Another bailiff discussion thread.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

i will dig through my councils docs to find it. Am clearly mistaken on the 14 dyas only to appeal, but am confident that its written within the council docs to limit them taking action within the first 14 days for gaining a LO.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/info/200167..._being_granted

Can't find the bit in the legislation, thought it was in the Magistrates Courts Act ?

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

1. Whilst it is always recommended to attend court for the LO hearing, if you dispute anything, appeals can be made after a LO is issued. In these cases, a debtor is allowed 21 days, not 14 days to appeal.

I will check this again, but in law, you only had 14 days to appeal a LO, you have to get permission for a judge to even look at the debts behind the order. ( this cam up in my bankruptcy at the lower court in 2009 )

2. You originally stated that a debtor had 14 days to pay (which was correct, although now repealed) you are now stating that you didn't mean 14 days to pay but 14 days to appeal-Which one did you actually mean?

I did meen both, they have 14 days to appeal, and councils did not act in this 14 days to give the payer time to pay or make an arraingment. This is an internal council accounting rule. ( Cipfa regs )

3. By the time a LO is issued, the split is roughly 50/50. The 50% who don't pay or make contact, are clearly bringing this problem upon themselves. the other 50% realise it is the end of the line and make contact.

At some councils, correct maybe, but others use this sysytem in there favour. At NELC, betweeen 2005-2011. Only accounts that paid by DD were treat properly, all other types of payments were not accounted for fast enough before they apply for LOs.

4. Whilst the councils clearly hold responsibility for the actions of their agents, Rossendales are in control of the situation. If 1 debtor follows correct procedure and complains but 9 aren't aware of their rights then by playing a numbers game, Rossendales are conning debtors out of £1000's.

100% agree look at the figures on here, the difference between LOs and cases sent to the baillifs, then follow that over a few years.

My council suggesting they set up over 4000 payment arraingments within 14 days, JUST NOT POSSIBLE. They quote 20min to deal with each account change.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Is it not 21 days, as you have 21 days after the LO hearing to appeal ?


edit: oops crossed posts, teach me to refresh after reading before posting. xx

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

CC Please allow me to clarify a few inaccuracies in your post:

1. Whilst it is always recommended to attend court for the LO hearing, if you dispute anything, appeals can be made after a LO is issued. In these cases, a debtor is allowed 21 days, not 14 days to appeal.

2. You originally stated that a debtor had 14 days to pay (which was correct, although now repealed) you are now stating that you didn't mean 14 days to pay but 14 days to appeal-Which one did you actually mean?

3. By the time a LO is issued, the split is roughly 50/50. The 50% who don't pay or make contact, are clearly bringing this problem upon themselves. the other 50% realise it is the end of the line and make contact.

4. Whilst the councils clearly hold responsibility for the actions of their agents, Rossendales are in control of the situation. If 1 debtor follows correct procedure and complains but 9 aren't aware of their rights then by playing a numbers game, Rossendales are conning debtors out of £1000's.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

a few things to clear up

Council have accounting and administration rules as well, And the 14 days i was refiaring to are after the LO, not the warning periods before. I doubt it been removed, as you get 14 days to appeal a LO, i will check as i get time. But i am learning by reading these post.

Whilst they will never admit it, councils do not want AOE's as it involves paperwork and man hours-Simply passing the debt over to enforcement is a far cheaper and preferable option.

100% there ST, apart from it may not be cheeper, but it reports better in the accounting systems, so it looks better.

As I said, by the time we have passed the obtaining of the LO stage, we are left with mainly "die hard" debtors-People who keep putting the matter off, people who are afraid to make contact and of course people who are refusing to pa

Not correct, although every council wil try answer it like that. They use this system to hide mistakes. If a CT or NNDR acc, is on a LO, within the year its duer, Its reported in the accounts as successful, regardless of the outcome of the accounts.

My biggest criticism post April 6th is that the bailiff company is now in control of decision making. It is financially beneficial for them to refuse offers and implement the £235 enforcement stage. Rossendales are systematically doing this. It is only when debtors visit the boards, can we point them in the right direction and complain to the council.

As i say, within the FY, both the monitoring officer and 151 officer hold some responcability for the administration, but rossenrobber act like professional thieves, lie, cheat, intimidate

Andy

It seems to me that since the bailiff should be the last resort in this situation and section 36 says "shall" give the information, the logical inference would be that the LO would be fist assessed for suitability regarding a A of E(or other repayment method) before it is refereed to the bailiff, and that 14 days should be allotted to exhaust that possibility before it is transferred.

\we know of course that councils do not give sufficient attention to the possibility of other means of payment before transferring the debt, but it has been a long standing belief of mine that they should, just wondering if there is some tacitly within the legislation that can make them at least look at other options before calling the bailiff in.

Bingo, this is what the 151 officer and monitoring officer are responcable for, ensuring systems are in place for the proper and cost efective systems of collecting CT. Its in each councils internal docs for them. And they are statute bound to follow them. BUT THEY DONT. becuase there is another set of accounting rules that they have to follow and are audited on every 13 weeks. Called the sucsessfull collection rates. Haveing accounts on LOs, accounts as a sucsess

Just at NELC Outlaw found over 1200 LOs for under £ 100 ( some for 1p ) at out council over the period 2005-2011 ( i calculate 22,000 accounts falsified )

ST

Regulation 36 is interesting. there is no stipulation as to when this information should/can be requested.

