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

[ploddertom]

I've deleted a few posts as they do nothing at all for the discussion but serve to antagonise & disrupt. Next stage will be for those guilty to have their posts moderated before they appear.

 

Like all things we are going to see some FOI's that agree with what is said here & there will be some that do not, however on the balance od probabilities more & more Councils are now finding out what they can & cannot do - no doubt some of which has been pointed to them by these requests. If nothing else it shows the Councils are starting to wake up rather than let things slide.

[outlawla]

....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of fees by the authority on payment of the debt direct to the council, the reference to irrelevant sections and outdated court cases is not going to change the fact that in 2014 the TCE came into force and under that act fees are distributed, and that councils are abiding by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.

 

 

If what you're saying is true and the majority of councils are handing over money to private companies in cases where the council tax debt is not even settled, i.e., diverting taxpayer's money away from providing services, then when the National press begin reporting this – and therefore becomes public knowledge – there will be hell on.

 

Any Local authority with a half decent Monitoring Officer is unlikely to allow this. The potential for legal challenge with regards misuse of public monies is endless.

[Peterbard]

If what you're saying is true and the majority of councils are handing over money to private companies in cases where the council tax debt is not even settled, i.e., diverting taxpayer's money away from providing services, then when the National press begin reporting this – and therefore becomes public knowledge – there will be hell on.

 

Any Local authority with a half decent Monitoring Officer is unlikely to allow this. The potential for legal challenge with regards misuse of public monies is endless.

It is not the way the new legislation works with respect.Once the account has been passed to the enforcment agent, the debt is under an enforcement power and anything paid whilst that debt is under that power is proceeds and due to the agent.

 

Now if the debtor wishes to pay the authority it makes no difference to this situation, as I think many of the FOI requests haves stated. The authority may retain a proportion of the payment towards the order but the apportionment of the debt is made in exactly the same manner as if the EA had received the payment, only in that case they would have retained their fees and forwarded the appropriate amount to the authority.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Like all things we are going to see some FOI's that agree with what is said here & there will be some that do not, however on the balance od probabilities more & more Councils are now finding out what they can & cannot do - no doubt some of which has been pointed to them by these requests. If nothing else it shows the Councils are starting to wake up rather than let things slide.

 

You are correct in your above comment. The new regulations are so very different and it obvious that it would take many months (and more in a lot of cases) for the new regs to 'bed in' and importantly.....for local authority staff to understand the new way in which the regulations work.

 

It is worrying to see the almost desperate way in which individuals and groups are intent on trying to find 'loopholes' in the regulations and this is becoming more obvious by the day with the simply endless stream of Freeman of Information requests (as they are now jokingly being known) to local authorities regarding payments made to the councils direct once a debt is with an enforcement agent. The ones that are listed on this thread are from the What do they Know website but so many others are now being made to local authorities (no doubt with the intention of setting up an A-Z listing of all local authorities). Very sad indeed.

 

The newer batch of Freeman of Information requests are extremely poorly worded and appear (like ones on this thread) to be attempting to find out whether or not local authorities actually pay monies over to bailiff companies in cases where a debtor makes payment direct to the local authority.

 

Surprise surprise.....many councils do not do so and frankly, that is to be expected. What is important....and this is confirmed by almost every local authority....is that the local authority advise the bailiff company of the payment.....and bailiff enforcement will continue for the balance of the debt. What can be more simple to understand.

 

From documentation that I have seen from both IRRV and CIPFA it is very clear indeed that local authorities are 'coming up to speed' with the new regulations and are fully aware of the government's intention when setting up the 'pro rata' distribution of payments so as to ensure that bailiffs are paid for the work that they do.

 

The following document (The Explanatory Memorandum to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 is being widely distributed to all local authorities and section 8.3 is the relevant section regarding 'pro rata' payments.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

[outlawla]

The government is in the business of maximising its income. It wants every penny of Council Tax it can get its hands on to pay for public services...it doesn't want massive amounts of that being diverted to bailiff companies.

[Coughdrop]

The government is in the business of maximising its income. It wants every penny of Council Tax it can get its hands on to pay for public services...it doesn't want massive amounts of that being diverted to bailiff companies.

