Council Theartening to send liability orders to Bailiffs.

[zoltron]

Thanks for the responses guys.

 

 

The last time bailiffs had the accounts were 18 months ago which is around the time the Ombudsman made their decision, however when the Ombudsman made their decision the LA recalled the accounts and wiped the enforcement agents fees.

 

The 14 day notice is due to expire any day now, so I would say it will only be a matter of time before an enforcement agent arrives, however I am trying to keep communication open with the LA but so far they won't budge, they have had copies of the letter issued by my wife GP along with a list of her medication.

 

However our complaint is still in progress with the council so not sure if they will push ahead with enforcement agents while our complaint is outstanding. I would have thought the LA would be walking on very dangerous ground if they did push ahead while a valid complaint remains unresolved especially when they went against the advice of the ombudsman last time.

 

My question should it be relevant how long it takes a debt to be repaid, as long as its being repaid? Especially when vulnerability has been made aware. The chronic illness which me and my wife suffer from is never going to improve, the LA should be mindful of that fact.

Edited July 22, 2016 by zoltron
Typo

[Coughdrop]

Vulnerability is a difficult issue. While it has to be taken into account in terms of the way in which you are dealt with, it obviously doesn't, as you know, mean the debt is not rightfully owed still.

 

In terms of the length of time it takes to repay a debt, it's really a case of they can't have what you haven't got, so they should be pleased you're wanting to repay it. If you only have a small amount of money spare, as proven by your I&E, then that is all they can have. It's as simple as that really.

 

My concern for you is that if it is passed for enforcement, your indebtedness will increase. This is counterproductive, when they could do an attachment to your benefits without you incurring further levels of debt. To me that is obvious. To the council, enforcement is possibly a simpler and cheaper route for them. For other people helping you on here, the norm is to advise you pay bailiff fees. If that suits you in order to get a steady repayment, that is absolutely fine. If it doesn't, given the history of this debt, I really think the council should consider a form of collecting the debt which does not imediately cost you more money.

[Bailiff Advice]

Thanks for the responses guys.

 

The last time bailiffs had the accounts were 18 months ago which is around the time the Ombudsman made their decision, however when the Ombudsman made their decision the LA recalled the accounts and wiped the enforcement agents fees.

 

The 14 day notice is due to expire any day now, so I would say it will only be a matter of time before an enforcement agent arrives, however I am trying to keep communication open with the LA but so far they won't budge, they have had copies of the letter issued by my wife GP along with a list of her medication.

 

I would assume that there is a great deal of 'history' with your various accounts with the local authority and this would be evident by your earlier reference that an attachment to benefits was not put in place as too many agencies etc were involved in your case.

 

Would you mind letting us know why the council are so adamant that an attachment against benefits is not appropriate. The reason why I ask is because, I was assisting with a query yesterday where a single mother wished to complain to the Ombudsman about her local authorities refusal to make a deduction order (instead of referring her case to bailiffs). It was only after a lot go questioning, that it transpired that the reason for the refusal was because she was not in receipt of sufficient benefits to make an attachment !!!

 

PS: An attachment to benefits may only be applied to certain qualifying benefits. Could it be that neither of you receive the applicable benefit?

 

Also, how many Liability Orders are outstanding?

[Coughdrop]

It was only after a lot go questioning, that it transpired that the reason for the refusal was because she was not in receipt of sufficient benefits to make an attachment !!!

 

PS: An attachment to benefits may only be applied to certain qualifying benefits. Could it be that neither of you receive the applicable benefit?

 

 

Do you have a link to the information about benefits - how much the debtor needs to be getting, and which are eligible please?

 

It would be useful information for many on this forum, and potentially save loads of unnecessary posts on future threads.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Andyorch
removed reference to moderation

[Coughdrop]

The relevant benefits, from which deductions can be taken are:

 

Job Seekers Allowance

 

Income Support

 

Employment Support Allowance

 

Pension Credit Guaranteed Credit

 

The weekly amount which can be taken is £3.60 and unlike an Attachment of Earnings, only one order can be in place at any time.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Andyorch
edit

[Coughdrop]

 

PS: An attachment to benefits may only be applied to certain qualifying benefits. Could it be that neither of you receive the applicable benefit?

