Freedom of Information requests: Local authorities and Taking Control of Goods (Fees) 2014

[taurusgemini]

Hull City https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_58#outgoing-408934

 

 

 

 

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into force,

has Hull City Council handed any monies which a debtor has paid directly

to the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability to its

enforcement agent?

 

No, Hull City Council has not handed any monies which a debtor has paid

directly to the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability

to an enforcement agent.

 

 

 

 

Southampton https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/242340/response/591914/attach/html/3/FOI%201415%201080R.pdf.html

 

 

Southampton City Council has not handed any monies, which a debtor has paid

directly to the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability to its enforcement

agent.

[Peterbard]

Yes as stated there may not be physical cash, a secretary is not going to run around with a fist full of notes every time a payment is made this from Hull

 

"Sorry for the confusion in our response to your request for

information.

 

For clarification, Hull City Council does not pass any physical

cash (received by us) to the enforcement agents. We have had direct

payments made for debts which are with the enforcement agents,

however, we do not keep a record of how much or in how many cases.

[Bailiff Advice]

Huntingdonshire District Council: 23rd January 2015

 

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into force,
has Huntingdonshire District Council handed any monies which a debtor has
paid directly to the authority in respect of his or her council tax
liability to its enforcement agent?

 

Yes


If so, how much and in how many cases?




 

Response:

 

Number of cases (CTAX & NNDR)...... 121


 

Value notified to EAs..... £40,321.28

 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_46#outgoing-416143

 

North Somerset Council

 

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into force,
has North Somerset Council handed any monies which a debtor has paid
directly to the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability
to its enforcement agent?



 

Response:

 

We have refunded monies which a debtor has paid directly to the council
when direct payments have been made in respect of accounts with an
Enforcement Agent.

 

Any amount refunded has only been in respect of the
fees due to the Enforcement Agent.

[Bailiff Advice]

Litchfield District Council: 23rd December 2014

 

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into
force, has Lichfield District Council handed any monies which a
debtor has paid directly to the authority in respect of his or her
council tax liability to its enforcement agent?

If so, how much and in how many cases?

 

 

Response:

 

The information you have requested is as follow:

47 cases with a total value of £4632.35

[Bailiff Advice]

The following response is very clear indeed:

 

 

South Gloucestershire Council: 15th October 2014

 

South Gloucestershire Council have contracts with two Enforcement Agents who work within the limits of the Legislation and are regularly reviewed to ensure this happens.

 

The Enforcement Agents are only permitted to charge fees in accordance with the Legislation, the compliance fee of £75 can be retained out of proceeds obtained. All additional fees are paid Pro-rata along with the original debt.

 

In your request for information there may be some confusion. You seem to suggest that if the full £420 is charged, (£75 + £235 + £110), and paid in full then the whole sum would go to the Enforcement Agent in fees.

 

This is incorrect, the compliance fee of £75 would go to the Enforcement Agent and the balance of £345 would be split pro-rata with the Local Authority and the EA.

[outlawla]

Litchfield District Council: 23rd December 2014

 

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into
force, has Lichfield District Council handed any monies which a
debtor has paid directly to the authority in respect of his or her
council tax liability to its enforcement agent?

If so, how much and in how many cases?

 

 

Response:

 

The information you have requested is as follow:

47 cases with a total value of £4632.35

 

You need to remember that local authorities, being local authorities, are incapable of being open when it involves sensitive issues, as Lichfield District Council go on to substantiate:

 

24 December 2014

 

Thank you for your response in which you state that Lichfield District Council has paid £4632.35 to its enforcement agent in respect council tax liability payments made (by the debtor) to the authority in respect of 47 cases.

 

I would like it verifying that these payments have only been made in one or the other of the following circumstances:

a) The payment(s) fully settled the debt including the bailiff's fees;

 

b) The debtor clearly indicated that the payment is for the bailiff.

29 December 2014

 

I am unable to verify what you have stated. Lichfield District Council complies, as it is required to do, with the regulations. Any payments received for debts being collected by Enforcement Agents is applied in accordance with the relevant regulations.

