That Hedder H fee again can a non debtor make a formal complaint to the council and the LGO i

[hallowitch]

I have a wee thing going with a local councillor regarding the Hedder H fee being charged my councils stand on this is the fee can be charged without the physical removal of goods This lovely man is going the extra mile for me with this and I don't want to let him down

 

He is going to meet with someone from the council and he has asked if I want to go

I will take as much info as I can to prove my/our case

 

What I want to know is if they still insist that the fee can be charged can I as Joe Public make a formal complaint (would a formal complaint be the correct procedure )

 

If I cant where would I go from here if the council insist the fee can be charged

 

Thanks

[tomtubby]

The "Head H" fee is one that the enforcement industry has misinterpreted to suit their own financial position. This is a a fee that should NOT be charged at all !!

 

It is vital to go "backwards" to read the origin of this fee and in doing so; the local authorities will know precisly where they are going wrong. If you can PM me I can get the documents over to you. Theses will be VITAL to your meeting.

 

Sadly, there are a number of bailiff companies that are abusing a similar fee when enforcing an unpaid PCN. They refer to this as being "schedule 8 fee". Absolute nonsense.

[lamma]

"a similar fee when enforcing an unpaid pcn. They refer to this as being "schedule 8 fee" "

 

What on earth !!!

[ploddertom]

Jacobs and Bristow & Sutor appear to be the worst offenders about this and if challenged refer you to the announcement made by CIVEA http://www.civea.co.uk/news-5.htm . They fail to see the refernce to the Regulations as that suits them to forget. However if you look more closely you will come across something similar to this:

 

Header H Fee states:

Where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender in the circumstances referred to in Regulation 45(4);

 

Regulation 45 (4) then states:

(4) Where an authority has seized goods of the debtor in pursuance of the distress, but before sale of those goods the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount, the sale shall not be proceeded with and the goods shall be made available for collection by the debtor.

 

What this means:

The Bailiff seizes your goods and as you fail to pay the monies outstanding he reattends and removes the said goods and a sale is arranged for them. In the meantime you then pay the outstanding monies including all fees. The sale then has to be cancelled and you are then free to collect the goods. Please note the part highlighted which is a clear indication that goods must have been removed.

 

Don't forget your Council will have been indoctrinated by the Bailiffs.

[ploddertom]

Think you will also find the LGO condemned Councils & Bailiffs for allowing this to be charged!

[hallowitch]

Thanks for the reply tomtubby I have a feeling my council are going to take the stand the fees are correct regardless of any info I provide the councillor wants the debtors reimbursed and that's a lot of money 2994 Hedder H fees and 197 attendance to remove fees charged the same day as the levy so I can see this is going to be a monumental task

 

my intentions is to go with the councillor take as much information as I can to prove the fee should not be charged

 

Before I went to see the councillor I sent him a link to CAG. Local government ombudsman reports. and I printed out the relevant parts of regulation 45 and 45(b) charges connected with distress of The Council tax (Administration and Enforcement) regulations any further information would be gratefully received

 

PM sent thanks

[tomtubby]

H/W.

 

Can I ask which bailiff provider this LA use?

[hallowitch]

H/W.

 

Can I ask which bailiff provider this LA use?

Welsh council(not sure if this makes a difference) and they use Jacobs . Rossendale's and Excel

[tomtubby]

Do each of these companies charge a "Head H "fee"?

 

The biggest problem by far is the way in which bailiff companies are charging an "attending to remove" fee at the same time as the visit to levy.

 

This is worse abuse of the statutory fee scale that I have ever seen and it would be very interesting to know whether the contract with each of these companies allows such a fee to be charged BEFORE a valid levy has been made upon goods.

 

With the enforcement of unpaid council tax the regulations are VERY CLEAR indeed that an "attending to remove" fee cannot be charged UNLESS a PRIOR VALID LEVY had been undertaken.

 

Sadly, local authorities have an astonishing lack of knowledge with regards the statutory fee scales and this is evident in their lack of understanding with regards to a "van fee" !!

 

The problem is that over time, local authorities are misleading the public with regard to this fee but calling it either an "enforcement fee" or "van fee". This can only be intentional.

 

The statutory regulations are VERY CLEAR that FOLLOWING a levy a bailiff may charge an "attending to remove" fee.

 

Once again, the local authority needs to be aware that the LGO report against Ealing Council is STILL VALID !!

