Can bailiff visit Ltd Co premises for pers CTAX arrears?

[Coughdrop]

A promise I made to the site team meant I did not post on this thread yesterday. However, today is another day, and while I won't mention a myriad of things I wanted to mention yesterday, I will mention one thing for the benefit of the OP.

 

You have been advised:

 

I should think it will be a distinct possibility they will call at your home, usual procedure lock doors and keep cars and anything valuable outside under lock and key. unlikely they will call at your work.

This is imprudent advice. I know a couple of days ago when you first posted, it was clear from looking back at previous threads and issues you've had that you were self employed, hence me asking if you were still - an issue which has become significant.

 

At that stage, you had a few things, not least of all a valuable kiln, which were at risk. Whilst it is possible the above advice may be the case, given you are self employed and they clearly know where your work premises are, it is as likely, possibly more likely, they will call at your work premises as your home. I don't want to scare you, but it needs mentioning for your sake.

[daverules]

Hello CD

I wondered why you have been quiet in this thread, you were bound by a gagging order.

 

As for the myriad of things you could mention I believe I know what you are referring to, and to

avoid another thread being closed I have refrained from stating the obvious about other threads

bemoaning that no contact with bailiff is debt avoidance but posts in this thread are totally

all for avoiding and hiding assets.

 

Anyway best of luck to the OP.

 

Regards to all

[lookinforinfo]

Whitsend, when I first wrote I advised you to write to the Council with your complaint. The advantage of writing is that your complaint is on record and that some one intelligent enough to be able to read gets your complaint and also understands the Data Protection Act. of course the Bailiff company were also in breach of the DPA by discussing your case with the recipient of the letter and remind them that they are respnsible for the actions of their bailiffs.

I understand that time is not on your side but writing is the way to go. You have very little chance of having the account handed back to the Council but you have a better chance that they will put your account on hold from the bailiffs till their investigation is complete and they may ask the bailiffs not to visit you at your workplace if you ask. In the light of the mistake they made which

automatically is a breach of the DPA [getting the address wrong] but is compounded by the fact that people other than yourself were then able to read the bailiff letter which is would be

embarrassing enough if it had gone to a part of town where you were unknown, so doubly compounded by the fact that you were known by those who read it.

 

There was no reason for the bailiff to visit your workplace since the debt is a personal one . Add that you will wait the Council's decision and depending on their answer you will decide whether to upgrade your complaint to the ICO who monitor the DPA.

[Coughdrop]

Hello CD

I wondered why you have been quiet in this thread, you were bound by a gagging order.

 

As for the myriad of things you could mention I believe I know what you are referring to, and to

avoid another thread being closed I have refrained from stating the obvious about other threads

bemoaning that no contact with bailiff is debt avoidance but posts in this thread are totally

all for avoiding and hiding assets.

 

Anyway best of luck to the OP.

 

Regards to all

 

Lol - a gagging order!

 

To be fair, it was self imposed, though I did inform the site team why I was not posting, and indeed what I would have been posting. There were a few things I would have highlighted, possibly including the one you mention. However, I said I would not comment yesterday, so I will stick to my word and not confirm one way or the other.

[Coughdrop]

There's an excellent guide to the DPA here:

 

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/

 

It gives examples for each section of the act, so you will be able to ascertain more clearly what rights you may or may not have.

 

Collection of taxes does, if I remember correctly, carry certain exemptions from the DPA, though this by no means stops you having any rights, it just means you have fewer rights.

 

It's fairly plain English, so quite user friendly, and whilst it's a lot of reading, it is very well written and totally accurate.

[Peterbard]

A promise I made to the site team meant I did not post on this thread yesterday. However, today is another day, and while I won't mention a myriad of things I wanted to mention yesterday, I will mention one thing for the benefit of the OP.

You have been advised:

 

This is imprudent advice. I know a couple of days ago when you first posted, it was clear from looking back at previous threads and issues you've had that you were self employed, hence me asking if you were still - an issue which has become significant.

