Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1467 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

Hi please could someone advise me on what to do with jbw pls. I got a letter saying that I had to contact them regarding a £178.00 council tax debt that had been passed on. I contacted them 2 days later after receiving another telling me I had failed to contact them to make arrangement . Only the 1st letter was dated Dec I received this in Jan around the 10th . I contacted them explaining that I could make a payment of £10pcm until my finances changed as I was looking for another job. I explained my income is 15hrs at 6.78 and that I was boarding with a friend an no belongings in the flat where mine as I had to leave my old property . They explained they wanted no less than £85 pcm I repeated I have £10 spare a month after paying my board etc so they reduced it to £50 pcm . Again I explained I had nothing more to give other my proposed offer. They asked me to send proof of income an outgoings which I did I also wrote a letter to the ceo of my town hall asking for my case to be reviewed and put on hold . Heard nothing back. Jbw have sent a further letter telling me that they are seeking possession of my goods. I'm at a loss on what to do now as I left my house I had with clothes and things like a hair dryer etc .l already have a council tax being taken from my wages so wasn't aware I had another until this . Any help would be great full thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seek possession all they like, if you have nothing then there is nothing for them to steal¬!

 

Which local authority (Council) is this?

 

If the LA is already taking money out of your earnings, then how have they gone down this route?


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Barrow borough council . I had a 2000 pound debt an it has been paid this way and I pay less than what jbw are wanting as they take a percentage of wage . This is a different debt but as far as I was aware they can take two out my wage as the did this before but this jbw have wrote to me . I just don't know what to do as my friend is panicking incase they try take his stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi please could someone advise me on what to do with jbw pls.

 

I got a letter saying that I had to contact them regarding a £178.00 council tax debt that had been passed on. I contacted them 2 days later after receiving another telling me I had failed to contact them to make arrangement . Only the 1st letter was dated Dec I received this in Jan around the 10th . I contacted them explaining that I could make a payment of £10pcm until my finances changed as I was looking for another job. I explained my income is 15hrs at 6.78 and that I was boarding with a friend an no belongings in the flat where mine as I had to leave my old property . They explained they wanted no less than £85 pcm I repeated I have £10 spare a month after paying my board etc so they reduced it to £50 pcm . Again I explained I had nothing more to give other my proposed offer.

 

They asked me to send proof of income an outgoings which I did I also wrote a letter to the ceo of my town hall asking for my case to be reviewed and put on hold . Heard nothing back.

 

JBW have sent a further letter telling me that they are seeking possession of my goods. I'm at a loss on what to do now as I left my house I had with clothes and things like a hair dryer etc

 

l already have a council tax being taken from my wages so wasn't aware I had another until this . Any help would be great full thank you

 

I have broken your query down a bit to make it a little simpler to read.

 

Do you receive any other benefits?

 

I note that you have an attachment against earnings for the other larger debt (of £2k). How much is being deducted each month?

 

It would be very nice to hear that the local authority have taken notice of your letter to the Chief Executive but I would not hold out too much hope. After all, the vast majority of people who receive a letter from a firm of bailiffs would like to have their case reviewed to have lower payment arrangements put in place. Also, JBW (and all other enforcement companies) will have to be guided by the contract that they have with the relevant local authority regarding the length of time that any payment arrangement should be over.

 

Given your circumstances, your account would be far better being dealt with by JBW's Welfare Team. If you wish, I can ask a moderator to contact you for further details.

 

Is there any way that you could raise the payment proposal to £20 per month or is that out of the question?

 

Also, can you just confirm that an enforcement agent has not yet visited your property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thank you the 2k debt has only £81.00 left to pay and is taken at 3% of my wage I think my basic rate of pay is around 442 a month. I don't receive any benefits at all they told me I have 3 months possibly 4 at the £50 a month to pay an that is only deal they will strike with me. I really on have about £11 a month left once I've paid my board food etc off . No 9ne has visited the property as yet . The latest letter is a final warning prior to enforcement action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi thank you the 2k debt has only £81.00 left to pay and is taken at 3% of my wage I think my basic rate of pay is around 442 a month.

 

I don't receive any benefits at all they told me I have 3 months possibly 4 at the £50 a month to pay an that is only deal they will strike with me. I really on have about £11 a month left once I've paid my board food etc off . No 9ne has visited the property as yet . The latest letter is a final warning prior to enforcement action

 

I was looking back at one of your earlier posts from last year and it is clear that you have gone through a very difficult period. With your limited income I can well understand now why you would struggle paying any more than £10 per month. As I said earlier, if you require your account being referred to a specialist person within JBW to review your payment proposal,please post back and one of the moderators can contact you.