Agree, this should be a regultory stage, not optional, my council NELC, dont do this

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

There is no doubt that the debtor SHALL provide the information requested. To fail to do so is a criminal offence, that could lead to a fine. Not providing the information is more serious than not paying the original tax. The issue is that the authority MAY request this information, they are not obliged to.

Whilst they will never admit it, councils do not want AOE's as it involves paperwork and man hours-Simply passing the debt over to enforcement is a far cheaper and preferable option.

As I said, by the time we have passed the obtaining of the LO stage, we are left with mainly "die hard" debtors-People who keep putting the matter off, people who are afraid to make contact and of course people who are refusing to pay. Pre April 6th, around 50% of debtors contacted the council upon receipt of the 14 day letter, the remaining 50% ignored the letter. If a debtor refuses to provide the requested information, a council cannot possibly apply for an AOE. Out of the 50% who did respond to the 14 day letter, many were then subject to an AOE.

My biggest criticism post April 6th is that the bailiff company is now in control of decision making. It is financially beneficial for them to refuse offers and implement the £235 enforcement stage. Rossendales are systematically doing this. It is only when debtors visit the boards, can we point them in the right direction and complain to the council. This, I would imagine would only represent a very small minority of debtors who are faced with that situation.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

It seems to me that since the bailiff should be the last resort in this situation and section 36 says "shall" give the information, the logical inference would be that the LO would be fist assessed for suitability regarding a A of E(or other repayment method) before it is refereed to the bailiff, and that 14 days should be allotted to exhaust that possibility before it is transferred.

\we know of course that councils do not give sufficient attention to the possibility of other means of payment before transferring the debt, but it has been a long standing belief of mine that they should, just wondering if there is some tacitly within the legislation that can make them at least look at other options before calling the bailiff in.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Pre April 6th, the now repealed 14 day letter was sent to debtors (after the LO was obtained). Quite often, this letter was sent by bailiff companies under contracting out regulations. Within this letter, it was possible for authorities to include the request for information as per Reg 36.

Post April 6th, obviously the 14 day letter is no longer required. The 7 day NOE (compliance stage) serves the same purpose ie a notice that a bailiff visit is pending. As stated, although only 7 (clear) days are required, most councils are insisting that their agents allow at least 14 days in between the notice and enforcement stage.

Regulation 36 is interesting. there is no stipulation as to when this information should/can be requested. IMO it should be requested at the point when the LO is obtained. This is because it is clearly designed to assist in obtaining an AOE. In CTA&E regs, a council "may" apply for an AOE or it "may" engage bailiffs. There is no requirement to do either or a sequence that should be followed. If an opportunity arises to obtain an AOE, then this should be pursued as it is preferable to needlessly allowing debtors to incur added costs of bailiff fees.

As most LO's are ordered in the absence of the debtor, the council will obviously write to notify/confirm that the LO has been obtained. This would be the obvious point to include the request for information as per reg36. I repeat though the council MAY request this information, they are under no duty to do so.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

You presume wrong.

A 14 day period (or even the 7 day NOE period) is a final opportunity for the debtor to pay, or at least arrange to pay, before a bailiff visits. The way to do this is for an AOE or payment plan to be set up (or the debt paid in full).

This is actually the period when most AOE's are set up as around half of CT debtors make contact for the first time at this point.

The seven day first letter is part of the compliance stage surely, it is the procedure before the liability order is sent to the bailiff which I am unsure of. If the debtor is given 14 days to provide details, does this meant that there is a 14 day delay before the liability order is sent( on none receipt of information from the debtor)

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Interested to see it, i presume that this 14 day period would still be applicable to rule out the possibility of an A of E or installment payment before passing to the bailiff ?

You presume wrong.

A 14 day period (or even the 7 day NOE period) is a final opportunity for the debtor to pay, or at least arrange to pay, before a bailiff visits. The way to do this is for an AOE or payment plan to be set up (or the debt paid in full).

This is actually the period when most AOE's are set up as around half of CT debtors make contact for the first time at this point.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

You mention that "you think" there was a statutory requirement to give a debtor 14 days to pay without further fees being incurred. There was indeed this requirement but as I have shown you, the requirement has been repealed.

You also stated that a £235 (you said £250) enforcement fee was payable at the point that bailiffs became involved-This was also completely incorrect.

For further clarification, the 14 day letter was quite often sent out by the bailiffs and not the council, this was done so under the contracting out regulations.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Not quite, but i will dig it out tomorrow,

Interested to see it, i presume that this 14 day period would still be applicable to rule out the possibility of an A of E or installment payment before passing to the bailiff ?

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Not quite, but i will dig it out tomorrow,

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

No it isn't.

He was clearly referring to the now repealed regulation 45A, commonly known as the "fourteen day letter".

It has been replaced by the 7 day notice of enforcement but of course debtors now pay £75 for the privilege of receiving this notice.

Councils are in general insisting that their recovery agents are actually giving debtors a minimum of 14 days in between notice issued and enforcement stage. This appears to be adhered to quite well by most agencies, maintaining the 14 day window of opportunity to pay/arrange repayment plans; Rossendales being the biggest and most notable exception.