JBW visit today Council Tax***Resolved***

[neil_tp]

The EA won't keep attending, they will move on to more profitable customers.

[neil_tp]

So if not back to court then what will happen? They can knock on until they're blue in the face for all I care!

 

 

Nothing, unless your car is outside or other valuable things! They won't keep calling!

[Peterbard]

I will try and explain this again.

 

When the order is referred to the EA for collection, the "amount due" ceases to be the sum on the liability order and became the ammount due under section 50(3) of the TCE schedule 12(the sum on the order +any fees upto date). This ammount is due to the EA not the council.

 

if you pay the council the sum will be sent to the bailiff, or credited to their account, the council may even send it back to you and tell you to pay the EA.

 

If you only pay a part of the total amount due to the EA(order +fees) and the debt is returned to the LA, the bailiff will retain a proportionate sum representing what is owed for fees.

This will come off what is credited to your liability order.

 

So the order will be short that ammount, and will not be settled, the authority will still be entitled to use the same enforcment power(bailiff) or a different one (AOE, committal) in order to recover the balance.

 

In fact any fees already paid to the bailiff will have to be paid again if and whenn the new bailiff gets the enforcement order.

[Peterbard]

Just to add tha all bailiffs take their fees if a stage has been successfully completed, unless you think that they work for nothing.

[neil_tp]

Capital Con just let us know what happens in the end? As long as you pay the LO off in full if its the correct amount you owe, the EA can do nothing. The EA would only get around £90 out of the £235 if paid so they won't keep knocking.

[Peterbard]

It seems difficult buyt really it isnt. The EA is not knocking for his fees he is knocking for the balance of the ammount due. He can because this sum has not bn paid and therefore the liability order has not been settled, it cannot be settled until the full amount due is paid.

 

Now I Think that is enough, for a reasonably intelligent person to be able to understand so anything else would be repeating myself, so adeu

[neil_tp]

A LO does not include EA fees!

[Leakie]

I agree with DB

 

this is why I asked if you had paid the £75, when they said you had paid up.

 

if this was the case then they fooled you to get the extra

 

Unless you have what they said about your last payment in writing then I'm afraid you still owe, and you will be hassled

until it is paid.

[Capital_Con]

I agree with DB

 

this is why I asked if you had paid the £75, when they said you had paid up.

 

if this was the case then they fooled you to get the extra

 

Unless you have what they said about your last payment in writing then I'm afraid you still owe, and you will be hassled

until it is paid.

 

When I spoke with them today (and also on the 17th March) I was told the amount I owed the council had been paid in full and the only amount outstanding was the last £235 fee they applied. To go one further when I made the payment on 17th I specifically asked if the amount that I was paying was only going to be used to pay the council and the reply I got was "if you pay the remainder today we will contact the council to tell them the debt has been paid in full, we will then withhold any further bailiff action for a period of four weeks while we review the case"

 

When I spoke today I asked them to confirm again that the council was owed nothing which they did. The council has been paid so they are now chasing me for the £235 fee only, nothing else.

[Peterbard]

When I spoke with them today (and also on the 17th March) I was told the amount I owed the council had been paid in full and the only amount outstanding was the last £235 fee they applied. To go one further when I made the payment on 17th I specifically asked if the amount that I was paying was only going to be used to pay the council and the reply I got was "if you pay the remainder today we will contact the council to tell them the debt has been paid in full, we will then withhold any further bailiff action for a period of four weeks while we review the case"

 

When I spoke today I asked them to confirm again that the council was owed nothing which they did. The council has been paid so they are now chasing me for the £235 fee only, nothing else.

 

I am afraid someone is telling porkies, it just does not work like that. There are so many reasons that i could write a book.

[Capital_Con]

I am afraid someone is telling porkies, it just does not work like that. There are so many reasons that i could write a book.

 

Why would both people I spoke to say exactly the same thing, or are you implying I'm telling porkies, I assure you I am not.

[Capital_Con]

You still owe the £235,

This part fees part LO

so the issue is where did the extra £115 come from

 

The extra £115? I was told the liability order had been paid off in full??

[Tuco]

Hi Con

 

I have been reading this thread with interest for some time.

Tonight, I have decided to register in order to respond.

 

Firstly, I can assure you that nobody else other than yourself is in danger of having goods removed unless they are named on the liability order

-This is the UK, not North Korea, we still require due process here.

 

Secondly, I think you are taking your eye off the target.

You have no need to get dragged into petty squabbles regarding what is owed,

what the bailiffs can take and what is outstanding.

The bottom line is that JBW are trying to royally shaft you and this is what you need to address.

 

I would venture to suggest that any agreement that you have made was done so verbally over the phone?

 

Did JBW follow this up with anything in writing?

If so, did it mention a specific date that payments should be made by?

Did it mention the consequenses, if you didn't pay by that date?

 

The answers to the above are not crucial as your case is very strong in any case,

the answers may determine what follows though.

 

You need to send in a formal complaint to the council.

