troll posts

[Guest alreadyexists]

It's outside of the Valuation Tribunal's remit unless the dispute is over a discount, exemption or liability.

 

Craig

 

Not according to Alan Murdie, highly respected local taxation barrister it isn't

[Guest alreadyexists]

Hi Craig

 

I don't think that Mr Murdie was suggesting a dispute over the recovery of the debt - More so the liability after such a long, dormant period. Liability of course can be appealed by way of a valuation tribunal.

 

In this particular thread, the matter is irrelevant as the OP should seek to complain to the LGO regarding maladministration If (and it's a big if) the council have simply done nothing to recover this debt for a period of more than 6 years. As I have previously stated, if the OP moved house and did not leave a forwarding address, then there are no grounds to complain about maladministration.

 

In my experience, it is very rare indeed for a council not to have acted once they have obtained a liability order and it is usually the case that correspondence has been sent to the debtors last known address, which is perfectly legal. However, it is right to point out to anybody who finds themselves in this position that the council could be at fault if they have (for whatever reason) not attempted to recover the debt for a period of more than 6 years. It is wrong to simply assume that the use of bailiffs is acceptable after such a long period.

[Guest alreadyexists]

You may have a problem for the 2014 - 2015 period if the council have discovered that you were not living there.

 

There will also be a problem regarding the 2015 - 2017 period because presumably, you weren't named on the bill at your mother's, if you were named on the bill at your own house.

 

Did you notify the council at the time that only your partner was living at the property or did you do so only recently?

 

Do you have evidence of any post being sent to your mothers address or did all of your post go to your own home? (car insurance etc)

 

It is highly likely that your only remedy would be by way of a valuation tribunal given that the Local Government Ombudsman cannot investigate matters concerning the amount of tax set by an authority. That said, I would recommend that you give the Ombudsman a call, explain your situation and ask them if it is something that could be investigated - At worst, they can only say no.

[Guest alreadyexists]

If you have the choice of either taking your complaint to the Ombudsman, as opposed to appealing at a valuation tribunal, I would urge you to go down the Ombudsman route.

 

The council appear to be wanting the best of both worlds here but it is a problem if your partner did not apply for SPD at the time and there is only so far back that the council will allow claims for discount.

 

Contacting the LGO is a must and if they are prepared to look at your complaint, please post back. If not post back anyway and we can point you in the right direction of a valuation tribunal.

 

You have some very good mitigating circumstances (ie your being named on your mother's bill and also proof that your post went to your mother's)

[Guest alreadyexists]

It may not cost you anything.

 

Before escalating to an actual valuation tribunal, you should write to the council and give them an opportunity to resolve the issue.

 

Your letter should state what you are disputing and the reasons why you are disputing these issues. (I think that you may have a problem with the 2014 -2015 period but there is no harm in asking for it initially)

 

So you claim that as only your name was on the bill, that you should be entitled to SPD. How can they not give it when there is only one person named on the bill?

 

With regards to the second period (2015 - 2017) This will be difficult to get the entire 2 years reduction but you can try. It may be that the council will back date it only for 6 months but at this stage, ask for the entire period.

 

Your argument is that you were not residing at the address for the period concerned (2015 - 2017) and you provide evidence of this by way of council tax bills for your mother's address (with your name listed) and post addressed to you at your mother's address (insurance policy would be good because cars should be insured at the address that they are normally kept, also a V5 if it has your mother's address on it) Do not send originals but copies of the documents.

 

State that the council want the best of both worlds - They say you were not living there when it suits them for the 2014 - 2015 period but claim you were living there for the 2015 - 2017 period. Surely they can't have it both ways?

 

You have never lived there so might need to take the 2014 - 2015 period on the chin if that is the council ruling.

 

Finish your letter with the following:

 

Should you not accept the above, please treat this letter as notice of appeal, pursuant to Section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

Get proof of posting (or email it all over).

 

See how you get on with that. If the council don't accept your submission, they have 2 months to respond so don't panic if you don't hear anything for a while.

 

Good luck and if you have any problems, please post back.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Neither of these cases are relevant to claims of maladministration.