 

If that is true, why then are EA's being used? Why not use an AoE all the time and get back a higher percentage of the income over a longer period of time? Surely an AoE is more cost efficient, or is it there an issue of trying to pass a portion of risk to the enforcement companies as well?

[outlawla]

If that is true, why then are EA's being used? Why not use an AoE all the time and get back a higher percentage of the income over a longer period of time? Surely an AoE is more cost efficient, or is it there an issue of trying to pass a portion of risk to the enforcement companies as well?

 

I don't entirely understand what you're getting at, but I don't think the work involved in administering AoEs is necessarily insignificant. Also I'm not convinced that many of the cases referred to bailiffs relate to council taxpayers who pose a long term threat of non-payment. Automation does not cater for these cases.

[Coughdrop]

I don't entirely understand what you're getting at, but I don't think the work involved in administering AoEs is necessarily insignificant. Also I'm not convinced that many of the cases referred to bailiffs relate to council taxpayers who pose a long term threat of non-payment. Automation does not cater for these cases.

 

I agree the work involved in the AoE is a factor, though to me, the form looks pretty straightforward. What is an issue for me with AoE's is the huge percentage of income taken from people who are in employment should an AoE be granted against them. In these cases, EA action and the repayment plans agreed (if they will agree them without being stupidly nasty and breaking the rules) could actually be preferrable for the debtor.

 

If it was purely about income generation, as it is increasingly becoming, then the procedure for applying for an AoE looks pretty simple to me.

 

Are you saying that many of the cases being referred for EA enforcement are, in your opinion, people who are having short term financial issues? If so, my personal experience is the LA are fairly accommodating to this situation and are willing to negotiate affordable repayment plans (sometimes going into the next tax year) before applying for a LO. Again speaking only from personal experience, I had one year where the LA twice agreed repayment plans before appling for a LO, and one year where they gave me just the one chance. My error was over-estimating what I could realistically afford and sustain, hence the repayment plans failing and it going to LO and on to enforcement.

[outlawla]

.....I had one year where the LA twice agreed repayment plans before appling for a LO, and one year where they gave me just the one chance. My error was over-estimating what I could realistically afford and sustain, hence the repayment plans failing and it going to LO and on to enforcement.

 

I might be wrong but the above example tells me that, although you defaulted on the agreements, the authority knew you were not a non-payer but because you defaulted more than once it would use court action and the application of costs as a penalty. In other words exploiting the judicial system.

 

EDIT:

 

Even the Ministry of Justice thinks that the liability order costs are a penalty, so what hope is there:

"

The threat of issuing a summons, allied to the costs which will be applied for acts as an incentive for people to meet their liability

[Peterbard]

You are correct in your above comment. The new regulations are so very different and it obvious that it would take many months (and more in a lot of cases) for the new regs to 'bed in' and importantly.....for local authority staff to understand the new way in which the regulations work.

 

It is worrying to see the almost desperate way in which individuals and groups are intent on trying to find 'loopholes' in the regulations and this is becoming more obvious by the day with the simply endless stream of Freeman of Information requests (as they are now jokingly being known) to local authorities regarding payments made to the councils direct once a debt is with an enforcement agent. The ones that are listed on this thread are from the What do they Know website but so many others are now being made to local authorities (no doubt with the intention of setting up an A-Z listing of all local authorities). Very sad indeed.

 

The newer batch of Freeman of Information requests are extremely poorly worded and appear (like ones on this thread) to be attempting to find out whether or not local authorities actually pay monies over to bailiff companies in cases where a debtor makes payment direct to the local authority.

 

Surprise surprise.....many councils do not do so and frankly, that is to be expected. What is important....and this is confirmed by almost every local authority....is that the local authority advise the bailiff company of the payment.....and bailiff enforcement will continue for the balance of the debt. What can be more simple to understand.

 

From documentation that I have seen from both IRRV and CIPFA it is very clear indeed that local authorities are 'coming up to speed' with the new regulations and are fully aware of the government's intention when setting up the 'pro rata' distribution of payments so as to ensure that bailiffs are paid for the work that they do.

 

The following document (The Explanatory Memorandum to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 is being widely distributed to all local authorities and section 8.3 is the relevant section regarding 'pro rata' payments.

runes

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

 

Hi yes just made this very point on your other thread, authorities will have different accounting procedures across the board, many will not physically transfer funds until year end, there certainly will not be an individual transfer every time a debtor makes a payment. A fundamental difference between this and fines is that ct is an ongoing debt,not a one off.

