Penham Excel threatening to remove vehicle......7yrs old CTAX LO

[lisadp1970]

Hi Andy thanks for your reply.

The Council did have a CCJ for the debt from a couple of years ago, which we were aware of, but they obviously knew we had moved house and are under a new Local authority so have gone for the attachment.

Is there a form I fill in or someone I need to contact?

Thanks

[Ell-enn]

Are you sure they had a CCJ ? Liability orders for council tax are not CCJ's and are not registered with CRA's. Have you checked your credit file ?

[lisadp1970]

No it isn't a CCJ it's just the term I used as it went to court, but I've realised now that as It was the Magistrates and not County court it can't be a CCJ

We were aware before we moved that it had gone to court but there was never any mention of an attachment of earnings

[Ell-enn]

If you don't come to an arrangement with them before the court date (or even just after), they will automatically go for an attachment of earnings.

[Ell-enn]

Still worth writing a letter stating you were not informed they intended to go for an attachment of earnings and explaining your case.

[lisadp1970]

We did get in touch with them and offered what we could afford but I was very bluntly told that they want the whole debt of £1400+ in full, which was ridiculous.

We are just starting to get ourselves straight after a really crap year and now we have all this

[Ganymede]

No it isn't a CCJ it's just the term I used as it went to court, but I've realised now that as It was the Magistrates and not County court it can't be a CCJ

We were aware before we moved that it had gone to court but there was never any mention of an attachment of earnings

 

 

So you WERE aware it went to Court?

[Crocdoc]

Councils pull this stroke regularly by telephone, however you earlier post states that your husnand will be on half wages from next month, this will automatically reduce the level of deduction. I know this is not ideal but once they have an arrestment in place it is very difficult if at all possible to stop

 

The other thing of course is that the reduction in income MAY give you additional benefit entitlement, as the deduction is based on weekly/monthly income exclusive of benefit, this particular situation may not be as bad as it appears.

[Ell-enn]

There is a protected earnings amount ( it used to be around £151 per week) which, if your husband is going on half wages, they will not be able to take much (if any amount ) from him.

[Crocdoc]

 

 

I hope this helps

 

Appendix 1: Deductions from weekly earnings from 6 April 2010

 

Net earnings

Deductions

Not exceeding £95.77

Nil

Exceeding £95.77 but not exceeding £346.15

£4 or 19% of earnings exceeding £95.77, whichever is the greater

Exceeding £346 15 but not exceeding £576.92

£47.57 plus 23% of earnings exceeding £346.15

Exceeding £576.92

£100.65 plus 50% of earnings exceeding £576.92

 

 

Appendix 2: Deductions from monthly earnings from 6 April 2010

 

Net earnings

Deductions

Not exceeding £415

Nil

Exceeding £415 but not exceeding £1500

£15 or 19% of earnings exceeding £415, whichever is the greater

Exceeding £1500 but not exceeding £2500

£206.15 plus 23% of earnings exceeding £1500

Exceeding £2500

£436.15 plus 50% of earnings exceeding £2500

[lisadp1970]

Ok, can someone confirm the maths for me?

Net Pay 1494

Protected 415

Leaving 1079

Less 19%

= 205.01 to be deducted. They are taking 254.

Is this correct or is it just 17% of 1494?

[h197]

Hello Lisa

 

Apologies I am not legally trained in anyway and I have joined CAG recently as I too am seeking advice on how to resolve my personal issues. As though all you are asking for is a calculation confirmation, I thought I could at least help with that!

 

Looking at Appendix 2 of what I am assuming is what the A of E order dictates, you have:

 

£1494 (monthly net earnings) - £415 (nil deduction portion) = £1079 (balance of earnings) x 19% (max deduction rate below the £1500 limit) = £205.01, as you have correctly worked out.

 

So (and I am guessing here), it appears that their calculation was off the wrong starting point, which once you have advised the court may, or may not give you additional grounds to appeal?

