CT and Bailiffs, 1 simple question!

[IanM]

Do the council have the legal right to refer an unpaid council tax account to the bailiffs using a liability order they have obtained in a magistrates court before they apply for an attachment of earnings order?

[IanM]

Re: CT and Bailiffs, 1 simple question!

Thanks, I think i have found the answer myself.

After obtaining a liability order the council have to issue an attachment of earnings order to the employer and only if this remains unpaid are they then allowed to place the account in distress and refer it to the bailiffs.

Double check this yourselves in relation to your own CT accounts and check they have followed the sequence of the regulations, if not, inquire about suing the council for all the costs incurred by the bailiffs because of their failure to follow the procedure set out in The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

Worth a try even if it only causes them a massive headache!

[ploddertom]

Re: CT and Bailiffs, 1 simple question!

The Council after obtaining a LO have a range of enforcement possibilities and there is no pecking order they have to follow. One of the reasons they choose Bailiffs first is that this is normally a no cost option to them.

[IanM]

Re: CT and Bailiffs, 1 simple question!

The attachment of earnings order is based on the liability order obtained at the magistrates and shouldn't cost them anything extra to send to the employer.

I would have thought that referring it to the bailiffs would place another financial burden on the CT payer meaning it would take the council longer to obtain the arrears and would not ensure payment to the council any quicker than an attachment of earnings order.

Also, if there is no set pecking order for following the regulations, why do they need to send a summons to obtain a liability order before referring it to the bailiffs, surely they would just send the bailiffs to collect regardless as soon as 1 payment was missed?

And why are the council so quick to have the account returned to them when someone does complain to them, and have the fees waived if someone refused to pay the bailiffs and would only pay direct to the council?

Surely if the bailiffs have incurred their initial visit costs then they would technically have to be paid, the only reason i can see for them to agree to waive their costs is if they are not legally entitled to collect the costs, maybe because the council has breached the regulation by failing to obtain the attachment of earnings before placing the account in distress and referring it to the bailiffs.

So many questions that need legal clarity.

Just a thought, i may be wrong!

[outlawlgo]

Re: CT and Bailiffs, 1 simple question!

Hi IanM

You might be interested in looking through this document Council Tax Collection Good Practice. It will give you a good insight into why things are done the way they are. It also shows councils for what they are.

For example your kind an caring local authority could have just as easily collected your outstanding council tax through an Attachment Of Earnings. The reason they didn't is because this incurs more in administration costs. They consider bailiffs come at nil cost because they get paid from fees added to the debtors account. Consequently they take the easier and more reckless option of appointing bailiffs, even though this should be their last resort. Probably they will need to have exhausted the bailiff option before taking further enforcement action, committal etc. Using their liability order option to instruct the bailiff as a priority over AOE will also speed up the process, and could be another reason if they want to reach a resolution quicker (completely reckless I know)

You can see from that link a reason why bailiffs are preferred over other means of collection:

8.3.3. Bailiff recovery rate is as low as 30%, and bailiff action is not usually the most effective in individual cases. Where possible, the council should start with another form of recovery, such as an AEO. However, as one authority had over 63,000 liability orders in one year (CIPFA statistics) they must use bailiffs extensively as the volume is too high to look at each case in enough detail and take other, more time consuming or expensive actions for all these cases. Council staff have also suggested using AEOs would be better if they were allowed access to Inland Revenue (IR) records (see section 3.5.3.3).

[wales01man]

Re: CT and Bailiffs, 1 simple question!

GOOD PRACTICE
66 pages to tell them
If they dont pay tax spend 3 quid to take em to court get LO stamped send in bully boys dont bother with other options for recovery ?

[outlawlgo]

Re: CT and Bailiffs, 1 simple question!

...Also, if there is no set pecking order for following the regulations, why do they need to send a summons to obtain a liability order before referring it to the bailiffs, surely they would just send the bailiffs to collect regardless as soon as 1 payment was missed?....

For the authority to take its preferred option of enforcement, it must obtain a liability order and to do this it must comply with the regulation (PART VI Enforcement) set out in secondary legislation (SI 1992/613) to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, or in other words the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

The authorities I should imagine would rather skip this inconvenient process and go straight for bailiff enforcement like you say. However, the authority has to follow the steps laid out by law. Having said that, the liability order applications have been set up in such a way that they are basically a formality, or, a sham in my opinion. If councils had no rules to follow I'm sure the prisons would be full of alleged non payers of council tax, or councils would force access to peoples bank accounts or worse.

[IanM]

Re: CT and Bailiffs, 1 simple question!

Hi IanM

You might be interested in looking through this document Council Tax Collection Good Practice. It will give you a good insight into why things are done the way they are. It also shows councils for what they are.

For example your kind an caring local authority could have just as easily collected your outstanding council tax through an Attachment Of Earnings. The reason they didn't is because this incurs more in administration costs. They consider bailiffs come at nil cost because they get paid from fees added to the debtors account. Consequently they take the easier and more reckless option of appointing bailiffs, even though this should be their last resort. Probably they will need to have exhausted the bailiff option before taking further enforcement action, committal etc. Using their liability order option to instruct the bailiff as a priority over AOE will also speed up the process, and could be another reason if they want to reach a resolution quicker (completely reckless I know)

You can see from that link a reason why bailiffs are preferred over other means of collection:

8.3.3. Bailiff recovery rate is as low as 30%, and bailiff action is not usually the most effective in individual cases. Where possible, the council should start with another form of recovery, such as an AEO. However, as one authority had over 63,000 liability orders in one year (CIPFA statistics) they must use bailiffs extensively as the volume is too high to look at each case in enough detail and take other, more time consuming or expensive actions for all these cases. Council staff have also suggested using AEOs would be better if they were allowed access to Inland Revenue (IR) records (see section 3.5.3.3).

Thanks for your reply.

It would seem that the council are onto a scam with the bailiffs. If you do not pay the bailiffs it goes back to the council, the fees are waived, and the council either accept an offer of payment(which is usually what you offered originally) or they will make an AEO.

Still not the right way to do things, what do we actually pay the council for if it is not to do the administration of things like CT?

Maybe everyone should just tell the bailiffs to clear off then all cases will go back to the council and they will have to earn their money by doing the AEO's.

Still very much worth investigating.

[IanM]

Re: CT and Bailiffs, 1 simple question!

For the authority to take its preferred option of enforcement, it must obtain a liability order and to do this it must comply with the regulation (PART VI Enforcement) set out in secondary legislation (SI 1992/613) to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, or in other words the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

The authorities I should imagine would rather skip this inconvenient process and go straight for bailiff enforcement like you say. However, the authority has to follow the steps laid out by law. Having said that, the liability order applications have been set up in such a way that they are basically a formality, or, a sham in my opinion. If councils had no rules to follow I'm sure the prisons would be full of alleged non payers of council tax, or councils would force access to peoples bank accounts or worse.

Thanks for your reply.

Exactly my point, they must have to follow the process as set out in the regulations or the whole system becomes a joke. In any other legal process you are required to follow the rules or the case is thrown out by the judge, they can't just sidestep the legal process because it was convenient to or cost effective. Good job the council don't do murder trials!