Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • HI   Firstly the parking in front of your drive, do you have a pavement with a Drop Kerb in front of your property to access your driveway, if so are they infringing on the Drop Kerb? (note your can ask the council to to paint a white line with lines at the end on the road in front of the drop kerb please note there may be a cost from the council to do so)   As for the CCTV look at this ICO link: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/   Due to the new DPA/GDPR if you have CCTV on your Property and it views outside of that Properties Bounderies they then need to register as a Data Controller with the ICO.   So I would make a Formal Complaint in writing to the Councils Data Controller, ICO (specifically asking if this individual is Registered with them as a Data Controller) & Police, you need to keep a good paper trail of this individuals actions.   I hope this individual knows the Law on Harassment as from your thread that is the impression I get is no matter what you do they will find something else to complaint about.  
    • Most guarantees are not transferable anyway to the new owner so why a solicitor should request it is pointless.The quotes should suffice to prove the work was carried out.   Andy
    • Apologies for the prolonged radio silence!   To cut a very long story short, I went back to Barclaycard (because I bought the car with my VISA card) and they offered to repair the car at a cost of £2500.   We accepted the offer because we were advised that even if we went to court and won the case, there was no guarantee that the dealer would give us our money back anyway or would end up paying us £10 a week for the next umpteen years.   The decision to have the car repaired was also made in the light of the fact that apart from the gearbox issue the rest of the car was in good nick. It is running fine after nearly 4 months now, so even if our friend gets a few more years out of it it will have been worth it.   Now that it is all settled I can reveal the name of the dealer - it was Thatcham Motor Company, in Thatcham, Berks. Very pleasant to deal with at first whilst everything was ok but boy oh boy, beware if anything goes wrong!   Similarly Momentum Warranties who provided the 6 months "warranty". On paper this warranty apparently covers practically every conceivable fault that the car might develop until you try to make a claim!   It seems that only if a component physically breaks that any cover is provided, otherwise they will hide behind the "fair wear and tear" get-out clause. Can an ECU unit be subject to wear and tear?   I would not touch either of these outfits again with the proverbial barge pole. Buyer beware!   One further thing I forgot to mention. We ran up considerable expenses trying to sort all the issues - the engineer's reports, travel costs etc.   Is it too late to try to claim these back from the dealer now? I just ran out of energy by the time Barclaycard agreed to pay for the repair but now the dust has settled I am up for it again!   Would this have to be done via the Small Claims Court?
    • no rush yet not due for 3 weeks as per andyorch's information above   i'm sure we'll get time before then.   dx  
    • There is a space for comment on the N180 where you can state that you wish to object to any request by the Claimant for an "on the papers" hearing. I wouldn't worry about the permits term, as the non-display of a permit is not the apparent cause for action against you. Have you sent them a CPR request for documentation?
  • Our picks

tomtubby

Should councils scrap bailiffs and bring council tax enforcement in-house?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1864 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

A most interesting story appears on SCOOP today that is worthy of it's own thread.

 

The story is from Dukes Bailiffs and concerns the rumours in the industry that many local authorities are looking at the financial advantage of moving council tax enforcement in house.

 

The article certainly appears to show that enforcement companies are concerned at such a prospect.

 

 

http://dukescouncil.co.uk/2014/08/27/council-enforcement-policy/

 

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article from Colin Naylor (Dukes Bailiffs) in full:

 

Should Councils bring enforcement in-house?

 

There was a time when all councils were responsible for collecting their own debts, and it seems that many of them may be changing council enforcement policy and once again be considering taking debt collection into their own hands. The rethink has, at least in part, been sparked by certain aspects of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, but the risks and rewards of such action are much more complex than they might seem.

 

There appear to be two main arguments driving the call for in-house Enforcement Agents at local councils. The first is that councils want to make allowances for debtors where possible, ensuring that people are not pursued for debts which they cannot pay, or were not aware of.