 

Lastly, your LA may be interested to know that within the past 2 weeks approx 5 London LA's have been reported to the District Auditor regarding bailiff fees ( amongst other serious points).

[hallowitch]

I started this because of outlaws freedom of information request and I knew this councillor would be very interested in helping me I had been in touch with him a few times about bailiffs in our area he is not my councillor but I read a news paper article and he wasn't very nice about bailiffs in our area

 

Hedder H fee

Q.1 the number of council tax cases sent tobailiffs for enforcement by Wrexham County Borough Councilincurring the fee;

 

 

 

a) total

 

Rossendales Jacobs Excel

 

 

 

2009/2010 - 33 1047 282

 

2010/2011 - 224 540 366

 

2011/2012 - 258 340 348

 

2012/2013 - 122 113 191

 

 

 

 

 

 

My council don't hold the information and had to request it from the bailiffs firms Jacobs came up with 2 different figures for the Hedder H fee being charged

 

Only Rossendale's could provide the info about the attendance to remove fee and it was charged 197 times over 4 years Excel stated they did not have this information however the answer would be none

Edited October 22, 2013 by hallowitch

[outlawla]

Do each of these companies charge a "Head H "fee"?

 

There's something relevant in the above that was emphasised in a report to the police....

 

 

"

Where an authority uses more than one bailiff firm

it is worth noting those which have stated one but not the other of its contractors charge the fee.

 

Havant Borough Council use Equita and Ross and Roberts but have stated where Equita do not levy costs under schedule 5 (H), Ross & Roberts do, but are unable to split these out from other costs and fees for disclosure.

 

South Gloucestershire Council use two different bailiff firms for council tax but state Rundle & Co do not charge header H on any case, whilst its other contractor, Bristow & Sutor, quite liberally do.

 

The significance of this being the negligence on the part of the council if it allows one contractor to charge whilst at the same time does not question why its other bailiff firm has decided not to risk legal challenge.

[lookinforinfo]

Is there any mileage in this -

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210478/Guidance_on_enforcement_of_CT_arrears.pdf

 

5.6 Local Authorities remain responsible for the

action of contractors.

Councillors should

regularly scrutinise the operation of outsourced

contracts; and

the broader use of

such recovery action must command and

continue to command public support and

confidence.”

 

5.7 Public concern has been raised about the practice of some bailiffs undertaking

‘phantom visits’ – charging fees for action when no action was actually taken.

 

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 wh

ose activities are proved fraudulent.

[lamma]

Do each of these companies charge a "Head H "fee"?

 

The biggest problem by far is the way in which bailiff companies are charging an "attending to remove" fee at the same time as the visit to levy.

 

This is worse abuse of the statutory fee scale that I have ever seen and it would be very interesting to know whether the contract with each of these companies allows such a fee to be charged BEFORE a valid levy has been made upon goods.

 

With the enforcement of unpaid council tax the regulations are VERY CLEAR indeed that an "attending to remove" fee cannot be charged UNLESS a PRIOR VALID LEVY had been undertaken.

 

Sadly, local authorities have an astonishing lack of knowledge with regards the statutory fee scales and this is evident in their lack of understanding with regards to a "van fee" !!

 

The problem is that over time, local authorities are misleading the public with regard to this fee but calling it either an "enforcement fee" or "van fee". This can only be intentional.

 

The statutory regulations are VERY CLEAR that FOLLOWING a levy a bailiff may charge an "attending to remove" fee.

 

Once again, the local authority needs to be aware that the LGO report against Ealing Council is STILL VALID !!

 

Lastly, your LA may be interested to know that within the past 2 weeks approx 5 London LA's have been reported to the District Auditor regarding bailiff fees ( amongst other serious points).

 

Many would view this as institutionalised systemic Fraud (and conspiracy) as it is so plain upon it's face.

Regrettably, and I am sure many will agree with me here, I cannot see a court in the land finding that to be so (or even hearing the case much less put it to a jury !)

For those that do agree; the conclusions as to the nature of our government and the court system will be obvious - and that Burke applies.

[ploddertom]

Even more disturbing were the FOI requests made by outlawla not that long go whereby it seemed this ran into the 100's of £k they have taken from the populace.

[brassnecked]

Hopefully Hallow and the councillor will convince Wrexham o the error of their ways.

[outlawla]

Even more disturbing were the FOI requests made by outlawla not that long go whereby it seemed this ran into the 100's of £k they have taken from the populace.