 

 

Your grounds are:

 

1. The unreasonableness of JBW's actions

2. What was the purpose of the visit when the payment had already been made?

3. Why was the visit made so long after the payment had been made?

4. What harm was caused to JBW and/or the council by the payment being 2 days late?

5. Why visit in the middle of March when the final payment was due in less than 2 weeks in any case?

7. Why have no further visits been made? (the answer is because JBW cannot manufacture any further fees)

8. You agreed to make monthly payments and you kept to this-This was the agreement.

9. Ask the council to supply copies of any agreements made

 

You now consider the matter closed and you ask the council to put a stop to the intimidation and harassment that JBW are inflicting on you.

[Leakie]

Sorry Captain Con I muddled 2 tread please ignore the £115remark

my mistake

[Peterbard]

Hi Con

 

 

I have been reading this thread with interest for some time. Tonight, I have decided to register in order to respond.

 

 

Firstly, I can assure you that nobody else other than yourself is in danger of having goods removed unless they are named on the liability order-This is the UK, not North Korea, we still require due process here.

 

Untrue , if the bailiff considers that you have an interest in the goods or they are jointly owned he can take them.

 

 

Secondly, I think you are taking your eye off the target. You have no need to get dragged into petty squabbles regarding what is owed, what the bailiffs can take and what is outstanding. The bottom line is that JBW are trying to royally shaft you and this is what you need to address.

 

What is owed is rather the point isn't it ? If there was nothing owed there would be no enforcement

 

 

I would venture to suggest that any agreement that you have made was done so verbally over the phone?

[

Did JBW follow this up with anything in writing? If so, did it mention a specific date that payments should be made by? Did it mention the consequenses, if you didn't pay by that date?

 

A verbal agreement is just as binding as written one, (a knowledge of simple law would have helped here). If you made an agrement over the phone it will undoubtedly be recorded, it is not a good idea to lie about such a thing.

 

 

The answers to the above are not crucial as your case is very strong in any case, the answers may determine what follows though.

 

 

You need to send in a formal complaint to the council. Your grounds are:

 

 

1. The unreasonableness of JBW's actions

Enforcing legally due sums

 

2. What was the purpose of the visit when the payment had already been made?

 

Still sums outstanding on the debt owed to the EA

 

3. Why was the visit made so long after the payment had been made?

,

As above the warrant will be live for 12 months

 

4. What harm was caused to JBW and/or the council by the payment being 2 days late?

 

Not a question of harm, the payment was late that is all.

 

5. Why visit in the middle of March when the final payment was due in less than 2 weeks in any case?

 

As above

7. Why have no further visits been made? (the answer is because JBW cannot manufacture any further fees)

 

8. You agreed to make monthly payments and you kept to this-This was the agreement.

9. Ask the council to supply copies of any agreements made

 

You may get s transcript they may just use previous payments as proof.

 

You now consider the matter closed and you ask the council to put a stop to the intimidation and harassment that JBW are inflicting on you.

 

Rather a matter if they consider it closed .

 

 

HI just seen this "response", just a few points above for you to consider, regarding its value.

[lookinforinfo]

4. What harm was caused to JBW and/or the council by the payment being 2 days late?

 

Not a question of harm, the payment was late that is all.

 

Accepting that the payment was late and therefore the arrangement was not adhered to, where in the legislation does it say that a fee of £235 is automatically payable. In this instance by the time the EA called, the arrangement was up to date, so he couldn't be coming to take goods into control [which would surely have been the only reason to call].

[Peterbard]

It doesnt matter the arrangement would have been made for payments on a certain date, The compliance period would have been extended for the period conditional on receipt of payment.

 

When a payment was missed the compliance would end and enforcment begin, payment for that stage would be due on first visit.

[Peterbard]

I notice some person droning on about guidance.

First thing about this is it is just guidence. The main thing is that, this should be considered before the agreement is made and the terms set accordingly.

Not after the agrement has been breached by making a late payment.

 

obviously

[unclebulgaria67]

I must admit i find some of the replies a little too stringent.

 

The purpose of a council employing enforcement companies is to gain payment of a liability. When a council tax payer enters into an agreement with an Enforcement Agent outside of a controlled goods agreement, it is a gentlemans agreement that is entered into. In this case, it appears that the agreement was to pay £x at the end of each month, which the OP appears to have complied with, apart from February where they were two days late, it being a short month. The EA appears to have used this slightly late payment to add the £235 enforcement fee to the account, which is for a visit to obtain payment or goods, if the full liability remaining is not paid.

 

I think if the OP makes a complaint to the council and if necessary takes it to the LGO that they have chance of success, with the £235 written off. I don't think it would be considered reasonable to add £235 for an enforcement visit, due to a slightly late payment, when other payments had been made on time as agreed.

[Peterbard]

The problem with that is that there is no reason for complaint the EA acted within the law and in fact within the guidelines as far as we know.

 

Just step back a bit and look at the legal position for minute.

 

The EA send a compliance notice which gives the debtor seven days to pay the total sum owed. After this the EA can legally enforce make the visit and charge the fee. This he has a right to do in law.

However he can(and should ) accept a reasonable repayment plan, based on guidelines and good practice.

 

Keep in mind that all this time , if the original notice period has passed, he is able to enforce, the only reason he does not is because of the agreement with the debtor.

