Council tax its a Big one

[brassnecked]

Already done an FOI ..got code of practice (Cant pull it to bits ) but is the worst code of practice I have ever seen they dont have an SLA with any of their bailiffs …I have since FOI’d a copy of the contract between the bailiffs & the council an am awaiting this in the post

 

Wouldn't mind a look at the code, to see if there could be challenge on reasonableness and procedural un- fairness to debtors, the lack of a SLA would indicate possible maladministration, and Ombudsman intervention a possibility of their policy

[ploddertom]

It would be interesting to make a collection of CoP's from the different Councils. One posted earlier this morning suggests this Council uses Bailiffs as a last resort - but I wonder if theory & practice are two different things - mind you as far as I am aware we have never seen comment on here from this particular Council or its Bailiffs. See Post 2 of http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?318811-Bailiffs-forced-entry-over-unpaid-fine for further details.

 

PT

[outlawla]

...........One posted earlier this morning suggests this Council uses Bailiffs as a last resort - but I wonder if theory & practice are two different things........

 

PT

 

A revealing government report on council tax collection suggests that your suspicions may be well founded. Council Tax Collection Good Practice

QUOTE:

 

8.3.3. Bailiff recovery rate is as low as 30%, and bailiff action is not usually the most effective in individual cases. Where possible, the council should start with another form of recovery, such as an AEO. However, as one authority had over 63,000 liability orders in one year (CIPFA statistics) they must use bailiffs extensively as the volume is too high to look at each case in enough detail and take other, more time consuming or expensive actions for all these cases. Council staff have also suggested using AEOs would be better if they were allowed access to Inland Revenue (IR) records (see section 3.5.3.3).

[ShinySheen]

Just been reading a bailiff scrutiny report which looks conflicting to me .........

Levying distress

This means entering a debtor’s property and listing goods belonging to the debtor

that may be removed and sold at auction with the proceeds being paid towards the

amount owed to the Council and costs incurred by the bailiff. Only a bailiff properly

vetted and trained by the authorised firm and under the control of a bailiff who is

certificated by the County Court may levy distress or remove goods in respect of

Liability orders on behalf of the Council.

 

Upon receipt of any instruction to levy distress, the bailiff company shall ensure that a

visit is made to levy distress within 14 days from receipt of the instruction. Where

more than one Liability order is held for a debtor, the bailiff, where practicable, will

attend the property for all Liability orders at the same time, with only one set of first

and second call visit costs being made. 'First call' and 'second call' visits must be

made on different days.

Then below it says

Where a levy takes place and there are liability orders for more than one year’s debt,

the bailiff is required by law to levy on each individual liability order and charge a fee

for each levy.

I wonder what Law this is ???

The document in its entirety can be found here http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-rd4NsM0nL8J:www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/5._Bailiff_scrutiny_report_8.2.10.pdf+bailiffts+%22more+than+one+liability+order%22+solicitor&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg1eytlvhwrM81TqhoKxRBTcnJEjQdtF6A6MqaWVxtXkXRoppTfBfkVOySy_JCryh1iAw_tOzmBRUGjo_SncDSl2t_a7s_PTpPG6nvqL7-kkj6yGallXUkuvkjrT2a6RS5V0qdp&sig=AHIEtbTIiZmAEXVHb4_4Qzbhg0uMZ8s8og

Yeah the link is long

Edited September 25, 2011 by ShinySheen
Highlighting relavant points

[rebel11]

Hi shiney

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?321309-Telegraph-s-%E2%80%93-How-bailiffs-reap-the-reward-of-their-phantom-visits

[brassnecked]

It looks like Manchester are being disingenuous with their document as Leeds CC v Throssel explicitly says that if the Liability Orders are enforced simultaneously on the same visit, then only one set of fees is payable, also if there are 2 or more orders, each levy must be for different gooda, he cannot seize the same car more than once, others will know more.

[seanamarts]

Its pretty much common sense really that you cannot levy on the same thing twice. Once they have levied, the item then belongs to the creditor/bailiff until such time the debt has been paid or needs to be sold at auction.

They cannot levy on an item that has already been levied because it no longer belongs to the debtor.

[brassnecked]

Its pretty much common sense really that you cannot levy on the same thing twice. Once they have levied, the item then belongs to the creditor/bailiff until such time the debt has been paid or needs to be sold at auction.

They cannot levy on an item that has already been levied because it no longer belongs to the debtor.

