Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Bailiff Advice

Bailiff enforcement: Paying the council direct...can you tell the council not to deduct bailiff fees?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1273 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

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 came into effect in April 2014. A significant change to the regulations was how bailiff fees are to be deducted from any payment made. This is explained in detail on the following STICKY:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453047-Bailiff-enforcement-Setting-up-a-payment-arrangement-and-whether-you-can-pay-the-court-or-the-council-direct

 

Almost as soon as the regulations were introduced, local authorities around the country were inundated with Freedom of Information requests to ascertain whether or not the council would properly deduct the bailiffs fees in accordance with legislation in cases where the debtor defied the instruction on the Notice of Enforcement, and instead, paid the council the amount of the liability order only (minus bailiff fees). If nothing else, these FOI requests have highlighted to the councils the way in which the regulations had changed.

 

With the regulations having now been in place for 20 months it is now the case that paying the council direct (minus bailiff fees) rarely ever succeeds and instead, is leading to debtors being in a much worse financial position than ever before given that by the time the payment has been processed by the local authority, the 'compliance stage' outlined in the Notice of Enforcement would have ended and with it, the opportunity to enter into a payment arrangement without the need for a personal visit from the enforcement agent and a charge of £235 being applied.

 

Given that this is a discussion thread, it may be useful to debate this subject but please.....no arguments or squabbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear to be the advice on the Facebook groups, That you pay nothing to anyone until the bailiffs have failed to collect, And the debt has been handed back to the Council

 

As long as you keep your doors locked, Cars hidden, And don't let them in your house, There is not a lot that they can do

 

Once it has been handed back to the council, Then they should enter into a payment plan direct with the council, Minus the bailiff fees

 

I really don't see any evidence yet that that is not working, I guess time will tell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would appear to be the advice on the Facebook groups, That you pay nothing to anyone until the bailiffs have failed to collect, And the debt has been handed back to the Council

 

As long as you keep your doors locked, Cars hidden, And don't let them in your house, There is not a lot that they can do

 

Once it has been handed back to the council, Then they should enter into a payment plan direct with the council, Minus the bailiff fees

 

I really don't see any evidence yet that that is not working, I guess time will tell

 

Thank you Colin. A few days ago I did advise on the forum that bailiff fees can indeed be avoided and this is achieved by doing all of the following:

 

Ignoring the Notice of Enforcement

 

Not making any payment either to the enforcement company or the local authority.

 

Refusing to allow the bailiff entry into the property

 

Hiding any motor vehicle (between the hours of 6am and 9pm) until the debt is returned (approx 3-4 months).

 

Unfortunately however, the advice being given to debtors to either 'sit it out' or worse still, 'put the money into an ISA until the account is returned" is resulting in complaints being made by local authorities that the way in which the regulations have been written is encouraging non payment and leading to a loss of income. to the councils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that this is a discussion thread, it may be useful to debate this subject but please.....no arguments or squabbles.

 

I can't see that request being successful. Cynic, me? Nah!


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part response

 

1. If a Taxpayer has previous arrears subject to an Attachment to Earnings etc. payment will not be allocated against those debts. This of course would not be the case if the debtor expressly stated that payment is intended to reduce the indebtedness of that account. If a debtor specifies an account (in those circumstances) the Council would have no option but to allocate payment to that account?

 

Response

 

Yes. If a Taxpayer expresses which debt they would like the payment to be allocated against, the payment will be allocated to that debt. In the circumstances that you describe, the payment would be allocated to the debt the customer specifies.

 

For a broader context see here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part response

 

For a broader context see here

 

Thank you for your contribution to this thread Outlawla (and I genuinely do mean this). I am aware of the FOI requests and have recently had a number of discussions on this very subject so it is good to be able to debate it.

 

As interesting as these legal cases are (i.e.: Peters v Anderson etc), the fact remains that they cannot in any way be of relevance once the local authority has passed the account to a bailiff firm to enforce and enforcement related fees have been incurred.

