Government releases Good Practice Guidance to Local Authorities regarding bailiffs and collection of Council Tax

[tomtubby]

A copy of the Guidance still does not appear on the CIVEA website ???

 

 

http://www.civea.co.uk/

[brassnecked]

A copy of the Guidance still does not appear on the CIVEA website ???

 

 

http://www.civea.co.uk/

 

I'm sure that the bailiffs tame union would rather it wasn't on their site, restraint of trade etc.

[tomtubby]

As far as I am concerned, the CIVEA site is to provide guidance to members of the public and therefore, the document should be featured.

 

Another point worth making is that their Director General; Dr Steve Everson wrote a highly critical article in a trade magazine last year aimed at the local authorities who insist on the bailiff companies paying "kickbacks" to the council. CIVEA should therefore be delighted with this part of DCLG's Guidance.

[Mark1960]

Council tax: the £3.5 billion rip-off

 

Things might be changing, as far as getting more transparency over these issues. Secretary of state for the Department of Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, is having his say on these matters.

 

Of particular relevance is Paragraph 3.4 of the report:

 

I've got a full breakdown-It lists stuff such as "Recovery officer travel time to court £12.00"

 

Which is fine if they were just taking me to court but as they took another 400 that day,this charge should have been divided by 400.

 

Theres loads like that on the list as well.

[lamma]

Exactly. Also, it is often the case that Magistrate's Court is in very close proximity to the Council Offices. In such circumstance let us posit five minutes travelling time door to door time - divided by 400. Three quarters of a second on per case basis. Three quarters of a second = 12 gbp. I second = 16 gbp. An hourly rate of 57,600 gbp. Pay for an 8 hour day of 460,800 gbp I will not bother to calculate the yearly salary this person must be on. Can this be anything but Fraud ?

[Mark1960]

Exactly. Also, it is often the case that Magistrate's Court is in very close proximity to the Council Offices. In such circumstance let us posit five minutes travelling time door to door time - divided by 400. Three quarters of a second on per case basis. Three quarters of a second = 12 gbp. I second = 16 gbp. An hourly rate of 57,600 gbp. Pay for an 8 hour day of 460,800 gbp I will not bother to calculate the yearly salary this person must be on. Can this be anything but Fraud ?

 

I have written to my council,pointing out that it would be cheaper to employ 2 full time staff just to deal with the summons & LO processes.Needless to say they have not responded.

[solon]

Let us see what happens. I have experience of this. About a year ago Waltham Forest Council sent me a letter to attend court because I was late with one instalment on my council tax. It was the last one of the year and I thought I had paid it.They wanted an extra £212.00 or thereabouts in "court fees". Also, I had NOT received a written reminder. I paid the missed month and appealed against the ridiculous fees charge. They rejected my appeal because they said they had posted the letter. ONE YEAR LATER I received the reminder letter pushed through my letter box by some private group that Waltham Forest apparently uses to deliver mail. I wrote to the Council to request a refund, to a Liz Appiah, but she did not even reply. I then applied under an FOI request to find if other Waltham Forest residents had complained of not receiving reminders. Appiah replied that she had that information but was not willing to release it! So much for transparent government. I'm still waiting for the refund of money that I was bullied into paying for a reminder that was not delivered until about a year after the date set to appoint bailiffs. I wonder what kind of arrangement Waltham Forest has with bailiffs.

[holland-day]

Seems like puppet talk from another 'pie in the sky' Gov official and Governments have to be seen as 'doing something'. Citizens advice have had a 38% increase in complaints about council tax bailiffs using illegal enforcement's. However, it doesn't seem as though this is a new law of authority? It's only guidelines and council staff are not even aware of any changes. Bailiffs will do want they want, as always, because the people at the heart of this problem (council staff), are not educated in bailiff law. Therefore, people will still continue to pay bailiffs what they want and council authorities look good for collecting money at the expense of hard-up people...

[outlawla]

Harrow's 8% kick-back is back to haunt them...

 

Harrow Council labelled an 'exploitative regime' by Tory MP

 

In regards a couple of FoIs it wouldn't commit to admitting how many van attendance fees were charged on the same visit as a levy or where no levy had taken place, but caved in and waived section 43 (commercial prejudice exemption) and released details of its fees contract with Newlyn and Chandlers.

[brassnecked]

Harrow's 8% kick-back is back to haunt them...

 

Harrow Council labelled an 'exploitative regime' by Tory MP

 

In regards a couple of FoIs it wouldn't commit to admitting how many van attendance fees were charged on the same visit as a levy or where no levy had taken place, but caved in and waived section 43 (commercial prejudice exemption) and released details of its fees contract with Newlyn and Chandlers.

And the shameless spokesperson did their best to justify the situation.

[solon]

This thing with Harrow is fascinating. I can't say it surprises me. After the fall of the old Soviet Union, much of Eastern Europe came to be run as what was called gangster capitalism. I think many councils in England today have taken gangster capitalism as their business model.

 

Consider Waltham's Forest's demand for more than £200 to me, for sending a letter (or claiming to have sent one) to set a date for a court hearing. Do me a favour. How can that that be anything more than a blatant rip off? I can't believe that they don't even have to provide proof of attempted delivery. At over £200 you would think they could pay for recorded delivery. You would think that the courts would insist on it. I got no letter of reminder(until many months after the date of the hearing, when a bunch called FDM pushed a "reminder" through my letter box. Maybe they thought that was funny).

 

All the scams some councils use to screw money out of people in this area reminds me of the old cowboy clampers, before some of their more outrageous practices were finally outlawed. In fact, bailiffs and cowboy clampers may not always be a million miles removed from each other.

 

If councils need to make savings they might first look at the ridiculously inflated salaries that their completely incompetent senior officers pay themselves. The guiding principles of these people is not "soak the rich". It's "soak the poor". I suppose that they find the poor more vulnerable and easier to bully.

[tomtubby]

From the many queries that appear on the forum it is becoming very worrying indeed that local authorities (and bailiffs) appear to be ignoring the Guidance released a few months ago by Eric Pickles.

 

If a bailiff fails to act in accordance with the Guidance then it is very important for the debtor to send a Formal Complaint to the local authority.

 

A copy of the Guidance can be read here:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/council-tax