troll posts

[Guest alreadyexists]

Also, did the council contact you after they had obtained the liability order, requesting further information from you and if so, did you send this in to them?

[Guest alreadyexists]

The welfare department will not be much help .

 

Dividing £260 by 6 comes to about £45 a month, do you think that you could stretch to that?

 

Also, are you in employment, self employed or on benefits?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Ok it's a tough one then. Provided that your OH is not named on the council tax bills, you can exclude that income from your I & E breakdown.

 

A bailiff is due to visit which is going to add a further £235 to your debt. You should NOT under any circumstances allow him entry to your home. If you have a car outside that belongs to you, this is in danger.

 

In order to try to prevent the visit, you can try writing to the council. I would urge you to ascertain the email address for the recovery department and contact them via email, if not tonight then 1st thing tomorrow.

 

Explain how you have contacted Jacobs upon receipt of their notice and that they have been unable to accept your offer of repayments. Go on to state that you believe that your situation is quite exceptional, given you only work part time and that you are struggling financially. State you would not be able to sustain the repayments at the rate that Jacobs require. Ask that the council consider your offer of £30 per month based on the I&E breakdown that you attach to the letter/email. Emphasize that this is all that you can afford.

 

Go on to enquire as to why the council did not send you a request for further information. remind them that at no time have you ignored this debt and continued to remain in contact with the council both before and after the issuing of the liability order. Given that you only work part time, state that you consider the decision to use enforcement agent to be wrong and had the council requested further information, they would have been aware that your financial situation was not ideal for enforcement. Remind the council that this is not your main residence and that you are currently paying tax at another address, so going past the end of this current tax year (end of March 2018), will not have any bearing on your ability to maintain payments. ***

 

End your letter/email by asking the council to suspend enforcement action whilst the proposal that you have put forward is being considered.

 

Write to Jacobs (also by email if possible) and explain that you understand that they are not permitted to accept a lower rate of repayment. However, you cannot afford what they require so you have contacted the council directly in order to request that they consider your exceptional circumstances. State that you have asked the council to suspend enforcement whilst your request is being considered and that you ask Jacobs to take this on board over the next few days until the receive official notification from the council. Attach a copy of the letter that you are sending to the council to the letter you send to Jacobs.

 

If you were to have an attachment of earnings made, your employer would have to deduct money at source from your wages and pay it directly to the council. The amount that he may deduct is nothing if you earn under £300, 3% if you earn between £300 & £500, 5% if you earn between 3500 & £740, 7% if you earn between £740 & £900 and 125 if you earn between £900 & £1420. (all figures are per month). If you would have preferred to have had an attachment of earnings as opposed to bailiffs, you can add this to your letter where I have included 3 stars (***). State that had the council requested further information, it would have been clear that enforcement was not suitable and that an attachment of earnings was better suited in your case. Furthermore, guidance from Government agencies and Citizens Advice both urge authorities to explore alternatives to enforcement - Especially when the debtor is on low income.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Dear Craig

 

I have read your "not a legal requirement" comments on numerous occasions. It is a typical council tax recovery officers response and one that I have dealt with on numerous occasions quite easily.

 

Allow me to clarify:

 

Nobody has ever claimed that it is a legal requirement. However - It is in place specifically to enable a council to determine on how best to proceed with a particular debt. The Practice note issued by the Goverment connected to Part VI (Enforcement) of the CTA&E Regs 1992 states of a request for further information:

 

Up to date information about those against whom liability orders are obtained is an important first step in identifying which method of recovery is appropriate in each particular case.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that it is best to remove and sell a debtors goods and then as an afterthought request further information to check if this was an appropriate course of action?

 

Whilst councils (just like you) like to hide behind their "not a legal requirement" nonsense, the claim is not worth the paper that it is printed on, unless of course the council are being sued. In 99% of my cases, I advise the debtor to issue a formal complaint, NOT to sue. Telling the LGO that you were not "legally obliged" to request FI is not to be recommended unless you want negative media reports which of course, no council does. You need to understand that a council is guilty of maladministration if it does not seek FI before sending in bailiffs.

 

As for your claim that not having the money to pay back within the allotted 6 month timescale, I would say that this is exceptional - The alternative would be that councils are acting disproportionately (and again guilty of maladministration) if they are demanding patyments that are neither affordable or sustainable.

 

I know that AOEs are not always the better option - That is why I furnished the OP the figures and left it as an option as to whether include that part in the letter or not.

