Closed Discussion

[Indebt]

Nobody is asking for the debt to be returned, nor are they asking that payments are suspended. You have made nothing clear. As usual, you have complicated matters with irrelevant nonsense. The request is that a sensible, sustainable repayment plan is accepted. Nobody is claiming that a request was made at compliance stage but to suggest that a bailiff needs to visit regardless, to check that a debtor has no money, quite frankly stretches the realms of the ridiculous to beyond breaking point. What bailiff company would accept a repayment plan over the phone, if they can engineer a £235 visit to "check" that the debtor has no money? The complaint concerns the following three issues:

1. A failure by Dukes to consider, or at least relay the offer back to the creditor and a failure to further investigate claims of vulnerability.
2. A failure by the council to intervene when contacted by the debtor
3. False and deceitful claims made by Dukes, including but not exclusively stating that a "removal" fee would be added when there is no such fee. Also threatening to take goods of a child. Furthermore, until it has been established that goods are available it is wrong to state what will be done and charged for.

These are quite serious matters and need to be raised immediately, not 3 weeks next Thursday. The CAB are generally hopeless but I agree that there is no harm in consulting them if the OP doesn't have to lose any time off work.

Finally, nobody is questioning the £235 fee that Milo is so keen to ensure remains on the account. If and when an affordable repayment plan is agreed, there is a possibility of exploring whether the fee can be removed due to vulnerability.

PS Wayne-Regarding the email to the council, I would send it to the email that you found earlier in the thread plus the CEO, just in case the CEO address is incorrect.

[Henti]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

The requirement for a bailiff to attend to confirm means was confirmed in several Resent LGO decisions It is hardly likely that the EA will just accept a claim that the debtor is unable to pay without asserting some proof, now that would be silly.

There is really no need to get personal, is your position so untenable you always have to resort to abuse ?

[Indebt]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

There is no abuse. We both know that you only post on threads to antagonize. You bring nothing to the table in the form of solution.

The whole idea of compliance is to encourage settlement at an early stage. This can be done by way of a repayment plan and MOST councils instruct bailiffs to accept plans that see the debt repaid within 6 months. It is ridiculous and nonsense to suggest that a visit would be required to "check" if the debtor had any money. What do you suggest the EA does? Look under all the carpets and floorboards for stashes of cash?

In this case, the EA has refused payments, BEFORE a figure has even been suggested.

You clearly have great issues in reading and understanding what has been written. I strongly recommend that you read things 2 or 3 times before jumping in, posting head first.

[Milo]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

The requirement for a bailiff to attend to confirm means was confirmed in several Resent LGO decisions It is hardly likely that the EA will just accept a claim that the debtor is unable to pay without asserting some proof, now that would be silly.

The Local Government Ombudsman has made her position very clear on this subject. In June I published extracts from two very important LGO decisions on another forum. A copy of the first decision is here:

Local Authority: Newcastle-under-Lyme-District Council.


Analysis:

The debtor in this case (Ms X) had a representative assisting her. She had two Liability Orders (2011/2012 and 2013/2014), In the case of the 2013/4 Liability Order, the council made an attachment of earning order to recover this debt. The AOE failed in August 2014 as Ms x moved jobs. She failed to advise the council of her new employer. The account was therefore referred to bailiffs.

Although the debtor was employed, she nonetheless had a history of mental health problems and a letter was obtained from her GP confirming that she suffered with stress, anxiety and depression and that this could be triggered by financial concerns. The representative complained to the Ombudsman because the local authority would not agree to recall the debt from the bailiffs.

Paragraph 12:

The council would only agree to recall the 2013/2014 debt from the bailiffs provided that Ms X brought the current council tax year up to date. Ms X’s representative felt this was not achievable.

Ms x was hospitalised with a suspected heart attack in February 2015. The bailiff placed a hold on the account for 28 days. After 28 days and having received evidence of Ms B’s hospitalisation at the end of February, the bailiff discussed the case with the Council.

Paragraph 13:

On 30 March the bailiff agreed to reduce the instalments they had requested in line with Ms B’s request. The bailiff records indicate that some, but not all payments were made. This prompted further enforcement contacts. The Council confirmed that Ms X was now paying bailiffs £5 per week for the 2013/14 debt. The bailiff records indicate this arrangement began in July 2015

Paragraph 26:

The bailiff records indicate that it took account of Ms X’s health and the information provided. Although I recognise that Ms X and her representative wanted the Council to recall Ms X’s account from bailiffs, this was a decision for the Council. I do not consider the Council was at fault when it decided the account should not be recalled. I note the Council, via the bailiffs agreed a payment plan.