 

When the debtor breaches that agreement it is no longer binding and the bailiff will enforce. The bailiff will say with some justification that if the debtor could not stick to the agrement they should not have entered into it, this is the legal standpoint.

 

Having said all that, it does not mean that the bailiff (or the authority)will not agree to a furhter stay of enforcment, but like it or not the decision is in his hands, it is not he who has broken the agreement.

 

If a letter is to be written the tone must be completely different and in the form of a request because frankly she is in no position to make demands.

[unclebulgaria67]

Dodgeball

 

Enforcement is about obtaining liability owed and not purely about fees.

 

As far as i understand it, there is nothing within the legislation about enforcement companies going immediately for enforcement, when there has been a slight breach of a gentlemans agreement. The EA made the decision to move to the enforcement stage, after the February payment had been made. The Councils liability was being paid and that is what enforcement is for. Under the legislation that applies to HCEO, there is an automatic escalation upon a breach of agreement, where further enforcement fees become due. I don't think this applies to standard EA's outside of a controlled goods agreement.

 

This may be a grey area open to argument, but i would feel exactly the same if i were in the OPs shoes.

[Peterbard]

Dodgeball

 

Enforcement is about obtaining liability owed and not purely about fees.

 

As far as i understand it, there is nothing within the legislation about enforcement companies going immediately for enforcement, when there has been a slight breach of a gentlemans agreement. The EA made the decision to move to the enforcement stage, after the February payment had been made. The Councils liability was being paid and that is what enforcement is for. Under the legislation that applies to HCEO, there is an automatic escalation upon a breach of agreement, where further enforcement fees become due. I don't think this applies to standard EA's outside of a controlled goods agreement.

 

This may be a grey area open to argument, but i would feel exactly the same if i were in the OPs shoes.

 

'UB you do not seem to have read or understood what has just been written. The EA was already entitled to enforce, this was delayed because of the agreement. Al fees and sums under the order are due to the EA. It was not a gentleman's agreement it was a binding contract, you do know what a verbal agreement is of couse, i only ask because, oh never mind.

[unclebulgaria67]

'UB you do not seem to have read or understood what has just been written. The EA was already entitled to enforce, this was delayed because of the agreement. Al fees and sums under the order are due to the EA. It was not a gentleman's agreement it was a binding contract, you do know what a verbal agreement is of couse, i only ask because, oh never mind.

 

The EA took the decision for a £235 enforcement visit after 2 day late payment, because the fee is £235. Had the fee been say £50, it then becomes not economic to do a visit because of a 2 day late payment.

 

I do understand what has been written, but i come to a different view. I don't deem a 2 day late payment as breaching an agreement in spirit, enough to justify a £235 enforcement visit.

 

During the initial compliance period it encourages debtors to come an acceptable arrangement, but these arragements are not covered by specific law or contract stating consequence of a late payment. Unless you can point to this specifically. Obviously if the liability was not being paid at the time the account was checked, then it would be reasonable to continue enforcement. But in the OPs case JBW took the decision after the slightly late payment. I don't think the LGO would think this is a fair position.

[Peterbard]

I think i have mentioned this a couple of times before but again. The EA is allowed to enforce when the compliance stage has ended, so any time after the 7 days.

He is then able to enforce, is that clear,, he needs no further authorisation this is in the taking control of goods regulations 2013.

 

There is nothing however which says he must enforce immediately, he can, or he can call in weeks time if he likes. this creates a window where any agreement can be facilitated with the debtor, in that the EA agrees not to call as long as payments are made according to a schedule.

 

This agreement is entirely in the hands of the EA and the creditor. (although there is guidance and good practice which should be followed.)

 

The EA my take the opinion that, with this being a last ditch facility which is being offered the debtor the terms must be strictly adhered to.

This is usual and given that the debtor would have had made and broken many other agreements in the debts history(usually), is understandable.

 

The agreement will state when and how payments have to be made, there is no "slight breach" if a payment is not made on time, since this is the function of the agreement, it would be repudiatory and terminal.

 

If this is broken, he can continue as per the schedule and regulations.

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for answering my question Dodgeball.

However I have to agree with Uncle Bulgaria on this particular case. Within the strict terms of the Law, your appraisal of the situation is correct. But our Courts in coming to a judgement weigh up all the relevant factors before coming to a judgement. I feel that the LGO would take into account the fact that the OP did come to an agreement with the EA during the legal time limit and did

keep up those payments and has now paid off the whole amount.

Yes one payment was delayed by only two days and the case for the EA may have been stronger had they actually visited before the late payment was made. By calling round several days later

they were there solely to garner their fees since they could not have been there to take control of goods as the agreement was back on track. The fact that they did not visit for 14 days after

the missed payment date does not help the EAs argument. Furthermore, the OP then settled the outstanding one payment due at the end of the month two weeks early to avoid paying the fee which appeared to be what the bailiff company agreed over the phone.

 

It appears that the OP is continuing to contact the EA or the bailiff company rather than writing a complaint to the Council. The only way to get a resolution one way or the other if the Council

backs the EA is for the Local Government Ombudsman to give their decision.