 

[Bailiff Advice]

 

It is understood that over a quarter of all local authorities have either received or or dealing with these same enquiries. I am only aware personally of ones that appear on the What do they Know website. They are all by one individual and so far 60 Freedom of Information requests have made to request the following:

 

Dear xxx

 

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into
force, has xxx Council handed any monies which a
debtor has paid directly to the authority in respect of his or her
council tax liability to its enforcement agent?



 

If so, how much and in how many cases?



 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

To ensure that this thread is entirely accurate I would like to correct my above post. Most of the local authorities mentioned in this thread have been subject to two separate Freedom of Information requests on this same subject over a period of 8 months. The first FOI to each council was worded as follows:

 

 

Dear Huntingdonshire District Council,


 

Theoretically, if an Enforcement Agent is instructed to recover a
sum outstanding on a Liability Order of £420, the Taking Control of
Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 provides that the Agent may recover a
compliance fee currently in the sum of £75. If the Agent then
proceeds to the enforcement stage incurring a fee of £235, then to
the sale or disposal of controlled goods stage, incurring a further
£110, then the amount the Enforcement Agent may recover from the
debtor would be a sum equal to the amount outstanding on the
Liability Order.



 

If the debtor then pays a sum equal to the amount outstanding on
the Liability Order, but no more than this, by virtue of the
Regulations the enforcement agent is entitled to the entire sum
originally owed, with the council seeing nothing from the recovery
process.



 

Q. In respect of payments for outstanding Council Tax as in the
above or similar, what (if any) measures have Huntingdonshire
District Council in place (presumably contractual) that ensures
monies are not diverted to enrich private companies and their
shareholders that would otherwise have gone towards providing
services (the purpose intended)?

 

In respect of payments for outstanding Council Tax as in the above or
similar, what (if any) measures have Huntingdonshire District Council in
place (presumably contractual) that ensures monies are not diverted to
enrich private companies and their shareholders that would otherwise have
gone towards providing services (the purpose intended)?

 

PS: In the case of Huntingdonshire their response is as follows:

 

 

Firstly, the description of how payments are allocated and apportioned to
the debt is factually incorrect.

 

If the debtor pays £420.00, the first £75
would be taken as the Compliance Fee (according to law). The remainder
would be allocated on a pro-rata basis to (1) the debt, and (2) the fees
(again, according to law).

 

In any event, the total amount required from
the debtor is £420 Council Tax and £420 fees = £840.

 

Once they have paid
£420, they will still be required to pay a further £420 before the
Liability Order is settled.

[Bailiff Advice]

This thread is important as yet again, I read a response from a poster on the LB forum this morning where he is advising the debtor to pay the council direct (minus bailiff fees) on the basis that most councils are 'supposedly' not deducting the Compliance Fee of £75 or apportioning the balance on a pro rata basis.

 

It is understood that over a quarter of all local authorities have either received or or dealing with these same enquiries. I am only aware personally of ones that appear on the What do they Know website. They are all by one individual and so far 60 Freedom of Information requests have made to request the following:

 

Dear xxx

 

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into
force, has xxx Council handed any monies which a
debtor has paid directly to the authority in respect of his or her
council tax liability to its enforcement agent?



 

If so, how much and in how many cases?



 

Yours faithfully,

 

Below are extracts from some of the recent responses.

 

To ensure that this thread is entirely accurate I would like to correct my above post. Most of the local authorities mentioned in this thread have been subject to two separate Freedom of Information requests on this same subject over a period of 8 months. The first FOI to each council was worded as follows:

 

 

Dear Huntingdonshire District Council,


 

Theoretically, if an Enforcement Agent is instructed to recover a
sum outstanding on a Liability Order of £420, the Taking Control of
Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 provides that the Agent may recover a
compliance fee currently in the sum of £75. If the Agent then
proceeds to the enforcement stage incurring a fee of £235, then to
the sale or disposal of controlled goods stage, incurring a further
£110, then the amount the Enforcement Agent may recover from the
debtor would be a sum equal to the amount outstanding on the
Liability Order.



