equita and parking fine advice needed

[boltonfella]

last january my wife got a parking fine

 

a letter from bolton council came addressed to me as i was the registered keeper .

 

thing is it claimed to be the 2nd letter and demanded £80.00 iirc ( i never got the 1st letter giving me chance to pay £30.00 )

 

i called bolton council to ask why i had not got the first letter and they just said well it was sent to you

i also asked to see photographic proof it was actually my car , i recieved nothing !.

 

i then chose to ignore their letters as they had ignored my request and today i have received a letter from equita bailiffs say in large red letters REMOVAL NOTICE .

 

i contacted bolton council who told me i owe them £82.00 which i then offered to pay but they refused to accept my payment ?

 

what i would like to know now is can bolton council refuse my offer to pay in full ?.

 

if so what happens next as far as this bailiffs letter goes and what charges can equita load on top of the £82.00 that i own to bolton council .

[Jamberson]

They can refuse your payment because you forfeited on the debt and now a separate company has been instructed to collect it. And that company naturally charges for the work it does, hence the amount owing will have increased.

 

You need to pay the bailiff. Do you know how much is currently owing?

[boltonfella]

no sorry there is no mention on the letter about the outstanding amount but , as i understand there is a fixed amount they can charge anyway ? .

[Jamberson]

Yes, there is a fixed schedule of charges.

 

In my view, you'd be best off finding out. If they have only added on, say £15 or £20 to the bill for their fees, I would probably just pay it, before anything else happens and more charges get added on - which can rapidly escalate into the hundreds. I really don't see you have a case to defend this one.

[lookinforinfo]

Jamberson, are you saying that Councils can refuse payment from a ratepayer who is subject to a Liability Order?

[Jamberson]

No. I am talking about parking PCNs. I don't know anything about liability orders, but that's not the issue here. He has a PCN.

 

I do remain extremely sceptical of the advice freely given out on this forum that people should pay the council directly for things like council tax, after the bailiff has been instructed. I think it is the wrong course to take, but as I say, that's not my area.

[brassnecked]

No. I am talking about parking PCNs. I don't know anything about liability orders, but that's not the issue here. He has a PCN.

 

I do remain extremely sceptical of the advice freely given out on this forum that people should pay the council directly for things like council tax, after the bailiff has been instructed. I think it is the wrong course to take, but as I say, that's not my area.

 

Even if a bailiff is instructed, there is no law that dictates you MUST deal with them, and as a council is duty bound to accept a tendered payment, and if a visit has been made the Lo is settled along with the lawful fee, then why not? Should we allow the bailiff to levy and add fees ad nauseum even if a debtor can settle the whole account at that point?

[mellymoo74]

Even if a bailiff is instructed, there is no law that dictates you MUST deal with them, and as a council is duty bound to accept a tendered payment, and if a visit has been made the Lo is settled along with the lawful fee, then why not? Should we allow the bailiff to levy and add fees ad nauseum even if a debtor can settle the whole account at that point?

 

I agree with this also experience tells me that dealing with the bailiff leads to fictional fees would you pay anyone else for work that hasn't taken place? Until back office teams within local government cannot hire their own commercial bailiffs to collect I would advise paying the council directly

[Jamberson]

Even if a bailiff is instructed, there is no law that dictates you MUST deal with them, and as a council is duty bound to accept a tendered payment, and if a visit has been made the Lo is settled along with the lawful fee, then why not? Should we allow the bailiff to levy and add fees ad nauseum even if a debtor can settle the whole account at that point?

 

You don't have to deal with the bailiff. No-one said you do. You can completely ignore them if you want. But if they get into your house, or get hold of your car, you might wish you'd done something about it before.

 

The council are not duty bound to accept a tendered payment in the case of PCNs. And I very much doubt it is in other situations where bailiffs are on the case - it is contrary to common sense. There has to be legal liability for bailiff fees, or practically no-one would pay them. Give something solid to prove me wrong, by all means.

 

As to whether "we" should allow the fees to be levied, it's a moot point. "We" don't have any say unfortunately.

[Jamberson]

I agree with this also experience tells me that dealing with the bailiff leads to fictional fees would you pay anyone else for work that hasn't taken place? Until back office teams within local government cannot hire their own commercial bailiffs to collect I would advise paying the council directly

 

Would you expect not to pay for work which has taken place? Would you expect a company to employ people and run offices etc for nothing? These are commercial businesses and there is liablity for their fees - legitimate fees, that is.

[brassnecked]

You don't have to deal with the bailiff. No-one said you do. You can completely ignore them if you want. But if they get into your house, or get hold of your car, you might wish you'd done something about it before.

The council are not duty bound to accept a tendered payment in the case of PCNs. And I very much doubt it is in other situations where bailiffs are on the case - where is this enshrined in Statute ? it is contrary to common sense. There has to be legal liability for bailiff fees, or practically no-one would pay them. Give something solid to prove me wrong, by all means.

 

As to whether "we" should allow the fees to be levied, it's a moot point. "We" don't have any say unfortunately.

 

If they are prevented from gaining a levy, they only get the two visit fees, and no one is suggesting a debtor avoids paying them, just that as oldbill myself and others are pointing out bailiffs don't have a good track record of playing by the rules; and in the case of council tax, and I believe any payment due to a council, it is unlawful to refuse a tendered payment over the counter. I said pay all lawful fees, so in that scenario with one visit, bill plus visit fees should be paid.

[Jamberson]

in the case of council tax, and I believe any payment due to a council, it is unlawful to refuse a tendered payment over the counter. I said pay all lawful fees, so in that scenario with one visit, bill plus visit fees should be paid.

