Team effort – Unlawful "Head H" bailiff fees for the attention of MoJ

[seregap]

I have a case where Ross and Roberts have backed down on a Head H fee (and multiplied fees acting on 2 LOs) and agreed to refund if anyone is interested

[ploddertom]

I have a case where Ross and Roberts have backed down on a Head H fee (and multiplied fees acting on 2 LOs) and agreed to refund if anyone is interested

 

Can I suggest you start a new thread and let us know your story as it may well help others.

[seregap]

good idea, will do

[outlawla]

More figures in (breaking through 20k), and from just one more local authority the removals total bumped up the previous 31 by 60%:

 

Gedling Borough Council (Bristow & Sutor; Dukes; Rossendales)

Figure submitted:

1,558

| Goods removed: 19

 

 

Update:

 

Harrow have now joined Havant Borough Council and North East Lincs in safely guarding their data.

 

The figure stands at 21,474 for goods removed 50 times.

[danmcr]

I know a certain company that is apply this fee to all cases from the start of the process!!!!

[tomtubby]

I know a certain company that is apply this fee to all cases from the start of the process!!!!

 

 

B & S by any chance ??

[Mark1960]

They actually apply it at the start but do dot take the payment until right at the end

[danmcr]

B & S by any chance ??

 

No, I cannot say at this moment due to the issue outlined in my earlier message.

[brassnecked]

No, I cannot say at this moment due to the issue outlined in my earlier message.

 

We understand, no problem, it could well be B & S or Jacobs, who are clamp happy, but outlawla's research has uncovered fraud at a national level. This is truly White Collar Crime as defined by Prof Gary Slapper.

[danmcr]

We understand, no problem, it could well be B & S or Jacobs, who are clamp happy, but outlawla's research has uncovered fraud at a national level. This is truly White Collar Crime as defined by Prof Gary Slapper.

 

It's ridiculous how they are getting away with it!. The LA know when and how these fees are being changed also which makes it even worse.

[tomtubby]

As I have said many times on this forum regarding the "Head H" fee that if there is a dispute you will need to ascertain what Parliament intended when this fee had been introduced and for the answer you need to look no further that the 1997 Council Tax letter from the DEFR that I have referred to many times in the past.

 

From this document it is as CLEAR as day that Parliament intended this fee (of £24.50) to cover the costs of advertising the removed goods for sale.

 

 

END OF......

[danmcr]

How many times has a Bailiff company advertised goods for sale?

 

In my experience when goods are removed, they are immediately dropped off at the auction house who value the goods and put them in a newspaper add along with all the other stuff that is up for auction.

 

All the Bailiff company does is send a letter saying to avoid the sale make full payment by xx date.

[Mark1960]

IF goods are removed,I believe it is perfectly reasonable for head H to be applied.

 

My worry is that the wording has been changed several times.The original wording covered "expenses incurred in connection with a proposed sale where there is no buyer" ie reasonable fees incurred other than auctioneers fees.

 

It was then changed to "reasonable costs incurred in respect of advertising" before being amended again in 1998 (not sure if this supercedes the 1997 letter that TT refers to)

 

The latest format has been abused due to the re-wording in 1998.I've got a couple of things planned to try to develop this issue further with my local council at some further point.

[brassnecked]

It's ridiculous how they are getting away with it!. The LA know when and how these fees are being changed also which makes it even worse.

If the fee is applied correctly as stipulated then here is no cause for complaint, it is where it is added along with other doubtful fees like waiting time, along with a First Visit, levy on a third party motor etc.

[outlawla]

IF goods are removed,I believe it is perfectly reasonable for head H to be applied.

 

My worry is that the wording has been changed several times.The original wording covered "expenses incurred in connection with a proposed sale where there is no buyer" ie reasonable fees incurred other than auctioneers fees.

 

It was then changed to "reasonable costs incurred in respect of advertising" before being amended again in 1998 (not sure if this supercedes the 1997 letter that TT refers to)

 

The latest format has been abused due to the re-wording in 1998.I've got a couple of things planned to try to develop this issue further with my local council at some further point.

 

 

These issues were put to the MoJ (and vehicle attendances) who off-loaded them onto the Department of Communities and Local Government. The DCLG after months on end came up with a pathetic response on the Head H questions, and still have never responded to the van attendance issues.

 

A couple of posts on another thread detail the questions Here and Here, but the first response from DCLG (in regards head H) was this:

 

 

Dear Mr xxx

 

Your e-mail of 11th June has been passed to this department for answering as we hold policy responsibility for council tax. I apologise for the delay in replying.

 

You ask two questions relating to Schedule 5 of the Council tax (Administration and enforcement) regulations 1992. These are

 

Q.1. Have the amendments (SI 1998/295 for council tax and SI 1998/3089 for NNDR) been introduced to eliminate the advertising element which was the specific purpose for the “Head H” fee in the first place?

Heading G of Schedule 5 to SI 1992/613) provides for reasonable costs incurred in respect of advertising to be included in the aggregated amount under regulation 45(20 of the regulations.

