COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

[cankster]

Hello all,

Owed to lots of council tax which have now been paid in full direct to council.

Never allowed Bailiff in house, offered him a fiver a week and no possession order and he refused my offer of payment.

Then paid council in full.

Bailiff now trying to charge me £42.50 for his fees, I have told him to jog on as his contract is with council and this is a separate debt. He is under the impression that the £42.50 is covered by the Distress Warrant, I disagree.

What is your advised course of action.

[Caspar]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

As far as I understand it, if he visited your house he is entitled to £24.50 for the first visit and £18 for the second = £42.50.

[Amy]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

Did he visit your property?

[cankster]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

yes 8 times. i never let him in though.

[Amy]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

Then you should pay the £42.50.

[cankster]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

paid in full, but it stings giving money to these low life scum

[outlawlgo]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

paid in full, but it stings giving money to these low life scum

You have my sympathy but I'm also saddened that you chose this course of action; like you said the bailiff's contract is with the council not you. He obviously didn't do a good enough job for the council, i.e. he failed to recover for them, so doesn't deserve fees for something he didn't do.

At the end of the day it was not you who asked for the bailiff's services and for them to come round and harass you.

[Amy]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

....so doesn't deserve fees for something he didn't do.

As Cankster said in post #4, the bailiff visited 8 times, so he is entitled to his visit fees.

[Knightron]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

As Cankster said in post #4, the bailiff visited 8 times, so he is entitled to his visit fees.

By That Logic anyone coming around to ask for money on the doorstep should be paid..! Even if you don't want their services they are offering you?..I would assume that the bailiff was paid by the council for services..Just because he came upon someone who knows their rights and doesn't contract with them, doesn't in any way shape or form mean the person he is visiting has to pay for something he doesn't want ..The courts are the only ones who can decide that.

[Amy]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

Bailiffs do not offer a debtor their services. This is council tax debt, not some ropey salesman selling dusters at your front door.

The fact of the matter, whether you like it or not, is that a bailiff is allowed to charge for 2 visit fees if he has made them.

As for your final sentence, the courts have decided this and it written into Schedule 5 of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

[outlawlgo]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

........ the courts have decided this and it written into Schedule 5 of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

There are quite a lot of things the court have written into the council tax regulations about how they and their bailiffs must carry out their debt recovery; I'm sure that phantom visits and illegal levies – typically bailiff firm's favourite fee raising strategies – are not described in those regulations that way, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[WendyB]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

There are quite a lot of things the court have written into the council tax regulations about how they and their bailiffs must carry out their debt recovery; I'm sure that phantom visits and illegal levies – typically bailiff firm's favourite fee raising strategies – are not described in those regulations that way, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't really see what you are getting at with the above post. If phantom visits and levies are claimed then obviously they are not covered in the regulations and as such can be disputed. In this case, however, the OP had stated that bailiffs did in fact visit 8 times, so they are not "phantom" visits, therefore they are entitled to charge the £42.50.

I am no supporter of bailiffs but in this case they have carried out the 2 visits that they are allowed to charge for, and as such they can claim the fees for said visits.

[outlawlgo]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

In this case the bailiff visited but it is typical for them to charge fees without doing so; this – without trawling through the regulations – I'm pretty sure is described in them as requiring an accompanying notice to be left with the alleged debtor. And similarly it is not stated that an arbitrary vehicle can be levied on – without leaving a notice of seizure – for the sole purpose of raising an extra fee. Neither of these seem to apply in this case but it is the way bailiff firms behave generally that I'm highlighting.

It's quite obvious that the law does not get involved in prosecuting councils or bailiffs for what amounts to systematic fraud. The LGO only react with a token slap on the wrist once in a blue moon and the Police won't touch these issues with a barge pole. The government is quite happy for its citizens to be shafted by the system and so ensures that these Dick Turpin types are given full protection by stitching up the public with bogus watchdog organisations like the LGO, ICO and IPCC which are supposed to be acting in the interest of those aggrieved but are in fact covering up complaints and suppressing the scale of the problem.

So with the above in mind the situation is one of cat and mouse where the council, through its bailiff firms, whether or not it is legal, try every trick in the book. It only seems reasonable that the same is returned to these low-lifes.

[Amy]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

So with the above in mind the situation is one of cat and mouse where the council, through its bailiff firms, whether or not it is legal, try every trick in the book. It only seems reasonable that the same is returned to these low-lifes.

That might be the kind of advice meted out on other sites, but you will never find it advocated on this site.

[Caspar]

Re: COUNCIL TAX - Bailiff still wants fees

Outlawlgo,

I really think you should stop pursuing your argument. The law is perfectly clear which is why it was not hard to give the answer in post #2. If you want to advocate breaking the law that is up to you, but it is not something you will ever be supported with on this site.

I'm sure many of us have suffered many of the things you mention, but that does not alter the law. If they make two visits to your house then you owe them £42.50, full stop. There is no argument against that.