 

Laudable Aim

 

This is certainly a laudable aim, and one which follows the spirit behind the government’s 2013 consultation on aggressive bailiffs. However, with the new regulatory changes, practices are already improving in the sector. Government guidance on good practice in the collection of Council Tax arrears dictates a strict framework in which the council and bailiffs must operate, before taking enforcement steps. The Taking Control of Goods Regulations also demand compliance with strict standards, such as giving at least seven days notice before attempting to take control of a debtor’s goods.

 

What’s more, we at Dukes Bailiffs consider ourselves among the growing number of ethical bailiffs, all of whom are working on ensuring that debtor circumstances are taken into account wherever possible.

 

The second argument is that the new, transparent fees for enforcement action are too high. By bringing enforcement in-house, the argument goes, councils will be able to discount fees in order to make allowances for individual debtor circumstances.

 

Again, this is a policy that merits consideration. Whether debtors who struggle to make their payments should face additional charges for visits or not is a valid question, and one that divided respondents to the government consultation last year.

 

Certainly many enforcement agents aim to avoid rising charges by only using home visits as a last resort, and this can perhaps be further encouraged. Although the money saved by postponing these visits must be balanced against the cost of delayed payments, which can easily accumulate, and end up being paid by those who pay their bills promptly.

 

Conflict of Interest

 

It is also worth considering how councils attempting to bring debt collection in-house risk a serious conflict of interest; councils would certainly have no incentive to collect debts promptly if they earned fees from late payment. The uproar over the £594m profit councils made from parking charges stands as a key example here, for it’s hard to imagine that public response would be any different to sums earned from bailiff fees, however flexible they were.

 

Finally, there’s the question of whether councils are even realistically equipped to take on the mammoth task of enforcement work, especially when you consider that 1.8 million debt cases were referred to bailiffs between August 2012 and August 2013. With many councils facing tight budgets, we have to wonder whether they can really sacrifice the savings that outsourcing the work has brought over the last decade, and invest in the systems and manpower required to develop an ethical bailiff practice in-house.

 

What’s your Council Enforcement Policy?

 

Overall, Dukes Bailiffs believe there are far more arguments for councils to continue using specialist enforcement agents; this is one case where professional agencies are far better equipped to provide efficient debt recovery, at minimum cost and effort to councils.

 

But as an Enforcement Company, we would say that, wouldn’t we? What’s your council enforcement policy? Is enforcement better off with specialist providers? Haven’t Councils got enough on their plate already? Or is it time enforcement became fully integrated with collection under one roof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the story has any 'substance' I would expect to have found many more council employees applying for certification. Having checked with the Ministry of Justice today it would seem that there are less than 70 employees holding bailiff certificates and most of these have been certificated for a long time.

 

Capita have only 6 of their staff holding bailiff certificates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so long ago (maybe 5 -6 years) that my local council had it's own in house enforcement team - the guy who had responsibility for our area was extremely pleasant and easy to deal with - one of my elderly neighbours got in a mess with council tax and asked me to be present when he came to visit. Situation was soon sorted amicably at a rate she could afford. I do know there have been massive complaints about Jacobs Bailiffs being used by the council nowadays, but there is still an enforcement team who will take the debt back from the bailiff company and come to an arrangement (helped an employee to do just that a couple of months ago).


Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they should, with all new faces. The government can bring in as many new regulations they like, but until they are rid of the thugs doing and saying whatever they like, nothing will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still baffled as to why the Government thinks adding over 300 quid in fees will help people on min wage and or benefits will make bailiffs less aggresive/thuggish, look at council tax many were lying and behaving potentially unlawfully/illegaly just to collect a maximum of 42 quid!!!!

 

And we are going to see them be less aggresive now its 300 plus and all goes to pay their fees first?

 

If I had a beard it would be itching.

 

There must surely be angles of legal attack via the EU Courts making such vast profits via threats of prison for private corporations.

 

At the very least these charges are vastly disproportionate esp as someone with only 100 arrears ends up paying 4 times that in fees.

 

Of course they should, with all new faces. The government can bring in as many new regulations they like, but until they are rid of the thugs doing and saying whatever they like, nothing will change.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am still baffled as to why the Government thinks adding over 300 quid in fees will help people on min wage and or benefits will make bailiffs less aggresive/thuggish, look at council tax many were lying and behaving potentially unlawfully/illegaly just to collect a maximum of 42 quid!!!!