 

 

We are clearly unable to answer your question without knowing which benefits are applicable. I've posted the information needed above in order that they can answer your question. Hope this helps!

[Bailiff Advice]

I would assume that there is a great deal of 'history' with your various accounts with the local authority and this would be evident by your earlier reference that an attachment to benefits was not put in place as too many agencies etc were involved in your case.

 

Would you mind letting us know why the council are so adamant that an attachment against benefits is not appropriate. The reason why I ask is because, I was assisting with a query yesterday where a single mother wished to complain to the Ombudsman about her local authorities refusal to make a deduction order (instead of referring her case to bailiffs). It was only after a lot go questioning, that it transpired that the reason for the refusal was because she was not in receipt of sufficient benefits to make an attachment !!!

 

PS: An attachment to benefits may only be applied to certain qualifying benefits. Could it be that neither of you receive the applicable benefit?

 

Also, how many Liability Orders are outstanding?

 

Zoltron,

 

If you could respond back to the above post that would be most helpful.

 

This morning, I updated a thread that I started last month regarding the Local Government Ombudsman and their view on bailiffs and vulnerability. It may be helpful for you read the thread and in particular, read the two LGO decisions. I have provided a link to the thread below.

 

 

You will see that the LGO's position is that the bailiff company should take the individuals circumstances into account......agree that they are vulnerable......check their financial status...... and make appropriate arrangements for payment of the debts. As long as they take these steps, the LGO will not find fault. This has been their position for the past two years (since the bailiff regulations were overhauled).

 

I am conscious that some posters on here may be vulnerable and will be quick to disagree with the LGO's position. That is their choice.

 

In your particular case, it is vitally important that you identify the reason why the council are unwilling to set up an attachment against benefits. It may be the case, that they consider that they would receive a higher monthly payment from you direct, (you indicated that you have £40 per month excess income) as opposed to the nominal monthly amount under an attachment against benefits.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465467-Bailiff-enforcement-and-vulnerability...Local-Government-Ombudsman-(LGO)-decisions(2-Viewing)-nbsp

[Coughdrop]

Zoltron was unable to respond until they had been told enough to respond. The questions were posed just after midday yesterday; I asked for clarification about two hours later. I noticed you were marked online throughout the afternoon, along with various other experts on the forum, yet there was no response, so I provided one, sadly some seven hours after your initial questions had been asked.

 

Clearly by that stage, Zoltron would have been unable to phone the council to ask how many LO's there were, and won't be able to until Monday now, so it's not really surprising they have not reported back.

 

It's also a fact that quite a few on benefits are not sure exactly what benefits they are getting, and have to phone to find out.

 

I'm sure Zoltron will reply, as they have done previously, when they are able and furnished with the requisite information.

 

With regards to the vulnerability issue and the LGO, the LGO rules on individual cases, it does not 'hold views' on things. Each case is judged on its own merits, and it's unwise to prejudge any of their decisions. I think most I've seen on here have been quite open about mentioning issues which may suggest an element of vulnerability. I know of only one person who states definitively that someone is vulnerable, as opposed to 'you may be considered' vulnerable.

 

On Social Media Sites you see people regularly telling others they are vulnerable and should tell their council they are vulnerable. It is not for any of us to determine vulnerability, it is for us to inform the debtor they may be considered vulnerable, and to inform the EA and provide proof accordingly. Zoltron, of course, has already done this.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[zoltron]

Quote Originally Posted by Bailiff Advice

 

I would assume that there is a great deal of 'history' with your various accounts with the local authority and this would be evident by your earlier reference that an attachment to benefits was not put in place as too many agencies etc were involved in your case.