 

PS: Well done for managing to almost clear the attachment of earnings order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two forms of enforcement cannot be pursued against the same person for the same matter at the same time. It is unlawful to do so. Someone, somewhere has cocked-up. And it is probably within the council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two forms of enforcement cannot be pursued against the same person for the same matter at the same time. It is unlawful to do so. Someone, somewhere has cocked-up. And it is probably within the council.

 

But in this case that has not happened. She has one Liability Order that is subject to an attachment of earnings order and another Liability Order that has been passed to JBW to enforce.

 

If fact, a maximum of two liability orders can be deducted from a debtor. They must of course be two separate Liability Orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two forms of enforcement cannot be pursued against the same person for the same matter at the same time. It is unlawful to do so. Someone, somewhere has cocked-up. And it is probably within the council.

Plausible reason, welcome back OB, with the sheer number of LO's and they are increasing, the potential for error increases.


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 OTHERS

 

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
Plausible reason, welcome back OB, with the sheer number of LO's and they are increasing, the potential for error increases.

 

it is not so much that the number of Liability Orders have increased. The problem is that in April 2014 amendments were made to regulations that removed the right for the local authority to send a '14 day' letter to the debtor to advise that a Liability Order had been obtained and that if proposals were not made with the council to repay the debt, that the case would be sent to a private sector enforcement agent.

 

A lot of local authorities continued sending the letter in 2014 with a lot less councils doing so last year and I assume even less will do so this year.

 

With proposed plans on attachment of earnings (which should be announced shortly) the '14 day' letter is due to be challenged. Hopefully more news on this subject shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would be very nice to hear that the local authority have taken notice of your letter to the Chief Executive but I would not hold out too much hope.

 

I have received a few enquiries about my above comment. In particular, given that on my website I had previously advised that any complaint about a local authority or enforcement agent should be copied to the Chief Executive. I amended that advice quite some time ago.

 

The reason why I no longer suggest writing to the Chief Executive is mainly due to social media sites routinely advising members of the public that if they have even a minor complaint, about a bank, finance company, mobile phone provider, enforcement company or local authority etc that they should address their letter as a Formal Complaint to the Chief Executive. A website link to an internet site detailing the names of Chief Executives and their personal email addresses is always provided.

 

Accordingly, Chief Executives are being inundated with correspondence; most of which should be addressed to a more appropriate department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was looking back at one of your earlier posts from last year and it is clear that you have gone through a very difficult period. With your limited income I can well understand now why you would struggle paying any more than £10 per month. As I said earlier, if you require your account being referred to a specialist person within JBW to review your payment proposal,please post back and one of the moderators can contact you.

 

PS: Well done for managing to almost clear the attachment of earnings order.

 

The OP has not posted back. At the time of giving her advice on here it was not known that she was also seeking assistance from another forum (using a different user name).

 

She was told by the person on there to ignore the advice being given on here and that I am supposedly a ‘plant’ for bailiff companies (which is complete and utter nonsense).

 

She was told that the Chief Executive WOULD take notice of a letter and that if they did not, that the Local Government Ombudsman would be ‘down on them like a ton of bricks’.

 

She was told in no uncertain terms to steer away from JBW’s Welfare Dept. She responded to state that......the correspondence that she had already received from JBW was in fact....from the Welfare Dept !!!

 

On 27th Jan JBW advised her by email that they would only accept £20 per month. She was told to once again, email the Chief Executive of the council.

 

Yet more correspondence was suggested on 27th Jan. This time to meet JBW ‘half way’ by revising the offer of repayment to £15.00 per month.

 

On 2nd February, the OP wrote back that she had received an urgent email from JBW and text messages. She was clearly getting worried. She was advised to call the Local Government Ombudsman’s helpline to complain that the council’s CEO had not responded to her letter.

 

The person assisting her then advised her that for ‘peace of mind’...you should accept the £20 per month repayment proposal !!!

 

Yesterday the OP wrote back to say that she has now received a response from her letter to the Chief Executive. The local authority have reviewed JBW’s records and this shows that apparently, on 2nd February an enforcement visit was made to her property.....increasing the debt by £235.....and that 16 minutes after a letter was left, that she contacted JBW offering to pay £20 per month instead of £15 per month.

 

The person that she is staying with has had enough of her problems, and the continued risk that his belongings could be taken that he has asked her to leave. She will now be homeless.

 

I feel desperately sorry for this young lady. She was used to try to prove that the advise that she was being given on here was wrong and it failed.

