Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Tell us how you beat the bailiffs.
Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#36 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 09 Mar 2016 09:58

Haha.
Not got £310 anyway. I don't work anymore. I'm a stay at home dad.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#37 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 09 Mar 2016 13:46

I See that right on cue, Sheila has been shooting off her clueless mouth.

For clarity, I am not a staunch supporter of the three letter process, I asked for some advice about the use of it once and Sheila kept a copy of the post, for some bizarre reason known only to herself. I was also a supporter of the noroiroa and as Sheila knows but never confirms, the notice worked several times for me. I See nothing silly about stopping bailiffs visiting but obviously for someone on the side of the bailiffs, I can understand why Sheila is so paranoid about this subject.

Yes Sheila used to post as TT. She stopped using that name when it was revealed that she has multiple convictions for dishonesty. Sheila likes to act like a snob, patronising her fellow posters but the truth is that they are nearly all better than her.

Certainly Sheilas knowledge is not great and on many occasion over the years (not just the last 2) I have had to help her out regarding CT issues.

Last month, Sheila was on CAG slating me because a debtor had chosen to take my advice rather than hers. Typically, Sheila offered exactly the same advice to another debtor on CAG last night. It seems my advice has gone from dangerous to perfect in less than a month.

Sheila hates me because I get things done and get results. All she has to throw at me is reference to 3letters or noroiroas. She can't pinpoint 1 post of mine where I cost a debtor money. Look at her advice on your case. She's almost copied word for word what I have said. She talks about the importance of asking questions. the problem is, her questions are trivial and pointless. In your case, she has failed to establish many things. We will now put those questions to the council and see what they have to say. Sheila has stated that she can't help further. I Could have told you that before she even posted-she can never help, she just takes up a lot of cyberspace with idle gossip.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13240
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#38 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Mar 2016 14:22

Shails is posting yet more nonsense.
Unfortunately the reason for this is because of the high number of websites that are charging fees of upward of £150 for drafting of these forms. Very often, debtors are misled into believing that sending a statutory declaration to an enforcement company will lead to the debt being returned back to the council or court. This is simply not true and worryingly,
No website I know of send stat decs to an enforcement company. That is the creditor's problem.


I am getting frequent enquiries from people who have paid such fees only to find that the enforcement agent has continued with enforcement.
Sheila has had no enquiries.

A solicitor I pass business to, did a mystery shopper on Sheila's bailiffadviceonline website. It was out of curiosity after seeing her rantings about me she posted all over the internet.

The result was laughable!

The solicitor suggested I should make a 'Sheila Harding' page on DWB giving her facebook profile and identify her the source of these internet postings. It helps members of the public make up their own mind.

I argued against it because people wanting a bailiff solution aren't interested in Sheila's internet vendetta against me. They can call Sheila. They can call me. They choose who to go with.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#39 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 09 Mar 2016 14:48

One of her favourite tactics is to put the blame on you for everything. Anyone would think that CIVEA have a dedicated officer monitoring everything that's posted on here and then action put in place to counteract us. She fails to understand that nobody other than her is interested in this forum, let alone shares the same obsession that she does.

She is such a liar, I tend to take everything she posts with a pinch of salt. I Know from when I used to speak with her that her idle gossip and speculating rarely, if ever comes to fruition. I Think she lives in a bit of a fantasy world that is removed from reality

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#40 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 09 Mar 2016 15:01

Blimey, bailiff wars ;-)

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#41 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 09 Mar 2016 15:19

Have a look back at what she's posted. She hasn't added anything of use, instead, she seized the opportunity to use the thread as a platform to write one of her tedious essays about this forum. What has she done to actually help?

She has spent months telling us all that payments made directly to creditors must be divided-she's even written one of her self promoting stickys about it. She now appears to be telling you something entirely different and that payments should not be divided after all.

The Woman is a first class idiot. It's only when she tries to influence advice aimed at helping people that I get involved with her.

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#42 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 09 Mar 2016 15:24

Email from Rossendales. Further proof that the council haven't paid them direct.
Thank you for your email





Balance: £75.00



The ACOP is an approved code of practice for workplace health, safety and welfare and has no bearing on your case. Furthermore as we are a certificated bailiff company we are not regulated by the same codes as debt recovery companies.

