troll posts

[Guest alreadyexists]

Yes of course but this is after goods have been taken and under the circumstances where there are no other goods of a lower value at that time

 

What is being said is that the debtor can insist on swapping the goods that have already been taken

 

Of course he can insist that goods are taken into control in accordance with legislation.

 

If there are goods of proportionate value then it is a breach of legislation to take control of an expensive vehicle and the bailiff would have a duty to swap the goods accordingly.

 

Nobody is saying that a debtor may pick and choose what is seized but legislation prescribes that goods must be proportionate. Therefore unless entry is attempted, an expensive car is exempt.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Also what about cars taken on the highway away from premises Are those actions to be overturned on your idea of offering the debtors sideboard instead

 

Yes, if an attempt has not been made to gain access to the sideboard.

 

Life's a bitch for those poor bailiffs at times isn't it?

[Guest alreadyexists]

My arguments are never defeated

 

No legislation other than this of course:

an enforcement agent may not take control of goods whose aggregate value is more than the amount outstanding, and

 

If you don't offer alternative goods then the above will not apply

 

I do not need to provide evidence to the likes of you. You mistake me for someone who craves your acceptance or approval.

 

If you cannot see the evidence that has been provided to you in this thread, then there really is no hope for you.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Suggesting a car on a highway is replaced by a sideboard is childish.

 

AE points out the legislation states the bailiff may not take control of goods of higher value when lower value goods are available.

 

Your point about “exchanging” goods is also childish. The action against the highway goods only becomes invalid (para.12) when the bailiff notices lower value goods.

 

It is pointless trying to reason with him.

 

He has argued on about 4 different points on this thread alone - Each time putting forward childish claims that are little more than silly.

 

He follows me around the forums for some reason best known to himself.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Your professional opinion no doubt

 

Actually, that bit was a personal opinion.

 

I know how they hate the internet and how members of the profession spend time watching mine and others posts.

 

For some reason, they think that they should be left to police themselves, which roughly translated means that everything is fair game, other than if an 80 year old woman ends up with a black eye.

[Guest alreadyexists]

you are saying that it is within the legislation that once goods are taken under control that is taken correctly ie a car is removed when there is no access to the premise the debtor can offer the bailiff less valuable goods and the bailiff must release the vehicle and accept them

 

I say OK where is the section of the act which states this

 

 

No - i have never said this. Throughout this thread, you have demonstrated a complete inability to read and understand what is written. I strongly suspect that you do not care, just so long as you can continue this childish argument. A few posts ago, your entire argument was based upon a silly claim that the bailifff could take the goods because he had refused entry. When it was pointed out to you that the only place that refusal to enter had arisen was in your imagination, you then turned to this childish, stupid demand to see "evidence" that a debtor should demand an exchange of goods.

 

Your inability to understand, coupled with your inexperience in dealing with these matters has resurfaced.

 

The evidence is there for all to see - It is the legislation that has been read and understood by all, other than you it seems. Just to refresh your memory, the legislation states that a bailiff may not (may not are the key words here) take control of disproportionate goods unless there are no other goods available.

 

Now IF he does take control of disproportionate goods, UNLESS the debtor challenges him about it, the debtor's goods (usually a car) will remain clamped. What do you suggest? Send him a message via carrier pigeon? A pretty little card saying "pretty please, hugs and kisses" or do you suggest doing absolutely nothing and continue to be inconvenienced because of a levy that is non-compliant with legislation.

 

As a bailiff is entitled to take that car UNLESS the debtor challenges him, the first thing that he will reply with is "it is the only item available to me". The debtor has no choice other than to offer alternative goods, otherwise his car will remain controlled, otherwise he won't get the unlawfully levied car released. Perhaps you could tell us what you think a debtor should do or say if he has goods of a disproportionate value taken into control? I say that he has to offer goods of a proportionate value, otherwise the car will not be released. It has nothing to do with being written in legislation, it is common sense and obvious to all with an ability to think things through to an ultimate conclusion.

 

I have no idea what you mean by goods being released before they have been taken into control but suspect that (yet) again, you have failed to read something, somewhere properly.

