Update:

 

The partner still needs to ring BCC with regards to my last post.

 

However, I have recieved a letter from Equita and it does not read great. Below is the contents.

 

The fees applied to date total £134.50 and these are made up of the statutory visit and levy fees incurred to you on the 16 August 2010 (This is were I start to get confused because to my knowledge I or my partner we have never received a levy or signed a levy). It has been updated that the following the visit by our enforcement officer , MR .........., on the aforementioned date you argreed to a payment plan of £100.00 every month (may I state that this agreement was made by my partner over the phone and not in person. To secure the arrangement goods were levied and cost incurred (Again I really don't know what goods have been levied). You were left a copy of the notice of seizure upon the bailiffs departure (The only two letters that have been hand posted mentions no levy or specificlly lists goods that have been levied). I would like to confirm that those goods mentioned (what goods are they refering too?) are now at risk of immediate removal unless a frim agreement is reached without further delay. Any third party claim on items listed must be substantiated with document proof.

 

That final sentence say's it all really. For me they are suggesting that they have levied on a vehicle(s) that they are going to remove if I don't cough up. I don't understand really because we have never seen any levy notice (and we have all there corressondence(s)) and the cars are truly on HP. I will be sending a response to Equita asking for a full breakdown of cost asking when exactly the levy was made and by whom. I will also be sending these nice people copies of my HP agreements.

 

Any advice, especially with regard to levy procedures on goods including CARS, wording and what to include in my response would be greatly appreciated:wink:.

[ploddertom]

Have you sent for a breakdown of their charges yet? Until this is received back it can be just guesswork as to what they have done. They do make reference to a levy and also make reference to doing it in conjunction with a visit - they may therefore have got the charges wrong. Don't send copies of your HP docs for the car yet until you are sure that is what they have supposedly levied upon.

 

If you need a letter to send then try this - use and adapt at will send initially tonight by email backed up with a copy in the post tomorrow sent by Signed For.

 

"From:

My Name

My Address

 

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: Account No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges.

 

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were Certificated at.

e - the date of the Certification.

 

This is not a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Ripped off customer"

 

Whatever happens basic advice remains - do not allow them entry.

 

PT

[tomtom013]

thanks PT, I will send that tomorrow. I am also sending the following letter to BBC and Equita with copies of HP agreements enclosed, sent recorded delivery. see below, any advice appreciated

 

Dear Equita & Birmingham City Council

 

Re: Council tax arrears 2009/2010

Equita reference number:

Birmingham City Council reference number:

As Birmingham City Council is responsible for the actions of Equita, I find it prudent to send joint correspondence to both regarding proof of ownership for cars (VRN: and VRN:) registered in and/or name. Enclosed you will find proof that we indeed do NOT own said vehicles. As pointed out in previous correspondence, British Credit Trust are the legal owners and that they are on Hire Purchase.

With this documentary proof I consider that we have fulfilled any legal obligation in which we are required to prove or disprove ownership of said vehicles. With this enclosed proof I therefore do not expect any future fees applied due to levies, clamping, or towing of said vehicles. Any such event will obviously result in us reporting Birmingham City Council and Equita to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Also, any such fees already charged should be removed with immediate effect. If in the unfortunate circumstance Equita still find it necessary to charge fees regarding levies, clamping or towing of said vehicles, It is likely that I will claim for any distress and/or inconvenience through the court and that any such charges will be reported as fraudulent. To emphasise, in such an event, it will ultimately become a legal matter of which I will vehemently peruse and hold Birmingham City Council ultimately responsible. :mad2:

[tomtom013]

Update:

 

I am holding back with the previous letter and just sending Equita letter requesting breakdown of fees as advised.

 

One very positive note happened on Friday. My partner spoke to BCC on Friday and they told her that If she paid £200 there and then they would effectivley take the debt back. If only we had £200 to spare. My partner replied that if we had that kind of money they would have it already and then askesd him to take it back anyway. He said he needed to speak to his manager and will get back. I think I will see what they say and if needed offer £100 which at a push we can just about afford .

[tomtom013]

Update:

Hi all,

 

After numerous phone calls with BCC they have flatley refused to take back the debt from Equita. The boss at BCC have rung Equita to make Equita accept my payment plan above and I have recently recived a letter from Equita saying as such. Should I start making payments to Equita or just ignore the fact that BCC will not take back the debt and just keep making payments direct to BCC in the hope that both parties get frustrated and give in ti my request??

 

With regards to my request for a break down of fees made to Equita they have finally responded. They have charged me £134.50 in total which is made up of a levy fees, £103.50 and the rest visiting fees. While I have no problems with the visiting fees as there is nothing I can do about them the levy fee does seem very dodgy indeed. They have sent a copy of the N7 form as I never received the original and have never signed anthing. On the N7 form the levy was made on a couple of things in the front garden. These include 2 ceramic plant pots which are not mine, very old and have absolultely no monetary value at all and on which they descirbe as all garden furniture, LOL. The only garden furniture we have are two Tesco's saver range fold up chairs which cost me £12.00 a year ago. As I understand it a levy can only be made on goods that would cover the bailiffs cost and most of the oustanding balance. Am i right in thinking this and if so does this make the levy and therfore the levy fees applied unlawful. Any advice on my next move would be greatly appreciated because I resent paying £100.00 to a bunch of ARgghhhhs. I would love to bang them to rights, BCC and Equita.