We can also confirm that Sefton MBC have advised us that you have made payment of £268.50 to them. However the amount you paid did not include our costs which were charged on the 12th January 2016.

We require an immediate payment of £75.00 to enable us to close our file.

Payments can be made by debit/credit card on-line at http://www.rossendales.com, using our automated payment line 24 hours a day on 0845 0781194, by bankers draft, cheque (payable to Rossendales Limited), postal orders or cash in a registered envelope.

For bank transfers or standing order payments, please contact your bank and provide them with Rossendales account details as follows:

Account Name: Lloyds Bank.
Rossendales Account Number: 00559407
Rossendales Sort code: 30 95 74
Reference Number: 24663403

In the meantime, your case is awaiting allocation to an enforcement agent to proceed with further recovery action. Please note that you will incur a charge of £235.00 if an enforcement agent attends your property.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13240
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#43 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Mar 2016 15:24

The CAG board itself has its own agenda. This one. https://marstongroup.co.uk/team-member/marc-gander/
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#44 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Mar 2016 16:15

Mag1nMc wrote:
We can also confirm that Sefton MBC have advised us that you have made payment of £268.50 to them. However the amount you paid did not include our costs which were charged on the 12th January 2016.

We require an immediate payment of £75.00 to enable us to close our file.


In the meantime, your case is awaiting allocation to an enforcement agent to proceed with further recovery action. Please note that you will incur a charge of £235.00 if an enforcement agent attends your property.
So they have stated that no-one has yet visited your home. The letter you received on 8th Feb posted via Royal Mail or was it hand delivered?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#45 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 09 Mar 2016 16:21

This is the background information that Sheila should have asked for, not nonsense like "how much do you owe " or "how many times a week do you wash your hair":

1. You Say that you don't work. Does your missus work?

2. Are either of you self-employed?

3. Are either of you employed directly? (Paye etc)

4. What benefits if any do you recieve?

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#46 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 09 Mar 2016 16:38

1) My missus does work yes.
2 I am supposedly self employed, but done no work for a while as having to look after our daughter. She's only one. We can't afford full time nursery.
3)The wife is employed directly on PAYE
4) We get working tax, and child tax credits.

The letter in Feb was Royal Mail delivered. The one I got the other day he posted through my door.

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#47 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 09 Mar 2016 16:39

That was an old email Pote. I posted it for information purposes. I have had a visit this week off the bailiff.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#48 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 09 Mar 2016 16:59

Mag1nMc wrote:1) My missus does work yes.
2 I am supposedly self employed, but done no work for a while as having to look after our daughter. She's only one. We can't afford full time nursery.
3)The wife is employed directly on PAYE
4) We get working tax, and child tax credits.

The letter in Feb was Royal Mail delivered. The one I got the other day he posted through my door.
So there was nothing stopping them setting up an AOE then?

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#49 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 09 Mar 2016 17:05

Nope. Never came up in discussion.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#50 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 09 Mar 2016 18:43

Well its just about to:
Formal Complaint-Stage 1

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to complain about the councils handling of my council tax arrears. I wish to make it very clear, right from the outset, that at no time have we attempted to evade paying this debt. As the council acknowledge, as soon as we received a summons for arrears, we contacted the council and attempted to negotiate a repayment plan. It should be emphasised that this request was made prior to a liability order (LO) being issued. The council stated that it would accept a repayment plan of £103 per month but it would also still go ahead with obtaining a LO. Obviously, once a LO is issued, the authority have additional recovery powers, one of which being an attachment of earnings order (AOE).

As the council were in communication with me, both before and after the obtaining of the LO, it was quite possible to have obtained employment information from us and set up an AOE. This would have meant that the debt would have been settled without hold up/missed payments or delays. It would also have protected our family against unwanted and unnecessary enforcement charges. Guidelines from the Department for Communities and Local Government, the CAB and the charities Child Poverty Action Group and Zacchaeus 2000 all strongly recommend that an AOE should be considered, wherever possible as opposed to steamrolling in straight to enforcement action. There was no benefit or advantage to ourselves whatsoever to have entered into the payment plan with yourselves if we were running the risk of additional enforcement charges being implemented if we failed to maintain repayments. The whole spirit of the guidance and recommendations is to try to avert additional, needless charges being added to families who are struggling to sustain an ever growing debt. Our family certainly fall into this category.

