Discussion on pay bailiff or council direct and fees etc

[i hate bailiffs]

by paying money to bailiff company they will take there made up fees van attendance fee ect ect before any money has gone to the council

 

if you can payments direct to the council using there online system or automated phone line

 

if it is not this current years council tax it is a non priority debt

[sequenci]

by paying money to bailiff company they will take there made up fees van attendance fee ect ect before any money has gone to the council

 

if you can payments direct to the council using there online system or automated phone line

 

if it is not this current years council tax it is a non priority debt

 

a) Regardless of who you pay it is likely that you'll still have to pay any bailiff's fees

b) council tax is ALWAYS a priority debt.

[sequenci]

Thats ok. I was just going by general consensus sequenci. I have no problems admitting i am wrong. You learn something new each day.

 

It's all good. I'm always learning on here too! I know an awful lot about debts but not a great deal about everything else!

[i hate bailiffs]

a) Regardless of who you pay it is likely that you'll still have to pay any bailiff's fees

b) council tax is ALWAYS a priority debt.

 

only CURRENT year is a priority debt

in paying direct there bis no made up fees

 

in the past on more than just the one year i have never paid bailiffs or there fees

[sequenci]

only CURRENT year is a priority debt

in paying direct there bis no made up fees

 

in the past on more than just the one year i have never paid bailiffs or there fees

 

As I said, any council tax debt is a priority debt as there is no difference in the enforcement mechanisms available to the local authorities. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sadly mistaken.

 

So long as you stick to the rules you may not ever need to pay bailiffs at all. That said it is likely that the local authorities could pass on the relevant fees to the bailiffs if they (the councils) are paid directly.

[MARTIN3030]

As far as I know the Bailiffs get the first bite of the Cherry from any payments made.

[sequenci]

As far as I know the Bailiffs get the first bite of the Cherry from any payments made.

 

Yup, that's what usually happens matey.

[freakyleaky]

Thread moved to Bailiffs forum.

[brassnecked]

Yes if someone decides to pay the council directly, and the bailiff is prevented from gaining a levy, one should add £42.50 to the total, to allow for legitimate first and second visit fees, no levy and they can charge no more, no attending to remove, van fee, or admin fee is allowed in the absence of a levy. Well an admin fee isn't in the regulations.

[Jamberson]

Perfect example of the so-called "consensus" being a fiction. Sadly there are many such instances on the forum over the last six months or so. I have lost count of the number of times I have read "the council is 100% responsible for the action of their agents." Pure nonsense. And pay the council direct, and all the bailiff fees evaporate. More nonsense.

 

A good lesson for people not to repeat things they have heard ("consensus") and just stick to advising on matters they have some expertise on.

[outlawla]

Perfect example of the so-called "consensus" being a fiction. Sadly there are many such instances on the forum over the last six months or so. I have lost count of the number of times I have read "the council is 100% responsible for the action of their agents." Pure nonsense. And pay the council direct, and all the bailiff fees evaporate. More nonsense.

 

A good lesson for people not to repeat things they have heard ("consensus") and just stick to advising on matters they have some expertise on.

 

 

I notice you've never bothered addressing my responses after I've gone to the trouble of supplying information you've requested with regards payment direct to the council. Why is this?

[brassnecked]

Perfect example of the so-called "consensus" being a fiction. Sadly there are many such instances on the forum over the last six months or so. I have lost count of the number of times I have read "the council is 100% responsible for the action of their agents." Pure nonsense. And pay the council direct, and all the bailiff fees evaporate. More nonsense.

 

A good lesson for people not to repeat things they have heard ("consensus") and just stick to advising on matters they have some expertise on.

Jambersion as a board member on a charity, I am personally liable along with the CEO, and for any action or omission of a criminal or tortious nature, by one of our agents or contractors, it is no different for the council or HMCS, so as per the case of Marstons where the non-debtor's mother was assaulted HMCS are liable jointly and severally WITH Marstons for the injury. If a bailiff goes postal and injures a debtor or otherwise acts unlawfully, the council IS liable for this ALONG with their bailiff.

 

You are correct that bailiff fees don't evaporate, unless they are faulty, as in phantom visit, random attending to remove and head h applied with a visit fee at the first visit, not all bailiffs are naughty, but it is the nature of the beast that on CAG we will deal with more naughty ones. This is why the advice is to prevent a levy, and then only pay the First and Second visit fees that are liable and should then be paid.

Edited September 20, 2012 by brassnecked

[sequenci]

I always thought that the councils would be, to some degree, vicariously liable for the misconduct of the bailiffs that they contract out to?!? I guess this could only be up to a reasonable point though?!? I would imagine there could be arguments/rules for foreseeability and remoteness etc.

