Throssell v Leeds City Council

[Guest]

Has anyone ever used this case or possess a decent working knowledge of it?

As I interpret the case, there appears to be a general misconception that the judge only allowed for one levy fee to be charged when the bailiff was visiting with a view to collect for three separate liability orders.

In fact the judge allowed a calculation to be made (using paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 5) by adding the sums on the three LO's together and working from there.

Consequently, although only one fee was charged, it was calculated by using the total figure of all three LO's. To argue that the judge didn't allow the charging of multiple fees is (as I am interpreting the case), not strictly true.

Schedule 5 offers two options for a bailiff to charge under Head B (levy fee) and that is the lesser of:

(I) the amount of costs reasonably incurred
add
(ii)The amount calculated under paragraph 2(1)

The judge determined that although only one visit was made, it was permissible to allow the 2nd and 3rd LO's to be included in the calculations because costs were incurred in the added paperwork required.

I am struggling to understand how this calculation can be acceptable IF the same goods are levied upon for each of the three LO's. My argument would be that once the first levy has been completed, the goods are in the custody of the law and that is the end of the matter. I also accept that there is a slight inconvenience for the bailiff company regarding the additional paperwork involved BUT Schedule 5 does not allow for multiple visits or charges. A levy for one LO is exactly that and there is no provision for extra fees to be added for LO's that did not have goods secured against them.

If anyone disagrees with my thinking or can provide an alternative to it, I would very much appreciate it. I am currently involved in assisting someone who is placed in a very similar scenario.

Thanks in advance.

[ploddertom]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

It is only frowned upon for charging multiple fees - some LGO reports for example. But it is actually legal for them to charge for each one. There have been other cases where the Visit Charges have been charged only as a single Visit but allowed to charge the Levy Fee on the accumulation of LO's outstanding - which is what I believe Throssel was about.

Each should be taken on its own merits, there is no 1 case fits all.

[Guest]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

Thanks PT. Yes, I accept that first visit fees for example could have been charged for each LO in a single visit. (although as you rightly state, the LGO would have probably told the council to remove all but one)

Levy fees however were a different kettle of fish. My argument is that if the TV, sofa and hi-fi have been levied upon with regards to LO 1, in order to carry out a levy for LO 2, a separate set of goods were required. A bailiff could not have simply written out "TV, sofa and hi-fi" for all three levies.

The judge in the Throssell case determined in the taxation that the levy fee could be calculated from the total of the 3 LO's. This would not have been an option available to the bailiff.

For clarity, I am stating that it would not have been in a bailiffs powers to calculate a single levy fee from the total sum of the LO's. The only option was to either list different goods for each individual LO or if there were insufficient goods then they should have been listed against the first LO and a payment plan agreed for the repayment of all three LO's. (with 2 LO's being free of any levy)

These are the only options that I consider would have been available to the bailiff, can you think of any other options?

Thanks

[ploddertom]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

There is a theory that the same goods can be listed for each LO on the principle that when 1 LO is paid the goods then transfer to the next & so on. That is a scenario I would argue against as I don't believe it to be correct.

I assume the Bailiffs are digging their heels and refusing to concede. Again it is asking the Council what they think & hope they do the usual by folowing the Bailiffs shirtails & if so then gives you the opportunity to put all before the LGO where you include copies of other Reports they have made on similar matters.

The Council don't have to follow the LGO recommendations but as the Report is published it does give them some black marks.

[Guest]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

Thanks again PT

Yes, I wouldn't put it past a bailiff to try a stupid stunt like that. Absolutely no chance of it working though. Once those goods are placed in the custody of the law, they are tied to that particular LO and the debtor is no longer at liberty to use them in order to enter into subsequent WPA's.

The bailiffs are on the back foot over this but even after some utterly reprehensible behaviour, they are still on a damage limitation exercise. It makes no difference to me, the more of their time that they waste putting off the inevitable, the more it will cost them in the end.

I can only think of one occasion where a council has not adhered to an LGO decision & that involved £1000's (non-bailiff related). I'm pretty confident that a council would follow any recommendation regarding bailiffs or EA's, especially given the wave of bad publicity currently flying around. Again, it makes no difference to me because if they don't then they can dig deep to engage a solicitor to represent them in a civil claim.

[ploddertom]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

The other way of course is to do similar to Throssell and take it to Court for taxation/detailed assesment, the danger being you get a Judge who is not au fait with everything and believes everything the Bailiff says. Whether the new system for this will be any better who knows as nothing has yet been determined as to Judges & Hearing Centres.

[Guest]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

That's not really an option. There's quite a lot involved in this one and more things to determine than just the taxation of the levy fees.

The LGO is the probable route at this stage however we're not at that point yet.

[ploddertom]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

That's not really an option. There's quite a lot involved in this one and more things to determine than just the taxation of the levy fees.

The LGO is the probable route at this stage however we're not at that point yet.

Hope you keep us updated with how things pan out.

[BeagleyBailiff]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

@The Starving Taxpayer - are you able to go into more detail about what exactly you want to use this case for? I was wondering up until your last couple of posts whether this was purely theoretical, but you suggest it isn't. The original judgment could, and possibly should, have been challenged. The danger was exposing them to possibly significant costs which was obviously not feasible sadly.

I agree it is a controversial decision and levying on goods more than once is not something most people would consider possible. Is there other case law you can use for your issue? Without knowing what it is, a theoretical discussion could go on for ever. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Milo]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

I actually have a FULL copy of the Judgment (please PM me for a copy). It is quite an old case but was very well challenged by the claimant (who works for an advice bureau) !!!

[bluebottle]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

I actually have a FULL copy of the Judgment (please PM me for a copy). It is quite an old case but was very well challenged by the claimant (who works for an advice bureau) !!!

In your view, Milo, have civil enforcement companies quoted such cases too much and the courts have grown wise to the point where such rulings fall into disrepute?

[Guest]

Re: Throssell v Leeds City Council

@The Starving Taxpayer - are you able to go into more detail about what exactly you want to use this case for? I was wondering up until your last couple of posts whether this was purely theoretical, but you suggest it isn't. The original judgment could, and possibly should, have been challenged. The danger was exposing them to possibly significant costs which was obviously not feasible sadly.

I agree it is a controversial decision and levying on goods more than once is not something most people would consider possible. Is there other case law you can use for your issue? Without knowing what it is, a theoretical discussion could go on for ever. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

I'll be honest BB, I've never really looked into this case in depth until recently. With the sector now changed as of April 6th, not much, if any at all of old case law is going to be of use. The particular case that I'm looking at falls under the old fee schedule hence my interest in the case.

I'm probably not going to use this case as it neither in mine or the enforcement agencies power to calculate fees in the way determined. I intend to argue that a levy may only be placed on one account with one set of goods. In order to place a levy on second and third accounts etc, separate sets of goods must be found to cover the amount outstanding on each individual debt. This works out less for the debtor than the Throssell determination in any case. As I'm reading your post, I think you would agree with this course of action.

The purpose for my original post was really to see if anyone could come up with differing angles to mine. I always try to consider every aspect of what a bailiff/EA may come back with. Obviously I don't think of everything, every time so thought I'd ask for input from the board in case someone could come up with something I'd missed.

What I am pretty sure of is that this case would not have been much help to someone who incurred multiple visit fees

There is no other relevant case law that I'm aware of, however this is not crucial-If the Council don't remove the multiple levies, the LGO almost certainly will instruct them to do so.