 

You might be right - I don't know. But bailiff fees are not due to the council, they are due to the bailiffs. I doubt the council has any obligation to accept them, and I don't see the advantage of playing it that way.

[brassnecked]

You might be right - I don't know. But bailiff fees are not due to the council, they are due to the bailiffs. I doubt the council has any obligation to accept them, and I don't see the advantage of playing it that way.

 

To potentially avoid more fees

[Jamberson]

Sure, but there's more chance you will actually get more legitimate fees added if you don't pay them - the account will remain live with them and they might pay more visits.

[mellymoo74]

Would you expect not to pay for work which has taken place? Would you expect a company to employ people and run offices etc for nothing? These are commercial businesses and there is liablity for their fees - legitimate fees, that is.

If you read my thread you will see that Equita are still claiming visit fees for visits that haven't taken place and can't have taken place so I will take my chances that they will pursue me through the courts as they will than have to prove they have been and they haven't under your suggestion I would of paid them the additional £200+ for work they hadn't done. They take their fees first paying them rewards them for lying and pushes people further into poverty. The point is for things like CT commercial companies shouldn't be responsible for collection of arrears as it is not in their interest to follow the law and council policies as they don't make money that way

[Jamberson]

I don't think you should pay them for work they haven't done! You are confusing two different things.

 

I am arguing that you shouldn't make your payments directly to the council, I am not arguing over the validity of the fees or the amount they are claiming.

 

If you say the amount is wrong - challenge it. But if you start paying money to the council, that won't resolve that problem for you because their fees, illegitmiate or not, will still be there, and they will still chase you for them,and charge you for that too!

[mellymoo74]

I don't think you should pay them for work they haven't done! You are confusing two different things.

 

I am arguing that you shouldn't make your payments directly to the council, I am not arguing over the validity of the fees or the amount they are claiming.

 

If you say the amount is wrong - challenge it. But if you start paying money to the council, that won't resolve that problem for you because their fees, illegitmiate or not, will still be there, and they will still chase you for them,and charge you for that too!

 

You wouldn't get the money back! They also can't legally garner any more fees than the fees laid out in statute if you pay the bailiff company they take their fees first and you have to claim them back if you pay the council the debt is paid of faster and they are responsible for paying their appointed agents

[Jamberson]

No!!! The debt includes the fees! If you pay the council the bailiff fees are still owing - whether they are correctly calculated or not.

[outlawla]

This is NOT ADVICE by the way, but does this help?

 

I came across some old emails from when I had to deal with Rossendales over fees coming to over £250. Incidentally they were added fraudulently but I wasn't knowledgeable about this at the time.

 

It wasn't until later that I found out for sure I'd been, (rhymes with damned). At no point did I deal with the bailiff and paid the council direct, less bailiff fees.

 

This was the email from the council notifying me that all charges levied by Rossendales had been cancelled, which was sent incidentally, before I'd delved into the unlawful aspect of their actions.

 

From: Debt Recovery Officer

Date: 27 May 09

To: Xxxx

Cc: Debt Recovery Manager

Subject: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION COUNCIL TAX ACCOUNT 550xxxxxxx

 

Dear Mr Xxxx

 

I was sorry to be informed that you have not had a reply concerning the query raised in March.

 

I have contacted Rossendales today and spoken to Xxxxx Xxxxx who advised she does not appear to have received my original e-mail. I have forwarded it to her this morning and she has posted a letter back to you today.

 

As you continued to pay direct to North East Lincolnshire Council, Rossendales have closed the account. Therefore, any charges that had been levied by Rossendales have now been cancelled.

 

I confirm all council tax payment has now been received for 2008/2009 financial year.

 

Regards,

 

Debt Recovery Officer

[Jamberson]

No, it doesn't help. We don't know the particulars of that case and it would be wrong to infer from that that payments to the council result in bailiff fees being waived.

 

Clearly sometimes there will be situations in which the council are in error, and the bailiffs should never have been instructed. And equally there are cases where they are not in error and the bailiff is acting legitimately.

 

If you want to provide this as a case study, please flesh it out. What, for example, was the issue raised in March? What is the stroy behind it?

[mellymoo74]

but its fine to advocate paying the bailiff directly? usually at a rate you cant afford presuming they will agree to a payment plan pmsl

[Jamberson]

No.

 

If you are going to pay an amount to either the bailiff or the council, it is more logical in my view to pay the bailiff, who is holding the account. The rest is your imagination.

[mellymoo74]

except it isnt, its my experience im going now troll feeding whilst fun for a while is ultimately boring

[Jamberson]

Thanks for your help. I'm sure the OP has benefited greatly from your contribution.

[outlawla]

No, it doesn't help. We don't know the particulars of that case and it would be wrong to infer from that that payments to the council result in bailiff fees being waived.

 

Clearly sometimes there will be situations in which the council are in error, and the bailiffs should never have been instructed. And equally there are cases where they are not in error and the bailiff is acting legitimately.

 

If you want to provide this as a case study, please flesh it out. What, for example, was the issue raised in March? What is the stroy behind it?

 

 

 

I had simply emailed the following to the council, after earlier that month, settling all outstanding monies owed to the council through internet banking when the council refused to take payment:

 

 

 

From: coutlawla

Sent: 16 March 09

To: Debt Recovery Officer

Cc: Xxxxx; Cllr - Xxxx

Subject: Council Tax/Rossendales

 

Dear Xxxxx

 

Re: 550xxxxxxx: Request for Information

 

I write pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and request you send me the following.

 

An itemised breakdown of all the fees charges orders costs and other monies that make up the total obtained* by your bailiff.

 

The name and address of the court that certificated your bailiff.

 

I look forward to receiving the above at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

 

* The fees were in fact never obtained, only charged for

Edited September 9, 2012 by outlawla