Jacobs & Council Tax - advising they will charge new Fees

[tomtubby]

It is actually slightly difficult to adequately advice you given that although the outline of the new procedure has been known about for many months the DETAIL has only been known to the wider public in the past 2 weeks or so. In that short time there are already 'cracks' beginning to appear.

 

If your case could you mind contacting the council in the morning to ask them for the PRECISE amount of the Liability Order. Can you post back after you have this information. Can you confirm as well the precise amount being demanded on the letter from B & S.

[tomtubby]

 

 

The new regulations are due to take effect on 6th April and debtors will be in for a huge shock .

 

The government have issued statutory regulations to cover cases that are already being managed "in house" by the enforcement companies. In essence if a debtor's account is currently subject to a payment arrangement and the account defaults after 6th April the enforcement company may make an 'enforcement visit' and fees of £235 will legally be applicable.

 

 

As I have mentioned a few times recently, the actual detail regarding the new regulations was only made public a few weeks ago and there is a significant amount to take in and there can be little doubt that errors will be made. In this case it would seem that I have made an error in the above statement (that a fee of £235 will legally be applicable). I will be making further enquiries during the day and will post back with an update by the end of the day.

 

Only yesterday further information was forthcoming (this time regarding to actual meaning of 'exemption' for vehicles required for 'employment or business'.

[tomtubby]

Early this morning I received an enquiry from a debtor who was in a payment arrangement with an enforcement company regarding council tax arrears and she too has received a letter from the company advising her that if she defaults that she will also be liable for a charge of £235. In her case, she had received two previous visits (£24.50 and £18.00) but no levy had been made upon any goods of hers. I fear that something is seriously wrong.

 

I have offered to put together easy to understand Guidance/Practice Notes for use as STICKY'S and it is clearly the case that the first one needs to address the legal position regarding debts (council tax, PCN's, court fines, high court debts) that were issued to the enforcement company BEFORE 6th April.

[brassnecked]

Look forward to that stickt TT, the whole introduction of the new regime is becoming more farcical by the hour with the clock ticking relentlessly flaws are coming to light. One can imagine the late Brian Rix writing a farce about this with bailiffs running around with trousers falling down everywhere, but as to this borked introduction with information spewing out up to the 11th hour its not funny at all.

[Clunks]

That's exactly right TT as I understand it.

 

Where there is currently a Levy or Walking Possession in place, those debts will continue to be collected under their current regulations.

 

Where there is no Levy or Walking Possession in place but 42.50 charged, that will effectively act as the Compliance Stage. Next stage would then be the new Enforcement Stage and 235.00 charged if they fail to make an arrangement or keep to an existing arrangement.

[brassnecked]

That's exactly right TT as I understand it.

 

Where there is currently a Levy or Walking Possession in place, those debts will continue to be collected under their current regulations.

 

Where there is no Levy or Walking Possession in place but 42.50 charged, that will effectively act as the Compliance Stage. Next stage would then be the new Enforcement Stage and 235.00 charged if they fail to make an arrangement or keep to an existing arrangement.

 

That would be correct the new rules would kick in after a default, however unscrupulous bailiffs will try to apply them anyway if they think they will get away with it, it is even more for the future important that the right questions are asked and an accurate timeline presented to check what if anything has been done wrong, when giving advice. In some cases no doubt as at present the bailiff will have done nothing wrong.

[Jackofall]

My liability is roughly 680 and the bailiffs are wanting 720 something, so it would seem at this stage they have charged for two visits.

 

I paid the council 200 quid a couple of days ago, as i'd paid them nothing this year. They'd sent me a letter asking for the whole council tax bill for the year upfront don't you love these councils.

 

I feel that i will have little choice but to try and make a payment plan with the bailiffs in an attempt to avoid the further 235 bill.

 

I hear that they are unreasonable and will demand 300 quid a month.

[Jackofall]

As i understand it, the bailiffs can't charge the 235 pounds to people who have already had their account charged under the old rules for the two visits.

[HCEOs]

I'm going to be controversial here (on a forum like this at least) but why shouldn't you pay the bailiff the debt and their fees? And why should it be passed back to the Council?

 

And further more, if you could pay it in full then why not do that?

 

I would argue that it is this very kind of action that undermines the whole process. If you want bailiffs to act correctly you must expect debtors to do the same. And the bailiff should surely be paid for the work undertaken.

 

Am I wrong?

[Clunks]

As i understand it, the bailiffs can't charge the 235 pounds to people who have already had their account charged under the old rules for the two visits.

 

You need to read the posts above which quite clearly advise you when the new fees and regulations apply.

[HCEOs]

If before 6th April a bailiff has attended premises for the purpose of attempting to 'levy’ distress but he was unable to do so, then the action already taken by him would constitute the "compliance stage" (which from 6th April will be £75).

 

For all future actions the Enforcement Agent will be permitted to charge an 'enforcement stage fee' of £235.

[Clunks]

I'm going to be controversial here (on a forum like this at least) but why shouldn't you pay the bailiff the debt and their fees? And why should it be passed back to the Council?

