Rossendales + CTAX benefit overpayment:Vunerable Ex forces with PTSS- help

[shylass]

I am wondering if anyone could help me please.

I am after some information for a friend of mine who has unfortunately found himself in a difficult situation.

 

He is an ex-soldier suffering with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and because of the pressure being put on him from Rossendales and the council, his mental health is deteriorating.

 

It all started about four years ago when he lived in a different city and under a different council to where he is now.

 

When he came out of the army he managed to find himself a home to rent claiming housing and council tax benefit as he was given incapacity benefit for his illness.

 

He was in the house a while before he felt he could no longer live there.

 

He told his landlord he was moving out of the house, but did not give his landlord a forwarding address as he didn't know at the time where he was going to.

 

He was living on the streets a few weeks and then found somewhere to stay in a different city with a Salvation Army hostel.

 

The Salvation Army hostel project worker was very helpful in faxing documentation across to the housing and council tax benefit section

to let them know he had moved on from the house and was therefore now staying at the Salvation Army hostel.

 

He has since moved on from the Salvation Army hostel as it was closing down due to cutbacks. Fortunateloy for him he has now found somewhere else to rent.

 

It came to light a couple of months ago that the benefits section had still been paying rent to his old landlord for the above mentioned house

long after he moved out and becasue of this they had also been paying his council tax too.

 

As a consequence bailiffs from Rossendales came knocking on his door saying that he was overpaid council tax benefits that he must pay back.

 

He is very annoyed that the council have taken him to court without him being aware as he wasn't able to stand up and argue his point about them already

having been informed by his project worker from the Salvation Army.

 

He is annoyed that they were informed of him moving away from the house, and that they are at fault for overpaying any council tax or housing benefits.

 

Does he have a leg to stand on now it has already been to court without his knowledge?

 

He said he doesn't want to pay anything as he has done nothing wrong and should not be made to pay for the council's mistake.

 

I would appreciate any feedback. Many thanks in advance.

[i hate bailiffs]

the council have a liability order rubber stamped by the court there is no defense to it unless not your debt or you don't owe it

and always goes with the council.

 

You need to find out what the council are claiming for and the balance oustanding

 

Bailiffs are powerless as long they have no levy

[brassnecked]

I am wondering if anyone could help me please. I am after some information for a friend of mine who has unfortunately found himself in a difficult situation. He is an ex-soldier suffering with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and because of the pressure being put on him from Rossendales and the council, his mental health is deteriorating.

 

It all started about four years ago when he lived in a different city and under a different council to where he is now. When he came out of the army he managed to find himself a home to rent claiming housing and council tax benefit as he was given incapacity benefit for his illness. He was in the house a while before he felt he could no longer live there. He told his landlord he was moving out of the house, but did not give his landlord a forwarding address as he didn't know at the time where he was going to. He was living on the streets a few weeks and then found somewhere to stay in a different city with a Salvation Army hostel. The Salvation Army hostel project worker was very helpful in faxing documentation across to the housing and council tax benefit section to let them know he had moved on from the house and was therefore now staying at the Salvation Army hostel.

 

He has since moved on from the Salvation Army hostel as it was closing down due to cutbacks. Fortunateloy for him he has now found somewhere else to rent.

 

It came to light a couple of months ago that the benefits section had still been paying rent to his old landlord for the above mentioned house long after he moved out and becasue of this they had also been paying his council tax too. As a consequence bailiffs from Rossendales came knocking on his door saying that he was overpaid council tax benefits that he must pay back.

 

He is very annoyed that the council have taken him to court without him being aware as he wasn't able to stand up and argue his point about them already having been informed by his project worker from the Salvation Army. He is annoyed that they were informed of him moving away from the house, and that they are at fault for overpaying any council tax or housing benefits.

 

Does he have a leg to stand on now it has already been to court without his knowledge? He said he doesn't want to pay anything as he has done nothing wrong and should not be made to pay for the council's c**k up.

 

I would appreciate any feedback. Many thanks in advance.

 

Hi shylass

He is likely vulnerable under the national Standards, has he a healthcare professional involved who can provide proof? contact the council and point out the vulnerability and ask them to call dossendales off, as he is vulnerable. You could try SSAFFA http://www.ssafa.org.uk/ and the British Legion for help. I,m sure others will be along soon to help also.

Edited January 12, 2013 by brassnecked

[dx100uk]

HI SL

 

i'll put the guys onto this

 

just be clear it would have been an LO that they got

 

there is no oppo to present yourself there.

 

its almost an automatic process.

 

should be able to sort this ok

 

just got to get the council to find the notification that was faxed over.