 

Now grow up, accept that I have forgotten more about this subject than you will ever now, post constructively to help debtors or expect to be ignored.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Post #32:

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"

 

 

Post #34:

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

[Guest alreadyexists]

As for the previous post, i am sure whoever reads this would form their own opinion about who is being childish

 

I would imagine that they would think it is the person who hijacks every single thread that I post on, to claim that every single thing that I say is wrong. Just a stab in the dark like.

 

As for presenting goods to bailiffs - You need to understand that if they don't do so, the bailiff will be entitled to keep the disproportionate goods. What you also really need to understand is that the disproportionate levy is not compliant with legislation so regardless of any "offer" to excjange, it is an invalid levy because it is non-compliant. By offering to resolve the matter swiftly and amicably makes it very hard, if not impossible to defend any subsequent action. Again, I would urge you to try to think about this and imagine the scenario in real life. What would you do if you were subject to a disproportionate levy? How would you resolve it?

 

From my experience in dealing with a real life case, the first thing that the bailiff said to the debtor was that unless he was offered goods of a proportionate value, the clamp would remain.

 

I have now stated (several times) what needs to be done if a disproportionate levy is made. The information is on this thread for all to see. If anyone is unsure of anything, I will be more than happy to explain. However, moving forward, Dodgeball's childish nonsense is going to be ignored.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I've no idea which one of you is correct.

However, you keep saying DB "is going to be ignored" ; if you are serious about this, maybe you should start practising what you preach?.

Or, if you aren't going to ignore DB, (as is your right), then stop saying it?

 

Saying so, and then not doing so, repeatedly : makes me less likely to view your posts as reliable.

 

I am correct.

 

It is impossible to continually ignore Dodgeball as often, his nonsense affects the OP

 

I don't believe that I have repeatedly stated that I will ignore Dodgeball in any case.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Anyway, the whole issue of Third party Goods needs looking at, my scenario with the Courier's white van is entirely possible under the current regime.

 

I agree BN

 

I know that the third party issue is indeed a matter of concern currently and that issues are going to be raised.

 

Likewise, the issue concerning the disproportionate controlling of high value vehicles for debts of just £500 should also be reviewed.

 

In your scenario, it would be unusual for the bailiff to remove the contents of the courier van, especially on a first visit. The only times that these situations arise are during HCEO visits. There would also be problems for the bailiff if he had been shown evidence that the van did not belong to the debtor.

 

A couple of years back, Marston were suspended from a contract that they had with Hammersmith & Fulham council due to the amount of complaints that were being received. As a result, all of the bailiffs in that region were informed that they should not remove vehicles for a period of 24 hours, in order to enable third party owners time to produce evidence of ownership. This was a good idea and IMO good practice, sadly, it did not last long and I am aware of cases where there has been immediate removal where there was a dispute over ownership.

 

Third party owners also need to be made aware of the CPR Part 85 procedure that is in place. This procedure is in place to enable third party owners an avenue to reclaim their vehicles. Information regarding the Part 85 procedure should be listed somewhere within the removal notice - Most people would not have a clue that they should claim their goods back through a part 85 claim.

 

It is vital that third party owners are aware that they only have a very short window of opportunity (7 days) in which to submit a claim. In fairness, most creditors (councils etc) do accept claims after 7 days but it should be noted that technically, goods may be sold 7 days after a notice of sale has been issued.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Your continual arguments and attempts at 'point scoring' are in no way assisting the OP. The last time that the OP visited this thread was 3 days ago. Your purpose on this forum is purely to antagonise and disrupt threads....and you are doing a good job of it.

 

I will make this last post:

 

There was no point in making any further posts on this subject after I had posted a copy of a decision from the Local Government Ombudsman on the subject (of goods of a disproportionate value being seized). It was your opinion that the decision was not relevant. Others would disagree.

 

Getting back now to your 'advice'. Frankly, it is complete nonsense:

 

When the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 came into effect, the usefulness of a Controlled Goods Agreement almost disappeared. The reasons are endless but in the main, it is because so many household items are now considered 'exempt'. Also given that an enforcement agent must list individual items and reference numbers leads to many challenges been made after a CGA has been signed.