 

Care has to be taken when reading a request that says for instance, none of the money due to the authority is transferred, of course it wouldn't be, also we do not transfer money, well they probably don't but it does not mean the baiff does not get his fees,various account balances are adjusted that is all.

[Peterbard]

I think the problem lies in the understanding of the way the new regime is implemented.

Previously council tax and distress was authorised by the authority, they employed bailiffs and were responsible for distributing fees.

On the inception of the tce this changed. The tce said that any debt enforceable by warrant has to use schedule 12 proceedure.

 

This procedure states that all sums which are under an enforcement power are due to the ea, not the authority, they remain so until the enforcement power ceases.

[Bailiff Advice]

I think the problem lies in the understanding of the way the new regime is implemented.

 

Previously council tax and distress was authorised by the authority, they employed bailiffs and were responsible for distributing fees.

On the inception of the TCE this changed. The TCE said that any debt enforceable by warrant has to use schedule 12 procedure.

 

This procedure states that all sums which are under an enforcement power are due to the ea, not the authority, they remain so until the enforcement power ceases.

 

Excellent response indeed.

 

In one way or another, you and I have been 'involved' in the new regulations since 2006 and we both have a very good understanding of the various legislations supporting Part 3 of TCE (even though they are written in the alien language of 'gobbledygook').

 

Most significantly, prior to April 6th 2014 the legal position with council tax was that the fees belonged to the local authority and quite simply, LA's agreed with private sector bailiff companies that they could levy upon debtor's good on behalf of the LA....and they could also collect the fees...also on behalf of the LA. In fact, this important point was the reason why local authorities could not be found at fault if bailiff companies gave a 'kickback' to the LA of a percentage of the fees collected.

 

On 6th April 2014 this situation changed altogether and now....bailiff fees belong to the bailiff company. There is no other way around it.

 

Therefore, whilst the bailiff retains the warrant he is legally entitled to his fees.

 

If a debtor (foolishly in my opinion) chooses to deposit a payment into the council's bank account then legally the enforcement agent has a right be paid and will be. All local authorities are now advising the enforcement companies of direct payments and the enforcement companies records are updated and bailiff enforcement will continue until the full amount due in paid. Cannot be simpler.

 

As to how the payments are accounted for.....this is also quite simple as most enforcement companies are now using one of two accounting packages.

[Bailiff Advice]

Dodgeball

 

The attached should take you back a while....in fact...a long while!!

 

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/6637/online-news/bailiff-legislation-branded-gobbledygook

[outlawla]

....In fact, this important point was the reason why local authorities could not be found at fault if bailiff companies gave a 'kickback' to the LA of a percentage of the fees collected.....

 

It's funny that 'kick-backs' should be mentioned because there is a strong sense that certain bailiff advice is offered on the basis that kick-backs are offered from the government.

[outlawla]

....LA's agreed with private sector bailiff companies that they could levy upon debtor's good on behalf of the LA....and they could also collect the fees...also on behalf of the LA. In fact, this important point was the reason why local authorities could not be found at fault if bailiff companies gave a 'kickback' to the LA of a percentage of the fees collected.....

 

Local authorities could be found at fault and were entirely responsible for opportunist bailiff firms screwing the respective council's residents because the revenues manager or CEO wanted rewards for putting pressure on the contractors to do more and more work for free.

[outlawla]

.....All local authorities are now advising the enforcement companies of direct payments and the enforcement companies records are updated and bailiff enforcement will continue until the full amount due in paid. Cannot be simpler.....

 

What can not be simpler is that the debtor has no obligation to deal with the bailiff. If the debtor does not engage with the bailiff and he has no goods (outside of his premises) that can be taken control of, what advantage is there for the authority or its opportunists bailiffs to continue?

 

Though not encouraging non-payment of debts, I would much rather see people with next to nothing not having to part with the little they have to prop up ****my local authority CEOs and government ministers.

 

 

Pickles and Grayling, I'm sure are not loosing any sleep.

Edited February 20, 2015 by ploddertom
Removed potentially libellious & defamatory comment.