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/bene...tax/14-017-488

[Milo]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

The second Local Government Ombudsman's decision is below. Given it's importance, instead of posting extracts (of the decision) I am posting the full decision.

PS: Items 16 and 17 are of vital importance.

Local Authority: Trafford Council



5. Ms B has arrears of council tax for a property she used to live in. The arrears are just over £460. She does not dispute the arrears.

6. When the debt first arose the Council agreed a payment arrangement with Ms B. The payments were not made so the arrangement was cancelled.

7. Ms B lives with her partner and they have a young child. Ms B says her and her partner have separate finances. The debt arose before she was living with her partner. Ms B has no income and receives no benefits other than child benefit. Her partner pays for all household expenses. Ms B has other debts. She suffers from severe anxiety and post natal depression.

8. The Council has asked Ms B for details of the household income including her partner’s income and expenditure. Ms B says she cannot provide it as she does not know it. As she has no income this would mean that effectively her partner would be paying her debt from a time before they were together.
The issues

The repayment arrangement

9. It is not for me to say how much Ms B should repay. I am considering whether there is any administrative fault in how the Council has considered the matter.

10. The Council considered it could take into account Ms B’s partner’s income because the only reason she does not have any other income (including benefits) is because he is supporting her. The Council has referred to how entitlement to benefit is assessed which will take into account household income. If Ms B received benefits (other than child benefit) the Council could apply for a deduction from her benefits.

11. I do not consider there was fault in the Council asking for Ms B to provide details of the household income. However once it became clear that Ms B did not have details of his income I consider it was wrong for the Council to continue to press Ms B to provide the information.

12. The Council proposed that a suitable payment arrangement with Ms B to clear the debt would be £40 a month which would mean it was cleared in a year. Ms B’s only known income is £20 a week child benefit. As the Council has no reason to believe that Ms B has more income available to her I do not consider the Council’s proposed payment arrangement is flawed and cannot be justified.

13. The Council has now asked Ms B for proof of her income.

Vulnerability

14. Ms B considered the Council should recall the debt from the bailiffs. The Council accepts that Ms B is vulnerable.

15. The Council’s position is that where a debtor is vulnerable it will put a hold on the action with its enforcement agents and carry out a financial assessment. Once an arrangement has been agreed the Council would liaise with its agents and instruct them to add this to their records.

16. The Council comments that it has taken control of this case in accordance with the relevant provisions of the guidance. The Council further states the guidance and regulations do not provide that vulnerability ends enforcement.

Nor does a declaration by a debtor that they have no goods cease enforcement as this can only be confirmed by an enforcement agent visit.

It is the duty of the enforcement agent to search for goods on behalf of the creditor. It is not the case that because a debtor is vulnerable then the creditor may not take control of goods provided the correct process is followed.

17. I do not consider there was administrative fault by the Council on this point. The matter was put on hold with the bailiffs and that has continued during my investigation.



http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/bene...tax/15-005-395

[Indebt]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

Milo-Your inability to understand the relevance of LGO decisions is really quite frightening.

Firstly, nobody is suggesting that the debt be returned, as in the case you quoted. This has nothing to do with the debt being returned, the OP simply asks to be allowed to enter into an affordable repayment plan WITH THE EA.

The only person who ever hints at debts being taken back because of vulnerability is you.

Your lackey stated that bailiffs have to visit to check if debtors have money AT COMPLIANCE STAGE, although he has edited this silly statement now.

I really think you ought to do the world a favour here and come out with your template "There is nothing further for me to add" and stop dragging the thread off topic with irellevant LGO decisions.

[Milo]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

With the greatest of respect Mark, you should consider your own actions.

Without even asking the most basic of questions, you encouraged this vulnerable debtor to send one of your very common and extremely lengthly, 'template' complaints to both the Chief Executive of the council and the Managing Director of the enforcement companies.

Just read the LGO decisions again and you will see that they address the matter of affordable payment arrangements.

The only person that is 'dragging this thread off topic' is you (and once again, your inability to control your temper is being highlighted. Is it any wonder that you have been banned from this forum and others on various occasions with numerous user names?

Hopefully the OP will return to the forum after meeting with the CAB. If so, I will respond further on the thread. Until then, there is nothing further to add.

[Indebt]

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

You fail to mention that in every case bar 1, my lengthy template complaints have succeeded in both halting enforcement action instantly and then ultimately gaining a satisfactory resolution. Furthermore, in the case where the complaint was ignored by the council, you encouraged the debtor to pay the bailiff, I encouraged her to hold tight as she had no goods of value. She ended up paying not a penny to the bailiff and came back to announce how delighted she was. There have also been several cases where you have not been able to help the debtor and have turned your back on them and I have had to intervene in order to get the matter resolved.