 

Over the period surveyed it would not have been unreasonable (if all councils had submitted the data) to estimate a figure of £11.75 million.

 

Just to add, Radio Humberside had the Police and Crime Commissioner in the studio for a question and answer session this morning.

 

Unsurprisingly the following sent to the radio presenter didn't get a mention. I believe Radio Humberside is a BBC radio station, so that probably answers that.

 

From: outlawla

To: [email protected]

Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 9:10 AM

Subject: Police and Crime Commissioner - Bailiff fraud

 

Dear Mr Burns

 

RE, Rossendales Bailiffs

 

Why has the Humberside's Police and Crime Commissioner as an elected representative of the county's residents supported Humberside Police's Economic Crime section, the Independent Police Complaints commission, the then Police Authority and North East Lincolnshire Council in turning a blind eye to the systematic fraud by North East Lincolnshire Council's bailiff contractor Rossendales enforcing alleged council tax arrears?

 

Indisputable evidence (likely to be the tip of the iceberg) supporting a third of a million pounds over a 5 year period has been submitted to Humberside Police's Economic Crime Section of fraudulent demands made by Rossendales.

 

The failure by the police and various watchdog organisations to act on the evidence and brush the serious matter under the carpet amounts to the council taxpayer paying their salaries being defrauded.

 

The attitude is at odds with the deputy head of fraud at the Crown Prosecution Service, who said on National TV:

'People who commit fraud, in any walk of life, should know that the scale and technicality of a case is no barrier to bringing it to justice. At the heart of any complex fraud is a simple notion of dishonesty which is something that we can all understand.'

 

Yours sincerely

[lookinforinfo]

It is unsurprising from my point of view also-but probably not for the same reason as you were not surprised.

 

Outlawla, from the few exchanges we have had plus viewing your posts over several years I know you are very intelligent. And yet the way you posed that question made it almost a

racing certainty that it would not get raised.

 

When you are attempting to get some one to do what you want you have to give that person a reason to do it.And you don't achieve that by appearing to be some sort of anarchist

with a grudge or bee in your bonnet. You need to get the radio station on your side by making your question some thing interesting and not one that is going to antagonise the Police

Commissioner.

Make it more general and go after the bailiffs not the Police. So ask what is his opinion when bailiffs charge for phantom visits [back this up with the gov.uk guidelines showing that they

are aware of it] plus the condemnation by the LGO in the Blaby case of bailiffs. Then ask along the lines of "surely these actions go beyond it being a civil matter and could well be fraud.

What is your view on that commissioner given that our own listeners are being affected"?

It obviously needs working on but the station will be looking for items that could be of general interest to its listeners rather than asking what appears to be a rant by some one who

has an axe to grind.

I hope you feel that my post was designed to improve your chances of getting your questions aired [which it was] rather than a criticism [which it wasn't intended to be but which I concede could be read that way. If it was I apologise].

Also my apologies to Hallowitch for hijacking the thread.

[outlawla]

It is unsurprising from my point of view also-but probably not for the same reason as you were not surprised.

 

Outlawla, from the few exchanges we have had plus viewing your posts over several years I know you are very intelligent. And yet the way you posed that question made it almost a

racing certainty that it would not get raised.

 

When you are attempting to get some one to do what you want you have to give that person a reason to do it.And you don't achieve that by appearing to be some sort of anarchist

with a grudge or bee in your bonnet. You need to get the radio station on your side by making your question some thing interesting and not one that is going to antagonise the Police

Commissioner.

Make it more general and go after the bailiffs not the Police. So ask what is his opinion when bailiffs charge for phantom visits [back this up with the gov.uk guidelines showing that they

are aware of it] plus the condemnation by the LGO in the Blaby case of bailiffs. Then ask along the lines of "surely these actions go beyond it being a civil matter and could well be fraud.

What is your view on that commissioner given that our own listeners are being affected"?

It obviously needs working on but the station will be looking for items that could be of general interest to its listeners rather than asking what appears to be a rant by some one who

has an axe to grind.

I hope you feel that my post was designed to improve your chances of getting your questions aired [which it was] rather than a criticism [which it wasn't intended to be but which I concede could be read that way. If it was I apologise].

Also my apologies to Hallowitch for hijacking the thread.

 

I'm not going to argue with you, but I'll just state that the people who you think I should be kowtowing to are the very people who are being paid obscene sums (through our taxes) for indoctrinating the majority of the public.