 

Again, your claim that there is no requirement to follow guidance is not worth the paper it is printed on in this situation - Nobody is considering legal action. A failure to heed valid advice is deemed maladministration. Furthermore, the LGO has stated publically that if recognised guidance is not followed, she will likely deem the council guilty of maladministration.

 

Speaking with the council is NOT the best way forward. Very often the debtor is totally out of their depth knowledge wise and is easily fobbed off by the template "you must deal directly with the bailiff" rubbish, as the OP in this case has discovered already. A formal letter in writing creates a paper trail and removes the option for the council to fob off the author. The council are thus obliged to deal with the matter in a timely manner. Failure to do so will result in....you've guessed it...maladministration.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Excellent response as usual SS.

 

I was also surprised to read the advice given by the previous poster. Just because the OP works part time and is struggling financially (as are most people whose cases are referred to bailiffs) does not mean that her circumstances are 'quite exceptional'. In fact, far from it.

 

I also don't known where the misinformation comes from regarding the reference to a local authority supposedly having to provide the OP with a 'request for further information'. Thankfully you have resolved the misinformation on this point.

 

As stated below, you will note that the "previous poster" left the AOE as an option and did not advise anything.

 

Also as you will see stated below, the post from SS was not an excellent response and is littered with mistakes.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Excellent response as usual SS.

I also don't known where the misinformation comes from regarding the reference to a local authority supposedly having to provide the OP with a 'request for further information'. Thankfully you have resolved the misinformation on this point.

 

Well hopefully you do now.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Mistakes, Where ?

Throughout your post - You were wrong on every point.

 

The default position you adopt is that everyone else is wrong simply because they point out the legal position in respect of legislation

No - The default position is that you (and some others) are wrong in their belief that the council are not answerable to anyone if the ignore guidance. Simply adhering to legislation is not enough where councils are concerned. They are also expected to follow valid guidance.

 

Where it may well be helpful in some cases for a council to step back slightly before taking enforcement action they can continue to take as it long as the law says it's legal.

Yes, they will not face proceedings. However, that is only half the story and if they do not follow valid guidance, there will be consequences for the council. Do you not realize that there is a reason why charging orders or bankruptcy are not looked at as a first line of enforcement? Of course there is a requirement to act proportionately. What is the point in sending bailiffs to visit a debtor who is working part time and can clearly not afford what the bailiff is required to recover as a minimum? This is precisely why FI requests should be made. In this case, the OP was in constant comunication with the authority both before and after the LO was granted. There is no excuse whatsoever to engage bailiffs. Indeed, in these circumstances, many councils would obtain the LO and simply set up a repayment plan with the debtor without even using an enforcement step

 

I never said guidance wasn't important, I pointed out that it is not legally binding

What was the point, not only is it completely irrelevant in this scenario but the world and his wife know that guidance is not legally binding.

 

a different issue all together

Exactly - So why not discuss the issue of what is legally binding in a thread where it is an issue?

 

I also never mentioned any taking legal action.

Me neither. BUT, the point is that the issue of something being legally binding or not is only relevant if a matter enters a legal process, NOT if it enters a council's complaints procedure.

 

If there was maladministration every time the council didn't do something that someone, somewhere, had suggested they may do then every almost single case would be upheld by the LGO,

It is more likely that the debtor is not aware of the ability to pursue the matter by way of a complaints procedure - Or even worse, because they are talked out of it because the guidance is "not legally binding". As stated, the LGO has confirmed publicly that if a council fail to follow recognized guidance, she will likely deem this to be maladministration. In this case, the Government's guidance on how to implement and use the CT(A&E) regs appears to have been ignored.

 

I will say, that in this councils defence, this whole scenario is a consequence of the abolishing the 14 day letter. With a 14 day letter, it was quite simple to include the request for FI. Pre 2014, around 50% of all cases were able to be dealt with this way. This is not an excuse for the council to not request FI but if the 14 day letter was still required, the problem would never have occurred.

[Guest alreadyexists]

In order to push this matter along in terms of getting it returned by Marston, I would be inclined to write a letter to Marston and also copy in the fines manager at the court where the fines were issued. If you can send it by email, even better.

 

In the letter/email, you should point out that your son is just 20 years of age and is living in your home, just like many 20 year olds live with parents. The home and contents inside it belong to you and the bailiff must hold a reasonable belief that the goods inside belong to the debtor. There can be no possible reason why anybody would believe that goods inside a home where a 20 year old lives with parents belong to the 20 year old, OTHER than those inside his own room. With regards to receipts, in most cases, receipts are printed out from tills and rarely have the purchasers name on them in any case. It is an impossible task for any household to be able to provide receipts for most items, other than those recently purchased and still under warranty.

 

You may well have to let the bailiff in so that he can search your son's room for goods so make sure there is nothing of value in there as this could mean the bailiff does not return the debt. The bailiff is going to be extremely reluctant to return the debt because he is paid by commission only and will not get paid a penny unless he can force you or your son into paying. He will try everything he can to force you into making a payment. If he asks why he can't come in, just tell him that you wish to arrange a mutually convenient time when your son is present so that he can come and inspect HIS room for goods.

 

It is unlikely that a bailiff will attempt to force entry on an initial visit so if he does attend, you should be pretty safe in not answering the doors. The car is at risk but if you can prove it is yours (2 out of sales receipt, V5, insurance policy in your name), you should be OK. If you have to show him these, do so outside, locking the door behind you. Film everything.

[Guest alreadyexists]

When you say again, are you saying that this has happened to you before?

 

Is your only source of income ESA? If not, would you mind letting us know what other sources of income you have?

 

Did you receive any previous correspondence about this (since April) such as a reminder notice?

 

Does the letter that you've received today give you 7 days to pay the whole years tax?

 

We will probably need to act on this sharpish to try to stop a liability order being obtained. Please post back asap.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Bristow and sutor

We broke the agreement after they set the payment too high

we skinted ourselves to pay £700 in one go.

 

They agreed to look at a different payment plan as the car is in my name and that was their leverage before

 

After some arguing and me proving car was in my name they agreed to Remove it from controlled goods agreement,

 

I sent message to them 20th July asking what my payments would be ,

they tried calling

I was on holiday

 

I got back to a letter last night saying he wanted goods or money in full.

I said there is nothing on the controlled goods agreement other than tv and bedside drawers and he hung up on me.

 

I called office and they won't discuss it

they said it's the enforcement agent who has to deal with it and I wasn't allowed to talk to a manager as they were fully trained to deal with it.

 

I proposed £80 a month payment which is more than they'd make removing some drawers and a lamp

 

no one will discuss it and the enforcement agent is very uncooperative and rude!!!

What on earth do I do

 

Good afternoon Morgan.

 

Firstly, I would urge you to ignore any previous suggestions or misinformation that you are jointly liable for your husband's debt. I can assure you that you are not and hopefully, the fact that your car has been removed from the CGA reassures you of this.

 

I would not waste any more time trying to contact B&S. The bailiff is on commission and only gets paid when he collects money. He has no incentive to allow you back into a repayment plan.

 

You must now write to the council, personally I would do so in the form of a formal complaint and address it to the recovery manager (you will have to find a name and contact email address). I would copy B&S in on the mail.

 

Your husband should state that you let the bailiffs in and signed a CGA on his behalf. However, you signed for repayment figures that were way above what you could realistically afford and sustain.

 

Suggest that a bailiff had a duty to check that the figure listed was affordable and that Section 24 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards states:

 

Debtors must not be pressed to make unrealistic offers and should be asked to consider carefully any offer they voluntarily make and where possible refer to free debt advice

 

Your husband should then make an offer to repay at a figure that is affordable and if possible, provide an income and expenditure breakdown to support the offer.

 

He should then ask the council to refer back to B&S and ask them to accept the revised offer.

 

Finally, he should ask that enforcement is placed on hold whilst his offer is being considered.

 

Obviously, as you are not jointly liable, any income of yours need not be listed in the I&E breakdown.

 

Once the complaint is sent off, your husband should text the bailiff and say something along the lines: Formal complaint now issued to council - Please do not return until this has been resolved.

[Guest alreadyexists]

The enforcement agent doesn't want your sofas, he wants your money.

 

Do as I said previously - Instigate a formal complaint and quote section 24 of the National Standards. If your husband can provide proof that he can only afford £80 a month, the council will tell B&S to accept this.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Why not just get on and pay the £80 offered

Can't see the point in kicking prams wheels

Utterly Pointless

 

When the end result will be the £80PCM

 

Because B&S have not accepted the offer to pay £80. It needs to be done properly.

 

You are incorrect in your claim that the bailiff cannot add any more as he can quite easily add a sale fee without actually removing any goods.

 

Furthermore, it is only your opinion that the goods are "worthless" to B&S.

 

Simply just deciding to pay less than a third of what you've agreed by way of signed agreement is a ridiculous thing to even consider, let alone carry out.

[Guest alreadyexists]

They won't accept £80

I've offered £100

 

Who is "they"?

 

It seems to me that the only person who is deciding what you will be allowed to pay is the individual bailiff.

 

If you want this sorted, you will issue the formal complaint. It will place further enforcement action on hold, it costs nothing and provided the I&E supports your offer, you will have that offer accepted. Demanding unreasonable monthly payments is indeed a ground for complaint and it is something that the local Government Ombudsman would be happy to investigate if (in the unlikely event) the council do not cooperate with your request. It has most certainly been established that your husband has grounds for complaint, based on what you have posted. Simply speaking to a customer service telephone operator is a waste of time.

 

Also, your husband should have been asked to provide the council with further information prior to the account being passed to B&S. If your husband was not asked to supply further information, he has further grounds for complaint.

[Guest alreadyexists]

The council's website will show you how to instigate a formal complaint. Alternatively, if you can find out the name and contact address of the recovery manager then you can send it to him/her.

 

As you are not the debtor and NOT named on the liability order, you are not required to pay this debt so your income should not be relevant.

 

Now that the offer of £100 has been made, you'll need to stick with this but you need to support it with an attached I&E showing that £100 is all that your husband can afford.

 

After a liability order is obtained, the council should contact the debtor to obtain financial information - This helps the council on how best to proceed in recovering the debt.

[Guest alreadyexists]

As the debtor was not present when the CGA was signed, it is debatable whether it is even valid in the first place. It is unacceptable to determine what is an affordable repayment plan when the debtor is not even present. Regulations state that a CGA may only be signed by a person who is authorised by the debtor. How can it possibly be argued that a person is authorised if they do not even know what figure is acceptable to list as a monthly repayment? Of course the time is right to use the complaints procedure. To further support this action, the OP has been told that the only person at B&S that she can deal with is an individual enforcement agent who has no incentive to set up a lower repayment plan. When the OP phoned the council, she was told that she must deal with B&S. She has tried to resolve this without the need to complain and has got nowhere. Pithering about further will only see her continue to go around in circles.

 

Issuing a formal complaint costs nothing and there are no consequences if the complaint is unsuccessful. The OP has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain by complaining. In this particular instance, there are more than enough grounds to complain.

[Guest alreadyexists]

They live in the same property

They are jointly liable for ctax

 

Whilst a couple would be jointly liable for council tax, payment can NOT be demanded unless a person is named on the bill. In practice, councils put as many known people on their bills but in this case, the OP has told us that the bill was made out in her husbands name. In order to demand payment from the OP, the council would have needed to have sent out another bill in her name. Unfortunately, the information provided at post #15 is incorrect and inaccurate.

 

Until a person has received a bill, they cannot have a liability order issued against them. Therefore, the liability order is in the husband's name and as such he (and only he) is the debtor.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Post #15 stated:

The problem with council tax debts, is that unlike court fines and parking debts, a Liability Order only needs to name one member of the household even though the council tax debt itself is considered is joint debt.

 

Regulation 28 of the CT(A&E) regulations states:

An amount shall not be payable by a person pursuant to regulation 27(2) unless a notice has been served on him by the billing authority stating the amount; and it shall be due from him to the authority at the expiry of such period (being not less than 14 days) after the day of issue of the notice as is specified in it.

 

I am not arguing with anyone. I am stating the correct position in every single instance, for the good of the debtor, Not once have I posted anything that is incorrect and correcting the mistakes made on here is not disrupting, it is helping the OP who is seeking accurate information.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Andyorch
edited

[Guest alreadyexists]

For clarity, the following is a quotation from a highly respected barrister who specialized in local taxation:

 

It is possible to apply for a liability order solely against the person to whom the bill was originally sent (even if a joint bill has not been sent), or against both that person and another person(s) who is (or are) jointly and severally liable with that person. It is not however, possible for a summons to cover more than one person - Separate summonses are needed

 

In essence, this means that not only does a person have to be named on a bill (and subsequently receive a reminder notice if payment is not received within 14 days) but also each person who is to be pursued must receive his/her own individual summons.

 

A council may not issue a summons to more than one person and may only enforce the debt against the person named on the liability order.

[Guest alreadyexists]

In this particular scenario, in order for the council to enforce against Morgan, they would need to send her a bill, send a reminder notice, send a summons and then have a liability order issued at a hearing. That whole process would take around 2 months from start to finish.

 

It is also worth pointing out to Morgan that the bailiff cannot simply return to remove any goods when he feels like it - Before doing so, B&S must issue a mandatory notice, stating their intention to return and remove goods. Until that notice is issued, the bailiff cannot return to the property unless he has reasonable belief that more goods have been taken onto the premises (which he actually could do if he is able to connect this thread to a live account because you have stated that new goods have replaced damaged ones).

[Guest alreadyexists]

There are differing opinions on what would be deemed "private land" and what is deemed a "highway". Bailiffs obviously take one extreme, debtors the other. You need to advise exactly where the car was parked.

 

Although the car is unlikely to remain clamped indefinitely, it is worth considering whether tax and insurance will run out and if they are required for where the car is parked.

 

Personally, I would want the car back because surly the scrap value would be a couple of hundred? This kind of debt rarely goes away and as the potential of coming back and biting you on the backside at some point in the future when you are least expecting it. Maybe just text the bailiff and tell him that the engine has blown so he can feel free to remove it if he wants? This may prompt him to release the clamp.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Provided that your I&E breakdown shows that you have no more spare cash available than £50 per fortnight, there is no need whatsoever to offer to pay more.

 

Remind Jacobs that you have adhered to the existing payment plan for more than 12 months, without defaulting, despite it putting great strain on your finances. As your financial situation has not changed, you are not in a position to raise your fortnightly repayments (as supported by your I&E). Also remind Jacobe that Section 24 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards states that debtors should not be pressed into making unreasonable offers.

 

As stated in post #2, you should also copy the council in on the letter.

 

Whilst you are writing to Jacobs, it might well be a good idea to include a request fora breakdown of fees. Is this debt just for one years tax?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Yes I am sick of this system I need a life not dealing with petty rules that cost you way more than you can earn.

 

So you think that you are superior to others then?

 

Whilst we all abide by the rules and regulation covered by the Road Traffic Act, you don't think that they apply to you, or you are somehow exempt?

 

Whilst I am no fan of councils, I accept that someone has to make and enforce rules and regulations.

 

You seem quite happy to benefit from the rules and regulations that suit you but not so when the role is reversed.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Well done.

 

It is normal for lengthy repayment plans to be reviewed periodically.

However, the wording in their letter was misleading as it did not state that they wished to review the arrangement

- The letter clearly stated that "we need to increase payments" I think that sadly, some people will be taken in by this and automatically telephone with an increased offer to repay.

 

I would think that, that will be an end to your problem but for piece of mind, I would still follow the call up in writing and again CC the council in, just confirming what has been said on the phone.

 

The call will almost certainly have been recorded in any case but I always like a paper trail to cover myself.

[Guest alreadyexists]

He said he was sick of something. How you can twist that into being superior to others is beyond me. Maybe you're just in a bad mood?

 

He clearly has no intention of paying this outstanding PCN - What makes him think that he does not have to pay it? I pay mine, even though I don't want to and even though I am also "sick" of it. I would hope that you do the same. In my book, people who think that they do not have to pay these penalties think they are better/superior than us mere mortals who obey traffic signs.

 

He has also stated that he wants the bailiffs to "work hard for nothing" I would wager he doesn't want to work hard for nothing himself, so why would he go out of his way to ensure that someone else does?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Just a word of warning:

 

By informing B&S that the goods listed were damaged by flood, you have given the bailiff reasonable belief that you have replaced them. A bailiff may re-enter premises if he has reasonable belief that more goods have been taken inside.

 

In my experience, B&S are among the most reasonable to deal with. You cannot simply offer what you wish after signing an agreement to pay 3 times that amount - You have to justify why you can only afford the lower amount. This is why the I&E is so vital. Even if the drawers and mirror were taken, you would still owe the money so the problem would not go away. If your husband is self-employed, an I&E may be more difficult to construct, if he earns different amounts each week/month. Bank statements showing his gross earnings would help.

 

I strongly urge you to send an email to justify why you can only afford £100 and not the £300 previously agreed. To further support your argument, you appear to have signed the agreement on your husband's behalf, without his authorisation. This could well render the agreement invalid. I would be inclined to hold this argument back at present and try to negotiate an agreement without the need to dispute the CGA.

 

The TV should have make, colour and serial number but bailiffs rarely bother. I had one case not long back where the bailiff listed a TV and TV stand and when we questioned why he hadn't listed the serial number, he claimed that the TV was fixed to the wall (I'd have loved to have known what he was claiming was on the TV stand if not the TV)