 

In both cases, it is clear that the debtor did not leave a forwarding address

 

Nobody has suggested that a liability order cannot be enforced after 6 years. Maladministration arises when the council do nothing, NOT when they attempt to enforce but are unable to do so because the debtor has moved and not left a forwarding address.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I have searched the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman's database for any examples of maladministration and there aren't any. I have outlined two decisions from them on this same subject which I have posted in the discussion area of the forum.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?480710-Local-Government-Ombudsman-decision.....Liability-Order-and-where-no-enforcement-steps-taken-for-6-years.&p=5055421#post5055421

 

Neither of the cases that you have posted are relevant. You really need to read posts in their entirety instead of just focusing on one isolated sentence. For example, the post that you quoted had this sentence immediately after the sentence that you quoted:

 

In practice, what usually happens is that a debtor disappears off the radar for a period of time and then resurfaces. If that is the case in this instance, then you really have to accept that it is you who is to blame by the delay in enforcement.

 

 

In both cases that you have quoted, the debtor failed to leave the council with a forwarding address. This is not maladministration and nobody has ever suggested that is was.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, maladministration would occur if the council had failed to act in a timely manner, ie doing nothing. It would not be maladministration if the debtor had simply disappeared off the radar for more than 6 years. I thought that I had made that point perfectly clear throughout the thread.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Your partner "staying a few nights" would only place you in the same position, ie it is your name that was on the bill.

 

If you haven't been billed for the two periods, then it would make sense to wait until you are. After all, you cannot challenge something that has not happened.

 

Knowing councils as I do, I doubt they will walk away from this, if there is a chance to get some money out of you.

 

Perhaps another call to the council to ascertain what is happening. After all, it is your name on the bills so it should be you that is speaking to them. If you are still at your mums, you need to get the billing changed to his name, moving forward in any case.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Both a valuation tribunal and a complaint to the LGO are two viable options available to a debtor in instances where a council has failed to act in a timely manner (for more than 6 years). End of story.

 

I suggest you follow your own advice made in post #32 and leave this thread alone now - That is certainly what I intend to do.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I'm not sure how you can blame the bailiff for you missing the exam, unless I am missing something, he did not keep you there against your will and you were free to leave at any time.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Whilst, I can fully understand your wish to remain inside the property whilst the bailiff was there, you were not forced to. In fact, I'd venture to suggest that if you had have gone outside and on your way, he would have followed you. All water under the bridge now.

 

Looking at the comments on this thread, there has been input from several experienced members of the forum and all have drawn the same conclusion.

 

My advice to you is to take heed of what has been posted. It is a very unfortunate consequence of your flatmates failure to deal with this debt and if anything, he is more to blame than the bailiff, who in fairness was just doing his job. I would also doubt very much whether he has forced entry without damaging a lock.

 

You are feeling aggrieved (as anyone would do in your situation) but there really is nothing you can do. There appears to have been one or maybe two fractures of legislation but even complaining about these will not get you any money back or see the bailiff reprimanded.

 

Your best bet is to let this go now - It will only eat away at you otherwise.

[Guest alreadyexists]

sgtbush

 

At the risk of taking this thread slightly off tangent, it is important to highlight the problem that third parties are faced with when threatened with the removal of their goods.

 

It is a cop out to simply demand receipts for every item, as bailiffs do as a matter of course. Firstly, how many households keep receipts for items that have had warranties expire? Secondly, how many receipts actually include the name of the purchaser on them?

 

It is very easy in the cold light of day to sit down and claim that all the debtor has to do is provide receipts within 7 days and that everything will be hunky dory. I can assure you that in the pressure cooker situation of a bailiff visit, that is not the case. Even if it were, how many people would know this at the time? The bailiff won't volunteer this information because it weakens his threat of removal.

 

In HCEO cases where HCEOs gain entry to residential business premises, computer equipment and furniture is automatically "presumed" to belong to the debtor unless the homeowner can prove otherwise. Could you find receipts for your computer desk at 6 o clock in the morning?

 

This problem is massive and places innocent 3rd party owners at a huge disadvantage.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I understand what your saying but even in the circumstances that what the op states... I was curled up in the bathroom having a panic attack..

