Rossendales and paperwork

[bluemoon55]

Set out below are copies of email correspondence with Rossendales concerning the smaller of two old liability orders for which I received an undated and unsigned notice of intent which was claiming full payment of both outstanding liability orders despite the document only carrying the reference number of the smaller debt.

Their response was a surprise in as much that they have reset the arrangement imposed on them by Arun DC, but the answer they give on the issue of the undated single referenced notice of intent still puzzles me. Does "in good faith" provide an excuse to charge a fee of £247 split between the two orders? Why is it not split equally rather than £89.77 on the smaller and £157.23 on the larger?

If anyone can shed some light, I'd be grateful.

TO ROSSENDALES:*
Sent: 26 October 2016 05:44
To: Enquiries Rossendales <enquiries@rossendales.com>
Subject: CASE REF ******** CLIENT REF **********Councill Tax Liability Order

*I received recently an undated enforcement agent attendance notice unsigned but rubber stamped with the name"****** *********" with the above case number and client reference . The notice includes a demand for £1894.04 and an indication that an initial payment of £1450 would facilitate continuation of payment by instalments.

*My concern is that the amount due to be paid in respect of this liability order is £859.10 plus £75 costs, totalling £934.10.*
This order was passed to Rossendales by Arun District Council on 13th June 2016. On 16th June 2016 Rossendales confirmed the arrangement advised by Arun District Council of weekly payments of £23.80 per week commencing 24th June 2016.
Payments of £140.80 (17th October 2016), £23.80 (24th October 2016) and £23.80 (25th October 2016) made on-line through Rossendales' website show payments to date totalling £547.70. Given that the commencement date of the arrangement was 24th June 2016, 18 weeks ago (to 21st October 2016) at a rate of £23.80 per week, this total represents additional payments of £119.30 to date, in addition to clearing some earlier missed payments.
Weekly payments of £23.80 will continue to be made on-line through Rosendales' website.
I note also that an additional £89.77 enforcement costs have been added to the account and would be grateful if you could indicate what these additional costs are for.
I am particularly concerned that the undated and unsigned enforcement agent attendance notice and the incorrect information it contains may not be in accordance with appropriate regulations relevant to this liability order and have therefore forwarded a copy of this email to the Revenues Manager at Arun District Council.

FROM ROSSENDALES:

Thank you for your email.
Case: ******** Client reference:********** Balance: £1007.27***************

Instalments set: £23.80 every 7 days set from the 4.11.2016

With regards to the balances, for us dealing with collection of the case you are liable for the £75.00 Compliance Fee on each case which has been legally incurred on the 13.5.2016, when the Compliance letter was generated on each case.* The Enforcement Fee of £247.00 *has been split over the two cases and was legally incurred when the Enforcement Agent attended in good faith on the 12.10.2016, as the balance outstanding at the time had not been paid in full and the instalment arrangement that was set had not been kept.


*


***********

[Indebt]

Re: Rossendales and paperwork

Hi

The notice that he left you does not have to be signed or dated.

If you miss installments, the bailiff will visit. You cannot catch up later on and claim that the account is up to date.

Did you default on both accounts? If so, the visit took place in connection with both of them. if you only defaulted on one account then the whole fee should be allocated to that account. At a guess, Rossendales have added the fee proportionately to the amount outstanding. There is nothing in law that prescribes that they must do this and you are entitled to ask for the money to be split as you wish.

One final hing. The fee for visiting should be £235. I would be very interested to discover why Rossendales have added an extra £12. You should ask this as well. I would appreciate it if you cou;d post back with their reasoning as it could be the case that this £12 should not have been added.

[Milo]

Re: Rossendales and paperwork

If anyone can shed some light, I'd be grateful.

TO ROSSENDALES:*
Sent: 26 October 2016 05:44

To: Enquiries Rossendales <enquiries@rossendales.com>
Subject: CASE REF ******** CLIENT REF **********Councill Tax Liability Order

*I received recently an undated enforcement agent attendance notice unsigned but rubber stamped with the name"****** *********" with the above case number and client reference . The notice includes a demand for £1894.04 and an indication that an initial payment of £1450 would facilitate continuation of payment by instalments.

I am particularly concerned that the undated and unsigned enforcement agent attendance notice and the incorrect information it contains may not be in accordance with appropriate regulations relevant to this liability order and have therefore forwarded a copy of this email to the Revenues Manager at Arun District Council.

The unsigned and undated notice that you received is not a Statutory notice. It is merely an advisory one.

When the bailiff regulations were overhauled in 2014, the government introduced a series of Statutory notices that must be used by the enforcement agent. Strangely enough, a notice was not introduced for cases where a bailiff makes a visit and the debtor is not at home. Hence why each company have their own 'advisory' notice.

A One Year review of the enforcement regulations took part late last year and in my submission to the Ministry of Justice, I suggested that there should be a Statutory notice introduced. I would expect opposition from the enforcement sector.

Some news on the outcome of the 'One Year' review was released a few days ago and we will just have to wait and see what materialises.

When an enforcement agent makes a personal visit, he should (wherever practical) try to ensure that he enforces all debts at the same time (which he appears to have done here). When the visit was made, the note left advised that the outstanding amount at that time was £1,894.

The fees that can be charged by an enforcement agent are outlined under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 (link below) and provide that a enforcement fee of £235 may be charged on debts less than £1,500.

In your case, the debt at the time of the visit was stated as being £1,894. Accordingly, an additional 7.5% uplift would be chargeable (which has added a further £12 to your account).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ade?view=plain

[Indebt]

Re: Rossendales and paperwork

I think that the first thing we need to establish is whether the repayment plan was covering both debts. It appears from what the OP is saying is that the visit was in connection with just one account. If the £23.80 repayment was just in relation to the £859.10 debt, then there may be an argument in having the £12 removed. If you have not breached a repayment plan on the second account, I would be inclined to ask why you have been visited in relation to it.