 

If blame was being sought for the most deserving for screwing the most vulnerable of our society through bailiffs, it would in my opinion be done in this order, even if some corrupt influence (government ministers or police force) were prepared to pay handsomely for skewing opinion so that the blame was put entirely at the bailiff contractor's door.

 

1) Cameron

 

2) The home office, especially the minister of state of A.Q fame T.M (ambition has its price)

 

3) LGO or similar bogus watchdog organisations

 

4) CEOs of all local authorities willing to keep evidence from being uncovered in return for their six figured salaries

 

5) Intimidated council staff threatened with their jobs if they don't lie through their teeth.

 

The less well off are subsidising many parasites mentioned above, so whilst that is happening I'm having no objection to be labelled as someone who has an axe to grind.

Edited October 25, 2013 by outlawla

[tomtubby]

outlawla

 

Your dedication to this subject is superb and what it has proved, is the most blatant lack of knowledge of the statutory fee scale by local authorities and most particularly, by their legal department.

[lookinforinfo]

Outlawla I think you missed my point. I was not expecting you to kowtow to anyone.

The work you have done on Header fees has been a monumental task and deserves massive credit. It is a tragedy that so far it has as far as I know [which isn't much]

only been witnessed by some on CAG when it deserves a much wider audience.

 

My point was that for it to get into the mainstream it requires a different approach dependent upon where you want your work to be seen. [i assume you did it for a reason and not just for something to do like fishing or train spotting.] There is no need to kowtow to any of them but at the same time your present approach would appear unlikely to open doors. The old

adage about catching more flies with molasses than vinegar still holds true today.

 

If you truly want your work to make a difference to those unfortunates who fall foul of bailiffs, jobsworths etc and who don't know how to challenge them then you owe it to them to

adapt your style of address so that your work can be heard by a much wider audience.

 

Apolologies Hallowitch for a further hijack. It is just so frustrating to see all Outlawla's work not getting the airing it deserves when a change of approach could make all the difference.

[brassnecked]

Well let us all support outlawla, and get that information out there, in ways that count.

[lookinforinfo]

Well said Brassnecked.

As the Header Fees are all Outlawlla's own work it is only fair that it is his [her?] decision on where to place the information and with whom.All I would suggest is that we add possible

approaches that might get the best possible chance of being acted upon. Outlawla would of course have the final say before sending it off.

[brassnecked]

Ouitlawla has exposed systemic, and long term abuse of the regulations by NELC nd their appointed agents Rossendales, and one feels that these organisations would use a "D" Notice to keep their institutionalised fraud on the taxpayers as their little dirty secret if they could. The MOJ are disinterested, the police likely complicit, so to expose the ongoing scram would bring the whole council tax enforcement system in to the public eye as a despicable sham and cash gathering exercise increasing the indebtedness exponentially for those least able to pay, whilst lining the bailiffs pockets. Both NELC and Rossendales are rotten to the core.

 

It will get worse after April when the fees are £305 at the bailiffs first knock

Edited October 27, 2013 by brassnecked

[outlawla]

I have no objection to anyone submitting the data to any organisation.

 

Obviously with the information relating only to around 20 local authorities, this is just a sample, but should be a big enough sample to be representative of the overall scram.

 

Credit should be given to the efforts hallowitch has made in persuading a councillor to take an interest.

 

The Economic Crime Section at Humberside Police have been in possession of the evidence for several months. I have been strung along by the Detective supposedly dealing with the matter, as was the case on a previous attempt to get similar issues investigated. Where the Police have previously fobbed me off, they are now ignoring correspondence, as is the "Engagement Lead" at KPMG (the external auditor for North East Lincolnshire council).

 

As people would quite rightly assume, any complaint about the police will be covered up in the first instant by it not being "recorded", secondly a bogus internal investigation to cover-up the matter would take place, and if escalated to the IPCC would be followed by them refusing to get involved on the grounds of having no statutory obligation to investigate because the complaint conveniently wasn't "recorded".

[hallowitch]

Credit should be given to the efforts hallowitch has made in persuading a councillor to take an interest

 

 

Thanks for that outlawla i have a lot of respect for this councillor who didn't need any persuading and i firmly believe he will take this all the way if necessary

 

At this meeting it will be my job to put it over to the council Why the Hedder H fee cant be charged and over the next few days i will post up the information i will be taking with me to prove the point so any information to sustain this will gratefully received