My 1st thoughts would be 999.

I have all my receipts for major items in my house. The agent is only interested in major items, not a £2 vase. So my tv, dvd, sky, playstation laptops and desktop I have reciepts for.

Not "just in case a bailiff calls"

Its in case I have a problem with them and need to go back to the retailer.

So yes I could find a receipt at 6am in the morning.

 

I throw most receipts out once the warranty expires. However, most do not have any details of who the purchaser was in any case so would not advance the matter any further forward.

 

The issue is a major problem in situations whereby bailiffs visit a parents home for a magistrates court fine and tell the parent that (s)he must provide proof that items in the lounge are not the debtors. Also, in HCEO cases whereby HCEOs are "presuming" that a family computer, printer, desk etc belong to the debtor unless the homeowner can prove otherwise. I see little incentive in forming a limited company, if your personal belongings are threatened by HCEOs.

 

In both of those situations, it is an abuse of power to "presume" that the goods belong to the debtor when it is 99% likely (and obvious) that they don't. In nearly all cases, the bailiff has no real intent on taking the goods away in any case.

 

It is very difficult to balance the needs of the creditor against those of the debtor.

 

In the OPs case, I would probably have gone and sat my exam but I have the benefit of a little knowledge of the subject. I can understand the reluctance to leave the house unattended.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Obviously the most important thing here is to ensure that the matter does not escalate. The plan on what to next is very simple - They either stop being so reprehensible or you go to a tribunal.

 

I always stae that the council are only interested in getting your money off you. They hide behind the time honoured "we are not legally obliged to do it any other way" This silly comment is of course only relevant if a legal course of action is being pursued and in the case of LGO or tribunals, what they are "legally obliged" to do is not worth anything in terms of a defence.

 

The only time the council will sit up and take notice is when they are threatened with a course of action that they are bound to follow, ie a complaint or an appeal to a valuation tribunal.

 

Councils are more concerned about negative publicity from a LGO decision than they are about the outcome of a tribunal decision.

 

However, in both cases, whilst it is free for you to pursue the course of action, it is not free for the council as they must invest man hours in dealing with the matter.

 

I always advise to try to put a bit away whilst the dispute is going on (perhaps in an ISA or other savings account), that way, if the worst does happen, there is a bit of a cushion to fall back on. If the decision goes your way, you will have a few bob to spend on something of your choice.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I also look at things from the other side. I also have vast experience in responses/defences/arguments that bailiff companies will come out with in any given situation.

 

A bailiff may only control goods if he has reasonable belief that they belong to the debtor.

 

In the two scenarios that I highlighted, (a debtor living with parents or a HCEO visiting a residential premises for a business debt) it would not be reasonable to assume that everything in the house belongs to the debtor. At best, the bailiff would have a right to conduct a search for goods belonging to the debtor. He has no right or grounds to "presume" goods belong to the debtor when it is 99% likely that the goods do not belong to the debtor.

 

As I stated, there must be a balance between looking after the interests of the creditor against the interests of the debtor. In general, Schedule 12 has achieved that.

 

However, the rights of innocent third parties are not protected and we regularly see third parties being forced into paying a debt that is not theirs because they are being threatened with having their goods removed. Bailiffs then cover themselves from redress by making it clear to the innocent third party that any payment that they make is voluntary and they do not have to make it. This is a cop out given that they are being forced to pay by an abuse of the power conferred upon the bailiff - His power does not extend to taking control of innocent third party goods. To suggest that a court will accept that a bailiff is being truthful by claiming that he believed a family computer belonged to a firm of plasterers is extremely naive and I can assure you is not the case.

 

The Part 85 procedure is not in place to support "blanket" controlling of third party goods - It is in place for genuine disputes where there has been a genuine doubt over ownership. There is little doubt that the parents and homeowners/tenants would own the TV in the lounge of their home just as there is little doubt that a family would own the computer in their study. I have seen some horrific cases of HCEOs abusing their power once they have gained access to residential premises and the distress that it has caused the innocent occupants.

 

I have raised my concerns and have provided supporting evidence through the correct channels. There is no need for further comment on this thread.