 

The cases would only be of relevance if there was nothing in legislation to say how payment should be allocated. These legal cases range from 1814 through to 1953. Legislation introduced in 1992 would therefore take precedent (plus of course the Schedule 12 and 13 of TCEA 2007 and its supporting legislation.

 

As I have said above, my comments are only in relation to bailiff fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately however, the advice being given to debtors to either 'sit it out' or worse still, 'put the money into an ISA until the account is returned" is resulting in complaints being made by local authorities that the way in which the regulations have been written is encouraging non payment and leading to a loss of income. to the councils.

 

If that system is working and it would obviously be safer if the debtor had no car, then why is the Council losing income? I can understand that the

bailiff loses out and it may take a while for the bailiff to return the debt to the Council but once there the Council can make an arrangement with the debtor. Something that they could and should have done before calling in bailiffs. It always seems madness that Councils resort to using bailiffs

with their sky high fees which do seriously hurt those who are already on very tight budgets. Plus of course money that should have gone to the

Council goes to the bailiff thus deferring funds due to the Council which is to the detriment of other Council Tax payers.

 

I realise that since the advent of the new Regulations, that complaints about bailiffs have dwindled but only because the threat of being forced to

pay them £235 on top of the £75 which I am sure comes as a bolt out of the blue. Were it not for the fact that this dreadful piece of legislation was

passed by Parliament, any Court would have struck out the bailiff fees as In Terrorem if it was in a normal contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your contribution to this thread Outlawla (and I genuinely do mean this). I am aware of the FOI requests and have recently had a number of discussions on this very subject so it is good to be able to debate it.

 

As interesting as these legal cases are (i.e.: Peters v Anderson etc), the fact remains that they cannot in any way be of relevance once the local authority has passed the account to a bailiff firm to enforce and enforcement related fees have been incurred.

 

The cases would only be of relevance if there was nothing in legislation to say how payment should be allocated. These legal cases range from 1814 through to 1953. Legislation introduced in 1992 would therefore take precedent.

 

As I have said above, my comments are only in relation to bailiff fees.

 

It is essential to be mindful that the enforcement fees can only be recovered from the proceeds of enforcement. If you elect to pay your account directly, which you are lawfully entitled to do, there is no conceivable way that the payment is from the proceeds of enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is essential to be mindful that the enforcement fees can only be recovered from the proceeds of enforcement.

 

If you elect to pay your account directly, which you are lawfully entitled to do, there is no conceivable way that the payment is from the proceeds of enforcement.

 

The problem that you have is that by paying the council direct (minus bailiff fees due up until the point of payment) the debtor has in most cases, deliberately defied the strict instructions on the statutory Notice of Enforcement and for one purpose only....to try to avoid bailiff fees.

 

Secondly, even if we are to ignore any of the provisions within Schedule 12 of TCEA 2007 and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2014 for a moment, the fact remains that local authorities cannot ignore Regulation 52.4 of the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992. Some wording in section 52 has been amended under TCE but regulation 52.4 remains unchanged. This states as follows:

Relationship between remedies

 

Regulation 52(4):

 

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.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/52/made?view=plain

 

Where there is a problem is that regulation 52.4 almost certainly contradicts current legislation and needs to be looked at (hopefully under the One Year Review). I do know that it is a subject that has been raised.

 

This clause re-inforces the position that local authorities receiving direct payments from debtors must ensure that bailiff fees are deducted first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem that you have is that by paying the council direct (minus bailiff fees due up until the point of payment) the debtor has in most cases, deliberately defied the strict instructions on the statutory Notice of Enforcement and for one purpose only....to try to avoid bailiff fees.....

 

Isn't that the point? What other reason would someone obviously struggling to pay their council tax in the first place want to seek a lawful way out of incurring even more debt?

 

The enforcement agent is merely called upon by the council in the hope that they will collect the money, there's no legal obligation for the debtor to engage with the council's contractor.

