Discussion thread no. 78

[Milo]

Indebt:

You really do need to calm down and stop fretting so much about an enforcement fee of £235.

This young lady has unpaid council tax debts of almost £1,800. The council do not seem to believe her explanation that she is not responsible for the larger debt and unless she can provide some evidence, the position will remain unchanged.

There is no possibility of her being able to pay this sum at all (and even less so because she is now pregnant). I have no doubt at all that the account will be returned to the council. The bailiff fees will then be removed.

Even if this accout were to be referred to Rundles' Welfare Dept (which can be arranged in minutes), it is not likely that the account will even remain with them as the debt is too large. There is also the matter of her recent pregnancy.

Best to wait until tomorrow for the CAB to meet with her.

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

The way I thought this worked and please correct me if I am wrong,is that a committal hearing in the first instance had to do a test of means to ascertain if the debtor has enough to repay. As well as to commit the court has the power to write off the debt entirely of course.

It seems to be sense to me that the court assertions that the debtor has means before condoning any kind of further enforcement ,including AOEs.

[Milo]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

The way I thought this worked and please correct me if I am wrong,is that a committal hearing in the first instance had to do a test of means to ascertain if the debtor has enough to repay. As well as to commit the court has the power to write off the debt entirely of course.

It seems to be sense to me that the court assertions that the debtor has means before condoning any kind of further enforcement ,including AOEs.

In the first instances, this young lady will NOT ever be a candidate for commital.

I have often spoken of how rare it is for a person to be sent to prison but unfortunately, I was proved dreadfully wrong two weeks ago after attending a conference where approx 80 local authorities were represented. Most surprisingly, many of them reported that they have frequent commital hearings with reports of quite a large number of debtors actually being sent to prison. I was certainly suprised at the numbers reported.

Before getting to such a stage of recovery, the local authority MUST demonstrate that they had tried all other forms of enforcement first. (Bailiffs, attatchment against earnings/benefits etc).

Also, if a person is seen to be making a payment proposal (obviously not a £1 per week), then once again, commital cannot be a consideration.

[lgfa92]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

LGFA

The authority would not be allowed to go for a committal hearing until an attachment had been considered. Case law has determined this.

Which case in particular are you referring to ?

Craig

[lgfa92]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

I'd tend to agree on the committal aspect - I'd be very surprised if the local authority would even push to committal although clearly it is an option the local authority could have.

If it did get to the court again then a reasonable payment proposal in a committal case would stop the magistrate committing - if nothing else for the fact the magistrates head would be on the block for doing so. There's no specific requirement in legislation for a local authority to try anything other than enforcement agents before applying for committal but the magistrate at a committal must consider suitability of attachments etc before a committal order could be made.

[Indebt]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

Which case in particular are you referring to ?

Craig

R v Newcastle upon Lyme Magistrates. You may also wish to consider the following guidance from Council Tax practice Note 9 @ 15.1:

"......An authority which has not attempted any remedy other than distress should satisfy itself, by looking again at any information they hold on the debtor, that none of the other available remedies would prove more effective. Recent High Court Judgments (thanks exclusively to Richard & Ian Wise) have suggested that magistrates should only issue a committal warrant if they are satisfied that all appropriate avenues of enforcement have been considered."

It would simply be a waste of the courts time to bring an application for committal, only for the court to make exactly the same order (attachment) to be made that could have been made without the need to trouble the court.

[Indebt]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

Indebt:

You really do need to calm down and stop fretting so much about an enforcement fee of £235.

This young lady has unpaid council tax debts of almost £1,800. The council do not seem to believe her explanation that she is not responsible for the larger debt and unless she can provide some evidence, the position will remain unchanged.

There is no possibility of her being able to pay this sum at all (and even less so because she is now pregnant). I have no doubt at all that the account will be returned to the council. The bailiff fees will then be removed.

Even if this accout were to be referred to Rundles' Welfare Dept (which can be arranged in minutes), it is not likely that the account will even remain with them as the debt is too large. There is also the matter of her recent pregnancy.

Best to wait until tomorrow for the CAB to meet with her.

Given your recent track record of giving incorrect advice resulting in debtors paying £235 that need not have been paid, you will forgive me for not calming down.

In this case, you've given conflicting advice every time you've posted.

If you want to try your hotline to your friends at Rundles, why didn't you say so at the outset? Instead of wasting everyone's time with suggestions of futile letters to Rundles.