 

At that stage, you had a few things, not least of all a valuable kiln, which were at risk. Whilst it is possible the above advice may be the case, given you are self employed and they clearly know where your work premises are, it is as likely, possibly more likely, they will call at your work premises as your home. I don't want to scare you, but it needs mentioning for your sake.

 

Does the OP leave his premises unlocked and unattended when he goes out does he have individual item worth over `£1500, given that they have only 7 days is it not likely they will go to a premises they have not visited before and try for a vehicle.

 

It is matter of opinion I suppose and I wont criticize you for having yours but I do not agree, and of course being someone who gives( all the options) you of course will respect mine.

[Peterbard]



Hello CD

I wondered why you have been quiet in this thread, you were bound by a gagging order.

 

As for the myriad of things you could mention I believe I know what you are referring to, and to

avoid another thread being closed I have refrained from stating the obvious about other threads

bemoaning that no contact with bailiff is debt avoidance but posts in this thread are totally

all for avoiding and hiding assets.

 

Anyway best of luck to the OP.

 

Regards to all

 

You see a proper adviser will give advice to the person in front of them, in this particular situation the OP has 7 days left on the enforcement would you expect anyone to arrange a repayment plan at this late stage. We are not trying to prove a point for people who have no knowledge of advising, we are saying what is best for the OP in this case.

The EA have already set the terms of the agreement, he pays in full or the debt goes back, he is not in breach oi anything to take them at their word.

 

So we now have a situation where he may have be subject to commitment proceedings or a charge on his house, or it may just be sent to yet another bailiff who now knows where he lives. If he would have come to us earlier the advice would have been different but now there is little option.

[Peterbard]

Having said all that , there a chance that the council may give you a repayment plan and I hope they do, unfortunately you will have another negative report from this EA which they will to take into consideration.

[Coughdrop]

Does the OP leave his premises unlocked and unattended when he goes out does he have individual item worth over `£1500, given that they have only 7 days is it not likely they will go to a premises they have not visited before and try for a vehicle.

 

It is matter of opinion I suppose and I wont criticize you for having yours but I do not agree, and of course being someone who gives( all the options) you of course will respect mine.

 

I think you'll find the OP is a 'she', though I'm speaking from memory there, so may be wrong. If there are goods of sufficient value (if they are doing the same now as they were a few years ago, then there are), they do risk being taken under control, and potentially sold.

 

Did not the EA attend the premises with the letter mentioned in post 1? That does, of course, mean they have visited before, so a further visit is possible.

 

I'm not going to labour the issue, there is no point. Whitsend is aware now that her work premises may be revisited, and that is the important issue here, - as you say, you have your opinion and I have mine.

Edited July 9, 2016 by honeybee13
Remark about pointscoring removed

[Peterbard]

For the sake of the OP, th EA cannot force entry to your premises even if he has been inside at an earlier occasion, unless he has a signed controlled goods agreement.

 

Now i ill wait and see what she says if she returns.

[honeybee13]

I've done a small edit, let's keep away from point scoring please and stick to advising the OP.

 

HB

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Now i ill wait and see what she says if she returns.

 

She has been given a lot of advice on the thread and it is best to leave matters until she returns.

[Coughdrop]

For the sake of the OP, th EA cannot force entry to your premises even if he has been inside at an earlier occasion, unless he has a signed controlled goods agreement.

 

Now i ill wait and see what she says if she returns.

 

Yes, this is correct. However, given it's a premises where she carries out her trade or business, it's likely to be open on a normal working day, as it apparently was when they walked in last time, as per post 1.

[Peterbard]

There are three things about this post.

 

1 If they had called and not taken control of goods, it is more unlikely they would re visit because they would know there was noting to take .

 

2 They did not visit initially they left a letter through the wrong business premises door, Post 1.

 

3 We have covered the matter of securing premises several times before on here

Edited July 9, 2016 by honeybee13
Combative sentence removed.

