Equita baliff fees & CTAX

[mellymoo74]

Seeing as a bailiff had their certificate discharged recently, seemingly without a hearing, I am wondering if there is any mileage in writing to the bailiff in your case and warning them that this fate could befall them, too. According to Civil Procedures Rules, a court can make a decision without holding a hearing. Just send the evidence you have to the District Judge at the bailiff's certificating court and see if you are requested to submit a Form 4 or get a letter saying the bailiff's certificate has been discharged.

Would you do this now? I'm guessing that they will hand back to the council anyway also would you cc Equita in?

[old bill]

Would you do this now? I'm guessing that they will hand back to the council anyway also would you cc Equita in?

 

In your case, Mellymoo, I would gather your evidence together and see what you have. You need to consult with the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended), Distress for Rent Rules 1988 and any other legislation the bailiff has breached. Once you have that, you write a letter to the District Judge at the court that issued the bailiff's certificate, detailing the evidence and enclosing relevant extracts from legislation. This would show the District Judge what had happened and that the bailiff had acted ultra vires (outside the law). It is then for the District Judge to decide whether they require you to submit a Form 4 complaint or whether the complaint is serious enough to warrant discharging the bailiff's certificate without a hearing.

[mellymoo74]

Great thank you will start that this week

[mellymoo74]

Dear Sir

 

I am writing in respect of your enquiry for information under the

provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

Please find below the information you have requested.

 

Due to a change in the contract an SLA between BCC and Equita no longer

exists.

 

There is no information available for complaints made against Equita

bailiffs for the period 01/04/09 to 30/06/11 as details only started to be

kept with effect from 01/07/11. An analysis of details from 01/07/11 to

31/08/12 is shown below

 

(Embedded image moved to file: pic02377.jpg)

 

If you are not satisfied with the response you may ask for an internal

review. If subsequently you are not satisfied with the Council’s decision

you may apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally,

the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints

procedure provided by the Council. The Information Commissioner can be

contacted at the following address:

 

[Leakie]

Did Eqita compile these results or was it BCC

Not surprised at what the table states .

 

Leakie

[old bill]

Take it as read that Equita/Capita compiled the figures.

[brassnecked]

Obvious application of copious quantities of Blanco on the coal by Crapquita/BCC. GRRRRRRR:-x

[mellymoo74]

supposed to have been bcc I have requested clarification on how they tracked equita to establish if/ how they were maintaining standards before last year also asked whether his response means they can subcontract.

[mellymoo74]

but im interested in the fact that now there is no SLA does that mean that Equita can do what they like?

[brassnecked]

but im interested in the fact that now there is no SLA does that mean that Equita can do what they like?

Means that a savvy aggrieved debtor, can take them to the cleaners if they play their cards right, a SLA is usually a pre-requisite in any arrangement to set boundaries and performance levels. lack of this leaves them wide open.

[mellymoo74]

Means that a savvy aggrieved debtor, can take them to the cleaners if they play their cards right, a SLA is usually a pre-requisite in any arrangement to set boundaries and performance levels. lack of this leaves them wide open.

 

Im biased but I also believe it verrrry clearly shows that the link is too close

[brassnecked]

Im biased but I also believe it verrrry clearly shows that the link is too close

 

Crapquita, are too entrenched in fact if they were a city conglomerate, it could be insider trading, capita obtain LO for BCC, then pass to oppo's in Equita. If they were bankers they would be locked up.

[mellymoo74]

another thing there is no way they werent tracking complaints previously it would have formed part of the SLA so where are they?

[brassnecked]

another thing there is no way they werent tracking complaints previously it would have formed part of the SLA so where are they?

Lost down the toilet probably, or conveniently deleted in a server outage.

[mellymoo74]

once I have had my response to the next bit, I might pass it on to the next level to force that info out of them

[brassnecked]

once I have had my response to the next bit, I might pass it on to the next level to force that info out of them

Just make sure you follow the procedure to the letter so that you give them no wriggle room.

[old bill]

Crapquita, are too entrenched in fact if they were a city conglomerate, it could be insider trading, capita obtain LO for BCC, then pass to oppo's in Equita. If they were bankers they would be locked up.

 

I have serious doubts as to whether a Crapita employee has the necessary authority to obtain a Liability Order under the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended).