[i hate bailiffs]

Jambersion as a board member on a charity, I am personally liable along with the CEO, and for any action or omission of a criminal or tortious nature, by one of our agents or contractors, it is no different for the council or HMCS, so as per the case of Marstons where the non-debtor's mother was assaulted HMCS are liable jointly and severally WITH Marstons for the injury. If a bailiff goes postal and injures a debtor or otherwise acts unlawfully, the council IS liable for this ALONG with their bailiff.

 

well jamberson surely come across in his charity work the bailiffs charges for EXAMPLE

 

3 liability orders

3x first visit fee £24.50

3x second visit fee £18.00

3x levy fee£42

3xvan fee £180

 

total bailiff charges £793.50

that is just a example don't want to start a argument on what could be a total debt owed to the council of a few hundred pounds

 

i stand by what i say payments direct to council to prevent bailiffs having that`bite`

 

current years debt is a priority not old it has not been confirmed if it is current years or not

 

:banplease::banplease::banplease::banplease:

[sequenci]

current years debt is a priority not old it has not been confirmed if it is current years or not

 

:banplease::banplease::banplease::banplease:

 

As a qualified money adviser / debt counsellor I can assure you that council tax of any year will be always be regarded as a priority debt. Thiis is a material fact. Hope that makes sense

[brassnecked]

I always thought that the councils would be, to some degree, vicariously liable for the misconduct of the bailiffs that they contract out to?!? I guess this could only be up to a reasonable point though?!? I would imagine there could be arguments/rules for foreseeability and remoteness etc.

Don't think they can use remoteness in the case of marstons and HMCS, with their ongoing issues. If enough people challenge criminality by bailiffs, Floodgates argument may be used to limit damage

[Jamberson]

Yes, there is some responsibility on the council. My issue is the continuous use of the phrase "100 percent responsible" which is not just misleading, it is plain wrong. Bailiffs carry responsibility for their actions.

 

Anyway, it's a distraction to this post - sorry.

 

@Outlawla - please remind me where your repsonses are and I will be happy to take a look and reply to you.

[outlawla]

....@Outlawla - please remind me where your repsonses are and I will be happy to take a look and reply to you.

 

 

Posts #19 and #25 should cover it...

[Jamberson]

Well, I did repsond to it! I pointed out, which is true, that one case study doesn't establish a generalised rule, and in any case, you gave hardly any background for me or anyone to judge your case. Also, you don't know if the bailiffs are going to resume chasing the debt.

 

This was posted on this forum by someone yesterday: "I have had to deal with newlyn for council tax and paid them but the last payment directly to the council. newlyn asked £249 fee".So you see bailiffs still chasing debts because someone paid the council instead. At best, it's a gamble.

[outlawla]

.....This was posted on this forum by someone yesterday: "I have had to deal with newlyn for council tax and paid them but the last payment directly to the council. newlyn asked £249 fee".So you see bailiffs still chasing debts because someone paid the council instead. At best, it's a gamble.

 

I don't doubt the bailiff will insist on his dubious fees being paid. But, unless the council pass these on to the bailiff firm, leaving debt still owing to the council, the bailiff will have no liability order to collect anything.

 

As far as I see it, the bailiff will then only have open to him a personal claim through whatever court these things are processed.

[Jamberson]

That might be true in your case (I couldn't say) but it doesn't extend to all other cases. There are plenty of examples on this forum where the bailiff has a warrant and has done chargeable work and is owed money - and people are just told to go and start making payments to the council on the assumption that this will resolve things. It's totally irresponsible advice.

[outlawla]

It is equally irresponsible to advise a debtor to blindly pay money to the bailiff.

 

A more responsible way to advise someone in these circumstances would be for the debtor to make enquiries with the local authority into whether the Liability Order would be settled if they were to pay all council tax outstanding directly to the council. Admittedly some councils would be reluctant to state this, and would no doubt reiterate that the bailiff must still be paid. This however, would be something between the debtor and bailiff firm if the authority did not forward fees on to them.

[i hate bailiffs]

That might be true in your case (I couldn't say) but it doesn't extend to all other cases. There are plenty of examples on this forum where the bailiff has a warrant and has done chargeable work and is owed money - and people are just told to go and start making payments to the council on the assumption that this will resolve things. It's totally irresponsible advice.

 

it does resolve things it stops people being shafted by bailiffs and there made up fees

never have i seen it mention bailiffs fees will go away

 

what i do know the last two times bailiffs have had the unfortunate pleasure to knock on my door they were dealt with left promptly and debt squared up top the council

and i never paid the bailiffs so it can happen

 

perhaps you should remember that if people don't play ball with the bailiffs they WILL and DO give it then returns to the council and not encourage them to have dealings with the bailiffs

and paying all those made up fees

[sequenci]

The council would still have an obligation to pay the fees to the bailiff, and it's vital that those fees are accurate.

[outlawla]

The council would still have an obligation to pay the fees to the bailiff, and it's vital that those fees are accurate.

 

I believe in most circumstances, the council will only pass fees on to the bailiff firm, if payment made to the authority is over and above the amount needed to settle outstanding council tax.