Telling a young woman who is clearly scared stiff that she doesn't have to open her door to bailiffs is quite frankly appalling advice. Anyone with any experience of these situations would know that in 99 cases out of 100, single women do not want the confrontation that a man may be more comfortable in dealing with.

Enforcement should have been placed on hold a week ago, as I suggested at the time.

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

In the first instances, this young lady will NOT ever be a candidate for commital.

I have often spoken of how rare it is for a person to be sent to prison but unfortunately, I was proved dreadfully wrong two weeks ago after attending a conference where approx 80 local authorities were represented. Most surprisingly, many of them reported that they have frequent commital hearings with reports of quite a large number of debtors actually being sent to prison. I was certainly suprised at the numbers reported.

Before getting to such a stage of recovery, the local authority MUST demonstrate that they had tried all other forms of enforcement first. (Bailiffs, attatchment against earnings/benefits etc).

Also, if a person is seen to be making a payment proposal (obviously not a £1 per week), then once again, commital cannot be a consideration.

From reading the LGFA it seems that the committal is the next step after bailiff action , which would seem to indicate AOEs should be the first. If this has been considered and passed over before the bailiffs were involved then it would have to be committal afterwards. This is certainly what the LGFA and also the magistrates court suggest.

I also wonder what percentage off hearings result in actual committal hearings end up incarcerated, I will be willing to bet it was quite low.

[Indebt]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

From reading the LGFA it seems that the committal is the next step after bailiff action , which would seem to indicate AOEs should be the first. If this has been considered and passed over before the bailiffs were involved then it would have to be committal afterwards. This is certainly what the LGFA and also the magistrates court suggest.

I also wonder what percentage off hearings result in actual committal hearings end up incarcerated, I will be willing to bet it was quite low.

As the OP has moved address and consequently has not received any paperwork from the authority, it is highly unlikely that an attachment will have been considered. She has only been traced by and since Rundles have become involved.

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

Given your recent track record of giving incorrect advice resulting in debtors paying £235 that need not have been paid, you will forgive me for not calming down.

In this case, you've given conflicting advice every time you've posted.

If you want to try your hotline to your friends at Rundles, why didn't you say so at the outset? Instead of wasting everyone's time with suggestions of futile letters to Rundles.

Telling a young woman who is clearly scared stiff that she doesn't have to open her door to bailiffs is quite frankly appalling advice. Anyone with any experience of these situations would know that in 99 cases out of 100, single women do not want the confrontation that a man may be more comfortable in dealing with.

Enforcement should have been placed on hold a week ago, as I suggested at the time.

Why do you feel it necessary to resort to personal abuse repeatedly ?

We are not aware of any of your previous issues and would appreciate it if you could stay in topic.

[Indebt]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

Why are you exaggerating?

There has been no personal abuse and if you care to look back, you will see that it is Milo who continually stalks me.

Furthermore, I'm not sure when you took it upon yourself to be self appointed spokesman for LB but if you actually bothered to read the post, you would see that it is very much on topic.

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

As the OP has moved address and consequently has not received any paperwork from the authority, it is highly unlikely that an attachment will have been considered. She has only been traced by and since Rundles have become involved.

I believe it is also required that the debtor returns a personal statement of means to the authority before a warrant is issued. Could it be that not complying with this is why many miss the AOE option ?

[Indebt]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

I believe it is also required that the debtor returns a personal statement of means to the authority before a warrant is issued. Could it be that not complying with this is why many miss the AOE option ?

You believe wrong

Any requirement to return a personal statement is only enforceable AFTER the LO has been issued.

Furthermore, as previously stated, the OP moved address. To spell it out, this means that she did not receive any paperwork prior to Rundles involvement.

[Henti]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

Why are you exaggerating?

There has been no personal abuse and if you care to look back, you will see that it is Milo who continually stalks me.

Furthermore, I'm not sure when you took it upon yourself to be self appointed spokesman for LB but if you actually bothered to read the post, you would see that it is very much on topic.

There seems to be some in your last post, it was only a request, I am sure the site management team are aware if any problem exists..

[Indebt]

Re: Previously posted, removal notice

There seems to be some in your last post, it was only a request, I am sure the site management team are aware if any problem exists..

So it wasn't "repeatedly" and you just added that in for effect.

Yes, I am sure the site management team are aware and hopefully they will have seen that it is Milo who cannot resist posting to me.