In hindsight, our family would have been far better protected if an AOE had been implemented as soon as the LO was obtained. At the very worse, one should have been added at the point in which we defaulted. The council do not appear to have even considered an attachment option.

As stated previously, we have never tried to avoid this debt and struggled on with repayments until the Christmas period. Like thousands of families throughout the country, Christmas pushed us one step too far financially and we defaulted. Even then, we managed to borrow some money in the first week of January and I attempted to clear the debt by using my partners debit card. Unfortunately, as my partner was not present, the transaction could not be completed. Before we had chance to complete the transaction, Rossendales were engaged on behalf of the council, to recover the debt. During this transitional period, we successfully paid off the debt in full.

After we had completed the transaction, we assumed that the matter was concluded and that the subsequent enforcement action would be revoked. This was not to be the case and we have since received a visit from Rossendales who are demanding a further £310 from us. Both the council and Rossendales have confirmed that the amount of the original LO has been paid in full.

I would like to remind you of Regulation 45 of the Council Tax (Enforcement & Administration) Regulations 1992 (as amended) A&ER), which states:

"Where a liability order has been made, payment may be enforced by using the Schedule 12 procedure.”

Regulations also state that the amount in respect of which a liability order is made is enforceable. As the amount had been paid in full, the power to enforce had died. A debtor cannot be made bankrupt in respect of bailiff fees, he cannot be committed to prison and he cannot have a charging order made against him. Nor, crucially can enforcement continue, once the LO is settled. Schedule 12 provides the facility to divide payments pro-rata but it appears that the councils contract with Rossendales permits all payments made directly to the council, to be kept by the council. It is unreasonable and also unrealistic to expect Rossendales to be permitted to continue to enforce under these circumstances.

We feel that we have been let down by the council from start to finish in this matter. We question the need to continue with the application if a payment plan was acceptable prior to the LO hearing. We question the councils indifference, bordering on reluctance to consider an AOE which would have protected us from additional charges. Finally, having obtained all money owed, the council have turned its back on us, leaving us exposed to the threats and intimidation of Rossendales .

As a resolution to this complaint, we ask that the council accept that enforcement is no longer lawful and reflect that an AOE was more apt under the circumstances. We repeat that we have battled to pay this debt from start to finish and have never ignored it.

Finally, we ask that you place a hold on enforcement whilst this complaint is being considered.
CC it to Rossendales. Park the car away from the home for a couple of days, just to be safe. You have (IMO) a very strong argument here and even if the council knock you back initially, I'd urge you to keep going. If we can get the threat of enforcement out of the equation, we can relax a little and let the complaint run its course.

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#51 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 09 Mar 2016 19:27

That's a fantastic letter.
Thanks very muchly, Mark.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#52 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 09 Mar 2016 19:46

No probs-I've been reading up on my Taking Control of Goods book. ;)

FWIW, I think that the AOE angle is stronger than the argument regarding enforcing for fees. The council will simply ask Rossendales to provide an answer for the fees aspect but will need to consider the appropriateness of not implementing an AOE.

Your case is made all the stronger by your continued attempts to address the debt-The council are definitely in the wrong here, I just doubt they'll have the decency to admit it. As I said yesterday, they don't care about you or your family. I'm 99% certain that if we have to take this to the Ombudsman, that she'll find in your favour.

Keep us posted with developments.

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#53 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 10 Mar 2016 12:13

All enforcement action on hold for 14 days whilst they investigate both of our complaints. Because I already had a complaint in over this, sent before I found the forum, I sent Mark's letter off the wife's email account.
Both complaints are now being investigated.
Will keep you updated with the outcome.