 

And further more, if you could pay it in full then why not do that?

 

I would argue that it is this very kind of action that undermines the whole process. If you want bailiffs to act correctly you must expect debtors to do the same. And the bailiff should surely be paid for the work undertaken.

 

Am I wrong?

 

I agree, 100%.

[outlawla]

I'm going to be controversial here (on a forum like this at least) but why shouldn't you pay the bailiff the debt and their fees? And why should it be passed back to the Council?

 

And further more, if you could pay it in full then why not do that?

 

I would argue that it is this very kind of action that undermines the whole process. If you want bailiffs to act correctly you must expect debtors to do the same. And the bailiff should surely be paid for the work undertaken.

 

Am I wrong?

 

What about cases which shouldn't even have got as far as the Liability Order stage? Those for which if councils bothered monitoring recovery rather than relying entirely on their Council Tax software would know there was no risk of non-payment. Local authorities are not by law obliged to apply for a court order, the law only provides that they MAY.

 

Should a person be happy about paying an extra few £hundred on top of their liability to bailiffs because of their council's negligence?

[brassnecked]

What about cases which shouldn't even have got as far as the Liability Order stage? Those for which if councils bothered monitoring recovery rather than relying entirely on their Council Tax software would know there was no risk of non-payment. Local authorities are not by law obliged to apply for a court order, the law only provides that they MAY.

 

Should a person be happy about paying an extra few £hundred on top of their liability to bailiffs because of their council's negligence?

 

Especially those that fall through the cracks that are obtained for a debt of a single penny, or a pound..... Nice one for the bailiff £0.01p becomes £400 or so Should they be paid?

[wonkeydonkey]

We can go over all the 'what if's' we can muster but, let us not lose sight of the issues raised by the OP in post #32 and Hceo's addressed them thus If before 6th April a bailiff has attended premises for the purpose of attempting to 'levy’ distress but he was unable to do so, then the action already taken by him would constitute the "compliance stage" (which from 6th April will be £75). For all future actions the Enforcement Agent will be permitted to charge an 'enforcement stage fee' of £235. which tells it as it is.

If you want bailiffs to act correctly you must expect debtors to do the same. And the bailiff should surely be paid for the work undertaken. excluding the 'what if's' and sticking to the point of the OP's issue......then he is 100% right.

 

[tomtubby]

The matter of the 'transitional stage' is VITALLY important and it is clear that this subject requires a new thread (which I will do later).

 

Worryingly, since Monday we have come across 6 cases where the enforcement company have attempted to charge the NEW fee of £235 in cases where they have previously levied. They KNOW that they should not be doing this and it is VERY worrying indeed.

[brassnecked]

The enforcement companies will either say it was a mistake, or will argue that it was to streamline admin as they are now applying the new fee structure (unlawfully in these cases under transitional arrangements) across the board.

 

But yes it is worrying indeed.

[ploddertom]

The matter of the 'transitional stage' is VITALLY important and it is clear that this subject requires a new thread (which I will do later).

 

Worryingly, since Monday we have come across 6 cases where the enforcement company have attempted to charge the NEW fee of £235 in cases where they have previously levied. They KNOW that they should not be doing this and it is VERY worrying indeed.

 

The Regulations may be clear on the fact you have to be given 7 days clear notice at the Compliance stage but where it goes wrong is that under the Transitional arrangements it is assumed that 1st & 2nd Visits may form the Compliance Stageand if no arrangements are in place for an "arrangement" they are moving immediately to the Enforcement Stage as there is no requirement to inform the debtor this is what will happen. Possibly another glaring error that has slipped through.

[biggeorge]

The only thing I can see that's really changed now is the fees have gone up by about 700%, £42.50 for 1st and 2nd visit now gone to £300.

How the hell has these fees been justified, almost as bad a a payday loan.

 

Its nothing but a cash cow for the bailiff industry who must be loving these new fee policies.

 

Q:

Person has a debt and it goes to bailiff who writes the letter giving 7 days notice (charged £75) and after 7 days the bailiffs turn up (charged again £235)

Now if this person has no assets, No vehicles and does not let them in to levy anything isn't it the same as before, bailiffs will return back to creditor, council etc..

 

I see no difference than the other rules apart from the crazy 700% increase in fees.

 

George

[brassnecked]

The only thing I can see that's really changed now is the fees have gone up by about 700%, £42.50 for 1st and 2nd visit now gone to £300.

How the hell has these fees been justified, almost as bad a a payday loan.

 

Its nothing but a cash cow for the bailiff industry who must be loving these new fee policies.

 

Q:

Person has a debt and it goes to bailiff who writes the letter giving 7 days notice (charged £75) and after 7 days the bailiffs turn up (charged again £235)

Now if this person has no assets, No vehicles and does not let them in to levy anything isn't it the same as before, bailiffs will return back to creditor, council etc..

 

I see no difference than the other rules apart from the crazy 700% increase in fees.

 

George

In a nutshell yes, but under the new rules don't the fees remain payable?