[ploddertom]

It's funny that 'kick-backs' should be mentioned because there is a strong sense that certain bailiff advice is offered on the basis that kick-backs are offered from the government.

 

Is it possible you can expand on that as the comment as it stands makes no sense.

[Coughdrop]

What can not be simpler is that the debtor has no obligation to deal with the bailiff. If the debtor does not engage with the bailiff and he has no goods (outside of his premises) that can be taken control of, what advantage is there for the authority or its opportunists bailiffs to continue?

 

Though not encouraging non-payment of debts, I would much rather see people with next to nothing not having to part with the little they have to prop up ****my local authority CEOs and government ministers.

 

 

Pickles and Grayling, I'm sure are not loosing any sleep.

 

I agree entirely with your sentiment. Again going back on personal experience I simply did not have the money to pay the bailiffs, I couldn't pay what I didn't have and felt immense pressure to agree repayment arrangements. The bailiff company were lying cheats who claimed phantom visits, claimed we had broken repayment arrangements when we hadn't and seemed intent on giving us as unpleasant a ride as possible - they succeeded. I would never want anyone to have to pay a bailiff anything they could avoid, but the only possible way of doing this currently is to wait until the debt is passed back to the LA, and hoping they don't take control of any goods during that 'sitting it out' time. This would be immensely stressful for the debtor, and often it may be better for them to pay and be done with it if they are able. If they are in the position we were, they simply would not be able to pay and things just go from bad to worse. The stress on us was appalling.

 

If people can sit it out (3 months, 6 months, one year? The length of time before the company return it to the LA seems to vary), then fees will be extinguished. They have to make sure they are paying someone something during that time though, so they are showing as can't pays not won't pays. If they don't pay the council directly, it's hard to see who else they would pay.

 

Knowing the immense stress we were under (and they were called to account for it later), I would still encourage people to engage at the very earliest opportunity to try to stop it getting to this point. Sadly, the ostrich syndrome is a natural, gut reaction for many and they have no idea it is making things so much worse.

[outlawla]

...If people can sit it out (3 months, 6 months, one year? The length of time before the company return it to the LA seems to vary), then fees will be extinguished. They have to make sure they are paying someone something during that time though, so they are showing as can't pays not won't pays. If they don't pay the council directly, it's hard to see who else they would pay...

 

If you are saying that any fees accrued which haven't been paid are extinguished once the debt has been returned to the local authority then that seems to be the obvious way to go.

 

You would need simply inform the council that you are not refusing to pay, but not willing to pay any monies in respect of bailiff fees, therefore waiting until there is conformation that the debt is no longer in the hands of the bailiff.

 

If the council were awkward by dragging the process out for any length of time you could also put in a formal complaint and/or contact your councillor to raise the issue that by not re-calling the debt the council is responsible for delaying council tax which is needed to provide vital services for the community.

[outlawla]

Is it possible you can expand on that as the comment as it stands makes no sense.

 

It may have been censored and the reason it makes no sense as it stands.

[honeybee13]

It may have been censored and the reason it makes no sense as it stands.

 

Post #64 hasn't been edited, unless you did it.

 

HB

[Bailiff Advice]

 

If people can sit it out (3 months, 6 months, one year? The length of time before the company return it to the LA seems to vary), then fees will be extinguished. They have to make sure they are paying someone something during that time though, so they are showing as can't pays not won't pays. If they don't pay the council directly, it's hard to see who else they would pay.

 

Knowing the immense stress we were under (and they were called to account for it later), I would still encourage people to engage at the very earliest opportunity to try to stop it getting to this point.

 

Since November the government have been undertaking meetings regarding the 'one year' review of the regulations and one of the aims is to look at the 'unintended consequences' of the new regs and I have no doubt that these endless Freeman of Information requests are being considered by different agencies (Ministry of Justice and DCLG). Changes will be made to legislation and that is commonly known.

 

However......most importantly...and this needs to be stressed....is that there are many reports (and articles in various trade journals) that a significant proportion of Liability Orders, Magistrate court fines and road traffic debts are being paid or subject to payment arrangements during the Compliance stage and that is excellent news not least for the following reasons:

 

a) The debtor is only subject to bailiff fees of £75 (Compliance fee).