 

EDIT:

 

If the debtor is willing to pay the council, that only suggests that the council were irresponsible in the first place to instruct the bailiffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that the point? What other reason would someone obviously struggling to pay their council tax in the first place want to seek a lawful way out of incurring even more debt?

 

The problem with your comment is that by and large, debtors are not looking for a way out of paying bailiff fees. That is a myth.

 

Instead, if they are unlucky, they will visit various websites and being unfamiliar with bailiffs and their fees scales, will tend to believe that the nonsense given is true and that by simply paying the amount only of the sum on the Liability Order to the council will avoid bailiff fees (which of course is utter nonsense).

 

People posting on forums have a responsibility to provide accurate information. If anyone suggests paying the council direct (in order to avoid bailiff fees) then for goodness sake at the very least they should also advise them of the pitfalls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People posting on forums have a responsibility to provide accurate information. If anyone suggests paying the council direct (in order to avoid bailiff fees) then for goodness sake at the very least they should also advise them of the pitfalls.

 

This advises of the pitfalls:

 

The important point is that it suggests that bailiff fees are optional and that election to pay the fees is determined entirely on whether the debtor chooses to engage with the bailiff.

 

Provided a cautious approach is taken, i.e., the debtor categorically refuses to allow the bailiff into his home and it is communicated in writing to the council that payment is intended to reduce the indebtedness of his council tax liability (not bailiff charges) and the debtor made aware of the possibility of goods outside being taken control of whilst the debt is outstanding, it would be madness to lay out an additional £300+ on top of whatever council tax liability is outstanding (and court costs) just to pay indirectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with your comment is that by and large, debtors are not looking for a way out of paying bailiff fees. That is a myth.

 

Instead, if they are unlucky, they will visit various websites and being unfamiliar with bailiffs and their fees scales, will tend to believe that the nonsense given is true and that by simply paying the amount only of the sum on the Liability Order to the council will avoid bailiff fees (which of course is utter nonsense).

 

People posting on forums have a responsibility to provide accurate information. If anyone suggests paying the council direct (in order to avoid bailiff fees) then for goodness sake at the very least they should also advise them of the pitfalls.

 

 

I think what is actually happening in the groups, Is that debtors are no longer being told to pay the council direct, They are being told to ignore the bailiffs, Until the bailiffs have given up and passed it back to the council, Then make a payment arrangement with the council

 

I believe that once that happens, The bailiffs are not actually due any fees, and the debtor can pay the council direct, Minus the Bailiff fees

 

If the groups are good for one thing, It is helping people to understand that bailiffs can't just do anything, However much they lie about what powers they have, Such as forcing entry for a civil debt, Drilling locks, And arresting debtors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Secondly, even if we are to ignore any of the provisions within Schedule 12 of TCEA 2007 and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2014 for a moment, the fact remains that local authorities cannot ignore Regulation 52.4 of the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992. Some wording in section 52 has been amended under TCE but regulation 52.4 remains unchanged. This states as follows:

 

Relationship between remedies

 

Regulation 52(4):

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/52/made?view=plain.

 

Just to re-iterate, the above clause (52.4) concern bailiff fees. The reason why this clause was written into the 1992 regs was because (as complicated as it is to understand) the bailiff fees belonged to the local authority. Any theory that 'costs and charges' are anything else are just that....a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what is actually happening in the groups, Is that debtors are no longer being told to pay the council direct, They are being told to ignore the bailiffs, Until the bailiffs have given up and passed it back to the council, Then make a payment arrangement with the council

 

I believe that once that happens, The bailiffs are not actually due any fees, and the debtor can pay the council direct, Minus the Bailiff fees

 

If you are referring to the various Facebook pages (which I think that you may be) I do agree with you. From the posts that I see, the frequent (none FMoTL) posters have realised that their previous advice to debtors to pay the council or the magistrate court direct fails miserably and by and large, their advice is as you have mentioned above (ignore the bailiffs and sit back to wait for the debt to be passed back to the council). You are correct in that when the bailiff eventually returns the warrant or instruction that bailiff fees are removed.