M

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#54 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 13 Mar 2016 08:02

Hi guys,
I'm just preparing if my case has to go the LGO.
Can anyone tell me how much they can charge for a Liability Order?
My LO fees were £62.50. Does this seem correct?

M

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#55 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 13 Mar 2016 08:49

Yes, £62.50 is correct. It is reasonable, unlike many councils who charge much more than that.

You will have to exhaust the councils complaints procedure before contacting the LGO. This could well mean a stage 2 complaint first.

Hopefully, they will see sense and save themselves some time and money.

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#56 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 13 Mar 2016 09:06

Hi Mark
Thanks for that and all your other help.
It's appreciated.

M

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#57 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 23 Mar 2016 05:16

Hi all,
here is the council's dismissive response.
Pure lies the part about sending a letter asking for earnings in December. No such letter was received by myself or my wife.
Complaint Date: 09/03/2016
Complaint Number: CCO10327
Re: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I refer to various emails sent to Margaret Carney, Chief Executive and Helen Griffin from the Revenues Service by Mr. McBirnie on 9 March 2016. I also refer to an email from Mrs. McBirnie dated 10 March 2016.
These items of correspondence have been recorded as a stage one complaint as described in the Council Corporate Complaints policy and the Investigating Officer is Andy Jennings from the Revenues Service.
Having examined the various items of correspondence I believe that a fair summary of the complaint is shown below:-
1. Why you should have to pay enforcement agents costs when they have taken no action against you and you have already paid in full to the council?
2. Why does the Liability Order make no mention of bailiff fees?
3. As you have already paid £62.50 Liability Order fees why have these not be used to offset the enforcement agent fees now incurred?
4. You feel that fees could have been avoided if you had been allowed to pay arrears using your wife's debit card on 6 January 2016. You claim that data protection principles allow you to do this.
5. You question the Council's interpretation of Paragraph 58 of schedule 12 of Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
6. You cite guideline 31 of the ''Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2014'' have been breached.
7. Did the Council check with the I.C.O. that using your wife's debit card to make a payment was not allowed?
8. You have asked for a breakdown of the Liability Order fees and costs.
9. You claim a breach in legislation by Sefton has occurred in your case with regards to the £75 compliance fee.
10. You ask why an attachment of earnings order was not considered as enforcement action resulted in you incurring further charges.
11. You claim that after you unsuccessfully tried to pay by debit card you were not given an opportunity to pay and the case immediately was passed to Rossendale’s.
12. You wish the Council to accept that enforcement action against you is unlawful.
I will address your complaint in the order detailed above:-
1. Regulation 5(1)(a) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 states that the Compliance stage fee is payable when the enforcement agent has been instructed to recover the debt. Your case was passed to Rossendale’s on 7 January 2016 and recorded on their system on 12 January 2016 at 4.56 a.m. A letter dated the same day was sent to you advising you of their involvement and advising the £75 had been added to your account. The enforcement agents have no legal requirement to contact you before applying the fee. As you did not pay the Council until 18 January 2016 you debt was outstanding at the time the fee was applied and has been done so legally.
2. There is no legal requirement for the Liability Order to detail enforcement agent fees, however, a letter sent to you dated 12 December 2015, ‘’a warning of enforcement for unpaid Council Tax’’ did outline the structure of fees you may have to pay if your case was passed for enforcement.
3. The £62.50 fees you incurred in the application for Liability Order are the reasonable fees incurred by the Council in obtaining the Liability Order, not fees or charges subsequent to the Order being granted.
4. To ensure card holder data is protected Sefton Council must comply with the requirements of the payment card industry – Data Security Standards (PCI DSS). The Council has a policy document called ‘’Payment Card Security Policy’’ updated 20 October 2015. Section 3.4 of this policy under the heading ‘’Specific instructions for staff who handle credit/debit card transactions’’ states:-
‘’Do not accept payments from customers where it is clear that they are not the cardholder.’’ Therefore, the officer who refused to accept payment was acting correctly.
5. The Council and the enforcement agents we use are confident that our interpretation of the application of costs is correct. However, as with any legislation, there are opportunities to challenge how the law has been applied. I suggest you seek legal advice as to the steps you need to take if you believe the law has been unfairly applied by the Council or our agents.
6. I disagree that there has been a breach of guideline 31 of the Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2014. This section states:-
‘’Enforcement agents must not seek to enforce the recovery of fees where an enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable.’’ In your case, the £75 compliance fee incurred on 12 January 2016 became part of the Council Tax debt. Therefore, as part of the debt remained unpaid enforcement action ensued and you have correctly incurred an additional £235 enforcement fee. As detailed earlier, you have avenues to challenge the legality of any enforcement agent fee incurred. Please seek your own legal advice on this matter.
7. The I.C.O. was not contacted about the debit card issue as the member of staff was following the established office procedure as detailed in point 4 earlier.
8. The Liability costs total £62.50. £47.50 of these costs are incurred upon issue of the summons notice and if full repayment is made there are no further costs incurred. An additional £15 costs are incurred upon the granting of the Liability Order in cases where balances remain unpaid.
9. I disagree with your contention that the Council has breached legislation regarding the compliance fee and I am prepared to defend the position if you instigate legal proceedings.
10. The Council will always consider alternatives to the use of enforcement agents. As you failed to supply your works details (as requested in my letter dated 12 December 2015) I was not able to consider the attachment route and had no alternative but to instruct enforcement agents.
11. I disagree that the Council did not give you an opportunity to pay. My records show that you attempted to make a debit card payment on 6 January 2016 using Mrs. McBirnie’s debit card. You were correctly advised that the payment could not be taken and advised to get Mrs. McBirnie to contact the Council immediately. She failed to do this and your case was passed for enforcement on 7 January 2016. Notwithstanding this, no payment was made until 18 January 2016 – some 12 days after your original conversation and instruction to get Mrs. McBirnie to contact the Council to make the payment.
12. I do not accept that there is anything unlawful about how your case has been handled.