 

b) The debtor is reducing their debt (in particular council tax) thereby hopefully clearing the account before the new council tax bill arrives at the end of March.

 

c) The local authority are receiving desperately needed revenue within the council tax year.

 

Yes....a debtor can 'sit it out' and when an enforcement agent returns the account to the creditor bailiff fees are removed and the 'enforcement power' ceases.

 

However, most bailiff companies will retain the account for between 3-6 months (very rarely longer) and if a debtor believes that a bailiff will only make one or two visits in that time....then sadly they are wrong !!! The individual bailiff only earns his commission from a percentage of the 'enforcement fee' and he will try to obtain payment. All bailiffs have specific areas that they work in and will return to the debtors property when he has other cases within the same area (maybe a week later or a month later and maybe even more frequent) and if the debtor has a motor vehicle that is at serious risk of being taken.

 

Probably the worse advice that I have come across was to read somebody advising that debtors should refrain from paying the bailiff and instead..put money into an ISA account and wait for the warrant to be returned to the local authority !!!

 

These Freeman of Information requests (as they are now jokingly referred) will very likely have harmed debtors as they have demonstrated to various government agencies that steps need to urgently be taken to ensure that much needed revenue to local authorities and courts is not delayed and I can see that one step will be to clarify the position regarding Attachment of Earnings. Some individuals should really should have considered this.

[outlawla]

......These Freeman of Information requests (as they are now jokingly referred) will very likely have harmed debtors as they have demonstrated to various government agencies that steps need to urgently be taken to ensure that much needed revenue to local authorities and courts is not delayed and I can see that one step will be to clarify the position regarding Attachment of Earnings. Some individuals should really should have considered this.

 

That would appear just opinion because if the FoI requests you refer to are the ones I've seen, they specifically raise the concern that if public money is being diverted to the authority's contractor which would ordinarily have gone to provide public services then the government is helping enrich these private firms and at the expense of the taxpayer as a whole.

[Peterbard]

That would appear just opinion because if the FoI requests you refer to are the ones I've seen, they specifically raise the concern that if public money is being diverted to the authority's contractor which would ordinarily have gone to provide public services then the government is helping enrich these private firms and at the expense of the taxpayer as a whole.

 

Without the contractor the delinquent account would not not be collected at all.

Contractors will not work unless they are paid sadly

[Coughdrop]

Without the contractor the delinquent account would not not be collected at all.

Contractors will not work unless they are paid sadly

 

That is true lol! Not many people will work for nothing.

 

If you are saying that any fees accrued which haven't been paid are extinguished once the debt has been returned to the local authority then that seems to be the obvious way to go.

 

You would need simply inform the council that you are not refusing to pay, but not willing to pay any monies in respect of bailiff fees, therefore waiting until there is conformation that the debt is no longer in the hands of the bailiff.

 

If the council were awkward by dragging the process out for any length of time you could also put in a formal complaint and/or contact your councillor to raise the issue that by not re-calling the debt the council is responsible for delaying council tax which is needed to provide vital services for the community.

 

I thought it was clear that's exactly what I was saying. I was in the position of having 4 LO's against me, two for CT and two NNDR. At the time I was hugely in debt, staring bankruptcy in the face and struggling to feed my family and myself, let alone pay anything else. I could not pay, simple as. I was happy to pay the very little I could, but was pressured by the enforcement company into repeated payment agreements they then claimed I had broken, or they had not agreed. The deceit was horrific.

 

I'm sure you must have known that once the account is returned to the LA the enforcement power ceases and fees are extinguished. The difficult bit for many in the situation is coping with the continual threat of a bailiff visit. The stress and worry caused by this can take its toll on the family involved and is difficult to live with for many - I was one of those many. That said, it is too early to know whether or not this approach will work, or whether councils will refuse to take accounts back - time will tell as people test the idea.

 

A point I have not seen raised about this is what the contract between council and enforcement company might state. It could be the case (though may not be) that this guarantees the enforcement company a certain amount of time to attempt to collect the debt, in which case the council could end up further out of pocket through penalty clauses or breach of contract issues. I don't know the answer to this as I've not read any SLA's.

 

There are arguments for and against both sides, and at the end of the day, individuals must do what they feel is right for them. One thing is sure - unless something is attempted, nobody can state whether it will work or not.