 

For your information and if they are claiming £254, it appears like they have started with monthly net earnings of:

 

£1500 (for the first £206.15 of their charge) + ((£254 - £206.15) x 1 / 23%) = assuming £1708.05 pcm (could this perhaps be your approximate Gross monthly take home pay?)

 

NB £254 (total charge) - £206.15 (charge portion accounted under 1st £1500 earnings) = £47.85 x (1 / 23% (as rate applicable)) = £208.05 (additional monthly earnings over the first £1500)

 

I am guessing though that as pointed out by Crocdoc above, once the monthly earnings are halved (given that then a larger overall percentage of the earnings will be taxed at lower rates, ie most of it will be part of ones annual tax free allowance), you will probably be left with just over, say, £750 net per month.

 

So, you should then be paying as follows:

 

£750 (monthly net earnings) - £415 (nil deduction portion) = £285 (balance of earnings) x 19% (max deduction rate below the £1500 limit) = £54.15

 

So the reduction of your earnings should drastically reduce what you have to pay through the A of E order (albeit possibly with a resulting longer period to repay your debt to the Council...) and as you have a family with young children and claim Family and Working Tax Credits, their increase to account for your reduced family earnings may nulify the effect of this order?

 

To my mind, I have always found it 'sad' that in this country people are more than often incentivised to NOT work, as even in your case you may find it hard in time to justify going back to working longer hours, for possibly the same, in cases even less take home money...

 

All in all though, I have myself gone through a long period of little, or no work and also having a young family I fully sympathise with your situation and hope it all somehow works out for the best in the long run...

 

As already stated I am not legally trained in anyway, so I hope others better qualified than myself will advise you on how to proceed next!

 

Regards

H.

[lisadp1970]

Hi

 

Just had a Bailiff turn up regarding an outstanding council tax bill and I told him I am going to deal with the Council in question directly and not them (this is Penham Excel).

He looked at my car on the drive, which is an old battered 03 plate Picasso, and said he's taking my car!!!!!!

 

This bill has had £845 in costs added by them and the car wouldn't even cover a third of that so he's clearly being a nasty piece of work as it's pointless taking a vehicle that doesn't even cover their costs.

 

I called my husband who has gone and moved the car away from the property, but surely if I've stated I'm going to pay the council directly they have to see that I honour that first before taking what is basically my lifeline?

 

Thanks

Lisa

[unclebulgaria67]

They are trying to bluff you into making a payment. It would not be worth taking a car of that age/value, as by the time it got sold, it would not leave much for council tax and enforcement fees.

 

The enforcement fees would be £310 and then the council tax on top.

 

More details is needed about what has happened before this latest visit.

 

Presumably you have had Magistrates summons saylng council obtaining liability order.

 

Then you have had enforcement letter from Penham Excel giving you 7 days notice of an enforcement officer attending.

 

What liability orders have the council obtained ? Penham Excel are acting on councils instruction and collecting any liability orders outstanding. If you don't have the details of liability orders, contact the council

 

The council probably won't accept direct payment to them. They will tell you to deal with Penham Excel.

[ericsbrother]

no they dont, once passed to them you still have to pay their fees.

 

There is a set amount they can charge for each stage of the process and £845 for a first visit isnt right.

 

 

That itself is worth a complaint to the council if you can afford to pay the amount owed and the proper fee

[Leakie]

I think you will find the £310 fees are included in the amount owed as UB has stated.

 

Now that you are at this point, you need to contact the Bailiff, and agree a payment plan,

work out what you can reasonably afford, and make an offer.

 

No doubt he will not accept, but you can not get blood out of a stone.

 

He will also want you to sign a control of goods agreement,

 

I personally would not let him in your house, as he has no right too, unless you let him,

he is not allowed to force his way in but if you leave a door unlocked he may use this as a peaceful entry.

 

Also move your car well out of the way, as he will use this as leverage.

As UB has said more info needed about before the visit.

[lisadp1970]

Looking at Penhams letter they've split the case into 3 liability orders. one for £1489.05 another for £1177 and the other for £1565. All 3 have the same client reference number yet Penhams have givien three different ones as their reference, which has confused me as this originally went to court as one case?

