Another bailiff discussion thread.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Oh right-So you now accept that the final stage of the complaints procedure is investigated by the CEO but "theres no point complaining to the CEO"

Priceless. (cough spit my tea out)

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

You don't seem able to grasp that a formal complaint could potentially lead to court proceedings. In that case, the CEO would be the person who would be answerable.

151 officer would be answerable and is responsible for all financials within a council.....
Monitoring officer, along with delegated officers, are responsible for the legal operation of the council. And deal with all legal issuse, like court
Council CEOs responsibility makers them more answerable to the government than through the courts systems.

You wouldn't put the recovery manager or head of revenues in court.

It would be a solisitor reprsenting them 2

I'm not suggesting that the CEO would investigate a complaint.

Funny, becuase thats the final stage of most council internal complaints system, although like i said above, the monitoring officer does it, and CEO signs it off

Phone the LGO tomorrow & ask them about the correct complaints procedure to follow

They ( LGO ) dont exactly like me, or the old LGOs ( Seex and buddies ). After dealing with there backwards bonkers investigations i joined a group of researchers called LGO watch, rowdyish but cleaver bunch. We all researched the performance of the LGO, contributed properly to the DCLG consultation, with our research and formally poked and prodded them from all directions, . ...... Result, Seex and buddies gone...

. This is usually a two or three stage affair, ending with the CEO. I prefer to start with the CEO.

Cough, spit my tea out. but you just said this

I'm not suggesting that the CEO would investigate a complaint.

:target:

I prefer to start with the CEO.

?

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

You don't seem able to grasp that a formal complaint could potentially lead to court proceedings. In that case, the CEO would be the person who would be answerable.

You wouldn't put the recovery manager or head of revenues in court. I'm not suggesting that the CEO would investigate a complaint.

Phone the LGO tomorrow & ask them about the correct complaints procedure to follow. This is usually a two or three stage affair, ending with the CEO. I prefer to start with the CEO.

Your argument of "wasting time" by going straight to the CEO is also wrong. Often (especially on these boards) bailiff action is involved. This is normally suspended whilst a complaint is looked into. There is no rush to obtain a final outcome once action is suspended. I always encourage people to get the complaint in at the earliest opportunity. The debtor can always fine tune details as the complaint progresses through the procedure.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Complaints should ALWAYS be addressed to the CEO of a LA.

eep:

errrmm no

As well as corporate positions, there are also regulated positions within the LA, 151 officer ( head of finance), Monitoring offficer ( legal ). Monitoring officer can designate legal responsibility to the R&B Manager, and the court enforcement officer, A CEO of a council is responcable for the operational budget paperwork, and not a lot else. They even have corprate managers now, that take that off the CEO.
All councils now have structured complaints systems, The monitoring officer is responsible for the legal operation of this system, but corporate responsibility is passed to the manager under delegated powers.

IE, you dont decide who get the complaint, its put in the system, if its about ct or nndr or benefits, it will be the Revenue and collections manager thats delegated to act. Addressing it ot the CEO is a waste of time, they dont read it. Even at the final stage of complaint, it gets done by the monitoring officer, and signed off by the CEO

Am not purposfully trying to pull you up with this, i read some of your other opinions with interest, i just dont think your accounting for 2 things. 1. Councils have final legal responsibility for justification of application of baliif charges within the finacial year. 2. Council are corporate systems, with set policies and procedures for complaint handeling

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Complaints should ALWAYS be addressed to the CEO of a LA. He/she will invariably pass it down to a recovery officer/head of revenues but in the first instance, the complaint (& any future correspondence) should be addressed to the CEO. Should the complainant wish to instigate litigation further down the line, it is the CEO who should be served with papers, not the Head of Revenues nor the tea boy, nor the janitor. Contrary to your opinion, there is EVERY point in complaining to the CEO.

Guidelines from both the MOJ & the DCLG advise that debtors should not be forced into punitive repayment arrangements. Councils require their agents to give debtors every opportunity to pay. If any EA is exposed for trying to bully debtors into punitive repayment plans, the council would potentially face extremely negative publicity. The LGO would not look favourably on the situation either.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

For Milo and ST, in relation to a post on this thread

ST

You have not entered into an agreement with B&S

Unfortunately, the fact that you have made payments, indicates a willingness and acceptance on your part.

You can argue the following:

1. You did not agree in writing to any repayment plan
2. If for point of argument, you did enter into an agreement, £180 is way too excessive. In addition, B&S will not have attended with a van so the visit was not with "an intention" to remove goods. They will argue that they did intend to remove goods (despite turning up in a vehicle not fit for the purpose of removing a car)

A formal complaint to the council is needed here. Your car must be hidden in the meantime as it is a target for B&S. Ask the council to suspend recovery action whilst your complaint is investigated. Send your complaint to the CEO & copy it to B&S.

Re - payment arraingments

From the 1st Apr each year, you owe the full amount immediately, payment arrangements are by agreement of the debt holder ( councils ). When a council gets a LO, that just makes that ammount further enforcable, although the charges for getting the LO, far outsrtrip the costs, they are fixed. The council then give you a set time ( usualy 14 days ) to enter an agreement with them ( lots of councils bypass this stage ), then, they can further enforce. And hence, the further chargeable costs start.