 

dx

[brassnecked]

It may be worth getting help grom the Forces charities i mentioned as they may be able to get some representation and help tackle dossers, if the council won't play ball as it were, after you have followed DX and I Hate bailiffs suggestions.

[dx100uk]

forces help is coming

 

might not be around till the morning though

 

dx

[ploddertom]

Which part of Rossendales are chasing him. As he has been overpaid on Benefits they may just have handed it to a Debt Collector - Rossendales Collect is one such service, they can be told to do one. Who actually received the monies that were paid - from what you say it sounds like they were paid direct to the ex- landlord in which case it should be him the Council should chase.

 

I also echo what others have said about the Forces and would include Help for Heroes in the list.

[brassnecked]

forces help is coming

 

might not be around till the morning though

 

dx

 

Excellent DX, and as PT has indicated it may be tossendales |DCA arm, in which case the Forces charities may help the council and dossers see the error of their ways, and chase the ex landlord

The counciland dossers MUST be made to understand the person is most definitely vulnerable and SSAFA et al can do this.

Edited January 12, 2013 by brassnecked

[shylass]

HI SL

 

just got to get the council to find the notification that was faxed over.

 

dx

 

Unfortunately the council are not admitting to ever receiving the fax, they have decided just to blatantly ignore it. The business with the rent is being sorted out by a solicitor, but unfortunately they are not able to help him with the council tax debate. Also it is interesting to note that the landlord who was claiming his rent, is now in prison serving a 12 month sentence which is unrelated to this matter.

[shylass]

Thank you to everyone who has replied. All your advice is greatly appreciated.

[shylass]

Which part of Rossendales are chasing him. As he has been overpaid on Benefits they may just have handed it to a Debt Collector - Rossendales Collect is one such service .

 

It's definitely the bailiffs as they have issued a Liability Order.

 

 

 

Who actually received the monies that were paid - from what you say it sounds like they were paid direct to the ex- landlord in which case it should be him the Council should chase

 

The council have been in touch with the ex-landlord to try and get the money back, but he denies that he was told that he had left the property and so the council are trying to get the money from my friend instead.

[Crapstone]

If your friend has evidence to say he was not living there at the time and it was empty then the Council has no choice but to go after the landlord that received the benefit.

 

Liability Orders are not taken on case by case in the courts. They are just a whole load of files of names and addresses all rubber-stamped at the same time and it doesn't matter what the situation is if the people named don't attend.

 

Hopefully they will get this sorted soon.

[brassnecked]

What council is this?

As he left the flat and went into a Salvation Army Hostel, perhaps the Salvation Army could provide a letter indicating what dates he occupied a room at the Hostel, as back up proof to the council, and force them to accept he is not liable for this council tax, they cannot then deny having evidence the debt is not valid.

 

Next step I feel is the council must be persuaded to remove the account from bailiffs, as he is clearly vulnerable under the National Standards, and apply for the LO to be quoshed (only the council can do this) therefore removing any legitimacy to Rossers enforcement if they persist attempting to enforce, after being told to hand the account back , reduce his account to zero, and pursue the landlord, who I'm sure put other tenants into the property after he left.

 

What income does he have, is it all still from means tested benefit? This is important, as this also makes bailiff action inappropriate, and further grounds the vulnerability.

 

I hope the Forces charities will take this on ASAP. as they will be able to do what I have suggested or use their own methods to sort it.

for info:

 

Vulnerable situations

 Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that

they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially

excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes

procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about

how such situations should be dealt with. The appropriate use of

discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance

could cover every situation, therefore the agent has a duty to

contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations

where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern. If

necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor if further

action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is

needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement

agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to

accusations of inappropriate behaviour.

 

 Enforcement agents must withdraw from domestic premises if the

only person present is, or appears to be, under the age of 18; they

can ask when the debtor will be home - if appropriate.

 

 Enforcement agents must withdraw without making enquiries if the

only persons present are children who appear to be under the age

of 12.

 

 Wherever possible, enforcement agents should have

arrangements in place for rapidly accessing translation services

when these are needed, and provide on request information in

large print or in Braille for debtors with impaired sight.

 

 Those who might be potentially vulnerable include:

 the elderly;

 people with a disability;

 the seriously ill;

 the recently bereaved;

 single parent families;

 pregnant women;

 unemployed people; and,

 those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or

reading English.

Edited January 13, 2013 by brassnecked

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Time I think to make a formal complaint to the CEO of the LA invoved here as soon as possible, there have a been a few cases like this where vets are ''displaced persons'' and not receiving the help needed.

 

The requitrements of the National Standards most certainly apply to this guy and the LA should be made aware of their failings.