 

If the debtor then pays a sum equal to the amount outstanding on
the Liability Order, but no more than this, by virtue of the
Regulations the enforcement agent is entitled to the entire sum
originally owed, with the council seeing nothing from the recovery
process.



 

Q. In respect of payments for outstanding Council Tax as in the
above or similar, what (if any) measures have Huntingdonshire
District Council in place (presumably contractual) that ensures
monies are not diverted to enrich private companies and their
shareholders that would otherwise have gone towards providing
services (the purpose intended)?

 

In respect of payments for outstanding Council Tax as in the above or
similar, what (if any) measures have Huntingdonshire District Council in
place (presumably contractual) that ensures monies are not diverted to
enrich private companies and their shareholders that would otherwise have
gone towards providing services (the purpose intended)?

 

PS: In the case of Huntingdonshire their response is as follows:

 

 

Firstly, the description of how payments are allocated and apportioned to
the debt is factually incorrect.

 

If the debtor pays £420.00, the first £75
would be taken as the Compliance Fee (according to law). The remainder
would be allocated on a pro-rata basis to (1) the debt, and (2) the fees
(again, according to law).

 

In any event, the total amount required from
the debtor is £420 Council Tax and £420 fees = £840.

 

Once they have paid
£420, they will still be required to pay a further £420 before the
Liability Order is settled.

 

The response from this LA is absolutely correct...but the questioning has continued for the past 8 months.

 

Copies of all correspondence to the first FOI request (that started in May 2014) can be read here:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_14#incoming-566552

 

The 2nd FOI requests were sent to the same local authorities in December 2014 and copies of the responses from Huntingdonshire can be read here:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_46#incoming-608834

 

PS: Incredible...over one thousand viewers to this thread in just two working days !!!

[Bailiff Advice]

Why do I have a strange feeling that 'taurusgemini' is 'Mark 1960'. I really hope that I am wrong.

 

I should add that Mark 1960 is just one of three regular cyber stalkers.

[HCEOs]

I think the point is that almost all councils follow the correct procedure and that is if a debtor pays them directly they first pass the Compliance Fee back to the Enforcement Agent and then split anything left over on a pro rata basis (again with the EA) as per the TCoG Fee Regs.

 

Of the handful of councils that have answered differently, this will be due to their own misunderstanding of the Regulations and once educated of their mistakes they no doubt they will follow suit.

[Peterbard]

TBH I think many of the misleading responses are a combination of the question being phrased badly and the answer being interpreted in a way which the person wanted to hear.

 

All the responses which came back in clear form confirm that fees are passed as said.

[outlawla]

I think the point is that almost all councils follow the correct procedure and that is if a debtor pays them directly they first pass the Compliance Fee back to the Enforcement Agent and then split anything left over on a pro rata basis (again with the EA) as per the TCoG Fee Regs.

 

Of the handful of councils that have answered differently, this will be due to their own misunderstanding of the Regulations and once educated of their mistakes they no doubt they will follow suit.

 

You know that the government is not going to (OFFICIALLY, WITH THE PUBLIC'S AWARENESS) pay money to private bailiff contractors out of payments that council tax payers have paid to their local authorities in respect of their council tax liability. Promoting such propaganda makes you wonder why professionals who advise victims affected by this extortion do not challenge this.

 

The impression from responses to FOI requests made to councils that the Ministry of Justice is permitting taxpayer's money to be handed to private bailiff contractors will be interesting to see just how true it is. Personally, I don't think that the government would want bailiff victims to know that councils' misuse of public money this way would never happen, neither would they want the general taxpayer to be under the illusion that the government would give their money to increase bailiff companies' share prices.

 

A number of councils have been asked to verify if the following is the way debtors are dealt with so that the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 is complied with at the same time the public interest is served.

