Bailiff company's Sub- Contracting

[hallowitch]

We get quite quite a lot of posts on here(and other web sites) where the firm contracted to the local authority uses sub-contractors to enforce council tax and PCNs

 

 

 

should we be asking the local authority /bailiff firm if there sub-contractor has the authority to collect the debt under The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996

 

If there is no authorization has the bailiff firm broken the Data protection act by passing your information on

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1880/part/VIII/made#f00025

 

Assignment and sub-contracting

 

 

72. A contractor shall not make any arrangement for the exercise, whether in whole or in part, by any other person of any function which he has been authorized to exercise by the authority, unless that person has been authorized to exercise the function concerned under a further authorization given by the authority by virtue of this Order.

[tomtubby]

Excellent point as always. I will need to put my "thinking hat" on with this.....

[caledfwlch]

Excellent point as always. I will need to put my "thinking hat" on with this.....

 

A friend had a similar problem the other week to this.

 

The Bailiff was marked down on the certificate register as working for Jacob's but was not, he actually owns his own self employed Bailiff firm, which seems to be just himself, with his missus as secretary etc and was being outsourced enforcement work by Jacobs.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?359477-Quick-Certificate-question was my thread.

 

Iirc from what my friend said, Jacobs were adamant that the guy did not work for them, he was just an "outsourcer", according to the register, he does NOT hold a certificate to act under his own steam, only for Jacobs, but Jacobs say he is not a member of their staff, so is his certificate and bond even valid, as an "outsourcer" His own firm is A&C Bailiff's Ltd Company No 07459065

[brassnecked]

Well if he is certificated to jacobs he can only work for them, is this a tax dodge he is trying claiming to be self employed, and jacobs pay him cash in hand? maybe bailiff is in breach of IR35, as he should be an employee of jacobs on the facts, so IR35 may apply, and he is employed. Shop him to HMRC citing breach of IR35 imho. That should kill his pig for him.

[lamma]

I agree re IR35 and I would pursue that. I don't know about the legal status of sub-contracting bailiff work. But for CT and CPE then as far as I can see the legal status is dubious even when its the prime contractor. For example look in Halsbury's for any mention at all of private baiiliffs. Is that a huge omission by Halsury's or are CT and CPR only enforced under what our american cousins call 'the color of law'. I leave the reader to judge.

[brassnecked]

Lamma, you have made agood argument, private bailiffs are always going to be contentious, and use of them, in certain situations may break the spirit of the law, if not always the actual letter. their use may well be by a dubious interpretation, or an opinion by Counsel. What is certain is that their usage can be a breach of fairness and due process when it becomes "about money" rather than correct application of the regulations.

 

This is always an inherent danger, and a driver of injustice when a for profit contractor is involved in enforcement. Cases on CAG are a testament to that.

 

My take on IR35 is that if a contractor, is "employed" by a company and is tied to them as this bailiff is by certification to jacobs, as he cannot operate without that certificate then he is employed by Jacobs and should be on PAYE "cards in" What HMRC can do is demand Jacobs pay Tax and NI for him, then he has to declare his taxed earnings from Jacobs on his self assessment and be further taxed on his profit. Go on Caledfwlch, shop the scrote, you know it makes sense

[hallowitch]

I was thinking about this when i started this thread

 

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

(5) The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority, which he shall show to the debtor if so requested

 

 

I wounderd if this authorisation would fall under

 

The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996

72. A contractor shall not make any arrangement for the exercise, whether in whole or in part, by any other person of any function which he has been authorized to exercise by the authority, unless that person has been authorized to exercise the function concerned under a further authorization given by the authority by virtue of this order

[brassnecked]

It may well do hallow, but what form and wording would such an authorisation take, and in what form would it be presented if at all to a request to show it

[hallowitch]

It may well do hallow, but what form and wording would such an authorization take, and in what form would it be presented if at all to a request to show it

 

well thats the thing Ive got a bailiff letter in front of me and the debtors name and address are printed on it but it was hand delivered

 

I assume it would be something similar

 

 

To Mr & Mrs xxxx xxxxx of xxxx xxxxxx

 

and all others to whom it may concern

 

Take Note that by virtue of an authority given to me by xxxxxx Magistrate court in a Warrant /liability order dated xxxx I have this day re-attended with a vew to to sezuing goods for a debt and costs owing to xxxx council as stated in said Warrant /Liability order

[caledfwlch]

Lamma, you have made agood argument, private bailiffs are always going to be contentious, and use of them, in certain situations may break the spirit of the law, if not always the actual letter. their use may well be by a dubious interpretation, or an opinion by Counsel. What is certain is that their usage can be a breach of fairness and due process when it becomes "about money" rather than correct application of the regulations.