[Guest alreadyexists]

For clarity, I too have no axe to grind with bailiffs.

 

I have never had any dealings with bailiffs on a personal level - My only dealings with them have been professionally or as a volunteer.

 

Abrahami - Excellent point.

 

The deposit is of course refundable if the claim is successful. Problems arise when a third party owner has a £10K vehicle removed for a £500 PCN debt. Bailiff companies ask the court (and threaten the innocent third party debtor with the same) to insist that the debtor lodges a £10K bond with the court. It is important that the board is aware that the court has discretion to determine the amount of the deposit that is lodged and a third party owner should ALWAYS request a deposit that is proportionate.

[Guest alreadyexists]

A pnc check on the vehicle would bring back the car to the registered keeper. Ultimately the registered keeper is responsible for penalty charge notices as laid out in law.

A 10k vehicle can be removed for a £500 fine as it would be the only asset accessible therefore not excessive ( no forced entry into property as is not a criminal fine, so taking control of other assests requires peaceable entry)

 

Wrong I'm afraid.

 

If you purchase a vehicle in good faith, you are not responsible for the previous keepers penalties. You are not "the debtor" and it doesn't work like log book loans do.

 

Furthermore, the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards state that enforcement agents must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the goods taken into control are proportionate in value to the amount owed (including fees) I would argue that a bailiff should attempt to gain entry to a debtors property to ensure that goods of a proportionate value are seized. Failing that, a debtor should be given the option to surrender goods of a proportionate value, rather than a £10k vehicle for a £500 debt.

[Guest alreadyexists]

It should also be equally clear to most that we are discussing third party ownership, (started up again by you in post #23) Simply having someone else registered as keeper at the time of the offence does not make the new registered keeper liable, as was incorrectly stated in post #29.

 

Where entry is denied (which is very unusual in PCN recovery because bailiffs have details of the vehicle and go straight for that) then the debtor has no grounds to claim a disproportionate levy. This was explained very clearly in the thread only last week started by "sarah01977"

 

There is nothing in writing about surrendering goods - Nobody said there was. I stated that I would use it in an argument . I have successfully used it in an argument before, where a high value vehicle was clamped for a PCN debt of £512. The bailiff was ordered to return and remove the clamp by the council. I would urge all debtors to do this if they have goods levied that are of disproportionate value to the debt. The loss of a vehicle by way of clamping is far more inconvenient than having your TV listed on a controlled goods agreement. The bailiffs know this but debtors rarely know that the bailiff is expected to control goods of a proportionate value. Therefore, he should first attempt to gain entry and failing that, should be prepared to swap a high value vehicle for goods of a more proportionate value, pursuant to the NS.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Sorry but the registered keeper at the time of the offense is regarded as such tor enforcement purposesx. SO yes if the person in question is the registered keeper at that time he will be liable of course. Correct - That is what I said

 

If the car has changed hands since this it does not mean the new owner is responsible for an offense he did not commit that would be silly.Correct - That is what I said

 

Nice to see we're in agreement for once.

 

The registered keeper is of course NOT always responsible for PCNs as was stated in post #28.

 

The registered keeper at the time of the offence is the person who is responsible. Therefore, if someone buys a car in good faith thereafter, that person is NOT responsible for the penalty.

 

This is the exact situation whereby genuine claims for third party ownership (as well as not so genuine claims ) occur.

 

For transparency, if anyone does have a high value vehicle clamped before a bailiff has attempted to gain access to the premises, there is an option available for you to make a complaint to the local authority, quoting paragraph 66 of the Taking Control og Goods: National Standards:

 

66. Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods taken into control to cover the sum outstanding is proportional to the value of the debt and fees owed.

It should be noted that you would need to offer alternative goods to surrender to the bailiff that were of proportionate value to the debt. Your argument would clearly be that if the bailiff had not attempted to gain entry to the premises, he would not have taken reasonable steps to have satisfy himself that the goods taken into control were proportionate to the debt.

 

If entry has previously been refused then this argument will not stand up.