 

Writing letters of complaints to Chief Executives is no longer the right approach and with the level of correspondence that they receive daily, can take up to two weeks to even be addressed.....and in that time, the account is not put on hold (which has led to this young lady incurring an enforcement visit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I feel desperately sorry for this young lady. She was used to try to prove that the advise that she was being given on here was wrong and it failed.

 

This young lady needs help and I only hope that she now receives it. She should not be used any further.

 

If she wishes to have her case referred to JBW for review (and hopefully to agree the removal of the enforcement fee of £235) then that offer is still available to her and all she needs to do is to contact one of the moderators on this site and they will get a message to me.

 

My concern is purely for her welfare. It is a shame that others have a different agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 2 LO's are from the same LA the OP can ask the LA to suspend the second one until this first is paid, then the 2nd one kicks in... As posted on the NDL site... Unless I am wrong?


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

It used to be usual procedures I think.(unless it has been amended)

 

However it is upto The authority what kind of enforcement is used, if they feel that a previous AOE has not been successful in retuning the debtor to the situation where he pays the bill when due, a further one isn't going to either.

They will not want to put off the payment of the debts on a continuing basis. They may consider another enforcement method more appropriate.


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

There are some letters being sent to the CEOs of the various authorities stating that AOEs can only be added to an account when the previous one has expired(is paid off).

 

This is not the case, and is just another case of FMoTL not being able to read relevant legislation. Two AOEs can be run on one account coincidentally and in date order, the second using the residue of the net income available after the first is taken out.


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

DB sorry to be a pain in the ...

 

You said

 

'There are some letters being sent to the CEOs of the various authorities stating that AOEs can only be added to an account when the previous one has expired(is paid off)'.

 

Have you got any links to show us this please or proof this has been done? As I would like to know simply because I wish to know

 

Thx


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

I can tell you itss in the council tax amendments regulations 1992, MM and also in the guidance issued to employer from the MOJ.

 

Just goog;ed this, which contains the said info page 6 http://www.bolton.gov.uk/sites/DocumentCentre/Documents/Council%20Tax%20Attachments%20of%20Earnings%20Orders%20(AEOs)%20-%20Guidance%20for%20Employers.pdf


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

Also Po55 Hopefully you re still observing this thread. The implied rights of access does not refer to bailiffs, so please do not depend on this, you mast make sure your doors are locked, otherwise the bailiff will walk in(and quite legally ).

 

I will comment no further on here.


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

Ok dodge. Not what asked for. You suggested it was debtor's that use FMOTL information were doing this. Can you prove this?

 

As far as your link goes that's old hat. The debtor simply asks the LA to run ONE LO at at time. Failing that the debtor can approach the Court for them to decide. As I have said previously..

 

Would you like to clarify your original post about this? As you also said something about 'those FMoTL' which is what you meant. I was looking for information similar to or better.

 

This advice is freely available on the NDL site too. So I will ask in the most simplistic of terms. Have you GOT ANY proof that FMOTL people have sent these letters to any LA'S CEO'S if so please provide the links please. Because many posters like would like to see this information...


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
Ok dodge. Not what asked for. You suggested it was debtor's that use FMOTL information were doing this. Can you prove this?

 

As far as your link goes that's old hat. The debtor simply asks the LA to run ONE LO at at time. Failing that the debtor can approach the Court for them to decide. As I have said previously..

 

Would you like to clarify your original post about this? As you also said something about 'those FMoTL' which is what you meant. I was looking for information similar to or better.

 

This advice is freely available on the NDL site too. So I will ask in the most simplistic of terms. Have you GOT ANY proof that FMOTL people have sent these letters to any LA'S CEO'S if so please provide the links please. Because many posters like would like to see this information...

 

If it is "old hat" why are you getting it wrong ? It is nothing to do with what the debtor asks, it is what the employer is required to do. As far as putting links to your FMoTL friends, I would sooner put pins in my eyes. Anyway no more on here.


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

Wow DB my friends for your information are Police officers that are serving and Cllrs. To name but two. As for your crazy narrow views as to my friends again I have no idea what you are going on about.

 

So you are now saying that the National Debt Line (NDL) are FMoTL brilliant advice DB.


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

never said anything like that , NDL re a great organisation, used them many times myself, certainly nothing to do with the FMoTL ?


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

Since you asked MM i think I can show you this, it is the offending part of a letter which the "adviser " told a debtor to send :

 

"3. If a second AOE had been set up, would this not have actually been activated until the original AOE had been cleared, as per regulation 42 of the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended)"

 

As you see it relies on repealed legislation the situation now is that a second AOE can run alongside the first.


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

This I already know. But. You can still ask the LA to SUSPEND the 2nd LO. This could be due to HARDSHIP reasons to name one..


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...