liability order help

[Adamna]

Re: liability order help

Unfortunately, medication has become the norm given that so many people claim that they are from a vulnerable household (which the regulations do not recognise) and typically, they will use one of the many template letters from the Internet. Some sort of evidence should always be provided.

That's odd because 7 out of 8 of the categories on the National Standards for taking control of goods list of vulnerable persons would not indicate that medication is required. The list was made for good reason. Are you dismissive of it?

[Amethyst]

Re: liability order help

Presumably, if someone is on medication, particularly for a mental health issue which is not immediately 'visible' and might require evidencing, then it is more likely they would be able to back up their claim of vulnerability with something like a doctors letter.

To be fair the 'list' isn't all that helpful

Some groups who might be vulnerable are listed below. However, this list is not
exhaustive. Care should be taken to assess each situation on a case by case
basis.

the elderly;

people with a disability;

the seriously ill;

the recently bereaved;

single parent families;

pregnant women;

unemployed people; and,

those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading
English.

[Henti]

Re: liability order help

My understanding is that this list just gives an indication of where vulnerability may exist, it is not meant to be descriptive.

[Crazy council]

Re: liability order help

Just some info

That list is the guidance, but the operational contract between councils/public bodies, and the bailiffs/collection firms they employ, detail the interpretation of the vulnerability angle.

Information as to the details of this part of the contract, and objections to the mishandling would have to be raised with the head of legal first, ( possibly monitoring officer but not necessarily ), then 151 officer.

The head of legal is responsible for the interpretation of that list, into a legal and fair system,


So, to understand a council or public bodies interpretation of a vulnerable person, ask there legal officer, for a copy of the part of the contract between them and there collection agents that deal with it.

I think its called the service level agreement

[Indebt]

Re: liability order help

Just a little clarity here, there are no defining interpretations of vulnerability, in council contracts or anywhere else. It is impossible to define, each case is individually case specific and nobody in the right frame of mind would put their name to a defining list. Council contracts normally require enforcement agents to operate within the National Standards. There may be additional procedures to follow if vulnerability is discovered but that is all. It is impossible to pinpoint vulnerability. For example, how does one determine the time scale that a bereaved relative is grieving over the passing away of a loved one? Furthermore, contracts require agencies to have designated welfare departments, in order to assess and deal with vulnerable debtors.

The purpose of ascertaining vulnerability has three levels as far as enforcement is concerned:

Level 1
Is the vulnerability severe enough for the case to be returned or at least reported to the creditor? This is what contracts will require the bailiff to determine. This is very, very rare indeed. If someone is unable to understand or manage their own affairs due to a condition or a set of circumstances, the agency should report back to the creditor, who may well ask for the debt to be returned. (remember, the bailiff is usually the first person to have face to face contact with the debtor). Examples could be if someone is recently bereaved, if the person cannot speak or understand English or if a person appears to be mentally challenged. In most cases, the creditor will be informed and the decision will be made to suspend enforcement for a period, in order to enable a bereaved person time to get over it or to find a translator. In the cases of persons with mental health problems, it is possible for the debt to be returned to the creditor.

Level 2
This could be someone who is receiving medication for anxiety or other stress related issues etc. It could also be someone who is unemployed/on benefits. It would be right to advise the bailiffs of this issue and provide supporting evidence. There is no chance whatsoever of this being enough for a debt to be taken back but the company will then have the benefit of input from its welfare department. It could be that after discussions with the creditor, a longer repayment period than normally accepted would be considered. However, the debtor has a source of income, is able to understand that the money is owed and has no excuse not to pay it.

Level 3
A third level of vulnerability might include someone with a heart condition, the elderly or even a vulnerable household. If someone falls into one of these type of categories, it would be wise to advise the bailiff company. Again, it will not stop enforcement but it could determine how enforcement is carried out. The tone of the enforcement is likely to be taken right down and serious consideration would have to be given before forced entry was considered.


People think that vulnerability excuses them visits from bailiffs-It doesn't. That is not to say that it would not be wise to inform a bailiff of vulnerability because he should be informed. Better still, the company should be notified in writing, complete with evidence of the vulnerability. This will ensure that the case will have notes uploaded onto its file and that the welfare department are able to have an input.

[Debt Camel]

Re: liability order help

There seems to be more heat than light on this thread so far.

If someone is on medication, that is good evidence of mental health problems. It is not the only way of evidencing mental health problems but it is a good (simple, quick and cheap) one so asking about medication when someone says they have major anxiety problems is a useful thing to do.

But the main issue the poster has is that it sounds as though the size of the debt is incorrect. All the discussion about what it is reasonable to pay is irrelevant until that is resolved.

The fact she informed benefits when she moved out is reasonable evidence that she did move. She needs to put in a complaint to the council about the calculation of the arrears and ask for the debt collection to be put on hold until this is completed. In this complaint mentioning that she is a single parent with mental health issues is a good idea, but it is not the main basis of the complaint.

If she feels unable to do this on her own, her local Citizens Advice will help. Local councillors can also be useful in these circumstances.

Alternatively contact these people: http://www.counciltaxadvisors.co.uk/. They are an Advice UK member.

[Indebt]

Re: liability order help

There seems to be more heat than light on this thread so far.