With regards your continued grassing me up to admin, it is noteworthy that you omit to mention that your lackey AKA Peterbard AKA Gravytrain AKA Henti AKA Andy58 has also been banned on several occasions.

[Henti]

Re: Discussion

Mark if the enforcement had been allowed to continue and the debtor was being honest the fees would be removed in any case.

In the cases you mention were the debts settled ?

Please link in any case to these cases you mention.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion

Is anyone able to translate the above for me please?

Is he claiming that bailiff fees only apply to debtors who are dishonest?

Why would debts not be settled? What does he mean? What has settling debts to do with unlawful bailiff fees?

Why does he want me to link any case to the cases I mention? How do I link a case to the cases that I mention?

Thanks in advance.

[Henti]

Re: Discussion

Re: Dukes bailiffs collecting council tax debt advice needed please

"Milo-Your inability to understand the relevance of LGO decisions is really quite frightening.

Firstly, nobody is suggesting that the debt be returned, as in the case you quoted. This has nothing to do with the debt being returned, the OP simply asks to be allowed to enter into an affordable repayment plan WITH THE EA.

The only person who ever hints at debts being taken back because of vulnerability is you.

Your lackey stated that bailiffs have to visit to check if debtors have money AT COMPLIANCE STAGE, although he has edited this silly statement now.

I really think you ought to do the world a favour here and come out with your template "There is nothing further for me to add" and stop dragging the thread off topic with irellevant LGO decisions."


I missed this Mark, lets see.

Firstly Milo has a far wider knowledge of the law and practice regarding bailiffs Mark, she has been doing it a lot longer than you and frankly has more aptitude , as do i.

This you know really, hence the all consuming jealously you continually demonstrate on the fora.

The OP would have been far better off if you had just sat on your hands, this as per usual.

You are right in that she has built contacts in the enforcment agencies and is well respected. They tend to listen when she makes a representation for a debtor, this is why she unarguably has so much success in getting fees withdrawn and offers accepted, you however have no credibility anywhere accept with the other mouth breathers you associate with.

As for your claim that she is the only one who hints regarding "being returned under vulnerability" Mark, this is untrue. If you read the things you cut and paste you will see that the National standards itself suggests this option.

I am no ones "lackey" Mark you are confusing our relationship for that of the one which exists between you and Jason.

I have not edited anything in the regard you state, this site records any amendments and I am sure they will confirm if asked.

NO one has said that bailiffs should attend at compliance stage Mark, that is another of your errors, if an offered agreement is rejected the baiiff will call and confirm the debtors status, at enforcement, as is his duty, and as was confirmed in the LGO reports copied by MIlo earlier.

Oh there are two rr.s i irrelevant.

Just to add, bailiffs have a formula of what their employers will and will not accept as repayment, this is nothing to do with the baiiffs Mark, you would think you would know this.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion

Thank you Henti

However, if I require the views of a layman, I will ask for them.

Please remember that this is a discussion thread Henti, not a platform for you to vent your anger and frustrations.

[Henti]

Re: Discussion

Is anyone able to translate the above for me please?

Is he claiming that bailiff fees only apply to debtors who are dishonest?

Why would debts not be settled? What does he mean? What has settling debts to do with unlawful bailiff fees?

Why does he want me to link any case to the cases I mention? How do I link a case to the cases that I mention?

Thanks in advance.

I will try and keep my words to one syllable wherever possible.

Mark, if the debtor claims vulnerability and the bailiff makes a call at enforcement to confirm the claims.
He may then return the account to the council, As most of us know, uncollected fees disappear when a debt is returned uncollected(nulla bona).

However if the debtor is lying and goods are available he may well take them under control.

Mark have you ever thought of another interest,to entertain you in your dotage, something like gardening ?

Shall I try finger puppets?

[Henti]

Re: Discussion

I am not angry mark, just vaguely amused. i have not engaged in name calling, i dont think. This is the transference thing i keep telling you about.

Oh I am sorry also, you call your self a paralegal now. I forgot about that, I don't suppose it is the regulated variety?

As i said elsewhere , i made my cat one of these this morning, well i thought her jet piloting days were over, she is getting a bit long in the tooth now.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion

Keep going Henti-I'm sure you'll achieve your goal of ensuring the thread gets locked and your reputation will remain intact.

Do you get some kind of kick over ensuring so many threads end up being locked?