Wording on a liability order

[Adamna]

Reading another thread and the article here http://benefitslegalgroup.org.uk/201...tax-timebombs/ (Where’s the Liability Order Form A ?) I'm wondering about liability orders. Most people don't get to actually see their liability order, just get notified that it exists. If it is obtained, the wording must be important.

That there is no name or address of the person it is applied to, or an amount owed is of concern - the only connection is maybe an attached extract of details from the bulk application, possibly a reference to the summons number parameters included in the bulk liability order, and a date of hearing that matches that on the summons. So you can connect the dots, sort of. I find it hard to accept that this is sufficient.

Also, it must be important who the order is made in favour of. For example, I've seen one that says:
On xxx date complaint was made by the Charging Authority for xxxx Borough of xxxx etc. etc. (this in the case of parties not appearing)
Now, my understanding is that Charging Authorities left the party long ago ('92 Act), and they are all now called Billing Authorities.

So, can a liability order made in favour of a body that does not exist be valid? Thousands and thousands of them to be imprecise.

[Indebt]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Not quite sure of the relevance between Outlaw's case and cases involving breaches of the National Standards but I'm sure you know what you're going on about.

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Trampled over with glee by who?

Certainly not the LGO.

I think most of us have witnessed how effective the LGO has been in outlawlgo's experience. The clue is in the name. As ever, it's whatchagonnadoaboutit?

[Indebt]

Re: Wording on a liability order

I have plenty of experience with the LGO. I have never known her to take the councils side if either the NS or the guidelines from the DCLG have been breached.

A council have to justify the use of bailiffs. They simply cannot do this by obtaining a LO and passing the account over to bailiffs without first attempting to contact the debtor.

As I said previously, this is the UK, not North Korea.

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Trampled over with glee by who?

Certainly not the LGO.

I think most of us have witnessed how effective the LGO has been in outlawlgo's experience. The clue is in the name. As ever, it's whatchagonnadoaboutit?

[outlawlgo]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Are The National Standards guidance or legislation? Because guidance can be trampled over with glee.

Chief Executive's response at para 3 in final stage of a formal complaint:

3. National standards for enforcement agents

It is your opinion that the "Notice of bailiffs attendance" does not comply with National standards for enforcement agents.

This point has already been answered in some detail as part of our stage one response, which makes it clear that these are guidelines only. These can be viewed on the following web page and includes the following statement "This national guidance does not replace local agreements, existing agency codes of practice or legislation".

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...t/agents02.htm

It is the practice of Rosendale's Ltd to detail.......

Notice how sneaky the CEO was by not quoting the the full paragraph which goes on to say that the standards should be regarded as minimum.

"This national guidance does not replace local agreements, existing agency codes of practice or legislation; rather it sets out what the Department, those in the industry and some major users regard as minimum standards."

[Crazy council]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Hi [MENTION=30402]Milo[/MENTION]

I am aware that there are changes being considered at present (possibly for early next year) where an Attachment of Earnings is to be considered before bailiff enforcement. This in itself could cause major problems to debtors and will make the absence of the previous '14 day' letter even more important.

There are a number of rules suposed to be in place now that are supposed to be looked at before applying for liability orders, and there mostly ignored or bypassed. This part of the system is mainly self regulated/checked ( bonkers idea ) Incredibly, some councils ( manchester was a good example ) paid bonuses to staff for LO action.

Why dont councils employ collection agents directly, To help collect CT of those struggling

[Milo]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Please rest assured that we are still living in the UK and not North Korea.

A liability order simply empowers an authority to use other forms of enforcement to recover the debt, including that of using bailiffs. Guidelines state that wherever possible, bailiffs should be a last resort. The correct procedure would be for an authority to contact the debtor to seek information regarding the suitability for an attachment. The National Standards also state at paragraph 10:

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.

I am aware that there are changes being considered at present (possibly for early next year) where an Attachment of Earnings is to be considered before bailiff enforcement. This in itself could cause major problems to debtors and will make the absence of the previous '14 day' letter even more important.

[Indebt]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Trampled over with glee by who?

Certainly not the LGO.

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Are The National Standards guidance or legislation? Because guidance can be trampled over with glee.

[Indebt]

Re: Wording on a liability order

So, no actual Liability Order, no notice that there is one and the first you could know about it is a bailiff on the doorstep. Good grief. Was that the same legislation that allowed bailiffs to call on a Sunday? Is nothing sacred?

Please rest assured that we are still living in the UK and not North Korea.

A liability order simply empowers an authority to use other forms of enforcement to recover the debt, including that of using bailiffs. Guidelines state that wherever possible, bailiffs should be a last resort. The correct procedure would be for an authority to contact the debtor to seek information regarding the suitability for an attachment. The National Standards also state at paragraph 10:
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.

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

So, no actual Liability Order, no notice that there is one and the first you could know about it is a bailiff on the doorstep. Good grief. Was that the same legislation that allowed bailiffs to call on a Sunday? Is nothing sacred?

[Milo]

Re: Wording on a liability order

I've just had a thought. This cannot possibly be simply a 'paper saving' exercise, and anyone that thinks it could be is dubious.

The council will inevitably send a piece of paper to inform you that a liability order has been granted. Why not just print the very important order on the back of the notification?

I am sorry, but what I wrote in my above post is entirely correct. Whether I agree with the absence of a 'form' of Liability Order is another matter.

Also, prior to April 2014, there had been a legal requirement on the council to send a '14 day' letter to advise that a Liability Order had been granted and that unless payment was made that the account would be referred to a bailiff to enforce. The requirement for a '14 day' letter was revoked from legislation (section 45a of the council tax regs ) in April 2014.

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

I've just had a thought. This cannot possibly be simply a 'paper saving' exercise, and anyone that thinks it could be is dubious. The council will inevitably send a piece of paper to inform you that a liability order has been granted. Why not just print the very important order on the back of the notification?

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

I can't see that a printed version would be necessary unless there was either a challenge or for use by bailiffs (for example). Plenty of people are not comfortable being presented briefly with documentation on a screen at their door. It's intangible and can't be read without holding the device, which the person in posession will not allow. This is not superfluous paperwork, it's a legal document that impacts greatly on people, and I feel that they deserve a copy for themselves.

I have paper copies of liability orders issued in 2013, so evidently some form or other is still in use.

I would take issue with your understanding of the process, the Complaints List is for authority for the issuance of a summons, the Liability Orders are granted at a later 'hearing', made up of the (unpaid) leftovers from the complaint list.