 

Today I had an enquiry from a debtor who posted on one of the Facebook pages in the summer about a parking ticket from LB of Harrow. He too was advised to pay the amount of the ticket only to Harrow and advised that the enforcement power 'would cease' (which of course it does not). The debt has now risen by £310 and as he has no money whatsoever, he has been parking his car (which is a minicab) in a private car park 2 miles from his home so that it cannot be seized by the enforcement agent!!

 

He has been doing this since August in the hope that the enforcement company will return the warrant. All of this just to avoid paying the £75 Compliance fee. Complete and utter madness. He was not pleased when I informed him that the regulations allow the local authority to EXTEND the warrant for a further 12 months and that even if the warrant does get retuned to the local authority they can simply pass it to another enforcement agent (as long as it is within the 12 month period).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that system is working and it would obviously be safer if the debtor had no car, then why is the Council losing income?

 

I can understand that the bailiff loses out and it may take a while for the bailiff to return the debt to the Council but once there the Council can make an arrangement with the debtor. Something that they could and should have done before calling in bailiffs.

 

It always seems madness that Councils resort to using bailiffs with their sky high fees which do seriously hurt those who are already on very tight budgets. Plus of course money that should have gone to the Council goes to the bailiff thus deferring funds due to the Council which is to the detriment of other Council Tax payers.

 

I realise that since the advent of the new Regulations, that complaints about bailiffs have dwindled but only because the threat of being forced to pay them £235 on top of the £75 which I am sure comes as a bolt out of the blue.

 

The reason why councils are losing money is because the wording in the legislation has been found to encourage some debtors to 'sit it out'. Take for example the case of a parking ticket debt. The warrant has a 'life' of 12 month and many are saying that this short period is causing people to use delaying tactics (such as writing endless letters of complaint to the council or enforcement agent) in the hope that the warrant will expire. With council tax, the same is happening. The regulations also provide that bailiff fees are removed if the account/warrant is returned.

 

From a document that I read a couple of days ago it was explained as follows:

 

Council tax for 2015/16 due on 1st April 2015. There would need to be two defaults before an application can be made for a Liability Order which is why the majority of LO's for this current tax year were awarded in August/September.

 

Given that there is no longer an obligation on the council to send a '14 day' letter,the debt can be sent straight to the enforcement agent. With most local authorities allowing 14 days to make payment (or more commonly; to set up a payment arrangement) this could mean that a local authority may start to receive payments in October. If however payment is not made a personal visit will take place. If the enforcement agent cannot take control of goods this could delay the procedure through to November. Most enforcement agents will retain the account for approx 3-4 months and in this scenario, the case may be returned to the council around February 2016 and the LA would have been without income for that account for 10 months.

 

On your point about debtors having to pay expensive bailiff fees of £235. In fact, from figures that I have seen a huge percentage of accounts (well over 50%) are either settled in full during the Compliance Stage or subject to a payment arrangement) The bailiff fees at this stage are capped at £75.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These fees are not so insignificant as they're being made out to be. In fact they're indefensible.

 

Even the chairman of LACEF admits that fees have been set so favourably that even local authorities, if they brought enforcement in-house would be provided with a nice little earner.

 

Article, page 42

 

....Which brings me to the many months and years of work we have contributed to the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) prolonged development of bailiff law reform. It is only a few months away now and we are being told that the level of new fees will more than adequately reflect our true costs – and will also deter bad bailiff practices.

 

All I know is that, having projected our turnover based on the promised new fees, there will be a decent argument for every local authority to rebuild its own internal bailiff teams. I have already had contact from several councils looking to reintroduce in-house bailiff teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These fees are not so insignificant as they're being made out to be. In fact they're indefensible.

 

Even the chairman of LACEF admits that fees have been set so favourably that even local authorities, if they brought enforcement in-house would be provided with a nice little earner.