 

Would you mind letting us know why the council are so adamant that an attachment against benefits is not appropriate. The reason why I ask is because, I was assisting with a query yesterday where a single mother wished to complain to the Ombudsmanicon about her local authorities refusal to make a deduction order (instead of referring her case to bailiffs). It was only after a lot go questioning, that it transpired that the reason for the refusal was because she was not in receipt of sufficient benefits to make an attachment !!!

 

PS: An attachment to benefits may only be applied to certain qualifying benefits. Could it be that neither of you receive the applicable benefit?

 

Also, how many Liability Orders are outstanding?

 

 

The reason they are being so pig headed is because we have been told they can only send 1 liability order for attachment which is £3.70 per week. I have offered to set up a fortnightly standing order £7.40 when our ESA is paid, which means they will be getting £29.60 per month which is within our income and expenditure. But I have only offered this if they send one liability order to the DWP.

 

Me and my wife receive ESA as a joint income related claim, I have spoken to the DWP and have asked them if there is any good reason why a liability attachment wouldn't be paid and I was told if the DWP receive an attachment notice then they will make the deductions. So there are no problems on that front.

 

I am unsure how many liability orders we have pending, to be honest I coildn't even guess, I will phone up the LA and find out

[Bailiff Advice]

Quote Originally Posted by Bailiff Advice

 

I would assume that there is a great deal of 'history' with your various accounts with the local authority and this would be evident by your earlier reference that an attachment to benefits was not put in place as too many agencies etc were involved in your case.

 

Would you mind letting us know why the council are so adamant that an attachment against benefits is not appropriate. The reason why I ask is because, I was assisting with a query yesterday where a single mother wished to complain to the Ombudsmanicon about her local authorities refusal to make a deduction order (instead of referring her case to bailiffs). It was only after a lot go questioning, that it transpired that the reason for the refusal was because she was not in receipt of sufficient benefits to make an attachment !!!

 

PS: An attachment to benefits may only be applied to certain qualifying benefits. Could it be that neither of you receive the applicable benefit?

 

Also, how many Liability Orders are outstanding?

 

 

The reason they are being so pig headed is because we have been told they can only send 1 liability order for attachment which is £3.70 per week. I have offered to set up a fortnightly standing order £7.40 when our ESA is paid, which means they will be getting £29.60 per month which is within our income and expenditure. But I have only offered this if they send one liability order to the DWP.

 

Me and my wife receive ESA as a joint income related claim, I have spoken to the DWP and have asked them if there is any good reason why a liability attachment wouldn't be paid and I was told if the DWP receive an attachment notice then they will make the deductions. So there are no problems on that front.

 

I am unsure how many liability orders we have pending, to be honest I coildn't even guess, I will phone up the LA and find out

 

In my post number 32, I mentioned that I though that the low 'attachment' limit (of £3.70 per week) may well be behind their reluctance. I am not altogether surprised.

 

Have the council indicated how many Liability Orders you have?

 

I note that you are still trying to negotiate with the council. Have they stated what repayment proposal they would consider?

 

Do you or your wife have a vehicle? If so, is the vehicle privately owned or owned by Motability?

[Coughdrop]

The reason they are being so pig headed is because we have been told they can only send 1 liability order for attachment which is £3.70 per week. I have offered to set up a fortnightly standing order £7.40 when our ESA is paid, which means they will be getting £29.60 per month which is within our income and expenditure. But I have only offered this if they send one liability order to the DWP.

 

 

It seems to me your offer is entirely reasonable.

 

 

Would it help if you set up the standing order now to show good faith?

It 'might' help your cause, though judging from your council's actions, perhaps not.

 

 

It's certainly not hard to see their point of view,

but if you show good faith in setting up the SO,

and write telling them you're doing it as a gesture of good faith to try to move towards a resolution,

and to avoid further indebtedtedness which is simply unnecessary.

 

It's just a thought which may or may not work

- at the end of the day, you can always cancel the SO if they do pass it for enforcement.

 

I don't really understand why you need to know what the council would consider as a repayment option

- you can only pay what you have got available.