 

With local authority and HMCTS enforcement, it is commonly known that goods inside of a property are removed in less than 0.1% of cases. I have been advising debtors professionally for 11 years and have dealt with thousands of enquiries in that time. Excluding business premises, I have only ever come across three incidences where goods have actually been removed. What are goods not removed? Because their second hand value is minimal. A 42" TV would struggle to raise £20....that's always assuming that it arrived at the auction house in one piece !!

 

Nobody says that I am "point scoring" other than you - In fact, I was debating with sgtbush, before you and your colleague decided to hijack the thread with irrelevant issues. Why is it always YOU who comes on my threads, if I am the one who is supposed to be point scoring? I told you before, I left you standing 3 years ago, I have no need to "point score" over you.

 

You clearly do not understand what constitutes a complaint to the LGO or the reasons for bringing one. Hence your continued posting of irrelevant decisions. You forget one thing as well - The complaint you posted was UPHELD. That is because the issue of disproportionate goods was secondary. You also fail to understand that legislation clearly prescribes that goods of a disproportionate value CAN NOT be levied if there are other items available.

 

Also, a CGA is STILL as useful as it used to be - The only difference is that bailiffs do not get paid for making one these days, whereas before, they were paid for doing so. What on earth made you think that a CGA is no longer useful???????

 

Regarding the amount of cases where goods are removed, this is irrelevant - We are talking about the threat of removal. Furthermore, the simple and plain fact of the matter is, even if there are no goods worth selling, the bailiff MUST, repeat MUST attempt to search a premises before controlling a car that is of disproportionate value to the debt.

[Guest alreadyexists]

The problem lies because neither of them like being corrected.

 

They mistake having their misinformation corrected for "point scoring"

 

All rather silly if you ask me, especially when the whole idea is that we're supposed to be working together for the good of the debtor.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Re recorded delivery of NOE. If there are issues, then allow say 21 days between compliance and enforcement. The 7 days is not enough anyway. The £75 fee is more than enough to cover recorded delivery.

 

The enforcement process can be made to work a lot better. But EC's might not want it to become more efficient allowing debtors to arrange payment earlier, because then they might miss out on enforcement fees.

 

This can't be about the profitability of enforcement, ignoring the people who are subject to enforcement. And if more people are allowed time before enforcement visits in which to make repayments, then arguably it is better for creditors.

 

Problem with the enforcement industry is vested interests who don't want to see change that might reduce or cut off income streams.

 

UB. The sending of a recorded letter also forewarns the debtor that the NOE has been sent. The hardened debt avoiders will simply refuse to sign for it. It will then subsequently gather dust on a sorting shelf until it is finally returned to the sender. It is not practical to use recorded delivery and would create more problems than those that exist currently.

 

Regarding the 7 clear days notice, this is actually around 11 or 12 days from the date of notice when you allow for the time spent in transit via the post. CIVEA advise its members to allow 14 days from the date of the notice and most companies do this. I think only a few of the HCEOs and B&S fail to give 14 clear days on their notices. Furthermore, it must be accepted that the drafting of legislation was done with the intention of balancing the interests of the creditor with balancing the interests of the debtor. After great consideration, the period of 7 clear days was decided to be reasonable to both parties.

 

Leakie - A police officer may make an arrest if he has reasonable belief that a breach of the peace has occurred. This does not automatically mean that the person is charged with the offence, often it is just a tactic to remove a troublesome person from an already volatile situation. Before a person is charged, a senior officer, usually the sergeant will review the matter to confirm that there are grounds to bring a charge. There can be no other way we can operate, otherwise nobody would ever be arrested.

 

The third party goods issue is also similar. If a third party owner is not required to provide evidence, there would never be a single item taken into control as people would just claim that the goods belong to someone else. We have to accept that a bailiff may take control of goods if he has reasonable belief that the goods are owned by the debtor. Legislation provides for third party owners to reclaim their goods by way of a Part 85 claim, which I accept is not perfect. The big problem with third party ownership stems from scenarios whereby the bailiff abuses his position regarding reasonable belief, as I pointed out on the main forum recently.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Once a local authority obtain a liability order, the correct thing to do would be to write to the debtor to inform them of this.

 

Furthermore, the council should write to a debtor requesting further information about the debtors circumstances. This enables the council to determine which method of enforcement is most suitable for each individual case.

