Council Tax - "14 day Letter"

[Peterbard]

What I find difficult to reconcile is the op says the 14 day letter was deliberately removed. Then he says.it was an unintended consequence.

 

Then after acknowledging the section was deliberately and legally removeved, he maintains the LGO can and will find there has been maladministration when the authority tollows the modified procedure.

[Peterbard]

Yes but no answer to points raised.

Nothing you say on this post is true it is just more trolling.

 

V BORING

 

You seem unable to argue without being abusive, just an observasion

[Peterbard]

Oh that, I thought you were joking.

 

You are right about one thing though I will let you guess which bit it is.

[Bailiff Advice]

DB

 

I do agree that it has become boring though. How about we draw a line under it and move on? You are without doubt a very clever and informed individual and I obviously don't know anything about anything. I get it. I think everyone gets it.

 

Now for the sake of your fellow posters, the admin who have to continually check these reported posts that you and your colleagues are making and most importantly, the debtors, would you please stop this silly vendetta?

 

Where you have a very serious problem with is with your inability to respect that you have one opinion......and others have another. Instead, you continually attempt to force your opinions on others and if they do not agree, you resort to throwing insults.

 

You have already made clear that your interest with 'bailiff enforcement' is limited to council tax recovery and your visits on this forum appear to be to encourage debtors to issue complaints to local authorities and more recently, to the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

I have posted my opinions on this thread and so have others. There should be nothing further to add.

[dx100uk]

I don't like option 2 in that other thread either..

 

 

2. You are not legally obliged to speak with the bailiffs or pay them any money.

You can simply do nothing and wait for the bailiffs to throw the towel in and return the debt to the council voluntarily.

 

By doing so, all bailiff fees would be removed from the debt. If you choose to go down this road, you should write to the council and explain what you are doing and the reason why you are doing it is because there is no advantage to you financially to deal with the bailiffs and as you are not legally bound (there's that expression again) to do so, you will not be doing so on this occasion.

 

 

really anyone?

[Bailiff Advice]

Here's an example of this option working DX:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?458983-jbw-council-tax-debt

 

The OP in this thread ended up paying the debt back by way of an AoE, which is all she ever wanted to do. ALL bailiff fees were naturally removed from her account, meaning her AoE ended much sooner than if she'd have followed the advice of BA.

 

As always, I do like to ensure that posts are accurate. The link above should be read by all visitors:

 

The OP (Polly) had been encouraged (via private message) to leave this forum and visit the forum where 'already exists' usually posts. It was him that then encouraged 'Polly' to send an endless stream of letters to the council over a period of months.

 

Her posts on that forum displayed a very disturbing level of anxiety with the constant letter writing. Sadly, her case is a well known one to frequent posters on here. Polly was used as a 'guinea pig' in order to try to 'get one over' on this forum.

[dx100uk]

well we much prefer that certain people mass-debate over getting away with posting incorrect information here rather than in the main forum

[Bailiff Advice]

WRONG AGAIN

 

Polly made a post on another forum on 6 January 2016.

 

Her first post on the thread that I linked was 26 January 2016.

 

I think that I am right in saying that her thread was moved into a private area of the said forum. Perhaps you can correct me.

[basildonbond1946]

I am getting really p*****d of by the petty bickering of certain people on any problem that concerns the Baillifff industry.People come on CAG to get advice not to be as a ego trip by certain posters they will know who I mean

[AndyOrch]

Off topic posts unapproved..

[Peterbard]

OK Back on topic. Previously section 45 provided tht a notice should be sent BEFORE ddistress was entered into, here:

 

.—(1) In regulation 45(1) (distress)(1), for the words from “the authority” to “may” there is substituted “the authority which applied for the order may, subject to regulation 45A,”.

 

(2) After regulation 45 there is inserted—

 

“Information preliminary to distress

 

45A.—(1) No distress shall be made under these regulations unless, no less than 14 days before a visit

"

When section 45 was altered in ordered to say," by use of the schedule 12 procedure" there was absolutely no reason why section 45A had to be removed. The section could quite happily have remained and fulfilled exactly the same function, giving a warning before the enforcement began.

 

Therefore it was not an unavoidable or unintended consequence it was by choice of the legislators.

Now, how can anyone accuse the council of maladministration, for following the new procedure regarding the issuance of notices

They are merely following the legislation in its altered form.

[ss002d6252]

OK Back on topic. Previously section 45 provided tht a notice should be sent BEFORE ddistress was entered into, here:

 

.—(1) In regulation 45(1) (distress)(1), for the words from “the authority” to “may” there is substituted “the authority which applied for the order may, subject to regulation 45A,”.

 

(2) After regulation 45 there is inserted—

 

“Information preliminary to distress

 

45A.—(1) No distress shall be made under these regulations unless, no less than 14 days before a visit

"

When section 45 was altered in ordered to say," by use of the schedule 12 procedure" there was absolutely no reason why section 45A had to be removed. The section could quite happily have remained and fulfilled exactly the same function, giving a warning before the enforcement began.

 

Therefore it was not an unavoidable or unintended consequence it was by choice of the legislators.

Now, how can anyone accuse the council of maladministration, for following the new procedure regarding the issuance of notices

They are merely following the legislation in its altered form.

 

Exactly - The 2014 Order which removed s45A was clear in that it was to be omitted. It's quite clear the intention was to replace it entirely with the new procedure for notification and enforcement by agents.

[ss002d6252]

...which removed s45A was...

It should of course read reg45A, not s45A.

 

Craig

[Peterbard]

It should of course read reg45A, not s45A.

 

Craig

 

Yes thanks, indeed it should

[ss002d6252]

It was a comment on DB's post - which, of course, addresses the earlier points you raised that the removal of the 14 day notice as an 'unintended consequence'. I'm sure DB will correct me if I misunderstood their post.

 

Craig

[Peterbard]

It was a comment on DB's post - which, of course, addresses the earlier points you raised that the removal of the 14 day notice as an 'unintended consequence'. I'm sure DB will correct me if I misunderstood their post.

 

Craig

 

NO quite correct. I was not correcting anyone, merely attempting to clarify

 

7mday

 

What I said was an unintended consequence was the fact that also included in reg 45A was a requirement to contact the debtor to notify them that a LO had been obtained. I'm sure that even you would agree that it cannot possibly have been intended to have a situation in statute whereby a council can obtain a LO and then pass the debt straight onto bailiffs to do all the dirty work because the council can't be bothered with the paperwork?

 

 

Well, it seems that this is exactly what was intended, as it was stated in the amendments that the facility to contact the debtor prior to enforcement be removed.

 

The amendment says remove reg 45A. The only thing reg 45A does is to say a letter must be sent etc. so how can this be unintended.

 

Are you trying to say that parliament wasn't aware that it would mean the debt could go straight to enforcement?

I think that cannot be correct. I think it more likely that the reason it was removed was to make that happen, because of the seven-day notice, resident in the compliance stage in the TCE.