Another bailiff discussion thread.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

There is no longer a duty to consider reasonableness of charges (not that most councils cared in any case).

agreed that they dont care, but there is a responsibility at the council. Its to do with the statutory regulations imposed on the 151 officers role and accounting standards. The 151 officer holds overall responcability, the monitoring officer delegates the responsibility down to the revenue and collection departments. Once its outside the finacial year its due for, its different

If a resident fails to respond to notices issued as per the Council Tax (A&E) regs, the account WILL be passed on to bailiffs. At this point, £75 will become due, regardless of whether the account is in the current tax year or the following one.

I agree with that, i ment the other charges for collection that they add on, even processing charges.

the council is highly unlikely to send £75 on to the bailiff company out of "proceeds".

You would be supprised trust me if you had a look behine reported accounts at councils and broke them down. Council financial systems seem to be run to report the best reportable figures, regardless of the true financial outcome of the transaction

My council NELC are a low mark in accounting truth. Few years ago i found in the accounts, payment to rossendale for accounts sent to them, then withdrawn by the council. I did not spot the payment, i spotted the vat recipts for the payment then traced that back. HAd to fight an FOI to get the figures. The council then changed policys, and the baillif contracts, baillifs agreed not to withdraw charges on withdrawn accounts.

But yes, my council were paying baillifs fees for accounts they sent to them by mistake. Were a bailiff had made a visit.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Could we please not have any more bickering in this thread...... PLEASE.
A forum is to discuss and then either agree or disagree.
One should always respect the other persons point of view, even if you don't agree with it.
Thank you

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

You spotted VAT receipts??

Yes, a council will forward payments onto an enforcement agency, IF it is over & above what is owed on the LO. They will not send payments if their own bill is not covered. You may be surprised to learn that councils shaft bailiff companies just as much as the stubborn debtor does.

Your mate Outlaw has recently fired some FOI's to various councils. One has responded, admitting that they will not be sharing any monies paid directly to themselves (as proceeds) because it would be to the detriment of their residents.

There is no longer any dispute over the reasonableness of charges-The figures are £75, £235, £110 for the 3 stages of enforcement. There are some other fees that may be added such as storage & locksmith costs which could be abused but these will be very rare occurances, especially for council tax.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

You spotted VAT receipts

The return accounts, the payment itself had been conglomerated as administration costs in the general accounting report, but the vat reports were not, The council payed rossendales vat for the ammount they had paid them.. I found that, then traced that backwards, After a bit of FOI dancing arround.

Your mate Outlaw has recently fired some FOI's to various councils. One has responded, admitting that they will not be sharing any monies paid directly to themselves (as proceeds) because it would be to the detriment of their residents.

They dont now but most did untill 2009/10,

There is no longer any dispute over the reasonableness of charges-The figures are £75, £235, £100 for the 3 stages of enforcement.

Within the financial year that the CT is due for, the council still hold the responsibility to ensure reasonable financial operation of the administration of the system, Whats disputable is, the reasonableness of the council allowing extra charges to someones council tax, if it ends up being paid within the financial year. For is a resident is able to pay it within the financial year, then it could be assumed that they would be able to pay it to the council if they waited or dealt with the resident differently

Like i say, mine and outlaws council, really abused this system.

here is a link to an FOI that i did, that in relation to some figures i was researching that i knew had been reported falsy

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ncoming-251679

It just show what lenghts they go to , to cover up that actual figures behind reported accounts

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Outlaws FOI was after April 6th. It was a direct question regarding "proceeds" (as per new legislation)

Bearing in mind that council tax is due "up front" at the start of each tax year, they have us by the short & curlies. They will no doubt claim they are doing everyone a big favour in letting us pay in monthly instalments. The A&E Regs pretty much cover the council. They outline the procedure to be followed, when notice should be sent and the time allowed a debtor once a notice has been sent. It is very straight forward for a council to follow procedure and end up at the LO stage very quickly.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

It is very straight forward for a council to follow procedure and end up at the LO stage very quickly.

Bingo

And when an account is on a LO, its removed out of the reporting system for BVPI ( SCR )indicators that are reported every 13 weeks, then congomerated the end of each FY. If a councils SCR rate falls below 94% for 2 periods, ( 26 weeks ) it starts in outside audit, and its serious and usuals has the consequence of sacking the 151 officer

Some councils rush to LO stage to inflate this figure. The real con is exposed by understanding how these accounts that are returned to the council outside the fincial year, get reported in the SRC, they dont, adjustments made outside the FY, dont get reflected in the SCR.

Outlaws FOI was after April 6th

he has done lots of previous research, we met up to talk through it a few weeks ago.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

OK-We seem to be going off oi all sorts of tangents here.

