Rossendales Bailiff Council Tax*** account returned to council***RESULT!!

[i hate bailiffs]

The goods listed will not cover the debt the levy has been done for the financial gain to the bailiffs

 

The levy will be classed as invalid

Formal complaint to the council who are responsible for the bailiffs copy in local MP

 

keep things formal in writing no point in telephone calls with the council

[matt v atos]

Once a levy fee has been applied, the only fees which can be added are either a fee for an actual removal or a fee for attending to remove where no removal takes place. As I see it the fee on 23rd January of £110 can only be the fee for attending to remove where a removal did not take place (that could have been at the old address). They cannot charge £24.50 today (which is the value of a first visit fee for attending to levy where a levy does not take place).

 

You cannot avoid paying the balance. If you pay direct, the Regulations clearly state that any part payment made against a liability order must first pay the [bailiff] fees. If the council accept your payment against this debt, it must, by law pay the bailiff fees and the balance is always the original debt/arrears. The post regarding allocation is not relevant.

 

Can we clear this one up then move on as this is not helpful for the OP or anyone reading this looking for good advice. I read it as the council work for the bailiffs collecting there fees for them ?

Edited March 12, 2013 by matt v atos

[tomtubby]

The relevant legislation is Section 52(4) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended):

 

"Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in accordance with this Part, any sum recovered thereby which is less than the aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges, shall be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum."

 

In simple terms, as previously noted, this means that any costs or charges due in bailiff fees must be paid before the outstanding arrears. If the council receive payment direct, they MUST, by law, discharge the bailiff fees. So if you pay just the council tax arrears and not the fees, you will actually be paying the fees!

 

.

.

This is a most helpful post and confirms the position regarding bailiff fees (which is that with council tax recovery bailiff fees are legally deducted as a first charge with the balance being paid over to the local authority). It is a shame that local authorities do not adhere to this !!!

Edited March 13, 2013 by tomtubby

[matt v atos]

.

.

This is a most helpful post and confirms the position regarding bailiff fees (which is that with council tax recovery bailiff fees are legally deducted as a first charge with the balance being paid over to the local authority). It is a shame that local authorities do not adhere to this !!!

 

This is all fine and dandy but once all the fees which in most cases are not legal inflated made up racked up picked out of the air phantom visit levys on door mats neighbours cars milk bottles trees in the garden, chairs with three legs, there is nothing left to pay over to local authority.?

[brassnecked]

This is all fine and dandy but once all the fees which in most cases are not legal inflated made up racked up picked out of the air phantom visit levys on door mats neighbours cars milk bottles trees in the garden, chairs with three legs, there is nothing left to pay over to local authority.?

 

You must bear in mind the situation on fees, and challenge them for validity, that is why it is best to factor in £42,50 on top and pay it in when paying off a complete settlement to the council, even y installments to discharge visit fees, if all the others can be proved to be invalid. that would then clear the Lo with nowhere for the bailiff to go,

[matt v atos]

This is all fine and dandy but once all the fees which in most cases are not legal inflated made up racked up picked out of the air phantom visit levys on door mats neighbours cars milk bottles trees in the garden, chairs with three legs, there is nothing left to pay over to local authority.?

 

Also regarding paying the coucil direct Ive lost count of the post where this has been attempted and the council have refused saying its been passed to the bailiff you have to deal with them.

[seanamarts]

As much as I agree with you TT, it just dosnt work well that way.

 

Before the council hand any money over to the bailiff for their fee's they should be 100% sure that the bailiff has carried out the work correctly. Many dont and it maddens me to see that the council do not check, always taking the word of the bailiff.

 

Levies are done incorrectly and fee's are stacked up for work that is not done or fee's added that are not on the sch 5 listing.

 

Council's pretty much dont care about the aftermath that they have caused as long as they get what is owing to them.

 

If the bailiff wants people to stick to the regulations then they must also and so does the council. Its there written down, but many do not follow it, but will quote it even though they do not understand what they are quoting.

 

Perhaps a lesson on how to decipher these regulations when becoming a bailiff, or a council worker in the revenues dept;

[rattlywelshboy]

Thanks for all your help and comments, forgot to mention that two of my children are disabled on if which has very bad autism. I told the bailiff that he would be very upset to have a stranger or two come in the house and start removing stuff to which they said get them out of the house when we are here then.

 

Not the response I was expecting but what option do I have if I can't pay by Friday as they won't accept a proposal of two payments.

[les1954]

Thanks for all your help and comments, forgot to mention that two of my children are disabled on if which has very bad autism. I told the bailiff that he would be very upset to have a stranger or two come in the house and start removing stuff to which they said get them out of the house when we are here then.