If someone is on medication, that is good evidence of mental health problems. It is not the only way of evidencing mental health problems but it is a good (simple, quick and cheap) one so asking about medication when someone says they have major anxiety problems is a useful thing to do.

But the main issue the poster has is that it sounds as though the size of the debt is incorrect. All the discussion about what it is reasonable to pay is irrelevant until that is resolved.

The fact she informed benefits when she moved out is reasonable evidence that she did move. She needs to put in a complaint to the council about the calculation of the arrears and ask for the debt collection to be put on hold until this is completed. In this complaint mentioning that she is a single parent with mental health issues is a good idea, but it is not the main basis of the complaint.

If she feels unable to do this on her own, her local Citizens Advice will help. Local councillors can also be useful in these circumstances.

Alternatively contact these people: http://www.counciltaxadvisors.co.uk/. They are an Advice UK member.

The main issue as I see it is that enforcement has escalated and the OP is under threat of goods being removed, despite legislation not having been adhered to. By far the most important issue is to ensure that enforcement is placed on hold whilst this matter is investigated. Following that, and almost as equally important is to ensure an affordable repayment plan is negotiated, taking into account that the OP is on benefits. Everything else, including disputing the size of the debt may be resolved in the ensuing months, as genuine repayments are made.

Mental health issues alone will not see a debt returned. The debtor must be in a state where he/she cannot understand what is going on and/or cannot manage their own financial affairs. The very fact that the OP has posted on this forum suggests that she knows exactly what is going on.

[Debt Camel]

Re: liability order help

The fastest way to get enforcement halted is often to dispute the debt.

[Indebt]

Re: liability order help

The fastest way to get enforcement halted is often to dispute the debt.

Not when there have been breaches of legislation.

Besides, you have only suggested disputing part of the debt, which will have no bearing on whether enforcement is suspended or not

[Henti]

Re: liability order help

I think that vulnerability boils down to; Anything which renders the debtor unable to coherently engage with the bailiff or has a physical or psychological condition, the symptoms of which, would be exacerbated by it.

Withdrawal from the premises would depend on if there were others within the property who could assist. Others in the household would enable the bailiff to continue with the action, unless they were themselves vulnerable.

[Henti]

Re: liability order help

Not when there have been breaches of legislation.

Besides, you have only suggested disputing part of the debt, which will have no bearing on whether enforcement is suspended or not

Wouldn't this just be statutory breach by be of the enforcement agents. I don't think it would prevent a lawful enforcement.

[Indebt]

Re: liability order help

I'm not sure what you mean by "statutory breach"?

How can it be a lawful enforcement if the law has been broken?

As stated previously, the law states that a debtor MUST be given 7 clear days notice before an enforcement agent visits and charges £235 for doing so. The notice MUST be given to the place, or one of the places where a debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business.

Simply sending notice to a previous address is not compliant with legislation. The OP was not afforded her statutory right to deal with the matter before further charges were added to the account.

[Henti]

Re: liability order help

Statutory breaches are not sufficient to halt a legal process and can generally be remedied by subsequent compliance unless there are prescribed sanctions.

[Henti]

Re: liability order help

Sorry,. I just thought a complaint would, even if successful, be something of a "sticking plaster " solution. In that the debtor would find themselves in the same position after a week or so had passed.

[Milo]

Re: liability order help

I'm not sure what you mean by "statutory breach"?

How can it be a lawful enforcement if the law has been broken?

As stated previously, the law states that a debtor MUST be given 7 clear days notice before an enforcement agent visits and charges £235 for doing so. The notice MUST be given to the place, or one of the places where a debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business.

Simply sending notice to a previous address is not compliant with legislation. The OP was not afforded her statutory right to deal with the matter before further charges were added to the account.

As the OP has failed to return, I would not normally post any further but in this particular case, it would be unfair to viewers to leave such inaccurate information to remain uncorrected.

In the first instance, neither you or I can determine whether a 'law has been broken'. We may 'consider' it to be the case, but that is as far as it goes. It would be for a court to determine whether the law (or regulation) has been broken.

It is patently wrong to claim that sending a Notice of Enforcement to a previous address is not compliant with legislation.

The relevant road traffic regulations (TMA 2004) are quite clear in that following a contravention, the local authority must make an application to DVLA for keeper details. If the details recorded are incorrect (more commonly, because a keeper may have failed to update a change of address on the V5c), the local authority would nonetheless have abided by the regulations and any warrant issued further down and subsequent Notice of Enforcement from a bailiff company is perfectly legal and compliant with legislation.

With court fines, HMCTS obtain addresses from a variety of different sources. With TV licence fines (which account for over 10% of all fines), the address is provided by the debtor himself on the signed Prosecution Statement. With train fines, it is similar in that the debtor himself provides his address when cautioned. With offences such as speeding, driving without insurance or MOT, or keeping a vehicles on a highway without road fund licence, the position is the same as with local authority issued penalty charge notices in that a request will be made to DVLA for keeper info.

In cases where the address may be incorrect, the government have introduced regulations to remedy any such error. In the case of penalty charge notices, the ‘remedy’ is to apply to the court for an Out of Time witness statement under section 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This procedure is completely free.


In the case of criminal court fines, the remedial route is via a statutory declaration under the Magistrate’s Court Act 1980. Once again, this procedure is completely free.