 

The reply(ies) will be interesting if any bother to:

"

[Would it] be easier if the following can be agreed is how both the public interest is served (in that taxpayer's money is not being diverted to the bailiffs) and the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 are being complied with:-

 

Although payments are allocated to the contractor as per the regulations, i.e. the first £75 and further sums pro-rata, this is purely on an accounting basis and money is only ever transferred to the contractor when the debt is fully settled (including fees).

 

This gives the contractor an incentive to continue enforcement to collect any remaining Council Tax as he won't be entitled to receive payment in respect of his fees until all the debt (including the additional charges) has been paid.

 

There will however be some cases where the bailiff is unable to take control of goods whilst unpaid sums remain and there comes a time when the debt must be returned to the authority. In those cases, as I believe the 2014 regulations provide, the contractors would not be entitled to any payment in respect of their fees and so this would ensure that no taxpayer's money is...being diverted to the bailiffs because the fees originally allocated to the contractor pay off (or go towards) the council tax. The Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 will have therefore been complied with

.

[Bailiff Advice]

TBH I think many of the misleading responses are a combination of the question being phrased badly and the answer being interpreted in a way which the person wanted to hear.

 

All the responses which came back in clear form confirm that fees are passed as said.

 

Also, in all cases where the local authority confirm that they address payments made direct in the correct way, that LA are then subjected to either an 'internal review' or further questions that are oddly phrased.

[Bailiff Advice]

TBH I think many of the misleading responses are a combination of the question being phrased badly and the answer being interpreted in a way which the person wanted to hear.

 

The following is a copy of the response that appears on What do they Know today. It is from North Somerset and yet again....this council have been subjected to the same questioning since 18th May 2014 !!!! And yet....even given this response (below) further questions have been asked. As I said before.....is it any wonder that council tax bills are having to rise.

 

 

 

North Somerset Council: 26th January 2015

 

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into force, has North Somerset Council handed any monies which a debtor has paid directly to the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability to its enforcement agent?

 

Response

 

We have refunded monies which a debtor has paid directly to the council when direct payments have been made in respect of accounts with an Enforcement Agent.

 

Any amount refunded has only been in respect of the fees due to the Enforcement Agent.

 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_45#outgoing-416436

[Peterbard]

It is difficut to let go of a long held belief, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, I am sure that everyone understands the situation by now, as for the rest no matter how much proof is provided they are not going to see the light

[Peterbard]

Just looking through the various FOI requests particularly lliked this one and must admit it made me smile

 

However, in answer to your specific question, we can advise you that the

Council does not have a policy on how payments are allocated. Our

processes comply with the requirements of the Taking Control of Goods

(Fees) Regulations 2014, which deal with the allocation of payments, where

less than the full amount outstanding is paid.

 

With regard to the case that you have quoted, we assume that you refer to

Peters v Anderson, which is a decision that was made in the 19th century,

during the reign of King George III. As the Taking Control of Goods (Fees)

Regulations came into force 200 years after this, we do not believe that

the case affects the way that payments are required to be allocated under

the current regulations

[outlawla]

....

With regard to the case that you have quoted, we assume that you refer to

Peters v Anderson, which is a decision that was made in the 19th century,

during the reign of King George III. As the Taking Control of Goods (Fees)

Regulations came into force 200 years after this, we do not believe that

the case affects the way that payments are required to be allocated under

the current regulations

 

That was quite smug of him/her. Why don't you put whoever said that right by pointing this out....

 

Reference to 1814 case law

 

3.3.1 The collection and reporting of Council Tax income is straightforward when a tax payer pays their annual charge within that year. Complexities arise when a Council Tax Payer falls into arrears and owes the council money for past years as well as the current year. There is significant case law (for example, Peter v Anderson (1814)) however, put simply, if a person specifies which years debt the payment should be assigned it should be assigned to that years debt.

 

3.3.2 The council tax system has built in allocation rules to ensure that the law with respect to specified payments is met......

[outlawla]

Looks like East Riding of Yorkshire Council doesn't argue about the fact that the 1814 case law still applies:

 

Payments are forwarded in instances where debts have been placed with enforcement agencies for collection or in accordance with the preference expressed by the council tax payer at the time the payment is made.

