Council Tax arrears and whether to allow a bailiff into your home

[tomtubby]

Yesterday I received an enquiry from a debtor where a Walking Possession had been signed and the bailiff (from Bristow & Sutor) had attempted to charge the debtor an 'attending to remove' fee of £400 !!!!!

 

Given that the statutory fee scale clearly provides that an "attending to remove" fee may only be "reasonable" there can be little doubt that £400 could ever satisfy this criteria.

 

The extraordinary level of reports about excessive "van fees" is of very serious concern and in fact, examples have recently been sent to DCLG (The Department of Communities and Local Government). The samples include another example where an Equita bailiff attempted to charge a Westminster debtor £750 'van attendance' ( at an INITIAL visit !!!)

 

In light of the recent £400 'van fee' I decided to start a new thread this morning outlining what debtors need to be aware of regarding a bailiff visit for unpaid council tax.

 

It would seem that the Moderators have decided to post the thread as a STICKY !!!! Thank you.

 

A copy of the STICKY can be read here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?412530-Council-Tax-arrears...should-you-let-a-bailiff-into-your-home-(25-Viewing)-nbsp

 

PS: Just had a query where Equita are charging debtors £312 "attending to remove" fee for a 1st visit for an unpaid PCN !!!

 

What on earth is the bailiff industry doing !!!!

Edited December 11, 2013 by tomtubby

[unclebulgaria67]

What on earth is the bailiff industry doing !!!!

 

Trying to make as much money as they can during recessionary times.

[ploddertom]

 

PS: Just had a query where Equita are charging debtors £312 "attending to remove" fee for a 1st visit for an unpaid PCN !!!

 

What on earth is the bailiff industry doing !!!!

 

I think we have seen this before and not just for PCN's either. It is the Bailiffs front loading all the fees and if challenged claim them as "potential" fees that could be charged. I wonder how many pay it though as I would guess they don't come clean and say " you don't owe that much".

[brassnecked]

Bailiffs are being bailiffs, some of them are duplicitous lying porcine beings with no compassion or maybe they are Lizards as per the rantings of David Icke

 

Whatever they are the industry, and it is disengenuous to call debt collection an "industry" it is a function, it is out of control, and several companies involved in it need a severe slap, or even closing down, Capita come into the too big for the public good and democracy category, and should be closed imho.

[tomtubby]

OOPS....

 

Since posting the STICKY I have received emails from 3 local authorities and 2 bailiff companies !!!! It would seem that some LA's are VERY WORRIED. Pleased to hear it.

 

I am also pleased to hear that one local authority has reviewed their Contracts with their 4 bailiff providers and is satisfied that they can each charge a MAXIMUM of £125 for an "attending to remove".

[brassnecked]

OOPS....

 

Since posting the STICKY I have received emails from 3 local authorities and 2 bailiff companies !!!! It would seem that some LA's are VERY WORRIED. Pleased to hear it.

 

I am also pleased to hear that one local authority has reviewed their Contracts with their 4 bailiff providers and is satisfied that they can each charge a MAXIMUM of £125 for an "attending to remove".

 

Hopefully the ATR will be applied to a visit subsequent to the one where they don't get a levy, or where they actually attend after a levy.

 

Were the bailiff companies as happy as someone who lost a quid and found a shilling?

[tomtubby]

I anticipate a LOT of problems in the next few months before the new fee scale and new regulations are implemented.

 

Bailiffs know that the fee scale will be TRANSPARENT and if goods are actually removed the fees that can be charged will be minimal.

 

We are still waiting for the fees scale to be officially released and the date is supposed to be by the end of December. There are some "snags" being ironed out and I will start a new thread later today (or tomorrow) with the latest gossip.

[Ian olney]

TT-They rarely remove goods anyway.

 

 

The "transparent" fees will allow the bailiffs to conduct business lawfully without the need to abuse legislation.

 

 

If they have to remove goods for peanuts in a handful of cases, this will more than be made up by letter fees & visit fees.

[lamma]

A timely and excellent sticky tt.

One wonders at the facts that make those that contacted you worried.

As for the 'what are they doing ? question, a cynical person may conclude they are trying to get as much cash as they can to spend at Christmas. For certain the outrageous charging we are seeing goes beyond my logic.

As Ian says the published figures will reveal much.

I have to add that publishing them in the 'Christmas lull' gives me pause.