To simplify & getting back to the original question, yes, if recovery charges were added within a financial tax year, these would be quite permissible and would "legally stand up"

The point about that particular request of Outlaws is that it shows councils are still holding onto to all monies received directly, until their entire account is settled. Then and only then will they pass any surplus onto EA's. I wouldn't even call this money "proceeds" because it isn't as a result of enforcement action, as prescribed in legislation. If someone wishes to argue that "proceeds of an act of enforcement" somehow stretches to a transaction that is not made due to an act of enforcement, then it would be grossly hypocritical of them to attempt to suggest that legislation is easy to follow.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

The regulation explicitly says the the fees are due on the commencement of the enforcement stage, so I do not really see the room for argument, the fact that the debtor may pay the bill to the authority instead of the EA is irrelevant as far as as the regulation is concerned and therefore the law, whether the payment was the result an a act of enforcement or not is up to interpretation , I suppose that if the debtor pays because he knows the debt is being transferred or because he receives a letter saying a bailiff will call it could be said to be an act of enforcement anyway, but to be honest the argument is merely semantics because as said the instruction is explicit in the regulation. The regulations state the the fee is due at the commencement of the stage.

for the avoidance of doubt

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/4/made
Recovery of fees for enforcement-related services from the debtor

4. (1) — The enforcement agent may recover from the debtor the fees indicated in the Schedule in accordance with this regulation and regulations 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17, by reference to the stage, or stages, of enforcement for which enforcement-related services have been supplied.(2) The fees referred to in paragraph (1) may be recovered out of proceeds.(3) The enforcement agent may recover under this regulation the whole fee provided in the Schedule for a stage where the amount outstanding is paid after the commencement, but before the completion, of that stage.(4) For the purposes of this regulation, the relevant stage of enforcement is determined according to regulation 5 or 6 as appropriate.(5) Where the enforcement agent is acting under an enforcement power conferred by a High Court writ—

Regulations 4 to 7 concern the recovery of fees from debtors out of the proceeds (defined in regulation 2). Fees are recoverable by reference to stages of the enforcement procedure as defined in regulation 5 for cases where the enforcement power is derived other than from a High Court writ, and in regulation 6 for High Court writs. Fees are recoverable on a fixed basis for each stage, but in certain situations an additional fee is recoverable as a percentage of the value of the sum to be recovered (regulations 4 and 7). The levels of fixed fees, and the relevant percentages to be applied, are provided for in the Schedule

I am not arguing about this fact any more because it is self evident, and besides there are much more interesting things to discuss

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Hi andy and ST

I do get the point that your both making, and i dont say that them rules do not apply, am saying there are extra rules for councils to consider within the FY for CT. I will try dig out the paperwork this weekend. Its to do with teh statutory role of the 151 officer, and the general accounting principals that they argee to.

The 151 officers and Monitoring officers rules are quite big documents, i will have a dig through the ones i collected and post up at the weekend. Each council have these, all worded differently. But in each of them, the 151 officer assumes responcability for the proper operation of the collection systems.

To be clear, am not saying these charges are avoided just because you pay the council direct, withiun the FY. I am saything that all councils 151 officers hold responsibility for the proper administration of the collection systems, within the year the CT is due. And this point would be arguable in relation to both the old and new baillifs charges. IE was it reasonable administration of the account to allow extra charges.

Now if the occupyer has just ignored the paperwork... there is no argument.

But if there is any extras involved, like, occ moving during year, paperwork not sent by council, benefits claimed after LO, plus many many more variations, during the FY, then this would be arguable on these type accounts.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Yes there has to be provision within the system for the recall of accounts which should not have been sent off to court or refereed to the bailiff, and in these cases fees would of course not be applicable, as said before thees are fees and not statutory charges(fines), so they are capable of being withdrawn without judicial consent. I don't know if these systems and procedures are in place yet as it is still early days I would think.

I am fascinated to hear about how the procedure is conducted within the authority as I have no knowledge in this area and it is something I have always wondered about. I worked for the council for a couple of years as a development worker and got friendly with some of the staff in the urban regeneration and accounts department, the impression I got when trying to understand the system as a whole was that they were all very knowledgeable in there own particular narrow field but were not so in the wider workings of the system (or perhaps they just were not telling me).

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

The regulation explicitly says the the fees are due on the commencement of the enforcement stage, so I do not really see the room for argument, the fact that the debtor may pay the bill to the authority instead of the EA is irrelevant as far as as the regulation is concerned and therefore the law, whether the payment was the result an a act of enforcement or not is up to interpretation , I suppose that if the debtor pays because he knows the debt is being transferred or because he receives a letter saying a bailiff will call it could be said to be an act of enforcement anyway, but to be honest the argument is merely semantics because as said the instruction is explicit in the regulation. The regulations state the the fee is due at the commencement of the stage.

for the avoidance of doubt

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/4/made
Recovery of fees for enforcement-related services from the debtor

