Paid council tax direct, bailiff charging fees, what are their rights?

[Peterbard]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/3395/regulation/5/made

 

Is that what you were after?

[Terraferma]

Thanks for the links, both.

 

As a rule when the bailiff firm is Equita or Ross & Roberts Capita are usually the councils back office provider to administrate and enforce council tax (when you phone your council you could be speaking to a capita employee ) Capita own 2 firms of bailiffs Equita and Ross & Roberts

 

Interesting, how can I find out if my LA back office is run by Capita?

[dx100uk]

theres a list here somewhere

 

let me go see if I can find it

 

dx

[dx100uk]

type the name of your council in a search engine

 

dx

[ploddertom]

 

Interesting, how can I find out if my LA back office is run by Capita?

 

 

Ask them.

[Terraferma]

type the name of your council in a search engine

 

dx

 

Tried that, nothing coming up of any merit.

 

Ask them.

 

sensible approach, do they give that information out over the phone? One thing I have not found to date is that my LA are helpful.

 

theres a list here somewhere

 

let me go see if I can find it

 

dx

 

Would be great if you can.

 

I've complained formally to both Equita and the LA. I don't expect Equita to be compliant or responsive. In fact, i don't really expect either party to be responsive to this from my experience to date.

 

For this reason, I have involved my local MP and his office being very helpful/supportive helping me in the background. They have offered to contact both parties on my behalf, to date I have no asked them to so holding them back to see how both react to just me before. I am about to ask them to do so now.

 

I am also due to meet him to discuss the wider problem and what can be done from a national government perspective (not expecting huge traction here, but if no one tries, nothing happens, right?)

 

The more accurate, well researched information I have at my disposal the better I can deal with the LA/Equita's counter arguments and the less wriggle room they have in the first place.

 

At the moment, the LA have essentially put in writing that fees is not their business but a matter between debtor and Equita/bailiff. Despite the fact they know I am unhappy they did not offer any recourse or suggest I could make a complaint to them but directed me to speak with Equita directly.

 

I understand from the above, this is not the case and they DO have a duty of care.

 

From what I can see Equita are making a deliberate attempt to charge unlawful / excessive fees by multiple fee charging and charging for work not carried out (in my case). If they have done this to me, there is a very good change this is a wide-spread problem or even a standard policy to see what they can get away with.

 

Bailiffs have a duty to take care not to make unreasonable or improper charges, Longstaffe ex. p Robinson [1897] 49 EG 60 or Duncombe v Hicks [1898] 42 Sol Jo 343. Bailiff commits fraud under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 if he charges for work he has not done, HM Government in the House of Lords April 20 April 2007.

 

Your attention is respectfully drawn to a Government ruling made in the House of Lords on 20 April 2007 which confirmed a bailiff (or any other person) who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, Day v Davies [1938] 2 KB 74, Phillips v Viscount Canterbury (1843) 11 M&W 619, Braithwaite v Marriott (1862) 1 H&C 591 and Halliwell v Heywood (1862) 10 WR 780 - all ruled that debtors can recover unlawful fees and in my case refuse to pay them.

Multiple levies and multiple fee charging is contrary to a Local Government Ombudsman decision made on 10 July 2012 following complaint no 11 007 684 (on page 9) against Blaby District Council and the Local Government Ombudsman report of 29 November 2012.]

Anything else to add to the above?

 

I also understand they cannot charge a levy charge if a levy did not take place, but I cannot find the specific reference to this in the legislation, quote would be handy indeed.

[ploddertom]

What Council are you dealing with?

[Terraferma]

What Council are you dealing with?

 

I would rather not say on the public forum, I'd be highly surprised if Equita didn't monitor these forums, I would if I were them. And gives them a bit of an edge if they can see what advice I am getting in relation to my complaint.

[ploddertom]

Ok, I respect that. If you ring them you could ask if the person answering is an actual Council employee or one from Capita or another company. Another way of getting an idea is to go to the Council website and try to pay an account - Council Tax for example and see what URL you are pointed to fi Cpita then it maybe something like http://www.pay-ecapita or similar.

[Terraferma]

Ok, I respect that. If you ring them you could ask if the person answering is an actual Council employee or one from Capita or another company. Another way of getting an idea is to go to the Council website and try to pay an account - Council Tax for example and see what URL you are pointed to fi Cpita then it maybe something like http://www.pay-ecapita or similar.

 

HA. Brilliant, you're smart.

 

Yes, just been on their quick-pay website, and it says:

 

https://ip.e-paycapita.com/

 

[Terraferma]

Can anyone help clarify exactly what 'LEVY' means in relation to a liability order.

 

My understanding is that it describes collection of monies or goods, or cataloging of goods to be collected at a later date if you don't agree a payment with the bailiff.

 

So in order to 'levy' goods, you would need to be able to get inside a property?

[ploddertom]

In order to make a levy on goods - a list of your possessions that may be removed for sale by auction in order to satisfy your debt - the Bailiff needs to gain entry to your home by peaceful means - either you let him in or he opens a closed but unlocked door and walks in. If he has not gained access to your home he may levy on items of value that may be outside - BBQ, garden furniture but most notably a car. Many is the time they levy on a car that does not belong to the debtor then insist the debtor proves he does not own it.

[tomtubby]

Ploddertom.....very good answers given.

 

PS: Your inbox is FULL UP !!!

[ploddertom]

 

PS: Your inbox is FULL UP !!!

 

Emptied

[Terraferma]

In order to make a levy on goods - a list of your possessions that may be removed for sale by auction in order to satisfy your debt - the Bailiff needs to gain entry to your home by peaceful means - either you let him in or he opens a closed but unlocked door and walks in. If he has not gained access to your home he may levy on items of value that may be outside - BBQ, garden furniture but most notably a car. Many is the time they levy on a car that does not belong to the debtor then insist the debtor proves he does not own it.

 

Excellent. Thank you.

 

So, if a bailiff has not had access to your property and on the the alleged visitations you have not been in, then a 'levy' has not occurred.

 

So trying to charge for a levy in that case would be classed as charging for work not carried out, which is attempted fraud?

[unclebulgaria67]

Excellent. Thank you.

 

So, if a bailiff has not had access to your property and on the the alleged visitations you have not been in, then a 'levy' has not occurred.

 

So trying to charge for a levy in that case would be classed as charging for work not carried out, which is attempted fraud?

 

Yes it is attempted fraud. Bur the problem is that because the bailiff is employed by the council with court authority in the form of a LO, it is not often that bailiffs are told off. The Police see it as a civil matter and you have to follow up any complaint via the LGO.

 

Confuses me as to why this is considered a civil matter.

[outlawla]

Yes it is attempted fraud. Bur the problem is that because the bailiff is employed by the council with court authority in the form of a LO, it is not often that bailiffs are told off. The Police see it as a civil matter and you have to follow up any complaint via the LGO.

 

Confuses me as to why this is considered a civil matter.

 

The Department for Communities and Local Government's recent guidance has provided an argument for the police to treat it as criminal.

"

5

.

8

The Government consider that any fraudulent practices should be reported to the police as a criminal offence under the Fraud Act and that Local Authorities should terminate any contract with companies whose activities are proved fraudulent

.

 

Also; Lords Hansard transcript – 20 April 2007

 

Crime: Fraud

 

 

Lord Lucas

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

• Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]
  
  

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94

 

 

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal):

A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

 

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.