 

Finally, the National Standards state that creditors should tell debtors that if payment is not received within a certain time, action will be taken to recover the debt.

 

The above 3 obligations could all be covered in one single letter and there is no reason why the time allocated for a response would remain at 14 days. Despite claims to the contrary, a council cannot simply jump to using bailiffs without first contacting the debtor. It would be difficult for a council to justify a period of less than 14 days for receipt of further information.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I do believe that this is your own opinion. If not, could you please provide a link to the relevant legislation.

 

It is not an opinion - it has been explained clearly for you in black and white.

 

Despite silly claims that councils do not have to notify debtors before engaging EAs, they actually do have to.

 

As you now know if a council fail to act upon guidance, it will be deemed maladministration.

 

Guidance from the Government regarding how to implement the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 states that a council should request further information from a debtor before determining what course of recovery action should be taken.

 

The National Standards state that a debtor should be notified that action will be taken if payment is not received by a certain date.

 

If a council jump straight to bailiffs without first contacting the debtor, it would be deemed maladministration.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Leakie

 

Some good points. The biggest problem that we are face with is that the TCEA 2007 protects a bailiff from "being bought to book" if a breach of legislation takes place.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Regulation 45A of the Council Tax (administration& Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended) prescribed no distress could be levied upon a debtor until 14 days had expired from the date that the council had given the debtor written notice of the following:

 

a) the fact that a liability order had been made against the debtor;

 

b) the amount which the debtor owed;

 

c) a warning that unless the amount owed was paid before the expiry of 14 days, distress may be levied;

 

d) notice that further costs may be incurred if distress is levied;

 

e) a schedule of fees prscribed in legislation

 

f) the address and telephone number which could be used to communicate with the authority.

 

The above notice was commonly referred to as "the 14 day letter".

 

Authorities were also required, (not by legislation but by practice guides issued by the Government on how to put into effect and operate the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992) to obtain certain financial information from a debtor in order to determine what method of enforcement a council would use to recover the debt. A council has 4 options available:

 

1. Attachments

 

2. Bailiffs

 

3. Charging order on property

 

4. Bankruptcy

 

In practice, most councils would combine the two into one single letter, incorporating the requirements laid out in Regulation 45A and the request for further information needed to determine what course of action would be taken for recovery of the debt.

 

Very often, the above letter would be sent out by the bailiff company contracted to the council. This was permisable under the Local Authorities Contracting Out Order 1996.

 

At least 50% of cases were settled at this stage without the need to use bailiffs. Where a debtor was in work (not self employed) an attachment of earnings would be set up. Very often, the attachment order was administrated and set up directly by the bailiff company.

 

When the new legislation was being drafted, one of the key motives was to ensure a more transparent fee structure and way of recovering debts. This has been achieved largely by way of unifying enforcement. Prior to April 2014, every different type of enforcement was governed by its own set of regulations and case law. It was very confusing.

 

When the new legislation was being drafted, it could well have been the case that it was determined that having Regulation 45A of the council tax regs still in force was not in line with unifying enforcement - After all, all the information that was provided on the 14 day letter is now required to be provided on the Notice of Enforcement. The major difference being that by the time a NoE has been issued, the debtor has incurred an additional £75 in bailiff fees, without first being given an opprtunity to address the debt.

 

An alternative theory is that the omitting of Regulation 45A was what is known as an "unintended consequence" of the new legislation.

 

My personal feeling is that it is a combination of the two. Firstly, it is not right to have a further 14 day notice required just for council tax enforcement. However, the requirement for such a notice could have still been kept within council tax regulations but simply extended to cover all types of enforcement open to the council rather than just exclusively focusing on distress/Taking control of goods.

 

The 14 day letter could easily be amended to omit the word distress and replaced by wording such as "we may take one of the enforcement steps available to us"

 

After all, it wouldn't harm to notify a debtor that an attachment may be made against him (which would involve his employer knowing that the employee was in debt)

 

The problem is compounded because an authority is still required to give notice that enforcement may begin, prior to it happening and also to write asking for further information. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the LGO would take a very dim view of any council who did not notify a debtor that a LO had been made against them - Especially given the efforts that councils go to, to discourage debtors attending LO hearings

 

The current situation is that a council are not required by law to give notice that bailiffs are about to be engaged.