[Guest alreadyexists]

If such a complaint to the local authority were to be rejected, the following is the likely decision that would be reached by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman:

 

Value of Ms B’s car

 

Miss B argued the bailiffs should not have seized her car as it is valued well in excess of the debt. She felt it was excessive.

 

Paragraph 66 of The Ministry of Justice guidance “Taking Control of Goods; National Standards” states “Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods taken into control to cover the sum outstanding is proportional to the value of the debt and fees owed.”

 

The Council stated bailiffs are entitled to take control of goods sufficient to cover the debt. It stated “all goods must be valued prior to removal. If the goods are considered to be way in excess of the value of the debt then alternative goods would be taken into control.”

 

Miss B’s car was expensive.

She valued the car at around £52,000.

It seems to me it would have been immediately evident that the car’s value was far in excess of the debt.

 

Good practice would be for the bailiff to attempt to speak to the debtor before looking for goods to take into control. As it was, the bailiff took control of Miss B’s vehicle before knocking the door and attempting to obtain payment or considering other goods. I do not consider the practice followed by the bailiff was appropriate. However, the car was never removed, so this did not in itself cause injustice to Miss B.

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/15-015-253

 

The case (as usual) is not really relevant. The debt was paid and the clamp removed immediately - There had been no injustice.

 

However, the LGO supports my argument that the bailiff should knock a door first to either try to obtain payment or seek to take control of goods of a proportionate value.

 

Injustice will occur if the car remains clamped for a period of time AND the debtor has offered to surrender goods of a proportionate value.

 

Thank you for providing us with a link to the decision. It will be of great help when challenging bailiff bad practice in the future.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Another thread hijacked for debate !

 

Where is the OP's case in this discussion ?

 

Apologies UB

 

It looked like the OP had, had his questions answered.

 

Hopefully the thread has served a secondary purpose in that it has highlighted the problems that third party owners are facing on a regular basis. I had not foreseen such a lengthy and pedantic debate and in hindsight, perhaps a separate thread should have been started in the discussion section.

[Guest alreadyexists]

If they stopped on the box junction it was because their exit was obstructed. Hopefully traffic would move for an emergency service vehicle, but this would rely on there being room that traffic to move into....

 

A few seconds delay could make the difference between a fire being controlled and someone losing their home, or a fire in which no firefighter gets injured and one where a firefighter does get injured.

 

I disagree with "cash cow" box junctions.

I agree with heavy enforcement of any 'keep clear' or equivalent where it provides for access / egress from emergency service stations.

 

I have to say that I'm of exactly the same opinion.

 

If there is an argument for a box junction, then placing one in front of the access in and out of a park for emergency vehicles is definitely it.

 

If someone has been caught on film blocking the exit, it makes no difference if it is a few seconds or a few minutes. The car should not have entered the junction until the exit was clear.

 

I know that it is difficult and a moments lack of concentration will see you not moving whilst in the boxed area - I've done it myself regularly. It is annoying but where the emergency services are concerned, there should be no sympathy - Or excuse.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Just to put an end to this pedantic nonsense:

 

1. The LGO decision quoted is wholly irrelevant. In the case mentioned, the car was clamped for a few minutes before it was released. The LGO will intervene where an action carried out by a local authority has caused an injustice that has not been rectified. Quite obviously, a car remaining clamped for the time that it takes to brush your teeth and have a shave will not result in an injustice being caused. We are not talking about cars remaining clamped for just a few minutes - We are talking about cars remaining clamped for long periods of time, in order to inconvenience and place further pressure on the debtor to make payment in full. It is often the case (as demonstrated regularly on this forum) that bailiffs clamp vehicles and post paperwork through the letterbox of the debtors house before moving on to the next account, without first attempting to obtain payment.

 

2. A bailiff may not take control of goods whose total value is more than the amount outstanding and any potential costs related to the sale of those goods.

 

Where a bailiff has taken control of goods that is in breach of legislation (for example, a £10k car for a £512 debt), the sensible and correct course of action would of course be to bring this to the bailiff's attention and make available goods that are of proportionate value. Failure to make avaialble goods of a proportionate value would possibly provide the bailiff with an excuse to continue control of the goods that are disproportionate in value to the debt. Hence the importance of making these goods available.