[Coughdrop]

There are three things about this post.

 

They did not visit initially they left a letter through the wrong business premises door, Post 1.

 

Post 1 states.....

I have been told that Dukes Bailliffs made a visit to my workplace today.

 

 

They handed a letter to one of my employees.

They did visit initially. The employee took the letter to the other business. Edited July 9, 2016 by honeybee13
Combative stuff removed.

[honeybee13]

As this is an advice thread, I've removed off topic comments. Please let's advise the OP and keep them onboard.

 

HB

[Bailiff Advice]

This thread is now for pages long !! Can we please wait for the OP to return.

[whitsend]

A promise I made to the site team meant I did not post on this thread yesterday. However, today is another day, and while I won't mention a myriad of things I wanted to mention yesterday, I will mention one thing for the benefit of the OP.

 

You have been advised:

 

This is imprudent advice. I know a couple of days ago when you first posted, it was clear from looking back at previous threads and issues you've had that you were self employed, hence me asking if you were still - an issue which has become significant.

 

At that stage, you had a few things, not least of all a valuable kiln, which were at risk. Whilst it is possible the above advice may be the case, given you are self employed and they clearly know where your work premises are, it is as likely, possibly more likely, they will call at your work premises as your home. I don't want to scare you, but it needs mentioning for your sake.

 

My business is a limited company with 2 directors, can they take item from that company for a personal council tax. They would also be taking items from someone elses building as the building belongs to a friend, there is no lease to say I am there. I pay no rent, as I look after the building for him. How would they distinguish what belonged to him and what belonged to me.

[Bailiff Advice]

My business is a limited company with 2 directors, can they take item from that company for a personal council tax. They would also be taking items from someone elses building as the building belongs to a friend, there is no lease to say I am there. I pay no rent, as I look after the building for him. How would they distinguish what belonged to him and what belonged to me.

 

Thank you for posting back. Can I first address the position as to whether you are a self employed trader or a company director. There is big difference. The reason why I was asking in the first place was to ascertain whether or not the enforcement company could apply for an attachment of earnings. If you are a Director, then it would usually be the case, that you would receive a salary from the Limited company and tax and national insurance would be deducted. If this is the case, then an attachment of earnings could be applied for. Could you please clarify the position.

 

If it is the case that the company trades as a Limited Company, then the position regarding goods that can be taken is much easier to address.

 

Goods may only be taken by an enforcement agent is they belong to the debtor. With the company trading as a limited company, all items at the business address would presumably belong to the Limited Company. Accordingly, they cannot be taken to recover your personal debt.

 

The position regarding this other property (that belongs to a friend) is a little unclear. Perhaps you could provide a little more information.

 

I considered at one time that an attachment of earnings order could be imposed but when you responded to say that you were 'self employed' I put that suggestion to one side. With your current comment (that the business is a limited company with 2 directors) I am now not so sure.

[whitsend]

I think it would be useful to describe my premises.

 

It is a huge Victorian Factory, so huge you could get lost in it. It is partly derelict, and awaiting Heritage Grants etc. It belongs to a friend of mine, there is no lease to say which part of that building is used by me. There is a private court yard where I park, along with a number of cars owned by the owner of the building and a number of other people he lets park there. I do not pay rent, as I look after the building as a sort of caretaker and in exchange he lets me use it.

 

When the bailiff visited the premises, he caught one of my employees just inside the entrance to the building and handed him the letter. He was there only minutes. He did not fill in any forms or list anything, but he did take a photos of himself handing my employee the letter. My business is a ltd company with 2 directors. Would a bailiff be able to wonder around and just take items from a building that belongs to someone else. There is also the matter of due to the state of some parts of the building you would be able to get through windows. As this building is also an old pottery manufacturers and thats what I do, what items could he list.

 

I am going to contact the council again next week, by letter. But also I am going to start making payments of £50 aweek on their online payment site. This may not be much but it makes the final amount I have to pay, to avoid a charge or committal much less to find. I am guessing it will take the council a couple of weeks to start any such proceeding and the Dukes letter said it was only their recomendation. Will not the council contact me and let me know when they start any of these proceedures.