 

And we are going to see them be less aggresive now its 300 plus and all goes to pay their fees first?

 

If I had a beard it would be itching.

 

There must surely be angles of legal attack via the EU Courts making such vast profits via threats of prison for private corporations.

 

At the very least these charges are vastly disproportionate esp as someone with only 100 arrears ends up paying 4 times that in fees.

 

 

If they can't afford the debt, the fees only make things much much worse. It is anathema that people profit from thuggery and bringing misery to people already desperate.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus the amount charged for the actual amount of 'work' (for want of a better word) is appalling. £75 for sending a letter? £235 for knocking on your door? And don't give me the argument about those fees covering any other visits required, setting up of payment plans blah blah blah.

 

It's still £75 for one letter even if no payment plan is arranged or needed. It's still £235 if only 1 visit is needed. And let's not forget that some are arguing that these fees must be paid, that you are legally required to pay them, implying this is the only private trade that has a guaranteed revenue stream even if they collect nothing.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a bailiff is no different from a window cleaner. If I don't pay him, what's he going to do? And I certainly wouldn't pay him for work he hasn't done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a sad truth (and one I learned the hard way), that burying your head in the sand because you haven't got the money to pay the bill will only serve to increase it.

 

Anyone with financial difficulties is far better engaging with the council or the EA at the very earliest opportunity to try to get a sensible, mutually agreeable, repayment plan in place. It is quite common for councils to spread the costs owing over a full financial year, and occasionally beyond.

 

Burying one's head will only lead to further misery and difficulties. I appreciate, having been in this position, how hard it is when debts are piling up around your ears and everyone is asking for money you haven't got to phone a council and talk. It is, however, by far the best thing you can do. Where genuine financial hardship can be proved, councils tend to be pretty understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would help the councils reduce their risk if they did not keep screwing up their own computer systems. In my case when I moved they (for some unaccountable reason) gave me a new account number and didn't tell me that for 6 weeks, thereby creating a debt that did not need to be created!

 

I really think that the legislation surrounding council tax collections needs to be re-written, taking away the 'if you don't pay the whole amount is due' section and NOT allowing councils to use court for any amount under £100 - in fact how about starting a campaign that court CANNOT be used for ANY alleged debt under £100.

 

The more I think about the 'credit crunch' the more I believe that the council tax legislation forced a lot of people to take out loans to repay council tax and then got into further debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coughdrop, not sure where you are based but in my part of London the local council will NOT engage with you UNTIL they have a liability order for the smallest of late payments on the council tax account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read many a post lately why are the EA's insisting that the whole balance is due on first visit?

 

Is this written into the new regulations? NO!!

 

So why are they always insisting this is paid on the first visit?

 

Surely the debt regulations state that the people that collect debts are supposed to help those that cannot pay with an easier way to pay.

 

Where is it in the new regulations that the way other debts that are pursued cannot these also be used in these situations as well?

 

Just a thought here that's all


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice easy bit of Council Tax legislation for the UKIP mob to consider should they come into power....put as simply as possible for avoidance of doubt, interpretation etc

 

All councils must NOT issue liability orders UNTIL 9 months of the CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR have passed and NO contact or offer of payment is made by constituents.

 

BEFORE a liability order is issued a CT/HB check must be conducted to ensure the person liable is receiving the correct level of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A nice easy bit of Council Tax legislation for the UKIP mob to consider should they come into power....put as simply as possible for avoidance of doubt, interpretation etc

 

All councils must NOT issue liability orders UNTIL 9 months of the CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR have passed and NO contact or offer of payment is made by constituents.

 

BEFORE a liability order is issued a CT/HB check must be conducted to ensure the person liable is receiving the correct level of support.

 

I would support that. Enforcement is an egregious practice in this day and age when attachments to income streams at a rate the debtor can afford are more sensible, what is crazy is that a council house can be in a high band, and the low income families CTax bill is more than the rent in some cases. It takes no account of ability to afford or pay, then they add loadsa fees to line a parasitic bailiff companies bottom line.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...