 

 

You've made an offer which takes you close to your total disposable income,

so I'm unsure what you're supposed to do if this isn't good enough for the council.

[zoltron]

Bailiff Advice

 

 

In my post number 32, I mentioned that I though that the low 'attachment' limit (of £3.70 per week) may well be behind their reluctance. I am not altogether surprised.

 

Have the council indicated how many Liability Orders you have?

 

I note that you are still trying to negotiate with the council. Have they stated what repayment proposal they would consider?

 

Do you or your wife have a vehicle? If so, is the vehicle privately owned or owned by Motability?[/Quote]

 

We have tried negotiation, however the LA collections team have said they want it paid over 12 months which works out to a stonking £302 per month which by a very long margin way exceeds our disposable income, of just slightly under £40 per month.

 

I have contacted the LA and they say there is 6 liability orders outstanding. To be honest I thought there were more.

 

Our car is owned by Motability, so I know enforcement agents can't take it, I have photocopied the Motability agreement which has the vehicle registration number on it, along with the insurance cover note from RSAM.

 

My eldest son came down yesterday and has adjusted the CCTV cameras, and has installed another near the front door with an internal microphone.

 

Coughdrop suggested I set up a standing order for £14.80 fortnightly when our ESA is paid, this works out at £3.70 per liability per week on 2 liability orders, which is within our income and expenditure. And also write to the LA again stating sending the enforcement will only increase our indebtedness.

[Bailiff Advice]

We have tried negotiation, however the LA collections team have said they want it paid over 12 months which works out to a stonking £302 per month which by a very long margin way exceeds our disposable income, of just slightly under £40 per month.

 

The problem that you will also have is that if the accounts are referred to an enforcement agency they too will be looking at having the debts repaid within 12 months.

 

A suggestion has been made by another poster for you to set up a standing order for £14.80 per fortnight. The immediate problem with this advice, is that if the accounts are referred to an enforcement agency, then the normal position, is that the local authority will merely transfer your payment to the relevant enforcement agency.

 

As long as a Blue Badge is diaplyed, a Motability vehicle will be exempt from seizure.

[Coughdrop]

Hi Zoltron,

 

BA is correct in stating the council will look to get the money repaid in 12 months, as they dictate the terms to the enforcement company as well. This is their choice, they can choose to give you longer.

 

The way I look at it, if it is passed for enforcement, with six liability orders, the first £450 of any money you pay won't touch your debt, it will go straight into the bailiff's pocket (6 x £75 Compliance Stage fee); the remaining payments would then be split pro-rata between the council and the bailiffs.

 

In reality, this means it's going to be about 12 months before the council see one penny going off your debt - this is the problem they face if it is sent to enforcement and you have only £40 per month disposable income. Given this is the case, I feel it's important to show you are willing to repay the debt to avoid more serious trouble further down the line. Setting up a standing order (which can always be cancelled) would be a start.

 

Vehicles with a blue badge should be exempt from seizure, so your vehicle should be safe. I am still struggling to see why the council don't agree to your proposal given they have all the information. It means they'll get money faster, and at the end of the day, you cannot pay what you simply do not have.

 

The debt has to be paid, it's not going to go away (though technically the council could choose to reduce it or write it off), so I see no harm in showing willing to pay it, and just cancel the standing order if it goes to enforcement. I don't really know what else you can do.

 

Perhaps others may have suggestions, given your dispoable income is only £40 per month. Specifying a 12 month period is simply unrealistic for your circumstances.

[ploddertom]

Not wanting to stick a spanner in the works but have the LA agreed your disposable income is what you say it is?

[Coughdrop]

Not wanting to stick a spanner in the works but have the LA agreed your disposable income is what you say it is?

 

I think that's a fair question PT, and one which has not been answered definitively. This is what Zoltron has said so far:

 

Q2. Have you put together a Income & Expenditure?