I also understand that you have made similar representations to Rossendale’s regarding costs incurred and they have been advised to hold action on your case until 28 March 2016. You must pay them the £310.00 immediately. Failure to pay will result in Rossendale’s continuing with action which my increase the balance outstanding.
In conclusion, based on my investigation, I am unable to uphold your complaint. If you remain aggrieved and wish to escalate your complaint further you should contact me again stating your specific reasons for the escalation and your case will be reviewed by a senior manager

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#58 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Mar 2016 06:29

It will be pretty hard to challenge them not considering an AOE, if they are claiming to have written to you in December, asking for employment details. You can escalate the complaint to Stage 2 and it may buy you some more time. After that, the LGO is an option.

With that letter in December, your argument is a lot weaker. There is an argument that simply putting your account on Rossendales system is not enough to qualify for the compliance fee but there was a further 6 days until you made payment. The other argument that you have is that the council have kept all of the money, meaning the power under the LO to use Schedule 12 has died.

It would be interesting to see their responses, if nothing else and I don't suppose you have anything to loose. If you want to escalate it to stage 2, let me know and I'll draft you another letter.

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#59 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 23 Mar 2016 06:37

Hi Mark,
yes please do me another letter. I will take it all the way before I have to concede if I must.
I never received a letter, plus, why was an AOE not discussed as an option on the phone when I rang to make payment? Surely if they had sent paperwork, then the girl would have discussed it as an option if she legally couldn't take my payment.
Do you know if I lose, are the bailiffs liable to want the whole sum at once?

Appreciate your help.

M

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#60 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Mar 2016 06:55

I always tell people to put the money that they would have been paying into an ISA, so that they have a bit of a pot at the end. As I can't see the council conceding, a complaint to the LGO would probably take at least 6 months, if not longer. In that time, you should be able to save up £310, if the worst happens.

I'll do you another letter tonight.

Mag1nMc
Posts: 40
Joined: 07 Mar 2016 15:29

#61 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mag1nMc » 23 Mar 2016 07:05

Oh, i can pay it all at once if needed. My question was merely out of interest and part of the learning curve. Great suggestion over the ISA.
If it goes to the LGO do they have to suspend action during that whole period? Many thanks for doing the letter. I'd be lost having to go it alone.