As soon as the council pass the account to the baillifs office, it starts costing the baillifs office to administer the account, therefore justifying the chargeing the fees, regardless of if the baillif levies, and if the systems from the council end was run properly, it would work well.

My point being above. There is no right to a payment arrangement, its the debts holders discretion to let you, therefore, no written agreements are required ( remember, the bailiffs dont own CT debt, they act as agents for the council ).

Secondly, there is no point complaining to the CEO of the council, it would be the head of revenues and benefits, sending it to the ceo would just slow it down, councils have complaint procudures, and its usualy the final stage before a legal officer looks at it, up to then, you wil be dealing with the dept the complaint is about.

You do hold a very valid point in relation to the fee and its exsessive, i will come back to my interest in that

Milo, --

You mention

There is something very serious here that I had missed earlier. If B & S had 'levied' upon Kats car then WHY are they not returning to remove the vehicle !! They should not be trying to just enforce the 'aborted removal' fee. Nice idea if they can get away with it.

My interest in the above is how bailiffs handle charges in the year that thre CT is due. Because of some of the case law around CT and especially my reading of what judges seem to be saying about how CT and NNDR should be handled as financial instruments within the year they are due.

IE, Fully chargeable and due as one asset from the 1st Apr.
Reclaim for adjustments is to the nearest week. ( example, business closes 6 months into year. ). But up to the point of the council closing your account, you owe for the full year ( as a chargeable asset ), but not fixed untill the last month of the year. Then, the debt is fixed fully by the rrebate ( 6 months ). Then its fixed then.

Point being, the new baillif regs give them large charges upfront. But, being agents of the council when collecting CT debt, the councils are the end of the line responcable in the reasonableness of any charges charged. Especialy in the same financial year As some councils take LO action within 12 weeks of Apr, and Accs get passed to the baillifs. I wander how a judge would consider the enforceability of a bailiffs change if the debt owed to the council has been paid by the end of the financial year. If you get my point. Like some of the other posters have been doing by paying the council direct.

So the difference between a baillif collecting a normal debt, as appose to a CT or NNDR debit, especialy within the same FY, Is
For an normal debit, no one has to justify the appropreateness of the charges reletive to the debt.
But for CT, The baillifs are only agents under agreement from the council collections dept. and there is a respocability for justification of the charges and appropreatness of actions ( like going after oaps ), within the council. For my council, its the revenue manager then monitopring officer that hold this responcability

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

However it is still worth contacting the creditor and seeing if the debt can be taken back from the bailiff, particularly if there has been some irregularity which prejudices the debtor unfairly, there is discretion and fees can be waived, this is not the same as saying the the fees are not legal and are not enforceable.

100% agree this with councils... Its the easiest way to do it. and the councils retain some legal responsibility in relation to the actions of there agents ( the bailiffs ). I would be interested how it would go down if someone complained to the council that the fees are exsessive reletive to the debt, and pushed it through the systems.

My second interest in this would be how a judge might look at it, especialy in relation to the rulings in relation to the full CT or NNDR being due in full from the 1st Apr each year, especialy if there has been any reduction in total amount due.

After xmas i may do a FOI request of all councils again to see what the lowest amount that they have applied for a LO for then passed it onto the bailiffs, Council used to have a minimum, of 1 months payment, one full month in arrears, before they could take action. Some council have changed that now ( NELC lowered it to £ 10 ). Although as OUTLAW ( poster on here ) showed, our council ( NELC ) has applied for liability orders for 1p, regularly.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I think there may be misunderstanding here.
The situation is that the fees charged by bailiffs are legally enforceable, even more so since April when they were enshrined in the regulations. However these are not compulsory, the fees are due when the various enforcement stages are commenced this is when the EA can charge them.

However it is still worth contacting the creditor and seeing if the debt can be taken back from the bailiff, particularly if there has been some irregularity which prejudices the debtor unfairly, there is discretion and fees can be waived, this is not the same as saying the the fees are not legal and are not enforceable.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

My twopenneth I believe it is entitled to charge rather than must charge. On wrong puter to do the legwork so if someone can find that reference, or anti reference for that matter, that would be grand.

Yes of course it is a fee. They have the option of whether to charge or not, but if they do they have the full support of the legislation and the sanctions contained within to enforce the charge.

But there is nothing stopping them form waiving the fee if they so wish, although being a commercial enterprise it seems unlikely.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Speaking to the council about the debt, excellent advice.

Not sure on third link as can't view letter.

That link was in answer to my own question.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

And:

http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/vi...p=23252#p23252

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Ah http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...520#post451520

Not quite sure what that link is meant to provide.

Links:

http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/vi...p=23318#p23318

http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/vi...2%A3235#p23204

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Ah http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...520#post451520

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

My twopenneth I believe it is entitled to charge rather than must charge. On wrong puter to do the legwork so if someone can find that reference, or anti reference for that matter, that would be grand.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

It's interesting to see that there are now cases where, after complaining, these fees are being waivered. Why are the bailiff's now starting to not pursue their 'legally enforceable' fees?

Could you detail/evidence these so it helps to see the circumstances under which fees are being waivered pls, links are fine.