 

A2. Yes this was done by Citizens Advice Bureau, which highlighted some red flags due to excessive amounts spent on food and shopping. Our food bill is higher as we have to spend extra on pre-prepared foods, ready meals and gluten free foods due to my coeliac disease. The council have been made aware in a letter from our GP about our dependence on ready meals and my coeliac disease.

 

In a previous post Zoltron had stated:

 

"We have provided also income and expenditure to the council who questioned some red flags on our spending, mainly our food bill, which is almost double what the council were expecting. Our problem is because we are both disabled to varying degrees we depend much on ready and pre-prepared meals which are more expensive, this isn't through choice it dictated by our personal needs, for one main reason I suffer from coeliac disease and gluten free pre-prepared meals are highly expensive, the council fails to simply realise this."

 

The CAB will use a CFS or similar, so will have provided an explanation for the red flags, which Zoltron has backed up with a letter from their GP, so it would be bizarre if they had failed to accept this. Thereagain, it's not exactly a straightforward case, so perhaps we should expect the bizarre.

 

It doesn't alter the fact they can't get blood out of a stone though, nor the fact that passing this for enforcement would add a very significant sum to the debt, even if a repayment plan could be agreed.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Coughdrop

[ploddertom]

Occasionally there have to be economies of scale relating to red flag items. I agree it may be good to have a standard of living that you are used to but as has been seen by the refusal of the Council to accept things as they are then looking for a little more and can see them agreeing if a little more room can be given. I accept your circumstances are unusual but CT is a bill that must be paid. This attitude may not go done well with some but looking at things as how they are at present could be seen partly as refusal to pay. The Council have their own part to play and this should be by taking the account back and providing payments are maintained then see no need for it to go out to enforcement although it does seem at present they have dug their heels in.

[Coughdrop]

I agree PT. The possibility of it being seen as a refusal to pay is why I suggested setting up a Standing Order now, so at least some payment is made.

 

The CFS is fairly generous, and food is usually just a part of a category headed Housekeeping, which includes not only food and drink, but other items such as cleaning, toiletries, newspapers, cigarettes and tobacco, pet food, alcohol and possibly other items. Usually the creditor (in this case the council) only see a summary of the I&E. The trigger points are more than realistic in my experience, allowing for a decent standard of living.

 

It's impossible to comment accurately without seeing the I&E (which I have no desire to do), so if other areas are close to trigger points, it could well be the council might seek a reduction in these areas. Whether or not that is acceptable is arguable. Even if Zoltron is spending double the trigger, and was able to cut back to within it, they would still be far short of the figure currently being demanded by a seemingly inflexible council.

 

I return to the fact they cannot have what you have not got, so at some stage they will have to give if they want payment. It's a fine balance between showing a willingness to pay in the hope the council will see some sense, against setting up a standing order now, knowing it may be passed to an enforcement agent further down the road. If it were me, I would show willing to pay, and try to argue my case in the meantime with an incalcitrant council. Others may well state differently. Ultimately Zoltron must weigh up their options and do what they believe to be best.

[zoltron]

Not wanting to stick a spanner in the works but have the LA agreed your disposable income is what you say it is?

 

The income and expenditure was prepared by CAB, they prepared the income and expenditure on a spreadsheet. We took along all our benefit letters of entitlement and 6 months worth of bank statements, so they could build up an average of what we were spending. So our income and outgoings has been verified and is easily verifiable, and is not just figures pulled out of the air.

 

Some red flags were highlighted mainly our food bill, but as explained earlier me and my wife rely on pre-prepared foods as she suffers from focal dystonia of the hands and I have issues with moving hot pans due to my mobility. I also suffer from coeliac disease which in itself is an extra expense in sourcing glutten free foods which are generally more expensive. However a letter from my GP explains my intolerance to glutten.

 

Our electricity bill is also £30-40 higher than expected, however we have a plug-in-hybrid Motability car which we have also backed up with proof, but additionally our fuel bill for petrol is less as £35 in petrol lasts 7-8 weeks. So that balances that out.