Edited January 14, 2011 by tomtom013

[ploddertom]

Can you either scan or type up exactly what the Notice of Seizure says, keep all personal info out of it.

 

PT

[tomtom013]

FORM N7

NOTICE OF SEIZURE AND INVENTORY OF GOODS (COPY)

 

Inventory of goods

GOODS

Brown Plant Pots and All Garden Furniture

 

Amount owing £1317.95

Baliff Costs £103.00

Total Amount if paid today £1421.45

Total including additional

days possession (if any) £1421.45

 

Signed by baillif and dated 16.08.10

[ploddertom]

Back to writing letters again I'm afraid - firstly back to the Bailiffs with a copy being forwarded to the Council to be kept on your records.

 

Your letter needs to point out the following points to them:

Following a valid levy the goods seized if removed for auction must:

1 - cover all Bailiff costs & charges

2 - cover all removal & storage charges

3 - cover all costs of the auction

4 - cover all the Auctioneers fees

5 - pay off a proportion of the debt owed.

 

1 - As the levy listed Brown Plant Pots these would fetch at most at auction £15 in total - therefore your Bailiff has mad a levy on the basis of making a financial gain for himself and his Company.

2 - The levy also lists "All Garden Furniture" - this is a catch all that is simply not allowed. Case law has established that where an inventory is supplied it must make it clear what goods have been seized, Davies v Property & Reversionary Co Ltd (1929) 2 KB 222. Kerby v Harding (1851) 6 Exch 234 states " a list of all goods" is too vague as neither debtor nor any later attending bailiff can identify the items. The Company should already know that the decision in Davies was confirmed in Ambrose v Nottingham City Council (2004).

 

Give them 7 days to remove the levy and all associated charges.

 

If they refuse or become obstructive you can send the Council a Regulation 46 Complaint as you are aggrieved by the levy they have instigated. Here's a sample of a letter to use, it will need adapting for your own use, Send a copy to the Bailiffs:

 

Mr Jo Blogs

1, High Street

Anytow

Post Code.

 

The Chief Clerk

xxxx Magistrates Court

 

Date:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Council Ref: xxxxxx

 

I am writing to request that you issue a Summons against xxxxxxx Council by virtue of Regulation 46 Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992 as a matter of urgency.

 

 

I am aggrieved by the levy carried out by Mr Smith of ABC Certificated Bailiffs on (enter date) for the following reason:

 

* The Bailiff visited my premises and he has provided a Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory advising me that he has levied against a vehicle that was outside/on the drive of my home.

* This vehicle is not owned by me. I do not know the owner of the vehicle and it would appear that the Bailiff has assumed that this is my car because it was parked close to my home.

* The Bailiff in seizing this vehicle, has charged me a levy fee of £50 together with an enforcement fee of £150 and I am advised that unless I pay the amount of the Laibility Order of £xxx together with the charges associated with this levy, that the Bailiff will be attending at my property to remove this vehicle to satisy my Council Tax arreas and in addition I will also be liable for further charges for "attending to remove" and I could also be in position of being personally liable to the owner of the vehicle.

* I have written to the Bailiff Company and the local authority concerning this levy but my complaints have been ignored.

 

I trust that this information will be sufficient and please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Yours faithfully"

 

PT

[tomtom013]

Great stuff, thanks PT. Will keep you posted.

[grimshaj]

i am having a similar problem, my mum has just received a bunch of letters from equita about council tax debt dating back to 2008! apparently we owe them £900. we had the notice of baliffs and then when trying to deal with these ridiculous people, we were given the usual full payment BS, but the only agreement we could come to was half by 31st jan then the rest by end of feb.

previously my mum had spoken to equita and arranged a payment plan, she was asked to make a payment of £75 and then they would set up a steady payment plan. instead she paid it promptly, they lost it and took some serious convincing to acknowledge it and because of this they simply refused to go back to the payment plan and go ahead with full payment and bayliff removals.

reading back through this thread seems like there is definately other options but im beginning to wonder is it worth such a drawn out series of letters and calls. am i stupid to just pay it to avoid threat of further bayliffs and thugs down the phone?

 

any help will be much appreciated

[ploddertom]

i am having a similar problem, my mum has just received a bunch of letters from equita about council tax debt dating back to 2008! apparently we owe them £900. we had the notice of baliffs and then when trying to deal with these ridiculous people, we were given the usual full payment BS, but the only agreement we could come to was half by 31st jan then the rest by end of feb.

previously my mum had spoken to equita and arranged a payment plan, she was asked to make a payment of £75 and then they would set up a steady payment plan. instead she paid it promptly, they lost it and took some serious convincing to acknowledge it and because of this they simply refused to go back to the payment plan and go ahead with full payment and bayliff removals.

reading back through this thread seems like there is definately other options but im beginning to wonder is it worth such a drawn out series of letters and calls. am i stupid to just pay it to avoid threat of further bayliffs and thugs down the phone?

 

any help will be much appreciated

 

Hi & Welcome

 

For a better response it is better to add your own post. Click on the link below to do this.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=168

 

PT