[Peterbard]

That was quite smug of him/her. Why don't you put whoever said that right by pointing this out....

 

Reference to 1814 case law

 

Yes it was, and it was what amused me, they do have a point in that statute does over-ride case law though. I would think also, being unaccustomed with the old case law, that this would not apply to a debt which had gone through the court and a liability order had been issued would it ?

Then it would be a judgment debt just for the amount of the order surely.

The allotment of funds paid on that debt after a liability order would be a matter for the enforcement regulations in this case the TCE

[Peterbard]

Looks like East Riding of Yorkshire Council doesn't argue about the fact that the 1814 case law still applies:

"Payments are forwarded in instances where debts have been placed with enforcement agencies for collection or in accordance with the preference expressed by the council tax payer at the time the payment is made."

 

I think it unlikely that this means that the debtor can just say, no fees to the bailiff thank you. Although it is a nice thought

[Bailiff Advice]

I think the point is that almost all councils follow the correct procedure and that is if a debtor pays them directly they first pass the Compliance Fee back to the Enforcement Agent and then split anything left over on a pro rata basis (again with the EA) as per the TCoG Fee Regs.

 

Of the handful of councils that have answered differently, this will be due to their own misunderstanding of the Regulations and once educated of their mistakes they no doubt they will follow suit.

 

Absolutely correct and I continue to be at a loss to understand the endless questioning that these local authorities are having to endure.

[Peterbard]

Still it's interesting although the guidance quoted is pre 2014, even then it illustrates how selective reading can give false results this is also in the same report

 

3.4.1 The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 52(4) state

“Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms

part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under

which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in

accordance with this Part, any sum recovered thereby which is less than the

aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges shall

be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being

applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum.”

[outlawla]

Yes it was, and it was what amused me, they do have a point in that statute does over-ride case law though. I would think also, being unaccustomed with the old case law, that this would not apply to a debt which had gone through the court and a liability order had been issued would it ?

 

Then it would be a judgment debt just for the amount of the order surely.

The allotment of funds paid on that debt after a liability order would be a matter for the enforcement regulations in this case the TCE

 

If you look at regulation 35(3) of SI 1992/613, it states as below:

 

(3) The amount in respect of which a liability order is made is enforceable in accordance with this Part; and accordingly for the purposes of any of the provisions of Part III of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (satisfaction and enforcement) it is not to be treated as a sum adjudged to be paid by order of the court.

 

You can trawl through all of Part III of the MCA 1980 if you like, but ultimately the amount stated on the liability order is not to be treated as a sum adjudged to be paid by order of the court.

[outlawla]

Still it's interesting although the guidance quoted is pre 2014, even then it illustrates how selective reading can give false results this is also in the same report

 

3.4.1 The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 52(4) state “Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in accordance with this Part, any sum recovered thereby which is less than the aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges shall be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum.”

 

The important thing is that the above related to when enforcement fees and charges were local authorities'. Notwithstanding that, most authorities outsourced enforcement so they could get round that contractually, i.e., paying bailiffs before the CTAX debt. Now we have fees and charges which are effectively the enforcement contractor's; they in no way make up part of the debtor's council tax account. In-house enforcement is another matter, even with the new laws.

[Peterbard]

If you look at regulation 35(3) of SI 1992/613, it states as below:

 

 

 

You can trawl through all of Part III of the MCA 1980 if you like, but ultimately the amount stated on the liability order is not to be treated as a sum adjudged to be paid by order of the court.

 

Yes this refers ot the fact that the liability order although being made in a magistrates court is not a criminal warrant, it is an order to enforce a civil debt, it is however still the result of a judgment.

 

In any case this has nothing to do with the subject in question and the allocation of fees by the authority on payment of the debt direct to the council, the reference to irrelevant sections and outdated court cases is not going to change the fact that in 2014 the TCE came into force and under that act fees are distributed, and that councils are abiding by this, in most part and the ones that don't will soon follow suit.