 

We've sent the income and expenditure to the LA along with the proof to explain the red flags.

 

To be honest we've provided them with everything they've asked for and a whole lot more.....

[wonkeydonkey]

The income and expenditure was prepared by CAB, they prepared the income and expenditure on a spreadsheet. We took along all our benefit letters of entitlement and 6 months worth of bank statements, so they could build up an average of what we were spending. So our income and outgoings has been verified and is easily verifiable, and is not just figures pulled out of the air.

 

Some red flags were highlighted mainly our food bill, but as explained earlier me and my wife rely on pre-prepared foods as she suffers from focal dystonia of the hands and I have issues with moving hot pans due to my mobility. I also suffer from coeliac disease which in itself is an extra expense in sourcing glutten free foods which are generally more expensive. However a letter from my GP explains my intolerance to glutten.

 

Our electricity bill is also £30-40 higher than expected, however we have a plug-in-hybrid Motability car which we have also backed up with proof, but additionally our fuel bill for petrol is less as £35 in petrol lasts 7-8 weeks. So that balances that out.

 

We've sent the income and expenditure to the LA along with the proof to explain the red flags.

 

To be honest we've provided them with everything they've asked for and a whole lot more.....

I noticed in post #8 you have taken this matter to your local councillor and they have also hit a brick wall, I suggest you write again to the ceo of the council outlining what you have posted here, copy in the leader of the opposition and ask for a face to face meeting with both of them to try and resolve this matter.

[Coughdrop]

Sorry to post again Zoltron and others.

 

I don't think it has yet been established whether or not you have any other debts?

 

On the I&E from the CAB you would have been given at least a summary of your situation. This would have had a section for Priority Debts (which would include this debt), and a section a Non-Priority Debts. Are there any debts in this section?

 

I'm trying also, currently unsuccessfully, to match up a significant overspend on food, with the trigger figures for Housekeeping and a joint income related claim for ESA (I assume you are placed in the Support Group?)

 

You stated you were slightly over in other areas also - which areas were these?

 

Sorry for the questions, but I'm trying to clarify things in my own mind. So four questions:

 

1. Have you any non-priority debts?

 

2. Are you both in the support group for IR ESA?

 

3. Which other areas were red flagged on your I&E?

 

4. When you say you are quite a bit over on food spending, are you able to place a figure on 'quite a bit' please?

 

In the meantime, I think Wonkeydonkey has come up with your best way forward as things appear to stand at present. I really hope you get something resolved soon.

[zoltron]

Sorry to post again Zoltron and others.

 

I don't think it has yet been established whether or not you have any other debts?

 

On the I&E from the CAB you would have been given at least a summary of your situation. This would have had a section for Priority Debts (which would include this debt), and a section a Non-Priority Debts. Are there any debts in this section?

 

I'm trying also, currently unsuccessfully, to match up a significant overspend on food, with the trigger figures for Housekeeping and a joint income related claim for ESA (I assume you are placed in the Support Group?)

 

You stated you were slightly over in other areas also - which areas were these?

 

Sorry for the questions, but I'm trying to clarify things in my own mind. So four questions:

 

1. Have you any non-priority debts?

 

2. Are you both in the support group for IR ESA?

 

3. Which other areas were red flagged on your I&E?

 

4. When you say you are quite a bit over on food spending, are you able to place a figure on 'quite a bit' please?

 

In the meantime, I think Wonkeydonkey has come up with your best way forward as things appear to stand at present. I really hope you get something resolved soon.

 

1. I don't believe we have any non priority debts, such as mobile phone contracts, HP, or catalogue debts.

 

2. We are both in the ESA Support Group on IR ESA.

 

3. The only two items red flagged by CAB were shopping and household sundries (Cleaning products such as washing powder, Personal hygiene, etc), also our electricity bill was flagged as a monthly over spend of around £40. But as explained we have an electric hybrid car which we charge up for local journeys which cuts the petrol bill drastically. But we provided the actual bills from First Utility to confirm our monthly spend.