Q.2. For the purpose of imposing the “Head H” fee, do goods need to have been physically removed with respect to Regulation 45(4), to be define as being “available for collection by the debtor”?

This is for the local authority to decide, as it is they, not central government, who interpret the legislation. However, definitive interpretation of any legislation is a matter for the courts.

Council Tax Division

Communities and Local Government

5/E2 Eland House

Bressenden Place

London SW1E 5DU

 

 

Not particularly wanting to be fobbed-off, the following was sent in reply:

 

 

Dear Mr xx,

 

Thank you for your 30 August 2012 email.

 

I do however request some clarification of your response. I'll deal with Q1 to start with.

"

Q.1. Have the amendments (SI 1998/295 for council tax and SI 1998/3089 for NNDR) been introduced to eliminate the advertising element which was the specific purpose for the “Head H” fee in the first place?

 

Heading G of Schedule 5 to SI 1992/613) provides for reasonable costs incurred in respect of advertising to be included in the aggregated amount under regulation 45(20 of the regulations.

Firstly, you have explained Heading G as apposed to Heading H and I believe there is no regulation 45(20) in SI 1992/613 and assume this has been a typo and it was your intention to refer to regulation 45(2). If I have assumed wrongly please let me know.

 

Secondly, I've been quite thorough in going through each amendment to SI 1992/613 where changes have been made to Schedule 5 of the regulations. This is why I've focussed particularly on the advertising aspect of costs detailed in the various amendments. Consequently, it is apparent to me that a clear distinction exists between advertising costs, with respect an actual sale by auction (specifically detailed at heading G as you have stated), and out of pocket advertising costs detailed at heading H, which have arisen, despite no goods being sold.

 

To clarify my point, schedule 5 to amendment SI 1993/773 states at both heading G and H:

"

Reasonable costs and fees incurred in respect of advertising

".

It is clear from this legislation, that both headings G and H refer to advertising costs, the only difference being that "G" relates to an actual sale, whereas costs under "H" compensates the firm for advertising goods which, due to settling outstanding payments, needed to be returned to the debtor.

 

My query came about because of the amendment SI 1998/3089 which although is for NNDR regulations, did no longer specify at heading H, that fees related to advertising. There is in my view, a serious need for this to be clarified because hundreds of thousands of people have been, and are still incurring these costs.

 

Therefore my original question still stands:

 

Have the amendments (SI 1998/295 for council tax and SI 1998/3089 for NNDR) been introduced to eliminate the advertising element which was the specific purpose for the "Head H" fee in the first place?

 

I will deal with the second element of my request in a following email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

The following email:

 

 

Further to my previous email I would now like to deal with the second element of my query:

"

Q.2. For the purpose of imposing the “Head H” fee, do goods need to have been physically removed with respect to Regulation 45(4), to be define as being “available for collection by the debtor”?

 

This is for the local authority to decide, as it is they, not central government, who interpret the legislation. However, definitive interpretation of any legislation is a matter for the courts.

Allowing local authorities to interpret this legislation is in my opinion nothing less than reckless of the department for Communities and Local Government. This lack of control, apparently allowing councils to do what they want, probably explains why they're like the mafia to deal with.

 

It seems nobody knows or cares about what is and isn't meant by the regulations. This legislation remember is used to extort money from hundreds of thousands of members of the public.

 

If like you state, the definitive interpretation is a matter for the courts, why has no local authority or ultimately the department for Communities and Local Government consulted the court?

 

This, up until now, has it seems never been considered important. However, as it involves many thousands of residents each year, I consider it should be investigated, and therefore request that the department for Communities and Local Government consult whoever is necessary to get an answer.

 

I have since making this query read a Government Ombudsman's report dated 10 July 2012 on an investigation into complaint against Blaby District Council.

 

The report is here:

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAxADUANgA0AHwAfABUAHIAdQBlAHwAfAAwAHwA0

 

It seems the LGO consider goods do need to have been physically removed with respect to Regulation 45(4), to be defined as being “available for collection by the debtor”.

 

This is made clear in various parts of the report and particularly at item 48, which is as follows:

 

From report (item 48)

"

Head H fee

 

48. I note the bailiffs charged a ‘redemption fee’ of £24.50 under Head H of Schedule 5 in respect of one of the vehicles on the 2005 liability order. This fee was removed when the Council established the car did not belong to Mrs Smith. I welcome this action. But the Head H fee should not have been applied on the facts of this case: the goods were not ‘made available for collection by the debtor’ as they were never removed. This was maladministration.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

From the final correspondence on this from the Department of Communities and Local Government, you will be able to tell they thoroughly looked into the issues raised before responding.

 

 

Dear Mr xxx,

 

Thank you for your e-mails. I apologise for the delay in replying and appreciate your patience.

 

You ask whether SI 1998/295 and SI 1998/3089 were introduced to eliminate the advertising element that was, you state, the purposes for the Head H fee.