 

Article, page 42

 

The comment was founded on the correct assertion that the overheads involved for in house bailiffs to enforce would be considerably less than the ones incurred currently, which would obviously result in a greater profit margin.

 

External enforcment agents are commercial businesses and will not operate unless there is a profit to be made(a commercial fact of life), this margin has been included within the calculation of the current fee scale.

 

Personally I think that should the enforcment become internal a revised scale would have to be issued to reflect the new operating conditions. A modification to the fees regulations would not be to difficult to achieve in in this regard.

 

All this makes absolutely no difference to the legality or enforceability of the current fee scale as prescribed under the TCE.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These fees are not so insignificant as they're being made out to be. In fact they're indefensible.

 

Even the chairman of LACEF admits that fees have been set so favourably that even local authorities, if they brought enforcement in-house would be provided with a nice little earner.

 

Article, page 42

 

I am not sure what the significance is with the article and the subject of this thread (which is about paying the council direct etc) but I will respond.

 

The article is two years old and the writer is a big supporter of 'in house' bailiff operations. Many councils in the past year have looked at putting their 'toe in the water' about taking enforcement in house but recently, many have realised that there are many pitfalls. I have made my point clear on this subject (which is that I do not support in house bailiff operations.

 

It is such a shame that CCR is no longer as it used to be as it was an excellent publication and one that I frequently contributed to (pages 10 and 11 on the thorny subject of ANPR).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is essential to be mindful that the enforcement fees can only be recovered from the proceeds of enforcement. If you elect to pay your account directly, which you are lawfully entitled to do, there is no conceivable way that the payment is from the proceeds of enforcement.

 

The problem with this argument, is that it is untrue.

 

Whilst the debt is under an enforcment power fees are due to the ea, whoever it is paid to. Fees are a statutory requirement not an option.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allocation of partial payments is not a matter of choice once the enforcement power is being exercised.

Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 directs all people, whether in a local authority or otherwise, how to allocate proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power that are less than the amount outstanding.

The amount outstanding is defined as including fees and disbursements so any payment made that is not large enough to cover all the fees and disbursement due at the time is less than the amount outstanding.

It is the billing authority which has the enforcement power bestowed upon them by Paragraph 14(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to enforce council tax arrears (or Section 62A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 for Non Domestic Rates arrears.)

The billing authority exercises the enforcement power by issuing it to an enforcement agent, either an employee of the council or via an external enforcement agency.

As soon as the instruction is received by the enforcement agent, the fee for the Compliance Stage is due and so the amount outstanding includes the £75 compliance fee.

If a payment that is less than the amount outstanding is made after the £75 has been added it represents proceeds that are “less than the amount outstanding” and so by virtue of Schedule 12 50(4) and regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, the payment must be allocated in accordance with fee regulation 13.

There is no expressed exception compelling the billing authority to handle it differently so they must follow the regulation.

There is no provision for anyone to compel the local authority to disregard the law and allocate payments in any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allocation of partial payments is not a matter of choice once the enforcement power is being exercised.

Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 directs all people, whether in a local authority or otherwise, how to allocate proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power that are less than the amount outstanding.

The amount outstanding is defined as including fees and disbursements so any payment made that is not large enough to cover all the fees and disbursement due at the time is less than the amount outstanding.

It is the billing authority which has the enforcement power bestowed upon them by Paragraph 14(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to enforce council tax arrears (or Section 62A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 for Non Domestic Rates arrears.)

The billing authority exercises the enforcement power by issuing it to an enforcement agent, either an employee of the council or via an external enforcement agency.

As soon as the instruction is received by the enforcement agent, the fee for the Compliance Stage is due and so the amount outstanding includes the £75 compliance fee.

If a payment that is less than the amount outstanding is made after the £75 has been added it represents proceeds that are “less than the amount outstanding” and so by virtue of Schedule 12 50(4) and regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, the payment must be allocated in accordance with fee regulation 13.