 

However, Paragraph 10 of the National standards states:

 

Creditors have a responsibility to tell the debtor that if payment is not made within a specified period of time, action may be taken to enforce payment.

 

This effectively means that an authority are still required to give notice that enforcement action may be taken unless payment is made.

 

Practice Note 9 (4.4) Of Government guidance on how to put into effect the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 states:

 

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

 

Finally, there is also an onus on the council to notify a debtor that a liability order has been obtained. To plough straight in with bailiffs may well not be unlawful but it would certainly be of great interest to the LGO.

 

A council are already required to send notice after obtaining a LO. It might just as well be a 14 day letter - It costs no more and no less. The old system seemed to be working quite well and I see no harm in it continuing.

 

However, it is important to remember that as it stands, a council are still required to write to the debtor to obtain information and also to warn them that enforcement action may take place if the debt remains unpaid. It doesn't have to be written in legislation because the council will be answerable to the LGO if recognised guidance is not followed.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Tomorrow morning, I will start a new topic concerning maladministration and the role of the LGO (officially known as the LG&SCO)

 

Hopefully this will clear up the misconceptions that authorities can pick and choose whether they follow guidelines or not.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Anyone able to translate the above?

 

thanks in advance.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Thank you

 

So, regarding the bit in bold that I have highlighted, what would you consider to be a prior notification after a LO has been obtained then?

 

Also regarding local agreements, they normally state that they expect their contractors to follow guidance in the NS. Furthermore, as I will demonstrate tomorrow, it is not an option - The LGO will almost certainly consider it maladministration if the authority does not follow guidance in the NS.

 

Why on earth would an authority, who claim to be decent, honest and noble not want to ensure that guidelines issued by the MOJ are followed?

 

Finally, the phrase "not legally binding" only negates the ability to win a legal argument. The LGO is interested in injustice and maladministration - She doesn't need things to be legally binding before recommending that a council correct their maladministration.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Instead of telling us what Paragraph 10 of the NS does not mean, it may be beneficial to all concerned if you tell us what it does refer to.

 

Just to remind you, here is what it states:

 

 

Creditors have a responsibility to tell the debtor that if payment is not made within a specified period of time, action may be taken to enforce payment.

 

Now I say this means that the debtor should be given warning that if the debt is not paid, enforcement action may begin (ie use of bailiffs)

 

It seems pretty reasonable to me to give warning before entering on a course of action, rather than just hijacking someone and adding to a financial burden that may already be spiraling out of control.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I never mentioned the word 'prior' - that's because the regulations don't need it. The notification happens when an enforcement action is used (i.e. the enforcement agents 7 day notice or the attachment of benefit letter).

 

 

Reasonable is not a specific consideration of the legislation - no-one has said it wouldn't be ideal for the council to tell people, only that there is no legal requirement for them to do so.

 

And by the same token, nobody said that there was a legal requirement for them to do so.

 

However, anybody who thinks that a council can obtain a LO, not bother to let the debtor know, not bother to seek further information from the debtor, to determine the best form of enforcement to use, not give the debtor any opportunity to settle the debt prior to sending in bailiffs (and adding further costs to the debt) quite frankly needs their head looking at. It is absurd to think that "we were not legally obliged to do so" is an excuse that the LGO would accept.

 

These absurd claims really do people no favours and certainly don't help debtors.

 

People really need to understand the role of the LGO, the difference between complaints to the LGO and proceedings issued in court and exactly what maladministration is.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I too would be interested - simply because there is no direct provision in legislation for this.

 

As it stands the only notification a person is required to receive that an order has been granted is that the any form of enforcement agent must make reference to the granting of the order - so it is there is an roundabout way if the council use an enforcement option.

 

Who said there needed to be legislation?

 

LGO complaints deal with non legal matters where an injustice has occurred due to maladministration.

 

The LGO has stated that if a council do not follow recognised guidance, she will likely deem it maladministration.

 

If a council fail to give notice that bailiffs are going to be engaged unless the debt is paid, rest assured that the LGO will intervene.