M

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#62 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Mar 2016 07:08

There is nothing laid down in law that states they must suspend enforcement.

I would expect them to suspend it though-After all, if the LGO were to find in your favour, there would be nothing to enforce in any case.

outlawipcc
Posts: 308
Joined: 06 Apr 2013 17:31

#63 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by outlawipcc » 23 Mar 2016 09:43

Mag1nMc wrote:4. You feel that fees could have been avoided if you had been allowed to pay arrears using your wife's debit card on 6 January 2016. You claim that data protection principles allow you to do this.
Sefton's response
4. To ensure card holder data is protected Sefton Council must comply with the requirements of the payment card industry – Data Security Standards (PCI DSS). The Council has a policy document called ‘’Payment Card Security Policy’’ updated 20 October 2015. Section 3.4 of this policy under the heading ‘’Specific instructions for staff who handle credit/debit card transactions’’ states:-
‘’Do not accept payments from customers where it is clear that they are not the cardholder.’’ Therefore, the officer who refused to accept payment was acting correctly.
Looked for the policy referred to by sefton (didn't find it) but it seems there have been issues surrounding the authority meeting compliance requirements (PCI DSS). It would be worth finding out if they are being over zealous. Perhaps the following is merely council policy rather than a requirement to comply with the 'Payment Card Industry – Data Security Standards'?
‘’Do not accept payments from customers where it is clear that they are not the cardholder.’’
Even if a requirement, it is unreasonable for the council to have made you suffer a significant financial loss for the authority's benefit of complying with the Industry Standard. The most reasonable action would be (knowing that the payment had been offered) was to put the enforcement on hold until the Data Security issue was resolved (compliance was the council's problem).

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#64 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Mar 2016 10:23

6. I disagree that there has been a breach of guideline 31 of the Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2014. This section states:-
‘’Enforcement agents must not seek to enforce the recovery of fees where an enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable.’’ In your case, the £75 compliance fee incurred on 12 January 2016 became part of the Council Tax debt.
No it doesn't. That reply implies that the fees become a debt to the council. Ask them to provide the legislation that states that fees become part of the amount of council tax due.

Also ask them for a copy of the letter sent to you in December - council letters are logged. Ask them to provide you with a log of the letters sent to you for the past year.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

outlawipcc
Posts: 308
Joined: 06 Apr 2013 17:31

#65 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by outlawipcc » 23 Mar 2016 11:15

Birmingham City Council stated this if it helps (Link):
They [enforcement fees] will not show on an individual's council tax or non-domestic rate account as they do not form part of the amount due to the authority.

outlawipcc
Posts: 308
Joined: 06 Apr 2013 17:31

#66 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by outlawipcc » 23 Mar 2016 11:55

Another authority stated as follows:
I do not know what information you are now in possession of but I can guarantee that his authority do not raise enforcement agency fees against an individual’s account on our system. This is the case whether or not a Liability Order is with an Enforcement Agency or has been returned by them.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13240
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#67 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Mar 2016 12:42

outlawipcc wrote:Birmingham City Council stated this if it helps (Link):
They [enforcement fees] will not show on an individual's council tax or non-domestic rate account as they do not form part of the amount due to the authority.

I'll need to see if that can be quoted as authority.

The legal profession are of the same opinion. The sum due is the sum on the warrant or writ.

There is mixed legal opinion among professional the sum due includes the £75 compliance stage fee if the agent is instructed or NOE is given.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#68 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Mar 2016 19:12

Dear Mr Jennings

Further to your response to my complaint(s), I confirm that I wish to escalate the matter to the next stage of the councils complaints procedure. My specific reasons for this are detailed below. I have used the same numerical order as per my previous complaint (and as per your response)

1. Simply passing an account to Rossendales does not qualify the account to be liable for a compliance fee. Neither does recording it on Rossendales system at some obscure hour of the morning. It is noteworthy that in your response to my complaint, you used the term "enforcement agents" as in the plural. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 (Fees Regs) are quite specific that the account needs to be passed to the enforcement agent (EA), the individual and NOT his office. Furthermore, the instrument is also very clear that the EA may not authorise anyone to act on his behalf unless he is either a fellow EA, or is Exempt. In essence, this means that no clerical worker within the EA's office may receive instructions to use the Schedule 12 procedure. It is clear that both the council and Rossendales have failed to grasp the intention of the compliance stage. Simply moving the goal posts at this late stage and claiming that the account was passed to an individual EA is not very convincing, in fact, it borders on the fanciful.