There is no expressed exception compelling the billing authority to handle it differently so they must follow the regulation.

There is no provision for anyone to compel the local authority to disregard the law and allocate payments in any other way.

 

No of course not, and there never was even before the TCE came into force.

I have some points about in house arrangements though, but probably for another thread.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason why councils are losing money is because the wording in the legislation has been found to encourage some debtors to 'sit it out'. Take for example the case of a parking ticket debt. The warrant has a 'life' of 12 month and many are saying that this short period is causing people to use delaying tactics (such as writing endless letters of complaint to the council or enforcement agent) in the hope that the warrant will expire. With council tax, the same is happening. The regulations also provide that bailiff fees are removed if the account/warrant is returned.

 

From a document that I read a couple of days ago it was explained as follows:

 

Council tax for 2015/16 due on 1st April 2015. There would need to be two defaults before an application can be made for a Liability Order which is why the majority of LO's for this current tax year were awarded in August/September.

 

Given that there is no longer an obligation on the council to send a '14 day' letter,the debt can be sent straight to the enforcement agent. With most local authorities allowing 14 days to make payment (or more commonly; to set up a payment arrangement) this could mean that a local authority may start to receive payments in October. If however payment is not made a personal visit will take place. If the enforcement agent cannot take control of goods this could delay the procedure through to November. Most enforcement agents will retain the account for approx 3-4 months and in this scenario, the case may be returned to the council around February 2016 and the LA would have been without income for that account for 10 months.

 

On your point about debtors having to pay expensive bailiff fees of £235. In fact, from figures that I have seen a huge percentage of accounts (well over 50%) are either settled in full during the Compliance Stage or subject to a payment arrangement) The bailiff fees at this stage are capped at £75.

 

Thank you for clarifying my question BA.

It would appear that it is short sighted of Councils not to continue the 14 day letter. They could add that the debt will be passed on to bailiffs

[sorry I cannot get my head round them being called Enforcement Agents-call a spade a spade] which will incur an automatic £75 charge plus

run the risk of a further £235 fee if agreement cannot be reached. I realise that Collectica Councils would probably be horrified at that since it

could harm the income for their bailiff bedfellows but it would surely be worthwhile for the Councils that have not been infested.

 

Your comment on the number who avoid the £235 is certainly an indication that the sum is In Terrorem but the sad fact is that a percentage of

Council Tax payers will be liable to pay it. Usually those least able to afford it. I am lucky enough now not to have to worry about bailiffs calling at my property but there was a time in the past....................

 

So you will forgive me if I continue to state that adding £235 on to people who cannot afford the original Tax is disgusting and as Outlawla says

"indefensible."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_24

 

Good response from Birmingham City council here, which was posted May. Basically just confirms what we were saying.

 

"Once a debt has been passed to the enforcement agent for collection, and

until such time as the debt is formally returned to the authority,

payments must be allocated in accordance with The Taking Control of Goods

(Fees) Regulations 2014 regardless of whether payment is made to the

authority or to the enforcement agent. In the original example that you

used (£420), the Enforcement Agent are allowed to take the Compliance fee

of £75.00 first. The remaining balance of £345 is then subject under the

regulations to being paid on a pro-rata basis. In effect, although

Birmingham City Council would receive £189.31, whilst the Enforcement

Agent receives £230.59, unfortunately this is in line with the new

regulations and the allocation of this cannot be contractually changed

between the authority and the Enforcement Agent."


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would appear to be the advice on the Facebook groups, That you pay nothing to anyone until the bailiffs have failed to collect, And the debt has been handed back to the Council

 

As long as you keep your doors locked, Cars hidden, And don't let them in your house, There is not a lot that they can do

 

Once it has been handed back to the council, Then they should enter into a payment plan direct with the council, Minus the bailiff fees

 

I really don't see any evidence yet that that is not working, I guess time will tell

 

 

That's the way I see it as well.

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...