 

I think Brassnecked is probably right in that this a debt collection exercise rather than bailiff enforcement.

 

Certainly the RBL can advise and help in other ways too also H for H is worth contacting.

[brassnecked]

Time I think to make a formal complaint to the CEO of the LA invoved here as soon as possible, there have a been a few cases like this where vets are ''displaced persons'' and not receiving the help needed.

 

The requitrements of the National Standards most certainly apply to this guy and the LA should be made aware of their failings.

 

I think Brassnecked is probably right in that this a debt collection exercise rather than bailiff enforcement.

 

Certainly the RBL can advise and help in other ways too also H for H is worth contacting.

 

Agreed Brigadier, Formal Complaint should be copied to Leader, and the MP for both where he is now, and where the LO was issued.It was DX not I who suggested DCA rather than bailiff, this guy must be assisted and the council given a severe lesson in how such actions like this will lead to severe reputational damage, and as for Rossers:mad2: it would appear they are acting as bailiffs, as a Liability Order has been granted against the person for a period he was in a Sally Ann hostel, in a completely different town, and council say they have lost or never had a Fax proving this, so they will carry on enforcing thank you!!! :mad2:

 

The council MUST quosh this LO to prevent more muppetry and possible unlawful or disproportionate enforcement.

Edited January 13, 2013 by brassnecked

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I would very much like to correspond with this guy, it would be easier than going through a third party, if he wishes to he can pm me and I will do all I can to assist.

 

Regimental associations are also often able to assist in these situations.

[brassnecked]

Excellent Brigadier, could you put the gent in contact with the Brigadier shylass?

[Surfer01]

Surely the over payment was made to the LL and the council should be asking the LL for the money to be paid back. As applies for the CT over payment as a credit should be raised and passed back to the benefits agency or am I missing something somewhere?

[brassnecked]

Surely the over payment was made to the LL and the council should be asking the LL for the money to be paid back. As applies for the CT over payment as a credit should be raised and passed back to the benefits agency or am I missing something somewhere?

No you aren't missing anything, we are assuming that the HB was paid direct to the LL, this needs to be confirmed, as to the CTB, yes they were made aware, of the move so the LO needs to be quoshed or Dossers are likely to enforce whether council takes it off them or not for their fees, as they are muppets. As the LL is in prison for other matters it is quite possible that some apparatchik in the council decided that as LL is unreachable, due to residing in one of Her Majesty's hotels, the ex serviceman even though vulnerable and on benefits is a legitimate target, for the (non)debt .

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Any overpayment made direct to a land lord is recoverable from the claimant.

[brassnecked]

Any overpayment made direct to a land lord is recoverable from the claimant.

In which case involvement of a service charity as advocate, is imperative, to prevent oppressive enforcement against a vulnerable veteran, who obviously is vulnerable under the National Standards. Rossendales will carry on and hound this person otherwise.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Indeed so I await contact!!!

[Surfer01]

No you aren't missing anything, we are assuming that the HB was paid direct to the LL, this needs to be confirmed, as to the CTB, yes they were made aware, of the move so the LO needs to be quoshed or Dossers are likely to enforce whether council takes it off them or not for their fees, as they are muppets. As the LL is in prison for other matters it is quite possible that some apparatchik in the council decided that as LL is unreachable, due to residing in one of Her Majesty's hotels, the ex serviceman even though vulnerable and on benefits is a legitimate target, for the (non)debt .

 

 

OP states quite clearly "It came to light a couple of months ago that the benefits section had still been paying rent to his old landlord for the above mentioned house long after he moved out and becasue of this they had also been paying his council tax too."

We have to assume LL pocketed money illegally. As claimant notified HB that they were no longer living on the premises, the HB should be chasing the LL. There should be no issues with CT and money being refunded back to benefits section.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The onus for repaying over payments made directly to a land lord is on the claimant, the LL actually claims nothing at any time.

[1Loretta]

Any overpayment made direct to a land lord is recoverable from the claimant.

 

That is not correct, if the Landlord is being paid direct from the Council and the claimant is then no longer or found to be not entitled to that benefit the Landlord has to pay it back, this is why so many Landlords don't like tenants who are in receipt of Housing benefit. This man may not have been entitled to Housing Benefit in this particular flat because he was not living there and was claiming it somewhere else, even the Salvation Army have to be paid the the accomodation they provide and I expect when he went their hostel they helped him make a claim for that and he would have been paying them or the SA would have been being paid direct by that Council and someone should or would have dealt with cancelling one claim and starting a new one. The Council most definitely should be claiming any overpayment back from the Landlord not the claimant.

Edited January 13, 2013 by 1Loretta