 

Not the response I was expecting but what option do I have if I can't pay by Friday as they won't accept a proposal of two payments.

 

Does this not come under vulneralility

[les1954]

Does this not come under vulneralility

 

or even vulnerability?

[ploddertom]

Thanks for all your help and comments, forgot to mention that two of my children are disabled on if which has very bad autism. I told the bailiff that he would be very upset to have a stranger or two come in the house and start removing stuff to which they said get them out of the house when we are here then.

 

Not the response I was expecting but what option do I have if I can't pay by Friday as they won't accept a proposal of two payments.

 

If that is the case then you should write to the Council & Bailiffs outlining these facts and refer them to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents claiming to be potentially vulnerable. You will need to provide of this and usually a letter from a medical professional will suffice.

[seanamarts]

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/bailiffs-enforcement-officers/national-standards-enforcement-agents.pdf

 

This will help.

[rattlywelshboy]

Spoke to council again and expressed my concern about them entering, I was told by the recovery woman at the council that they can't just enter at their own will. I told her that if they do then I would hold the council responsible, I then got a call back saying that they will take the account back and to make an arrangement with them.

 

Thanks for all you help and support everyone.

[seanamarts]

This is very very good news, well done

 

Will amend the title.

[brassnecked]

Excellent news, I don't think the council could stomach the odium they would get if their bailiffs were shown to be upsetting an autistic child, even the fragrant Ms Green-Jones would not live that one down

[rattlywelshboy]

Thanks All

[tomtubby]

We appear to have a case of a Local Authority abiding by the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. EXCELLENT.

 

It is however important that you ensure that you check to see what charges have been applied to your account.

[rattlywelshboy]

Hi All,

 

Had rossendales turn up at my house saying that they have a magistrates order for unpaid council tax to the sum of £650 ish with an extra £24.50 fee for him,

 

I told him that I would look into this as I didn't beleive that this was the case and told him to politely go away,

which he actually did before telling me that he would be back with a van in 7 days.

 

I contacted the council and in fact was told that I did owe money but was only £120 as it turns out that my payments were being posted on my old account

which they sorted out and I paid the £120.00.

 

about 2 weeks passed and the same bailiff showed up asking for the full balance,

 

I showed him the receipt of the payment of the £120.00 but he claims that I still owe £530.00 and his fees on top which is now £42.50 (2 visits).

 

I told him where to go and said suggested that his office speak to the council as I don't owe a penny to them.

Also told him that if he didnt go I would cal the police.

 

He went but am still getting hand posted letters put through the door claiming they have a magistrates court order for £42.50 for unpaid council tax and fees

and they will come back to take my goods..(would like to see them try as I have no CT arrears..)

 

Can anyone tell me if I legally have to pay or are they just trying it on,

I dont mind paying what I owe or have to pay but wont be bullied into paying something that I shouldn't.

 

Thanks and sorry for the long post.

[BelstarBomb]

Hi, call the council and get them to call Rossendales off.

 

From personal experience I know that Rossendales can add fees for attendances that didn't happen etc.

 

If your payments were being posted to the correct account, Rossendales would not have attended your property, so it is up to the council to put them straight.

 

If the council and Rossendales cannot communicate effectively, that is not your fault.

 

They cannot take your goods as they have not entered your property to see what they can legally take.

 

As there are no arrears, they have no legal right to enter your property anyway.

 

And if they did, after showing them that you were no longer in arrears and the majority of the arrears was the council's accounting error.......

 

For your own peace of mind, get it in writing from the council as to what went on as well as confirmation that they will call Rossendales off, and send a copy of that to Rossendales politely telling them to bog off and if they want paying for any fees, ask the council!

 

Bel

[rattlywelshboy]

Thanks, I have spoken to council who have advised me that there is no amounts oustanding and that the liability order is no longer effective

and they they have recalled this account back from rossendales after I paid the acount off to them.

 

It seems that rossendales are trying to use the satisfied and no longer valid magistrates court order to collect their fees.

 

Surely this is not allowed, is it?

[BelstarBomb]

No it's not, but that's Rossendales for you!

 

Still get this all in writing though just in case there's a time lag........

[rattlywelshboy]

ok thanks.

[havinastella]

Moved to correct forum.

[dx100uk]

its a liability order

 

if he came ONCE before you paid the council then sadly I think you owe the 1st visit fee only.

 

dx

[brassnecked]

its a liability order

 

if he came ONCE before you paid the council then sadly I think you owe the 1st visit fee only.

 

dx

 

I would concur with DX, pay the £24.50 either into the council, and tell them that it is for Rossendales visit fee for which they are entitled or to Dossers themselves, but they would then start demanding what they think they are owed rather than the actuality. They are like that.