 

That is how I understand it, but Shiny's post also shows the numpties in Manchester are ignoring the effect of Leeds v Throssel, and are condoning multiple charges on the one visit such as 3 LOs = 3 x fees added together as in £24.50 x 3 first visit = £75.50 payable in fees

[ploddertom]

You have to remember most Councils don't have a clue and tell it like the Bailiff says it is + look at all those that outsource to companies like Capita who just so happen to own Equita, Ross & Roberts. If it helps flannel the electorate then so be it will be how they think, after all how many complain.

 

PT

[ShinySheen]

I’ve emailed them ….1st response was who am I , I will pass it on to the revenues manager, what’s my address so they can reply properly ect…. this being said I did actually email it to the Head or revenues thinking surely they will know what they are talking about I replied it’s not a complaint just a general enquiry asking were in the legislation it says "the bailiff is required by law to levy on each individual liability order and charge a fee for each levy."I’m awaiting the reply

[brassnecked]

I’ve emailed them ….1st response was who am I , I will pass it on to the revenues manager, what’s my address so they can reply properly ect…. this being said I did actually email it to the Head or revenues thinking surely they will know what they are talking about I replied it’s not a complaint just a general enquiry asking were in the legislation it says "the bailiff is required by law to levy on each individual liability order and charge a fee for each levy."I’m awaiting the reply

 

You may have a long wait...You could always send a further mail asking if they had heard of the effect on bailiff fees of Leeds v Throssel.

[tomtubby]

I will be starting a new STICKY on the subject of Local Government Ombudsmans Reports within the next few days. The following will be included.

Local Government Ombudsman’s Report:

 

Local Authority: Rossendale Borough Council

 

Bailiff Company: Equita Ltd

 

Date: 15th December 2010

 

 

Approximately 25% of complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman are resolved though a “local settlement”. This is where an “agreement” is reached between the LGO and the relevant Local Authority and nearly always, is on the basis that the local authority agrees to the recommendation of the Ombudsman by agreeing to change the practice that had been the subject of the complaint to the LGO.

 

Although Local Settlements made by the LGO are not legally binding, it is important to be aware that according to the LGO, 99% of all “local settlements” are complied with in full.

 

For the above reason, “Local settlements” do not result in a public report or a formal finding of maladministration. Accordingly, a copy will not be made available on the LGO website.

 

On 15th December 2010 the LGO provided their final written report regarding a complaint made to them concerning Rossendale Borough Council and their agent; Equita Ltd. This particular complaint resulted in a “local settlement” and as mentioned above, a public report is not published.

 

I have a copy of the full report and permission from the complainant (Mr H) to provide the following details. Please note that the underlining is not from the LGO report.

 

The Complaint by Mr H concerns the following:

 

· Charging “multiple” fees to Mr H’s account for enforcing two Liability Orders

· Charging for visits that Mr H disputes ever took place

· Levying upon a vehicle that did not belong to Mr H and failing to provide a Notice of Seizure.

 

Paragraph 21 of the Ombudsman’s report states:

 

 

· “I am also concerned that there are fees charged to both of Mr H’s accounts in relation to one visit on 2nd July 2009. Although there were two Liability Orders in place, I do not consider it reasonable to charge twice for one physical visit”

 

Paragraph 23 states:

 

 

Thirdly, I am concerned that the bailiffs levied on a vehicle parked in the street which did not belong to Mr H. The bailiffs are required to leave an inventory of the goods seized with the customer at the time of the levy and the Council confirmed that the bailiffs will check the ownership of a vehicle with the DVLA before seizing it.

 

 

Legally, bailiffs can distrain on goods in a public place (in this case a vehicle parked in the street) if they have reasonable cause to believe that the goods belong to the debtor and are not needed for the debtor's work.

 

 

I do not consider the fact that a vehicle is parked in the street outside someone's home to be sufficient evidence of the bailiff to have reasonable cause to believe the vehicle is owed by the occupier of the house. It is recognised that there is some onus on the customer to advise the bailiffs if the vehicle listed on the inventory does not belong to them. However there is also some onus on the bailiffs to take reasonable steps to check the vehicle's ownership.