 

Furthermore, a council is required to seek further information to determine the best way to proceed - It is there for a purpose and although not (ahem) "legally binding" to be used first, it is not much use AFTER enforcement is it.

 

Is it so much to ask, to expect a council to operate in accordance with Government guidance as the LGO expects?

 

Like most recovery officers, you have had it drilled into you that things aren't legally binding. This is irrelevant as far as LGO investigations are concerned.

[Guest alreadyexists]

There has been much confusion and much misinformation concerning complaints to the LGO on these forums over the past few weeks.

 

 

Most importantly, it should be pointed out that unlike court claims, a complaint to the LGO costs a debtor nothing at all and the debtor is not at risk of any financial penalty if the complaint fails.

 

 

In short this places the debtor in a "no lose" situation, as even if the complaint is not upheld, the debtor will only be put back in the position that (s)he was, prior to instigating a complaint. If you are not happy with the way that a council have acted, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by complaining.

 

Each individual council has their own internal complaints procedure. Larger councils tend to have a two stage procedure, smaller ones generally have just one. A complainant MUST go through the council's internal procedure before escalating the complaint to the LGO.

 

I have been involved in many complaints procedures with councils and all have been resolved successfully, in favour of the debtor.

Only once was there ever a need to ask the LGO to intervene.

 

 

Councils are not stupid.

They may be hard nosed and have a complete disregard for people who find themselves in debt but they know that when a complaint is likely to succeed, it is in their interests to resolve the matter amicably, before attracting any negative publicity that will come with an LGO investigation.

 

The role of the LGO is to investigate complaints where an injustice has been suffered by an individual as a result of maladministration.

 

 

Generally, the LGO will look at complaints where mistakes or errors that have been made by an authority are not serious enough or not entitled to be heard in court.

 

 

Silly comments such as "the council were not legally bound to do this, that or the other" are totally irrelevant in non-legal matters such as LGO investigations. It only becomes an issue as to whether the council are legally bound if the matter enters a legal process, ie court proceedings.

 

 

If a debtor has suffered an injustice because of maladministration, it makes no difference to the LGO if the council were legally bound to carry out an action or not. Indeed, it is doubtful that a council would put up such a stupid defence as it would very likely not go down well with the LGO.

What is Maladministration?

 

Maladministration covers an almost infinite range of mistakes, errors and even abuses made by an authority it will cover actions such as:

 

Taking disproportionate redress (this could well occur if an authority engage bailiffs without first seeking to obtain further information from a debtor)

 

Not acting in a timely manner (for example failing to act on a LO for a period of more than 6 years)

Failing to understand that rigid adherence to the law will cause injustice (for example failing to give a debtor notice before sending bailiffs)

 

Knowingly giving misleading advice (for example telling a debtor that something is not legally binding when that is not what the issue raised is about)

 

Ignoring valid advice (as we've seen, this would be to ignore the NS or other recognised guidelines)

 

and many, other scenarios

 

 

What has the LGO Said?

 

The LGO has publicly stated that if a council is guilty of maladministration, then she will very likely uphold the complaint.

 

The LGO has also stated (as seen on the LGO website) that the organisations that are investigated by the LGO almost always follow the recommendations of a LGO report.

 

What Does This Mean For Debtors?

 

1. It makes no difference whether something is "legally binding" or not - The LGO will still investigate and find against the council if malpractice has occured.

 

2. The Recommendation in a LGO report is almost always followed by the council

 

3. It costs nothing to instigate a complaint and the debtor has absolutely nothing to lose

 

Apologies - The LGO actually stated that if a council fails to follow valid advice, she will very likely uphold the complaint.

[Guest alreadyexists]

IMO the '14 day letter' is just the LBA notifying the debtor he has 14 days to settle the debt to avoid 'further legal action'. No specific method needs to be mentioned, but LBA should precede any Liability Order.

 

I agree, this is what I was trying to demonstrate (albeit, possibly not very clearly)

 

The requirement to send the old 14 day letter was repealed (IMO) because it referred exclusively to distress and so placed an additional requirement on those seeking to enforce council tax. This was in contrast with the spirit of the new legislation which sought to ensure that every form of debt was recovered following the same procedure.