 

The advertising element has not been abolished; it can be included in the aggregate amount under Heading G.

 

Once gain I thank you for your patience.

 

Regards

 

 

Council Tax Division

Communities and Local Government

5/E2 Eland House

Bressenden Place

London SW1E 5DU

[danmcr]

My point is as Tomtubby says the fee is for advertisement, Bailiff companies do not advertise the goods themselves its done by the auction house.

[unclebulgaria67]

My point is as Tomtubby says the fee is for advertisement, Bailiff companies do not advertise the goods themselves its done by the auction house.

 

Auction houses don't charge for advertisement either. They charge a commission to the buyer and seller of goods of about 15% + vat. They may also charge for Insurance and storage of goods. All of this would be deducted from the final amount that is then passed to the bailiffs.

[Mark1960]

The fee WAS for advertising but if you check Schedule 5 & regulation 45(4),there is no mention of advertising.

 

As I interpret that,the cost hasn't been soley for advertising since 1998.You can't claim that a regulation is for advertising when there is no mention of advertising within it.The latest wording makes it possible for bailiffs to be compensated for any form of wasted expenses incurred after goods have been removed.The compensation (£24.50) is not exclusively for reimbursement of advertising costs but for ANY costs incurred AFTER goods have been removed.The principal is the same but the ability to recover legitimate costs is broader.Bailiff companies have simply abused this wording and have replaced it with what they call a "redemption" fee which basically means they will charge you £24.50 for absolutely nothing.

[outlawla]

Havant Borough Council isn't budging. It can keep its data if it wants. However, what they've offered in regards an admission, is something equally worthwhile.

 

The councils response explains why references to Ross and Roberts have been made on a number of these posts....

"

Costs referred Sch 5 (H) can be applied without removing goods. They are applied in respect of Regulation 45(4) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 which refers to goods being 'seized'. They can still remain on the debtors premises.....

 

However, as previously advised Ross and Roberts do apply these costs (without actually removing goods)...

[brassnecked]

Havant Borough Council isn't budging. It can keep its data if it wants. However, what they've offered in regards an admission, is something equally worthwhile.

 

The councils response explains why references to Ross and Roberts have been made on a number of these posts....

"

Costs referred Sch 5 (H) can be applied without removing goods. They are applied in respect of Regulation 45(4) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 which refers to goods being 'seized'. They can still remain on the debtors premises.....

 

However, as previously advised Ross and Roberts do apply these costs (without actually removing goods)...

In which case they are ripe for a spanking by the LGO

[Mark1960]

Schedule 5 refers to the "circumstances referred to in 45(4)

 

45(4) is a paragraph-These criminals cannot cherry pick 1 single word from the paragraph to justify illegal fees.When read in its entirety (as it should be),it is claear as to what these "circumstances" are.

 

We all know it and the LGO knows it but still these crooks are getting away with it.

 

It doesn't matter how many straws they clutch at,this fee is not justifiable

[ploddertom]

Schedule 5 refers to the "circumstances referred to in 45(4)

 

45(4) is a paragraph-These criminals cannot cherry pick 1 single word from the paragraph to justify illegal fees.When read in its entirety (as it should be),it is claear as to what these "circumstances" are.

 

We all know it and the LGO knows it but still these crooks are getting away with it.

 

It doesn't matter how many straws they clutch at,this fee is not justifiable

 

This has been happening for a long time and all Councils/Bailiffs interpret the Regulations to suit themselves. Remember what we see here is only the tip of the iceberg and most people are flannelled by what they get back in reply - after all seeing as they do this day in & day out then they must know what they are doing - mustn't they?

 

When they are found out they back pedal and how many infamous clerical errors, admin errors or rare errors do we see. the only thing they did wrong was to be caught out. Of course if they did everything correctly in the beginning .........................!

[outlawla]

Wrexham, although resisting at first, later became more cooperative when a good samaritan volunteered to step in and help out.

 

 

Wrexham County Borough Council (Jacobs/Rossendales/Excel)

Figure submitted:

2,994

(Jacobs 1,552) (Rossendales 168) (Excel 1,274) | Goods removed: (2) (0) (7)

Update:

 

The figure stands at 24,468 for goods removed 59 times.

[brassnecked]

Wrexham, although resisting at first, later became more cooperative when a good samaritan volunteered to step in and help out.

 

 

Wrexham County Borough Council (Jacobs/Rossendales/Excel)

Figure submitted:

2,994

(Jacobs 1,552) (Rossendales 168) (Excel 1,274) | Goods removed: (2) (0) (7)

Update:

 

The figure stands at 24,468 for goods removed 59 times.

 

The case R v Enforcement Industry on charges of Systemic fraud is gathering absolute evidence that Head h fee fraud is endemic.

[tomtubby]

As I have said very often...it is not that bailiff companies are charging fees that are illegal..but they are instead interpreting the fee scale in such a way so as to ensure a monetary gain for themselves.