Council Theartening to send liability orders to Bailiffs.

[Coughdrop]

The questions regarding the CAB's I&E for you are, in fact, necessary and very relevant, but I needed a little time to gather my line of thought and check some issues before posting, as stated last night. Your above post adds some further issues.

 

That aside firstly your circumstances are very sad, I'm sorry. I'll be interested now to follow the post. There are things which are occurring to me, further to my thoughts last night, as a result of the above post, but I'll leave it to others for the minute, as I don't want you to be overwhelmed with questions which are seemingly going nowhere. I'll resume if you don't get a solution, though I'd still be inclined to be seen to paying something - I guess you've kind of picked up on that by now.

[zoltron]

Zoltron,

 

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?

 

Between 2010 which was when the accident occurred and 2014 when my wife left work there were attachments to my wife's earnings, as my post above there have been attachments in place since around 2005.

 

We've been making payments where we can, since late 2014 the debt stood at just over £4000, in the original agreement we should have paid around £374 by now but we've managed to get £500 off the debt, but the council wants more, which wasn't agreed by the Ombudsman. It's this fact that is annoying us, an agreement was set and then the goalposts moved.... Totally wrong....

 

We have never ever got into a conversation with a Bailiff, they have called and we have never communicated with them, in fact we have totally ignored them, the only reason what has rattled me this time is my wife's attempted suicide and I feel this will push her over the edge just as we are beginning to get somewhere with the mental councilling, hence why my wife's doctor has written a strongly worded letter.

[Bailiff Advice]

Zoltron,

 

Thank you so much for providing the additional background information. As I have said many times, both you and your wife are clearly 'vulnerbable'. Regrettably, (and as confirmed by the Local Government Ombudsman) this does not mean that bailiff enforcement cannot be an option.

 

It seems from your above post that a main part of your complaint stems from an 'original agreement' where you should have paid £374 and that you appear to have paid in excess of this figure (you have paid £500). This agreement appears to have also been agreed by the Ombudsman. I note your comment that since late 2014, you had been making payments whenever you could.

 

Is it possible that at some stage, you defaulted on this original agreement? Could this be the reason why the agreement is no longer in place?

 

When the agreement was set up, how much were you supposed to pay each week/month?

 

You say that the six Liability Orders are quite old (with some going back to 2003). What date was the newest Liability Order obtained?

 

PS: In one of your first posts on this thread you mentioned the name of the local authority. It is possible that they are aware of this thread. If so, they should be able to gather that you are trying to get an amicable solution to a long term problem.

[Coughdrop]

I think, Zoltron, it is almost certain the LA will be aware of this thread. I'd be exceedingly surprised if they were not. It would not surprise me if they've even discussed this thread now.

 

As BA says, it shows clearly you are trying to get an amicable solution. It would be a shame though, in my opinion, if this necessitated increasing your indebtedness to get that solution. I feel strongly, as I've stated right the way through, the LA should deal with this in-house with no further costs to yourself.

[Peterbard]

There are six LOs so i am guessing the LA would have had a fair stab at dealing with the arrears in house already.

 

I think consideration should be given to letting the EA have a go at negotiating and enforcing a fair repayment plan.

[Coughdrop]

You and I differ here DB. I mentioned yesterday that passing this for enforcement would increase the debt by at least £450, if all was agreed at Compliance Stage. With £40 per month available, it would take until the 12th month before the LA got one penny. By this stage, they could have had £480 in their coffers, with Zoltron having paid close on £500 off the bill.

 

This seems to me a far more sensible route.

 

Anyway, we'll see what happens. As said, I have some thoughts, but don't want to complicate things further at this point in time.

[Peterbard]

Indeed, I like to be practical.

 

If this would have been done only four years ago the op would be well into repaying the ammount owed by now and perhaps it may have been the last order they had issued against them. Waiting for some ideal scenario is never an option , the longer you wait, the worse it gets.

[Coughdrop]

Yes, I like to be practical too. There is a debt to be paid. I'm quite surprised I'm the only one on here who has suggested starting to repay it.

 

I'm not pursuing my line of thought at present, as I'm quite busy trying to complete another project.

 

It's probably best simply to agree to differ here, as another thread will end up being closed otherwise.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Coughdrop

[zoltron]

Coughdrop you said you had some thoughts, any chance of passing on what those thoughts are.

 

Got a call from the LA today stating they want nothing less than £314pm, there is absolutely no chance on earth we can pay that amount, even when they had attachment to our earnings we wasn't paying that much, so not a chance.

 

I've today setup two standing orders to be paid each fortnight at a rate of £7.40 each so the LA with be getting £14.80 each fortnight regardless if they like it or not.