 

4. The overspend CAB highlighted was £40 per week on food, which does seem excessive, but we provided receipts from ASDA to CAB and they could clearly see out food items are mainly pre-prepared vegetables and meals as well as gluten free foods for myself. Neither me or my wife smoke, we have never smoked. And drinking is a total no no with our medication, so there is no spend in that respect.

[Coughdrop]

Okay - thank you for your comprehensive answers. I'm slightly puzzled at the moment, but will come back tomorrow with 'a fresh head' to see if I can make a bit more sense of things.

 

In the meantime, your best bet would seem to be what Wonkeydonkey suggested, and personally I'd still consider starting to pay something, so the council can see clearly you are not refusing to pay. I appreciate paying something at present is not without its hazards, so you may want to see what others think of the suggestion. I wouldn't want to see you facing further problems; none of us here would.

[Bailiff Advice]

Zoltron,

 

There have been almost 50 replies to your query since this thread was started and in all that time, there has been very little progress. Instead, we are now questioning Income & Expenditure calculations prepared by the CAB. This is not really necessary as the figures have been prepared by a reliable source and have been produced to the council. There is little point in revisiting this area.

 

There are six Liability Orders outstanding and approx £3,500 is owed.

 

The Liability Orders go back as far as 2003 and you 'believed' that up until your accident in 2006 that some of the Liability Orders were subject to attachments against earnings. In fact, this was not the case and any attachments were in relation to a current Liability Order in place at the time.

 

Bristow & Sutor had previously attempted to enforce these debts and returned the accounts to Sandwell in late 2014 (or thereabouts).

 

Since that time, you have been wanting the council to set up Attachments against Benefits and in fact, in your initial post you were seeking advice on how to get the accounts back to the Magistrates so that attachments can be made.

 

The council do not want to go down the the attachment route given that unlike attachment against earnings, (where two attachments can be made), only one attachment can be made at any one time and the deduction is a nominal £3.70 per week. You have indicated that you can afford to repay £40 per month.

 

You have also complained to your local councillor and they too have not made any progress with the council.

 

We have been able to establish that the council are seeking a hefty repayment of approx £300 per month. Such a figure is simply out of the question.

 

Your local authority have one of the highest council tax recovery rates recovery rates and this is because, unlike any other councils, they never write off debts (unless they are genuinely unrecoverable) and they will pursue recovery...no matter how long it takes. You have the evidence to prove this.

 

Would you mind if I ask some further questions?

 

Since your accident six years ago, have you been making any payment to the council in respect of any of these Liability Orders?

 

When the accounts were with Bristow & Sutor, did you make any payments to them? If so, approx how much did you pay?

[zoltron]

Zoltron,

 

There have been almost 50 replies to your query since this thread was started and in all that time, there has been very little progress. Instead, we are now questioning Income & Expenditure calculations prepared by the CAB. This is not really necessary as the figures have been prepared by a reliable source and have been produced to the council. There is little point in revisiting this area.

 

There are six Liability Orders outstanding and approx £3,500 is owed.

 

The Liability Orders go back as far as 2003 and you 'believed' that up until your accident in 2006 that some of the Liability Orders were subject to attachments against earnings. In fact, this was not the case and any attachments were in relation to a current Liability Order in place at the time.

 

Bristow & Sutor had previously attempted to enforce these debts and returned the accounts to Sandwell in late 2014 (or thereabouts).

 

Since that time, you have been wanting the council to set up Attachments against Benefits and in fact, in your initial post you were seeking advice on how to get the accounts back to the Magistrates so that attachments can be made.

 

The council do not want to go down the the attachment route given that unlike attachment against earnings, (where two attachments can be made), only one attachment can be made at any one time and the deduction is a nominal £3.70 per week. You have indicated that you can afford to repay £40 per month.

 

You have also complained to your local councillor and they too have not made any progress with the council.

 

We have been able to establish that the council are seeking a hefty repayment of approx £300 per month. Such a figure is simply out of the question.