 

To suggest that once goods have been taken into control, the bailiff "is under no obligation" to change them is of course absolute nonsense. A bailiff is only entitled to take control of goods that are proportionate to the debt UNLESS there are not enough goods of a lower value. If the bailiff is offered goods of a lower value (and hasn't previously made an attempt to take control of them) then of course he is under an obligation to change the goods in order to comply with legislation. His only alternative would be to release the goods that had not been been controlled pursuant to legislation. and walk away

 

Paragraph 12 Schedule 12 Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007:

 

(1)Unless sub-paragraph (2) applies, an enforcement agent may not take control of goods whose aggregate value is more than—

 

(a)the amount outstanding, and

 

(b)an amount in respect of future costs, calculated in accordance with regulations.

 

(2)An enforcement agent may take control of goods of higher value on premises or on a highway, only to the extent necessary, if there are not enough goods of a lower value within a reasonable distance—

 

(a)on a highway, or

 

(b)on premises that he has power to enter under this Schedule, either under paragraph 14 or under an existing warrant.

 

(3)For the purposes of this paragraph goods are above a given value only if it is or ought to be clear to the enforcement agent that they are.

 

(4)Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the power to keep control of goods if they rise in value once they have been taken.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Yes but if those goods are available at enforcement stage then they should be controlled.

 

A bailiff MAY NOT take control of goods that are disproportionate to the debt UNLESS there are insufficient goods available to him. Nobody has ever suggested that entry should be denied. In fact, it has been stated several times on this thread that if entry is denied, there are no grounds for complaint.

 

I seek nothing other than to point out the rights that debtors have and the ignoring of legislation that takes place on a daily basis by bailiffs.

 

If there is no facility to change the goods as you (incorrectly) claim, then the only alternative would be to release the goods that have not been taken into control in accordance with legislation. This is not my imagination, it is written in legislation.

 

If there are goods available that are proportionate to the debt, then the bailiff MAY NOT, repeat MAY NOT take control of goods that are disproportionate.

 

In laymans terms, this means that he cannot clamp an expensive car until he has knocked the door and tried to gain entry .

[Guest alreadyexists]

I will try one final time to make this simple for you. Please try to forget about refusing entry etc as this is only confusing you. Just pretend that entry has not been attempted:

 

1. If a car has been taken into control that is disproportionate to the debt, without first making an attempt to control goods of a proportionate value, then the levy is void. It is simply not possible to pick and choose what is controlled when legislation prescribes that goods must be proportionate.

 

2. The debtor should then approach the bailiff and say "Hey Mr bailiff - You have taken control of my car which is worth 10 times that of which I owe - This is not compliant with paragraph 10 of Schedule 12. I have a TV, a DVD, a leather sofa and a Microwave in here that will more than cover the debt and are proportionate - As you have not attempted to take control of these items, you should now do so and at the same time, release the clamp to my expensive car"

3. If the debtor does not offer any alternative goods, the bailiff will say:"I'm sorry Mr debtor but your car is the only item I can gain access to"

4. If the bailiff refuses the request made at point 2, the levy is void and the bailiff will expose himself to redress.

 

It is common sense to offer alternative goods - If you don't, you can hardly argue that the levy has been disproportionate.

 

Again, you fail to understand that not everything needs to be written in legislation. If the bailiff isn't made aware that alternative goods are available, he has an argument that he was justified in tkaing control of the more expensive item. By offering the alternative goods, the debtor is giving the bailiff no lawful option other than to accept.

 

I think where you are going wrong is that you have convinced yourself that I am suggesting an amnesty should be made available if expensive goods are seized and/or bartering may take place. This is of course silly and I am suggesting no such thing.

 

I am saying that a bailiff MUST attempt to control goods of a proportionate value BEFORE seizing goods of disproportionate value. If he does not do so, then the levy he makes is not in accordance with Schedule 12 - Nothing further is required but for the purpose of redress, if he has been offered entry into the premises to search for goods of proportionate value and refuses, he won't have a leg to stand on.

 

A bailiff MAY NOT take control of goods disproportionate to the debt, IF proportionate goods are available.