 

This is always an inherent danger, and a driver of injustice when a for profit contractor is involved in enforcement. Cases on CAG are a testament to that.

 

My take on IR35 is that if a contractor, is "employed" by a company and is tied to them as this bailiff is by certification to jacobs, as he cannot operate without that certificate then he is employed by Jacobs and should be on PAYE "cards in" What HMRC can do is demand Jacobs pay Tax and NI for him, then he has to declare his taxed earnings from Jacobs on his self assessment and be further taxed on his profit. Go on Caledfwlch, shop the scrote, you know it makes sense

 

In these days of HMRC getting tough on tax evasion, I will indeed be raising a concern. What is interesting is a member of staff at Jacobs accidently, or thinking they werent doing anything wrong anyway is who told my mate about this guy actually only being a contractor, and what his company name was.

 

Our bailiff himself was actually extremely upset when mate told him the company name and actually tried to deny it at first! I would not be surprised if at the very least the fees he is making from Jacobs are not going onto his self employed accounts.

[mellymoo74]

I have put the following FOI request in to BCCDear Birmingham City Council,I would like a copy of the SLA between BCC and Equita particularly relating to whether Equita are able to outsource to Bailiffs not registered as working for them directly.I would also like a breakdown between 2009 - present of all complaints about Equitas conduct showing reason for complaint ie front loading of charges and the finding of the council on that complaint

[stevep]

I'm intregued about this topic. I have a bailiff who is registered, and director, of a company in Bristol who the council are claiming is also working for a company in the midlands! They have provided no proof that the person in question is infact an employee, athough they have confirmed that the authorised bailiffs are NOT allowed to outsource.

 

How could one get proof of employment to prove/disprove any breach of process/authority here?

[brassnecked]

I'm intregued about this topic. I have a bailiff who is registered, and director, of a company in Bristol who the council are claiming is also working for a company in the midlands! They have provided no proof that the person in question is infact an employee, athough they have confirmed that the authorised bailiffs are NOT allowed to outsource.

 

How could one get proof of employment to prove/disprove any breach of process/authority here?

Find out which company he is certificated to.

[stevep]

He's certificated at Bristol County Court to a company in Bristol, but the court have confirmed that the nature of his bond means that he is not limited to working for just that company (so assume he paid cash rather than via a company insurance policy). He is NOT certificated with the bailiff company who have the agreement with my council

[brassnecked]

He's certificated at Bristol County Court to a company in Bristol, but the court have confirmed that the nature of his bond means that he is not limited to working for just that company (so assume he paid cash rather than via a company insurance policy). He is NOT certificated with the bailiff company who have the agreement with my council

If the councils contract bars sub contracting then, he cannot lawfully execute enforcement for that council imho, you need to see the agreement the LA has with it's bailiffs.

[stevep]

I issued a FOI request and whilst they wouldn't send me the agreement (Commercial Confidence), they did confirm that the Bailiffs were not allowed to outsource unless I lived out of the area (which I don't).

 

When i suggested that the company had breached it's terms, the council simply asked the company to confirm that the bailiffs were employed and they just said they ran a "Bristol Office" for them. Given that at least 2 of the Bristol bailiffs are employed by the same 3rd party, it stinks of being a sub-contract agreement, but I can't prove anything.

[wonkeydonkey]

I issued a FOI request and whilst they wouldn't send me the agreement (Commercial Confidence), they did confirm that the Bailiffs were not allowed to outsource unless I lived out of the area (which I don't).

 

When i suggested that the company had breached it's terms, the council simply asked the company to confirm that the bailiffs were employed and they just said they ran a "Bristol Office" for them. Given that at least 2 of the Bristol bailiffs are employed by the same 3rd party, it stinks of being a sub-contract agreement, but I can't prove anything.

 

Have checked them out at companies house to the Bristol office to see who comes up as what?