12. The Fees Regs provide clear instructions on how payments should be divided. If there was any doubt about this, an explanatory memorandum has been provided by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). I strongly urge you to familiarise yourself with this document. In particular, I would point you to item 8.3:

"The consultation response stated that in cases where the proceeds of enforcement are less
than the amount outstanding, they should be distributed on a pro-rata basis between
creditor and enforcement agent (regarding the outstanding debt and the enforcement fees
and disbursements respectively). However, it has since been demonstrated that this would
cause enforcement agents to operate at a loss for some time before they recovered their
fees, undermining the fee structure model by significantly delaying remuneration and
preventing the necessary investment in enforcement businesses required to provide a
sustainable service. Without this, successful enforcement could potentially decline
significantly and enforcement agents may be encouraged to act in an aggressive manner in
order to try and recoup the entire debt. It was therefore decided that enforcement agents
should be paid the compliance stage in full first, followed by a pro-rata division of
proceeds between enforcement agent and creditor."

Your council have decided to completely ignore this memorandum from the MOJ, clearly having as little concern for your agents, as you do your debtors. The Council Tax (Enforcement & Administration) Regulations 1993 (As Amended) are clear that the power to use enforcement only exists whilst a balance remains outstanding. As the balance in my case (as confirmed by yourselves) is £0, there is no longer a power to use the Schedule 12 procedure.

I have no need whatsoever to seek legal advice, or to instigate legal proceedings. As far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed. The compliance stage was never started. Everything that subsequently followed was not in compliance with legislation. In any case, the debt is now paid in full so there is no power to continue enforcement.

I trust this clarifies the matter for you and the council now instruct its agents to cease pursuing this matter. The responsibility for this is clearly with the council. Rossendales are acting as agents on your behalf and any subsequent action from this will be the fault of the authority.

In any case, I expect enforcement to continue to be suspended whilst this stage 2 complaint is being considered.

I think the above 2 points are the real nitty gritty. Paragraph 58 & item 31 of the NS are irrelevant. Jennings will P his pants when he reads that and go running to Rossendales. Rest assured that any answer will be from them and not Jennings. The ball is in their court-As far as you are concerned, the matter is concluded, why would you possibly want to issue legal proceedings?

outlawipcc
Posts: 308
Joined: 06 Apr 2013 17:31

#69 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by outlawipcc » 26 Mar 2016 09:54

jasonDWB wrote:
outlawipcc wrote:Birmingham City Council stated this if it helps (Link):
They [enforcement fees] will not show on an individual's council tax or non-domestic rate account as they do not form part of the amount due to the authority.

I'll need to see if that can be quoted as authority.

The legal profession are of the same opinion. The sum due is the sum on the warrant or writ.

There is mixed legal opinion among professional the sum due includes the £75 compliance stage fee if the agent is instructed or NOE is given.
I'll leave a link ("this link") in case it has any significance.

Ultimately though:
1. If a Taxpayer has previous arrears subject to an Attachment to Earnings etc.[including enforcement] payment will not be allocated against those debts. This of course would not be the case if the debtor expressly stated that payment is intended to reduce the indebtedness of that account. If a debtor specifies an account (in those circumstances) the Council would have no option but to allocate payment to that account?

Response
Yes. If a Taxpayer expresses which debt they would like the payment to be allocated against, the payment will be allocated to that debt. In the circumstances that you describe, the payment would be allocated to the debt the customer specifies.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13240
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#70 Re: Bailiff enforcement visit when debt has been paid.

Post by Schedule 12 » 26 Mar 2016 12:00

In a nutshell.

If a LO switches to an AOE, the fees die. End of bailiff problem.

If there is more than one debt, the debtor chooses which is paid first, otherwise the oldest is paid first.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Post Reply