4. (1) — The enforcement agent may recover from the debtor the fees indicated in the Schedule in accordance with this regulation and regulations 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17, by reference to the stage, or stages, of enforcement for which enforcement-related services have been supplied.(2) The fees referred to in paragraph (1) may be recovered out of proceeds.(3) The enforcement agent may recover under this regulation the whole fee provided in the Schedule for a stage where the amount outstanding is paid after the commencement, but before the completion, of that stage.(4) For the purposes of this regulation, the relevant stage of enforcement is determined according to regulation 5 or 6 as appropriate.(5) Where the enforcement agent is acting under an enforcement power conferred by a High Court writ—

Regulations 4 to 7 concern the recovery of fees from debtors out of the proceeds (defined in regulation 2). Fees are recoverable by reference to stages of the enforcement procedure as defined in regulation 5 for cases where the enforcement power is derived other than from a High Court writ, and in regulation 6 for High Court writs. Fees are recoverable on a fixed basis for each stage, but in certain situations an additional fee is recoverable as a percentage of the value of the sum to be recovered (regulations 4 and 7). The levels of fixed fees, and the relevant percentages to be applied, are provided for in the Schedule

I am not arguing about this fact any more because it is self evident, and besides there are much more interesting things to discuss

There is no avoidance of doubt-The world & his wife know that fees are payable at the commencement of each stage. If you bothered to actually read my posts properly, you would see that I confirmed as much in post #90 of this very thread.

You yourself have commented on numerous occasions during the past few days how a bailiff may enforce just for is fees. That is great but in order for this scenario to arise, the creditor must have been paid directly by the debtor. Inadvertently, you have confirmed acceptance that creditors will not deem money paid directly to themselves as "proceeds of an act of enforcement".

We have letters from HMCTS, FOI responses from LA's & numerous posts on the internet from debtors who have tried it. To date, I know of no case where a bailiff has successfully enforced just for his fees. The actual definition for proceeds as far as enforcement is concerned is as follows:
"money taken in exercise of the power"

However you dress it up and however you word it, money given directly to the creditor is certainly not taken in exercise of the power.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

CC-If each councils rules are worded differently, they will be internal rules rather than statutory legislation. I would risk stating that in this particular scenario (council tax recovery) you should look no further than the Administration & Enforcement regs (also bearing in mind the effect that the Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision Order 2014 has had on these regs).

Regardless of an officers responsibilities, legislation cannot be clearer. Provided a resident has received a demand notice (that is the bill to me & you), and has received a reminder notice (which requires payment in full within 7 days), the council may then go ahead & apply for a LO. For this to happen the debtor will of course have had to ignored/not responded to the reminder notice. It should be noted that the reminder notice also acts as a notice of impending enforcement action.

The above process overrides any internal rules or duties placed upon an individual officer. If a resident doesn't pay his/her tax and ignores the notices, a LO will be obtained. Once a LO is issued, a council then has further powers. Should the debtor still refuse to communicate, the case will be sent for enforcement. It would only be in very exceptional cases (if at all) that this sequence of events did not unfold.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

There is no avoidance of doubt-The world & his wife know that fees are payable at the commencement of each stage. If you bothered to actually read my posts properly, you would see that I confirmed as much in post #90 of this very thread.

You yourself have commented on numerous occasions during the past few days how a bailiff may enforce just for is fees. That is great but in order for this scenario to arise, the creditor must have been paid directly by the debtor. Inadvertently, you have confirmed acceptance that creditors will not deem money paid directly to themselves as "proceeds of an act of enforcement".

We have letters from HMCTS, FOI responses from LA's & numerous posts on the internet from debtors who have tried it. To date, I know of no case where a bailiff has successfully enforced just for his fees. The actual definition for proceeds as far as enforcement is concerned is as follows:
"money taken in exercise of the power"

However you dress it up and however you word it, money given directly to the creditor is certainly not taken in exercise of the power.

It is not a matter of dressing anything up it is really very simple, you are attempting to complicate it in order to create some kind of loophole which does not exist.
Simply, the bailiff is the agent of the creditor, any sum paid after the enforcement stage has begun becomes proceeds of the enforcement, this much is clear from the quote, it is irrelevant to whom they are paid, the proceeds contain the fee, and will be apportioned by either party to the other as stated elsewhere,

With respect there is only you that seems not to understand this, and you aren't open to seeing the logic here so I will ot waste my time further, if anyone else is confused over this I will of course try and clarify further , although to be honest it really is not that complicated.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Oh and incidentally I know of many cases where bailiffs have enforced for just therre fees , or more correctly for a balance of the sums due.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Oh and incidentally I know of many cases where bailiffs have enforced for just therre fees , or more correctly for a balance of the sums due.

Post or pre April?

Levied goods changed the ball game but without a levy a different situation entirely existed. Indeed, for the recovery of council tax, the courts actually found that bailiffs COULD NOT enforce just for their visit fees.