 

One thing a friend mentioned is if the LA do continue to increase our indebtedness due to sending orders to different enforcement agents, would it be worth pursing the LA authority through the Small Claims track to recover any fees added to our account? In a nutshell what happens when an enforcement agent doesn't collect and the orders are returned to the LA, do the £75 fees get wiped or do they remain? And what is stopping the orders being presented again for another set of £75 fees to be added, which would increase our debt. Would it be reasonable to pursue the LA using the Small Claim track, as because our reliance on benefits it wouldn't cost us to issue a claim, at least it would end up in front of a judge, and a win on our part would no doubt send a clear message to the council that I'm not going to tolerate their behaviour especially when my wife's mental health is a real concern for me and her GP.

[Coughdrop]

I will try to answer some of your points as best I can, starting with the £75 Compliance Stage fee. I have written about some of this before, but I'm happy to repeat it. Before I do, I'm glad you've started to make some repayment. We know there's a risk attached to this, but at least you are showing willing to repay the debt, so cannot be seen as willfully refusing.

 

If the account is passed for enforcement, each of your LO's will attract a £75 fee (£450 in all). Regardless of who you make payment to, it will be passed to the enforcement company. The £75 fees will be paid first to the EA before any money comes off your debt. This means the first £450 you pay would go directly to the EA. If your disposable income is limited to £40 per month, obviously it would not be until the 12th month that the £450 compliance stage fees would finish being paid, and money would start coming off the debt.

 

Once you have paid the £450 compliance stage fees, any money paid after that will be split pro rata between the LA and the EA (roughly 70:30 or 60:40 depending where you read on here, but around those ratios); this means the debt is not clear either to the LA or the EA until the last payment is made.

 

If the EA does not collect and the account is returned to the LA, the enforcement power dies and the fees die with it. If you have already paid, eg, 3 x £75, this will have gone to the EA, your debt will not have been reduced, and you will not get this money back. If you have paid nothing, the EA will get nothing and the enforcement power dies, along with all associated enforcement fees.

 

There is some absolutely nothing stopping the LA passing the account to another enforcement company, though one would have to ask the question why would they if one has already failed? Hopefully they would look to an alternative collection method. It is not unknown though, and my understanding is that the compliance stage fees would be chargeable again. There is a real incentive not to default on any payment arrangement in case this happens.

 

In terms of taking action in the small claims court, my question would be what has the LA or the enforcement company done wrong? They have followed legislation, got a Liability Order and passed it for enforcement. That is all perfectly above board and legal, so I'm not sure on what grounds you would go to court?

 

I hope that answers your questions, at least as I see the answers, others may disagree with some or all of what I've written.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Coughdrop

[Coughdrop]

I'm posting this separately as the site team may choose to delete it

 

You asked also about my thoughts. I stated I wasn't pursuing them, as I've been working quite hard on another project, but I'm happy to explore what I was thinking further, and see whether or not the idea may have some mileage.

 

I do have a real problem though, as even if I come to the conclusion it does have mileage, I would probably need to run it past site team first

 

Also of concern is the fact there has been direct criticism of my asking about your I&E - it was stated it was not necessary. If the site takes this view, as it may well do unfortunately, then I would not be able to pursue my line of thought with you anyway. I'm having to tread carefully , so it's best to be honest and upfront with you, rather than try to invent something as to why I may not be able to discuss my thoughts with you.

 

In any case, I need to explore them further, so can't do anything on that front immediately. I'm not trying in any way to evade your question, but there's no point posting something which has no legs, so further research (and questions) are necessary. As stated, it may be felt I shouldn't post my thoughts, even if I felt they did have legs, in which case, given my standing (or lack of) on the site, I'd have to respect that decision. Let me look into things further first.

 

I've tried to address everything you asked me - if I have missed anything, do post up!

Edited July 27, 2016 by Andyorch
Edited

[Coughdrop]

Fair enough, I only told the truth openly. It does mean, given the problem with my pm's, I'm stuffed in terms of trying to reply and possibly help the OP though.

 

Off to bed now anyway, so will see what is left in the morning! Hope you can get it sorted out - and please leave it so Zoltron knows I can't answer his question about my thoughts immediately, I have tried to reword it above, as you'll have seen. Hopefully that will be acceptable.

 

Thanks.

[AndyOrch]

Your Intial last post will remain..you don't need PMs to advise the OP..that is also breaking the forum rules.

 

Night Night.

[AndyOrch]

Thread temporarily closed..OP can PM me when (if) he wishes to resume.

 

Andy