 

Your local authority have one of the highest council tax recovery rates recovery rates and this is because, unlike any other councils, they never write off debts (unless they are genuinely unrecoverable) and they will pursue recovery...no matter how long it takes. You have the evidence to prove this.

 

Would you mind if I ask some further questions?

 

Since your accident six years ago, have you been making any payment to the council in respect of any of these Liability Orders?

 

When the accounts were with Bristow & Sutor, did you make any payments to them? If so, approx how much did you pay?

 

OK, I'm going to have to explain the full circumstances of how all this mess came about, I didn't want to but it looks like I'm going to need to because it's beginning to look like we were massively negligent in amassing almost £9000 of CT debt. And there is every chance the council will identify us by my post.

 

I'll start from the beginning so there is no confusion.

 

Me and my wife married when we were quite young. Our first child was born in 1994, and our second child was born in 1997.

 

All was good up until 2002, our youngest son was born in 1997 was in the kitchen when he suddenly collapsed without reason, we called the ambulance and he was rushed to hospital, this was the day which would be a turning point in our lives.

 

He was diagnosed with a Bicuspid Aortic Valve, and Stenosis of the Aorta and Pulmonary Arteries. In a nutshell his Aortic Valve wasn't opening and closing properly and his Cardiac Arteries were narrower than they should be.

 

By this time me and my wife were losing quite a substantial amount of time from work, and in 2003 this is when we began to get into difficulty with our CT, which has plagued us ever since.

 

Our LA were sending attachment of earnings to our employers but we were basically loosing so much time from our employers due to our sons illness they were getting peanuts basically.

 

We had applied for discretionary CT reductions due to our circumstances but we got nothing, we literally had a child who could drop dead at any moment and our LA couldn't care less.

 

Over the years our sons health worsened and while we did get some reduction in CT benefit because one us had to leave work and myself reduced my hours so I could attend hospital with my son it was still a large liability each each year, which the LA were still trying to attach to my salary but in return still getting peanuts.

 

In March 2010 me and my wife had our car accident, I was injured mainly below the chest and my wife injured above the chest including her head. I lost my job as a result of my long term injuries, and my wife was off work for 6 months but luckily her employer kept her job open for her. I underwent back surgery 4 weeks after the accident to remove my lamina to relieve pressure on my spinal cord.

 

In January 2011 I underwent a second round of back surgery to remove disc fragments (Discectomy) from 2 levels and had the holes widened (Foramenotomy) where the nerve roots pass at 2 levels, also in November 2011 our son underwent major open heart surgery to have a procedure performed known as a Ross Procedure, where they switched his Pulmonary Valve to his Aortic position, and gave him a donor Pulmonary Valve. The surgeons also addressed the problems with his narrow arteries, he was in intensive care for 3 weeks kept asleep with his blood pressure kept as low as possible giving the stitches holding everything together time to heal. Within 3 months our son had made a reasonable recovery, his life was out of danger but he is still plagued by shortness of breath, he has regular check ups and will require more surgery as he get older.

 

My wife continued in her job as long as she could up until 2014, when she was diagnosed with Fibromyalgia and Focal Dystonia of the hands, as well as being diagnosed with depression. This is why the council are kicking up a fuss, because they have nothing to attach to other than our benefits. They've had it good for 11 years, and because it's going to take another 10 years to pay they don't like it.

 

In a nutshell Bailiff Advice our LA has managed to recover £5300 over a 13 year period, so by means have we ever refused to pay. We have done everything to try and reduce our liabilities including asking for reductions, even our welfare rights adviser who had setup our benefit claims has tried to get our CT liabilities reduced in light of our difficulties since 2003, yet Sandwell MBC are CT vultures, while some councils will show at least some morality, you haven't a chance in hell if you live in Sandwell.

 

Citizens Advice are so surprised the LA have pursued this so aggressively, in fact it was Citizens Advice who recommended bankruptcy to be rid of it once and for all, but I want to pay it even if it takes a lifetime....