[mellymoo74]

They could get round that by having chis Gibbs rubber stamp em. I just think there's something odd about no sla and not tracking before last July

[brassnecked]

I have serious doubts as to whether a Crapita employee has the necessary authority to obtain a Liability Order under the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended).

The system is now so automated that human intervention may not happen until a debtor challenges the LO obtained for a quid or 50 pence as highlighted in FOI requests to NELC by outlawla. This means that the authority is there by default if Crapita run the entire Revenue Office. Wonder if this counts as ultra vires, as Crapita are a service provider or agent, not a public body, and do the powers and duties of the contracting public authority therefore devolve to Crapita under whatever contract or SLA they are bound by?

[outlawla]

Dear Sir

 

I am writing in respect of your enquiry for information under the

provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

Please find below the information you have requested.

 

Due to a change in the contract an SLA between BCC and Equita no longer

exists.

 

There is no information available for complaints made against Equita

bailiffs for the period 01/04/09 to 30/06/11 as details only started to be

kept with effect from 01/07/11. An analysis of details from 01/07/11 to

31/08/12 is shown below

 

(Embedded image moved to file: pic02377.jpg)

 

If you are not satisfied with the response you may ask for an internal

review. If subsequently you are not satisfied with the Council’s decision

you may apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally,

the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints

procedure provided by the Council. The Information Commissioner can be

contacted at the following address:

 

 

 

Is this any good for reference? From a Freedom of Information Request last year to Birmingham...

 

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BAILIFFS

 

 

And another FOI here....

 

 

EDIT:

 

"Service Birmingham" from one of the above FOI.....

 

 

"Service Birmingham is the partnership between Birmingham City Council and Capita, set up in April 2006 to support the council in changing the way it works, using information communications technology to pave the way"

Edited September 18, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

"Bailiffs will comply with the law as interpreted by the City Council at all times. Any doubt over interpretation of the law shall be referred to the relevant City Council department’s staff for clarification and instruction."

 

From the linked Code Of Conduct, but the problem here is in the "as interpreted by the City Council at all times" The council's own "interpretation" of the law may be fundamentally at variance with what is actually "The Law" especially regarding multiple charging on Liability Orders, and certain fees like head h.

[old bill]

How the law is interpreted is determined by the courts, not Birmingham City Council. If BCC think they can get away with it, put them on notice to provide evidence of case law that allows them to put their own spin on legislation. My gut-feeling is they would find it very difficult to produce such evidence.

 

With regard to the obtaining of Liability Orders, to the best of my knowledge and belief it would have to be a Local Government Officer (LGO) who attended a court with regard to the granting of LOs. Certainly, a Crapita employee would have no authority to undertake this function as they are, as BN states, an employee of a contracted service provider. The key factor here is who has the right of audience before the court. A legal professional instructed by a local authority has rights of audience under the Legal Services Act 2007 and associated legislation. Unless there is a statutory provision allowing the likes of Crapita to apply for LOs on behalf of a local authority, they cannot do so and it raises an interesting question as to whether any LOs obtained by Crapita would be valid.

[brassnecked]

@ oldbill, what a can of worms lieth before us with BCC and Crapita. that code of conduct could well be repugnant to the law, by providing prima facie that BCC will apply their interpretation as the de-facto truth, allowing Crapquita to make it up as they go along.

[old bill]

@ oldbill, what a can of worms lieth before us with BCC and Crapita. that code of conduct could well be repugnant to the law, by providing prima facie that BCC will apply their interpretation as the de-facto truth, allowing Crapquita to make it up as they go along.

 

At the end of the day, BN, it is the courts who ultimately rule as to how the law is to be interpreted, not the silly burghers of Birmingham and Crapita. I find that once you start quoting from legislation, these "contractors" get very agitated, especially when they realise you have caught them out. They operate under the misconception that the law doesn't apply to them. Unfortunately, it does and what really comes as an awful shock to them is when they find out that they are subject to the Human Rights Act and can be sued in their own right without the taxpayer indemnifying them.

[brassnecked]

At the end of the day, BN, it is the courts who ultimately rule as to how the law is to be interpreted, not the silly burghers of Birmingham and Crapita. I find that once you start quoting from legislation, these "contractors" get very agitated, especially when they realise you have caught them out. They operate under the misconception that the law doesn't apply to them. Unfortunately, it does and what really comes as an awful shock to them is when they find out that they are subject to the Human Rights Act and can be sued in their own right without the taxpayer indemnifying them. they forget this at their peril

 

BN