 

 

Paragraph 24:

 

 

I have consulted the Ombudsman and it is her view that although contacting the DVLA would be the most effective way to check ownership of the vehicle, she would accept other documented or supporting evidence such as the bailiff having witnessed the customer using the vehicle regularly

 

 

 

Paragraph 25:

 

 

There is no evidence to show that letters were left with Mr H on 4th and 12th June 2008 and so I consider that Mr H should not have been charged for these visits.

 

 

Paragraph 26:

 

To remedy this injustice it is recommended that the bailiff’s charges of these dates are removed from Mr H's account.

 

 

Paragraph 27:

 

 

I have additional concerns about the way this case was handled by the bailiffs. There is no evidence that an inventory was left with Mr H when the levy was made on a vehicle. In addition, the vehicle levied against was not his and the notes recorded by the bailiff are insufficient to show when visits were actually made what information was left with the customer.

 

 

Paragraph 29:

 

 

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2 July 2008.

 

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.

 

 

Paragraph 30:

 

 

The vehicle levied on does not belong to Mr H and he was not required to pay the costs associated with the levy visit.

 

 

Paragraph 34:

 

 

I remain of the view that bailiffs should make reasonable enquiries to establish the ownership of a vehicle before levying against it.

 

The person receiving the levy must accept some responsibility for advising the council or bailiff if the vehicle levied upon does not belong to them.

 

 

Paragraph 42:

 

 

The council has stated that a levy form was supplied. The Council has never produced a copy of the levy inventory.

 

The Council's complaint response to Mr H advised that the bailiff has not retained a copy of the levy form. Surely this document is essential if the bailiff were ever to proceed to seizing a vehicle? Mr H was not aware of what had been levied against until he received the Council's response to his complaint which commented on a levy having taken place, in relation to the silver Audi. At this point he was able to advise the Council we did not own such a car. I therefore remain of the view that there is no evidence of the levy inventory was left at the property.

 

Paragraph 53:

 

 

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2nd July 2008.

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.

 

 

Paragraph 54:

 

The council has accepted the recommendations and has agreed to apologise to Mr H for any procedural errors the bailiffs have made. I consider this a satisfactory way to resolve this complaint and so I have discontinued the investigation and closed the complaint.

 

XXXX

 

Investigator, on behalf of the Ombudsman

Edited September 26, 2011 by tomtubby

[wonkeydonkey]

Well that certainly clears up the never ending question of bailiffs charging mutliple fees for multiple liability orders on a single visit.

WELL DONE TT, now we need to see if bailiffs and Councils are capable of reading and understanding the impact of the Ombudsmans report, or are they all truly illiterate and ignorant?????

 

WD

[ploddertom]

It's usually called " couldn't give a sh1t "

[tomtubby]

As the local authority are WHOLLY responsible for the levy and fees charged by their AGENTS they will have to take notice !!!!

[brassnecked]

As the local authority are WHOLLY responsible for the levy and fees charged by their AGENTS they will have to take notice !!!!

 

A letter before action, and/or a regulation 46 complaint may focus their minds that are addled by bailiff fairy tales imho

[ShinySheen]

http://www.nocounciltax.com/councils/finally-council-admits-council-tax-liability-orders-exist/

[jtayl]

Woo woo merchants.

[ShinySheen]

Is there a set time period that formal complaints should be satisfied by as mine has been going on since May we have exchanged 3 letters either way the forth letter was sent mid august and I still have received no reply (I did send a very good letter)…… do I have to wait or is it time to call time and move on to the next step IE: LGO or section 46

[ShinySheen]

Anyone ?

[stressed2009]

When I spoke to the LGO they said you have to give the council 12 weeks to reply but didnt say how long you should give them to resolve it. The people I have spoken to there have always been very helpful it may be worth giving them a call to see what they have to say about your case.

[Amy100]

Was this a Form 4 Complaint?

[ShinySheen]

A form 4 complaint is against an individual Bailiff and is sent to the certifying court about the bailiff a copy of it would be sent to the bailiff from the court giving him an opportunity to explain himself to the judge if the judge is unsatisfied he would summon the bailiff to appear in court to explain his actions

Others may be able to explain better than I have done but that’s basically what a form 4 complaint is

[seanamarts]

This is what a form 4 complaint form looks like for those that are interested

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/form4_0606.pdf

 

What you have to remember though is that this is a last resort when all other routes of complaints have been exhausted. When sending off this form, remember to include as much information, statements and photo's if any. Keep it simple but informative. The Judge will be looking at what the bailiff did wrong and not why he was there.

[ShinySheen]

Perfectly Explained