 

The break down of their fees is : -

Stage 1 - Compliance fees £75 for each outstanding liability order

Stage 2 - Enforcement fees - £235 + 7.5% of the sum of the outstanding debt over £1500

Stage 3 - Sale fees £110 + 7.5% of the outstanding debt over £1500.

 

I can't understand how Penham think they can separate each debt so to charge for them separately but then clump them altogether as one to charge the 7.5%, surely that isn't fair?

 

I have spoken to NHDC who refuse to deal with me even though I've offered £50 a month by direct debit and also said that I refuse to pay these ludicrous amounts to the Bailiffs and that I will look to go bankrupt rather than pay this money, to which she said council tax debt wouldn't be included (I know that to be crap as I've had advice from CAB regarding this in the past)

 

The Bailiffs also claim someone attended my property last August but I know for a fact I've never had a Bailiff come to my door, especially last summer when the kids would have been home.

[Bailiff Advice]

Lisa, making payment direct to the council after a warrant has been issued and passed to bailiffs is far from easy and this forum is testament to that.

 

This is because, the regulations specifically provide that the enforcement companies compliance fee of £75 must first be deducted from ANY payment made and that with regards to the balance of the payment, this must be split on what is referred to as a 'pro rata' basis. This procedure is described in more detail in the following Sticky that I drafted for the forum when the bailiff regulations were overhauled:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453047-Bailiff-enforcement-Setting-up-a-payment-arrangement-and-whether-you-can-pay-the-court-or-the-council-direct

 

Any questions....please post back.

Edited December 6, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[AndyOrch]

Is there a reason that 3 sets of council tax are outstanding...a genuine dispute ?

 

 

Andy

[Bailiff Advice]

Looking at Penhams letter they've split the case into 3 liability orders. one for £1489.05 another for £1177 and the other for £1565. All 3 have the same client reference number yet Penhams have givien three different ones as their reference, which has confused me as this originally went to court as one case?

 

The break down of their fees is : -

Stage 1 - Compliance fees £75 for each outstanding liability order

Stage 2 - Enforcement fees - £235 + 7.5% of the sum of the outstanding debt over £1500

Stage 3 - Sale fees £110 + 7.5% of the outstanding debt over £1500.

 

I can't understand how Penham think they can separate each debt so to charge for them separately but then clump them altogether as one to charge the 7.5%, surely that isn't fair?

 

I would be very surprised indeed if your local authority had obtained ONE Liability Order for all three separate years council tax. In almost all cases, the arrears for each council tax bill (2014/5....2015/6....2016/7 for example) would be subject to an individual Liability Order. If so, then each individual Liability Order would be subject to a warrant and as such, three separate cases would be transferred to Penham Excel.

 

Each individual account would attract a Compliance fee of £75. In relation to the enforcement fee of £235, it is possible for such a fee to be charged to each account subject only to the date when Penham received each case. If all three cases where sent to Penham at around the same time, then all debts must be enforced together and only one enforcement fee of £235 (plus the 7.5% uplift) can be applied.

 

However, if for example one account was sent to Penham in July 2016, the second acccount sent in September 2016, and the third account a month later, then each account would naturally be enforced separately and each one attract a separate enforcement fee of £235.

[Leakie]

I agree with you BA

 

But would the EC not have a duty too only charge one £235,

If they had not tried to enforce the LO before the last was transferred, to them from the LA?

[ss002d6252]

to which she said council tax debt wouldn't be included (I know that to be crap as I've had advice from CAB regarding this in the past)

 

Where action is being taken bankruptcy doesn't stop a local authority from proceeding in every situation - there are some where the enforcement agent can continue regardless.

 

For example, some cases where goods have been taken control of - https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/TechnicalManual/Ch1-12/Chapter9/part5/part_5.htm.

 

Craig

[Bailiff Advice]

Lisa, making payment direct to the council after a warrant has been issued and passed to bailiffs is far from easy and this forum is testament to that.