WD

[stevep]

Companies house search confirmed that atleast one is a director of the Bristol company (that is NOT in question). The difficulty is in proving that Bailiff1&2 are not also employed by Rundles. The reason I have my doubts is that the Rundles don't advertise a "Bristol" office, and all 3 of those who have visited me are certified with the Bristol company. It would be VERY odd for them all to be employed by Rundles AND the bristol company when it would be more tax efficient for them just to operate through the bristol company.

[josephbloggs]

Set up a ltd company, get your chosen bailiff company to give you work, act on their behalf, get them to pay your ltd company and reduce tax liabilities, save approx 8% when compared to working as an employee or sole trader.

Instead of tax and national insurance, just end up paying a lower rate of tax because its classed as a directors dividend and a company tax end of each year.

Guarantee almost every bailiff does this.

Bailiff companies like this because it reduces overheads, and if the work isnt there they dont have salaried employees to worry about.

Bailiffs like this because they save tax and have the potential to earn more money. Also it opens them up to get work from more than one bailiff company at a time.

There are downsides to the whole thing for joe public of course, this type of contract means bailiffs only get paid if they collect full payment, it means bailiffs will be more forceful in their methods and add un-necessary fees to bills for their own benefit.

[wonkeydonkey]

when it all goes wrong with the sub contracted bailiff.......aggression,trumped up fees etc....where does the buck stop?

 

WD

[hallowitch]

when it all goes wrong with the sub contracted bailiff.......aggression,trumped up fees etc....where does the buck stop?

 

WD

 

local authority every time as far as I'm concerned

 

another thing Ive often wondered about is the T&C of the bailiffs firms company insurance they use for the bailiff bond

most of us know that the bond is usually paid by the bailiff firm by way of insurance paid by the employer

working on the assumption that the bailiff would be named on the firms insurance policy when his bond is lodged with court

 

so if ABC bailiffs had a contract with toy town and a bailiff from Acme was sent to collect the debt and it ended up with a form 4 complaint being upheld and compensation was awarded

what bond would the compensation come from?

 

 

my hubby drives a works van his works insurance doesn't cover him to drive the van of the sub contractors his firm employs not quite the same thing but it makes you wonder

[outlawla]

...so if ABC bailiffs had a contract with toy town and a bailiff from Acme was sent to collect the debt and it ended up with a form 4 complaint being upheld and compensation was awarded

what bond would the compensation come from?.....

 

Being a bit cynical here, but the justice system surrounding bailiff form 4 complaints does not have a reputation for making fair and unbiased decisions. Perhaps HMCTS and/or the Judge would ensure no form 4 complaint was upheld if there was an issue with the bond.

 

EDIT:

 

Can I say that?

[old bill]

Lamma, you have made agood argument, private bailiffs are always going to be contentious, and use of them, in certain situations may break the spirit of the law, if not always the actual letter. their use may well be by a dubious interpretation, or an opinion by Counsel. What is certain is that their usage can be a breach of fairness and due process when it becomes "about money" rather than correct application of the regulations.

 

This is always an inherent danger, and a driver of injustice when a for profit contractor is involved in enforcement. Cases on CAG are a testament to that.

 

My take on IR35 is that if a contractor, is "employed" by a company and is tied to them as this bailiff is by certification to jacobs, as he cannot operate without that certificate then he is employed by Jacobs and should be on PAYE "cards in" What HMRC can do is demand Jacobs pay Tax and NI for him, then he has to declare his taxed earnings from Jacobs on his self assessment and be further taxed on his profit. Go on Caledfwlch, shop the scrote, you know it makes sense

 

What you are highlighting, BN, is something called Nominal Self-Employment and is illegal. HMRC need alerting to what is going on.

[old bill]

Being a bit cynical here, but the justice system surrounding bailiff form 4 complaints does not have a reputation for making fair and unbiased decisions. Perhaps HMCTS and/or the Judge would ensure no form 4 complaint was upheld if there was an issue with the bond.

 

EDIT:

 

Can I say that?

 

The safest way of approaching a Form 4 complaint is to send a letter of complaint, in the first instance, to the Court Manager at a bailiff's certificating court, asking that the letter be seen by the District Judge as to whether a Form 4 complaint be proceeded with. This has happened in the case of a cagger who did this.

[brassnecked]

What you are highlighting, BN, is something called Nominal Self-Employment and is illegal. HMRC need alerting to what is going on.

 

Exactly so, I.T. workers and Ready Mix concrete drivers were caught up in this, where the work is mainly for the original employer to a level that would suggest they should be employed. HMRC need informing of the Jacobs situation asap.