Rossendales and council tax

[Peterbard]

I am sorry but I am not attempting to show you the difference between following a guideline and being bound by an act of parliament. I don't have the time or inclination.

 

The quote in the post above says that guidance cannot over ride the law, which is a different matter entirely.

[Needy Winks]

From what I can see, there is a confusion with Dodgeball assuming 'bound' means 'legally bound'. I can't see where anyone has argued that authorities and bailiffs are legally bound by the NS.

 

However, the LGO has ruled that should LAs or bailiffs breach the NS then they would consider that as maladministration in any complaints. This means that the LA and bailiffs are duty bound to follow the NS.

 

There is even a sticky on these boards that explain that Parliament's intention is that the NS are to be followed. If they are continually breached then I have no doubt that Parliament will decide to enshrine them in law as they have had to do with the 2014 changes. They were put in place as too many bailiffs would not act within previous guidelines.

[Peterbard]

Guidelines cannot bind someone to a course of action.

 

Perhaps it should, then we could rid ourselves of all that pesky Parliament, white papers, lords, commons stuff.

 

We could just issue guidelines.

 

Guidelines are just that, a guide to what is expected, a method of creating a standard. An LGO will consider guidelines as he will all other relevant information and evidence before reaching an decision.

But his finding will not be due to the breach of a guideline, there can be no breach, it is not the law.

It may be that there is some other factor outside guidelines which he considers as having more weight on the decision.

[Needy Winks]

The LGO has stated that any breach of the NS would be considered maladministration, so it seems to me they are expected to be followed. I can't see how anyone can argue that they are not bound.

[Peterbard]

Wher was this , do you have a link?

[Peterbard]

As a reminder, this is what it says on the front page of the guidelines

 

We recognize this document is not legally binding, but offer it as a helpful tool for

the industry and for creditors which, it is hoped, will inform their own

arrangements and against which they may benchmark their professional

standards.

[Peterbard]

The LGO has stated that any breach of the NS would be considered maladministration, so it seems to me they are expected to be followed. I can't see how anyone can argue that they are not bound.

 

 

Nope of course not.

 

Because there was never any such statement made.

[Needy Winks]

Yes Dodgeball and it's not being argued the NS are legally binding. Directly above the part you quoted it says

 

"it sets out what the Ministry of Justice, those in the industry and some major users regard as minimum standards."

 

so Parliament expects them to be followed, ergo the LAs and EAs are bound to follow them.

[Needy Winks]

The LGO has stated that any breach of the NS would be considered maladministration, so it seems to me they are expected to be followed. I can't see how anyone can argue that they are not bound.

 

 

Nope of course not.

 

Because there was never any such statement made.

 

You're posting without giving anyone a chance to reply. Type the following into Google and it's the third one down.

 

"We would usually view any breach of the National Standards, the CIVEA Code and Guidance (if the firm employing the bailiff were members), or any breach of an agreement with the council, as maladministration."

[AndyOrch]

I think its time to temp close this thread given the OP has not been near.... Last Activity 20th July 2017 20:22...simply entertaining yourselves is of no benefit to the OP.

 

Start a discussion thread in the appropriate forum..not on someones thread.

 

Thread temp closed until advised by the OP to reopen.

 

Regards

 

Andy