 

In the ten years that I have been posting on this forum (initially as Tomtubby) I have made mention many times of the dangers that debtors face in taking legal action against an enforcement company....and even more so, when legal proceedings are undertaken following legal 'advice' from the internet.

 

The bailiff regulations were significantly overhauled in 2014. A frequent complaint from the enforcement industry (which was mentioned at an industry conference that I was invited to attend two weeks ago), was that under the previous regulations, there was a wealth of case law that could be relied upon regarding the subject of 'distress'....some of it going back many years. All of that previous case law was made redundant under the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act since April 2014. Put simply, this means that local authorities, lawyers, the enforcement industry and debtors alike may only rely upon Schedule 12 of TCE and its supporting regulations (such as the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2014) when taking matters to court.

 

There are many parts of the regulations that need to be defined by the courts (such as 'private land', defining a 'highway' allocation of payments to the creditor and much more) and accordingly, it stands to reason that if a debtor instigates legal proceedings against an enforcement company (or creditor) that firm (or local authority) will challenge the proceedings and will be happy for the court to give their interpretation of the regulations. This is exactly what has happened in a very recent judgment. Unfortunately, this particular case (which should never have been instigated in the first place) will be a very serious blow to all debtors.

 

I will write briefly about the case later (without at present identifying the parties), but in relation to this particular thread it may assist if I refer to a specific part of the recent Judgment:

 

The debtor who issued proceedings (Mr B) received a Notice of Enforcement and instead of paying the debt to the enforcement company (as he should have done) he made a very costly mistake by paying the council direct (minus the enforcement companies Compliance Fee of £75). He then contacted the enforcement company to tell them what he had done and warning them not to attend his property.

 

Refusing to pay the compliance fee of £75 has cost this debtor many thousands of pounds.

 

The local authority did not apportion the direct payment as it should have done (by deducting the compliance fee) and allocating the balance on a pro rata basis, but the District Judge was quite satisfied that the debtor had not satisfied the debt by making payment only of the principal debt (minus bailiff fees). Most importantly, he said this:

 

'No amount of reinterpretation of the Regulations, it seems to me, comes to the aid of the claimant'

 

and that:

 

'No purposeful reading of the Regulations can, it seems to me, support the claimant's contention. It is clear to me that whether the (£xxx) was apportioned or not, (and it was accepted by the defendant that it was not, that (xxxxxx Council) kept the full amount in payment of their debt) is irrelevant to the right of the power of (the enforcement company) to enforce what had then become due by reason of their appointment, being the Compliance fee'

 

The District Judge when on to say that the enforcement company were entitled to take control of goods as only a part payment had been made by the debtor.

[ss002d6252]

That's an interesting judgement and confirms what I've always held to be the case - especially through many hours of arguments with tax payers regarding very similar cases.

 

Craig

Edited December 6, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[Bailiff Advice]

 

It is a very useful judgement indeed and one that will no doubt be of use to those few remaining local authorities who still struggle to understand their legal obligation when receiving a 'direct' payment from a debtor.

 

The following is taken from part 8.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 where a simplified explanation is given as to the reason why the Compliance fee must be deducted first:

 

The consultation response stated that in cases where the proceeds of enforcement

are less than the amount outstanding

, they should be distributed on a pro-rata basis between creditor and enforcement agent (regarding the outstanding debt and the enforcement fees and disbursements respectively).

 

However, it has since been demonstrated that this would cause enforcement agents to operate at a loss for some time before they recovered their fees, undermining the fee structure model by significantly delaying remuneration and preventing the necessary investment in enforcement businesses required to provide a sustainable service.

Without this,

successful enforcement could potentially decline significantly and

enforcement agents may be encouraged to act in an aggressive manner

in order to try and recoup the entire debt.

 

It was therefore decided that

enforcement agents should be paid the compliance stage in full first,

followed by a pro-rata division of proceeds between enforcement agent and creditor.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

Edited December 6, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed