troll posts

[Guest alreadyexists]

With regards to my local council Braintree

all you get is a notice of missed payment, My last one was by text not letter, due to the council not allocating payments properly,

 

Notice that they are applying for a LO with an I & E form.

If you do not contact them they will go for the LO regardless

 

Even if you do contact them in my case as I was Self Employed they stated, that they had to get the LO before any

re payment plan could be agreed, ( an extra £95.00 for them)

 

then they make it very difficult to make an agreement, so straight to enforcement. no notice

 

They generally go for the LO regardless. This is because they profit from the costs that they charge, despite the law stating that they should not profit.

 

Generally, I have found that if you have been in contact with them throughout the LO proceedings, they will be prepared to allow you to enter into a plan without using an enforcement step - It is only if this plan is defaulted on, will they escalate the matter to bailiffs.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Excellent post Leakie.

 

As you have rightly confirmed, before requesting a Liability Order, your council have requested financial information from you (in the form of an Income & Expenditure) !!!

 

A request for financial information PRIOR to obtaining a LO is entirely different to one requested by way of Regulation 36.

 

For example, a request for financial information AFTER a LO has been granted will include a request to provide employment details. It is an offence not to provide this information.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Reading your Councils article about what happens if you don't pay it is very sketchy at best, maybe you shoild contact them or your Councillors to have a fuller article loaded - they state the application of costs is a 2 pronged stage, are you saying it is not.

 

Not sure if this is directed at me?

 

If it was, my "councils article" was not about not paying tax, it was a comment regarding the now repealed 14 day letter. I probably know more about this than all of my councillors put together so I would be wasting my time contacting them.

 

If you are unsure of anything or find the post sketchy, please feel free to ask, I will happily explain anything to you in greater detail.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Given the void that it has left, it is clearly, in part at least an unintended consequence.

 

I tend to take claims of "taking part in consultations" with a pinch of salt unless I see evidence to the contrary.

 

I see no real issue with the removal of the 14 day letter. A council will still need to give notice and will still need to request financial information before sending in bailiffs. If they don't, they will be guilty of maladministration. I can't see an argument that they want to save on the price of a stamp (which was your previous reasoning behind not sending the notice) carrying much weight with the LGO.

[Guest alreadyexists]

You never mentioned your Council, it was directed at Braintree.

 

Apologies for the confusion.

[Guest alreadyexists]

It was actually YOU who confused viewers by suggesting that including an I&E request in a notice that a LO is being sought.

 

Surely even you must be able to work out that calling an I&E "a request for financial information" in a thread where a request for financial information pursuant to Regulation 36 was confusing?

 

Hence my decision to explain to viewers that there is a world of difference between an I&E request and a request for financial information under Regulation 36. I'm not entirely sure why you chose to use that term but it was certainly extremely confusing and may well have led people to believe that a request for financial information (as was being discussed) was an available option PRIOR to the issue of a LO.

 

I think your choice of words was poor, especially given previous comments on this thread. I'm also not sure why you have just repeated what I posted in post #29?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Why are you continually trying to damage information that will clearly help debtors?

 

It has nothing to do with legislation and continual, frantic attempts to fall back on this are silly and pointless.

 

The LGO has stated that failure to follow guidance will most likely be deemed guidance.

 

Why in God's name do you think a facility to request further information has been added if it can simply be ignored?

 

If the guidance has been ignored, the LGO will likely find maladministration.

 

Are you suggesting the alternative is to just say nothing and accept your lot?

 

Surely you support the facility to complain if there is an opportunity to do so? Or are you saying that people should just shut up and allow themselves to be trodden on?

[Guest alreadyexists]

It will continue to keep cropping up until people somehow realise that legislation is relevant in legal issues and guidance is relevant in maladministration cases. The two scenarios need to be separated.

 

Craig - You also really need to try to understand that the NS are issued by the MOJ, NOT the DCLG. In case you need reminding, the MOJ are the people responsible for the entire enforcement procedure. I think it's a safe bet to assume that THEIR guidance on how they want THEIR legislation to be interpreted will be the correct one.

 

We have seen no evidence of a bailiff contacting a debtor before notification has been given, only silly claims that it is happening because the council want to save 50p on the price of a stamp.

 

Point me to one case where a debtor has not received notification prior to bailiffs being instructed and I will help the debtor complain to the LGO.

 

Try telling that to the LGO

 

I've got several accounts swapped from bailiffs to AOEs based entirely on this argument. A couple of them were through the internet forums and the threads are still there today.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Firstly, I have never suggested that legislation has been overruled by guidance. That is just silly. It is the absence of clear legislation that sees the need to rely more on guidance.

 

Secondly, it might well be the LAs choice on what enforcement they use on the unsuspecting debtor, coupled of course with the misleading "it's not legally binding" rubbish that has no relevance to the grievance.

 

The fact of the matter remains that when challenged, an authority have always withdrawn enforcement in my experience, WHEN there has been no previous request for further information.

 

In addition, we have crossed this bridge before. An authority wouldn't go straight into a charging order, nor would they go straight into bankruptcy. Likewise, enforcement should only be considered if there is a refusal to return to request for further information OR (possibly) if the debtor is self-employed.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Evidence please BA

 

Besides, even if the comment had been made, nobody disputes that this is the case....AFTER a request for FI has been obtained.

[Guest alreadyexists]

She's quoting from a book that references the practice notes that she has previously tried to discredit. Here is another interesting practice note (Craig take heed):

 

An authority will have to decide which course of action to take following the issue of a liability order. The personal information form will help to determine the most appropriate method of recovery to adopt. If this form is not returned by the debtor and he or she cannot be contacted, distress may be the only option open to the authority

 

Next practice note:

 

Whilst distraint action can be an effective way of proceeding, authorities should consider other methods (such as attachments) in preference to distress as an initial enforcement option

 

Guidance from the DCLG:

 

A Local Authority should take all reasonable steps to exhaust other options available

to them prior to obtaining a liability order. Once a liability order has been granted a

Local Authority should explore other enforcement options which are available to

them, such as direct deductions from benefit or an attachment of earnings order.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Guidance from a joint document issued by Citizens Advice and the Local Government Association:

 

 

Local authorities should prioritise direct deductions from benefits or attachment of earnings in preference to using bailiffs. This avoids extra debts being incurred by people who may already have substantial liabilities.

[Guest alreadyexists]

The quote is from the well respected Barrister; Alan Murdie. Here it is in full:

 

On the matter of 'practice notes' Alan Murdie has this to say:

 

Thank you BA.

 

I think that it is widely accepted by all that the NS, practice notes or any other form of guidance is guidance and guidance only - It is not legislation. I would also like to make it clear that any reference that I make to the NS is to the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards. This guidance should not be confused with it's predecessor, the National Standards For Enforcement Agents.

 

However, all this means is that it would not be possible to instigate legal proceedings against an authority if guidelines were not followed. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that litigation should be considered when guidelines are breached so any reference to "not being legally bound" is both irrelevant and misleading.

 

We know that the LGO has publicly stated that she will consider it maladministration if guidelines are not followed. In the case of which way round enforcement is used by an authority, I have provided three separate documents that urge councils to consider attachments before bailiffs. This does not mean that they should not use bailiffs, only that whenever possible, a debtor should be considered for an attachment.

 

 

In essence, this would mean that a request for further information should be sent to the debtor AFTER the LO has been granted. If a request for further information is not sent out and bailiffs are subsequently engaged, it is possible to argue that the case be bought back in house for an attachment - Something that I have successfully negotiated on several occasions.

 

It is stretching the realms of stupidity to breaking point to suggest that the option of requesting further information is an option to be used further down the line. It states clearly in the practice note that the purpose for the request is to enable the authority to determine the best course of action moving forward.

 

 

Failure to request information because the council can't be bothered to administer an attachment is not a viable excuse. Indeed, there is no excuse why a debtor should be exposed to the unpleasant scenario of dealing with bailiffs AND incurring additional costs when and alternative, less stressful option is available. This is highlighted by every piece of guidance available.

 

It is highly unlikely that the LGO would find in the councils favour if just one valid piece of guidance had been ignored. I hope that you are honest enough and sensible enough to acknowledge that there is no way on this earth a council can just randomly pick an enforcement method without first looking into the individual case. The council MUST send out a request, otherwise it will be guilty of maladministration.

 

Moving onto the need for a 14 day letter, the only thing not provided for in guidance is the length of time a debtor may have to pay. However, the NS state that the debtor must be given warning if the debt is not paid within a certain time then enforcement may begin.

 

 

Clearly this is case specific and each individual case would require it's own notice, be it 7 days, 14 days or whatever. This of course rules out any crazy suggestions that debtors may find this information in leaflets or on the council's website. As a request for further information is required in any case, the council might just as well combine the two into a single letter thus saving on time and postage costs (just as it was done pre-April 2014)

 

Practice notes state:

 

Once the court has granted a liability order the billing authority will want to notify the person concerned Clearly this would also need to be done and again, could be incorporated in one single letter.

 

As much as councils would like to shout from the rooftops that they don't have to send warnings out before engaging bailiffs, they do. I personally don't believe that there is a council out there stupid enough or lacking any form of care or morality who would obtain a LO and then engage bailiffs without first contacting the debtor. It would be the clearest, most straightforward case of maladministration ever.

 

What is more contentious is the request for further information and I accept that some councils think they don't have to send this because like Craig, they believe that they are not legally bound. As demonstrated above, they are required via the guidance to send a request out - Failure to do so will 99'99% end with an LGO decision against them.

 

Apologies BA

 

You appear to have edited your original post during the time that I was responding.

 

I am not incorrect, and three sets of guidance back me up.

 

There is zero chance of an LGO decision going in the way of the council if three different sets of guidance all recommend the same and the council do the opposite.

 

I think that you are taking Alan's explanation too literally. Clearly when he was talking about "enforcement methods", he meant the 4 options that were actually enforcement methods, NOT the 5th option, which stands alone as it is not a means of enforcing the debt - It is a means to a means of enforcing a debt.

 

You also might want to consider the uproar that would take place if a council obtained a LO and then bankrupted the debtor. You have to exercise a bit of common sense here.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Craig - Until you can somehow try to understand that it has nothing to do with being legally bound, it is pointless continuing. I am discussing an injustice here, caused by maladministration.

 

The LGO has stated that a failure to follow guidelines is maladministration

 

3 separate and very respected sources of guidance state that councils should use bailiffs as a last resort, after considering AoEs.

 

It is unthinkable to suggest that a LGO wouldn't recommend that the council consider an AoE in place of bailiffs. In practice, every time I've argued this, the council have accepted at the first stage - There hasn't even been the need to trouble the LGO.

 

In actual fact, to claim that it is not legally binding when in fact a debtor raises a grievance about maladministration is misleading and in itself maladministration.

 

Just try to think - Failure to follow guidance = slap on the wrist from the LGO.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Thank you again BA

 

Please do post up any cases of failing to follow guidance. If I had more time on my hands, I'd search for them myself.

 

Yes, it was Dr Jane Martin who made the statement. I find it rather unlikely that her successor or anyone else would decide on a different path to take regarding guidance and of course, if you refer back to your book, you will see that Alan Murdie is also of the opinion that a failure to follow guidance would be classed as maladministration.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Unfortunately, when a council pass an account on to bailiffs, the debtor cannot just decide to pay the council without paying the bailiff fees. As is often stated on here, GUIDANCE states that councils must pay the bailiffs any fees incurred if they take the debt back.

 

I suspect that from the wording of your post, there is more than one liability order held by the council here. To clarify, every liability order (there will be one for each tax year that tax has remained unpaid) will be classed as a separate account.

 

For each account, the bailiff will have charged an additional £75. For example, if there were 4 accounts, the bailiffs would have added £300 in fees (4 x £75)

 

Furthermore, from the wording in your post, it would appear that the bailiffs have visited but you have not let them in. Provided that all the accounts were passed to bailiffs at the same time, the bailiff can only have charged you and additional £235. If the accounts have been passed to the council at different times, the likelihood is that you will have been charged £235 on two or more occasions.

 

Unfortunately, DX100 has provided you with requests that should have made before April 2014. I would suggest that you write the following letters;

 

TO THE COUNCIL:

 

1. How many LOs are held?

2. Which tax years these cover

3. The amount of each LO

4. The date(s) that they were passed on to enforcement agents.

 

 

TO THE BAILIFFS:

 

Please provide the following in accordance with Section 51 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014:

 

1. How many accounts are held in your name?

2. The dates that these accounts were received by yourselves.

3. The dates that all Notices of Enforcement were sent out.

4. The dates of any visit during the enforcement stage for each account.

5. The total amount of enforcement fees charged and the date that each one was incurred.

 

Ask that enforcement be placed on hold whilst you await this information (they may not do this but there's no harm in asking)

 

When you get the responses, you can work out how much you owe in bailiff fees. You will then be left with two choices:

 

1. To try to negotiate a deal with the bailiffs whereby you can repay the debt(s) in installments.

 

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.

 

State that if the council would like to contact you when the debt has been returned, confirming that the bailiff fees have been extinguished, you will be happy to settle the debt in full.

 

There is a risk element involved with option 2. If you have a car or anything else of value outside, the bailiff will take control of it and use this as a bartering tool to force you to pay.

 

If you are happy to hide your car and continue to refuse the bailiff permission, there will be little that (s)he can do and the account will soon be returned to the council.

 

The choice on what to do must be yours, based on how much the bailiff fees are and whether you think that the bailiff can gain access to your goods.

[Guest alreadyexists]

No problem, on this one occasion, I will help you out. After this though, you really are on your own.

 

Regulation 45A was NOT a regulation connected to pre-distress matters, as you previously (incorrectly) claimed.

 

Regulation 45A was connected directly to distress, as were Regulations 45 & 46. When the new legislation came into force in April 2014, Regulations 45A & 46 were repealed completely. Regulation 45 was also omitted in it's entirety and replaced by the following:

 

Where a liabilty order has been made, payment may be enforced by using the schedule 12 procedure.

 

Before April 2014, the regulations covering the enforcement of council tax debts was contained in Regulations 45, 45A and 46.

 

Nobody has claimed that removing Regulation 45A was an unintended consequence,

I think you are suffering from the very same "failure to understand" syndrome that you regularly accuse others of. Regulation 45A HAD to be removed because it was a provision that was in place for situations that had been passed to bailiffs but before a visit had taken place.

 

 

An unintended consequence of repealing Regulation 45A was that it took away the only requirement (legally) to notify the debtor that a LO had been obtained.

 

 

I really think that it would be helpful if you were to read the actual piece of legislation being discussed at any given time, rather than just jump in head first with no understanding of what is being discussed.

 

I think that you are also still extremely confused regarding what the LGO deem maladministration.

The LGO will consider that maladministration to have taken place if recognised guidance is not followed (the words of Dr Jane Martin & Alan Murdie, not mine)

 

 

Nobody claimed that maladministration occurs if an authority follows procedure, this is just one more thing in an ever growing list of things that began life in your imagination.

 

Now why don't you take a day off?

I'm sure it would do you the world of good.

Have a read through my previous posts.

You'd be amazed how much you could learn.

[Guest alreadyexists]

DB

 

I'm not sure if you have difficulty reading or not but which points do you not consider to have been answered?

 

I explained to you why Regulation 45A needed to be removed.

I explained to you why there was an unintended consequence in repealing Regulation 45A

And I explained to you that you had mis-read previous posts regarding maladministration. Furthermore, I explained to you what does constitute maladministration.

 

I'm really at a loss to understand what more I could possibly have said.

 

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?

[Guest alreadyexists]

You couldn't resist could you?

 

instead of just leaving it, and seeing if things could be left to settle, you had to have your say and start it all off again.

 

You are not a doctor and you are not a psychiatrist. Neither are you a mind reader. Your ridiculous accusations are little more than a mixture of your opinion and the twists and exaggerations that go hand in hand with your posts.

 

You claim I do not respect others opinion. Where have you been for the past 2 months? I have never once challenged others opinions, save for about half a dozen or so times when I have corrected misinformation posted by your good self. Furthermore, not one single post that I have made on this forum has escaped the obsessive attention of either you, or your sidekick DB.

 

I have not made it clear that my interest in bailiff enforcement is limited to council tax recovery. This again is something that you have just invented. It is also noteworthy, that you have never been able to point anyone to any case where my advice to issue a complaint has not ended in success.

 

As for you having nothing more to add, I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies.

[Guest alreadyexists]

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?

 

It is an option, whether you like it or not. BA herself used to urge debtors not to let bailiffs in because if they didn't, the case would be returned with all fees removed.

 

I have her template letter somewhere that she used to sell to debtors. I'll dig it out if you wish.

 

Would you rather CAG don't inform debtors of ALL options available to them?

[Guest alreadyexists]

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.

[Guest alreadyexists]

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.

 

Nobody PMd Polly to leave the forum.

 

Now can you please, please stop your guesswork and fantasy and practice what you preach by adding nothing further.

[Guest alreadyexists]

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

 

The thread was dead until you reignited it, encouraging others to have a pop at me.

 

Please don't insult mine or anyone else's intelligence by pretending that you actually care about what is posted.

[Guest alreadyexists]

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

 

Well said.

 

It seems that I am unable to post anything without either BA or DB attacking me.

 

It has become extremely tiresome and boring.

[Guest alreadyexists]

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.

 

I'm sorry Craig but what is the point of this post? Of course it is clear that Reg 45A was to be omitted. That is stating the blindingly obvious in much the same way as stating that trees have leaves or cars have wheels.

 

As for your claim that the intention was to replace it with the new procedure, again of course it was - What other possible scenario could there have been? There was no alternative other than to replace it with the new procedure.