 

My home address is easy to secure, but my workplace is not. The part that I use I can lock off but the rest of the building you could find a way in if you really wanted. However would that not be tresspassing and also theft if they took items belonging to the owner.

 

I am not trying to avoid paying this and I knew eventually I would hear something from the council, but I expected to have more time, not a final notice from a bailiff. Also I was not aware they could take items from a Limited company for a personal debt. Especially from someone elses property.

[whitsend]

I have just checked and my Council has not yet ever sent anyone to prison for Council Tax Arrears ever, even people that owe nearly 10k. The person from the council interviewed said that "it would not solve the problem". There has been a bbc article about it, also it is one of the worst councils for collecting arrears, some arrears go back 10 years for people. One person had nine court summons over 10 years which amounted to nothing. So I am hoping I am not at the top of the pile for commital proceedings.

[Bailiff Advice]

I think it would be useful to describe my premises.

 

It is a huge Victorian Factory, so huge you could get lost in it. It is partly derelict, and awaiting Heritage Grants etc. It belongs to a friend of mine, there is no lease to say which part of that building is used by me. There is a private court yard where I park, along with a number of cars owned by the owner of the building and a number of other people he lets park there. I do not pay rent, as I look after the building as a sort of caretaker and in exchange he lets me use it.

 

 

I am going to contact the council again next week, by letter. But also I am going to start making payments of £50 aweek on their online payment site. This may not be much but it makes the final amount I have to pay, to avoid a charge or committal much less to find. I am guessing it will take the council a couple of weeks to start any such proceeding and the Dukes letter said it was only their recomendation. Will not the council contact me and let me know when they start any of these proceedures.

 

My home address is easy to secure, but my workplace is not. The part that I use I can lock off but the rest of the building you could find a way in if you really wanted. However would that not be tresspassing and also theft if they took items belonging to the owner.

 

I am not trying to avoid paying this and I knew eventually I would hear something from the council, but I expected to have more time, not a final notice from a bailiff. Also I was not aware they could take items from a Limited company for a personal debt. Especially from someone elses property.

 

I was looking back at some earlier posts of yours and had assumed that you were probably in the same type of business (pottery). Can I please assure you once again that goods belonging to a Limited Company cannot be taken to secure a personal council tax debt. If however the debt was for National Non Domestic Rates (NNDR)......which it is not..... then the position would be different.

 

Given the condition of the building, and the ease of entry into the building, it would be very difficult indeed for a complaint to be made of 'trespass'. For instance, is there a sign outside the building to advertise that your limited company are trading from the premises? Could it be the case that the enforcement company consider that you trade as a 'sole trader".

 

I would prefer not to use this particular thread to fully discuss the 'entry rights' into properties as this is subject that I plan to address in the 'discussion' section of the forum shortly. It is also a subject where there are differing opinions. The countries expert on bailiff law has his views on the point of a 'recoverable licence' and considers that consent to remain on the premises can be withdrawn by the debtor. Recently, there has been a challenge to his opinion (which has been the subject of some interesting discussions with some forum members). Once again, this will shortly be addressed elsewhere on the forum.

 

If the enforcement agent removed goods belonging to the owner of the factory, this would not be considered theft. Instead, the 'third party owner' would need to make a Part 85 Claim.

 

Can you please forget the subject of committal. This will not happen.

 

PS: I have sent you a personal message and copied it to one of the moderators.

[AndyOrch]

 

PS: I have sent you a personal message and copied it to one of the moderators.

 

Would please confirm which Site Team this was sent to BA ?

 

Regards

 

Andyorch

[Bailiff Advice]

Would please confirm which Site Team this was sent to BA ?

 

Regards

 

Andyorch

 

Andy, I used the 'report' button.

[AndyOrch]

Thank you ...got it.

 

Thread title amended