Tweet
A bailiff firm which charged a debtor £230 for seizing a door mat while attempting to collect council tax has been criticised for acting unreasonably by the Local Government Ombudsman.
The criticism came after a debtor named Mr Worden complained about the actions of bailiffs attempting to collect a £828.93 council tax debt on behalf of Slough Borough Council, which increased to £1,050.71 with recovery costs, after Mr Worden fell behind on his council tax payments.
After Mr Worden refused the bailiff entry to his home, the bailiff "levied" on a door mat and charged £230 for this action. When Mr Worden subsequently complained to the bailiff firm and then the Council he was told the fees were legal.
The Council then decided to instruct the bailiffs to withdraw the fees, which included £224.50 for attendance and removal costs, and £50 as a levy fee.
A subsequent investigation by the Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, concluded it was unreasonable for the bailiff to levy on such a low value item and to charge fees for doing so, and found evidence that other bailiffs are behaving in the same way.
Dr Martin said "I find that the distraint on the door mat, the charging of the fees for this, and not considering the reasonableness of this action were maladministration.
"The Council has cancelled the costs and fees, and has instructed the bailiffs that such low value levies should not happen again. Given this and taking into account Mr Worden’s failure to pay his council tax, I do not think any significant injustice has resulted and therefore no financial remedy is required."
The criticism came after a debtor named Mr Worden complained about the actions of bailiffs attempting to collect a £828.93 council tax debt on behalf of Slough Borough Council, which increased to £1,050.71 with recovery costs, after Mr Worden fell behind on his council tax payments.
After Mr Worden refused the bailiff entry to his home, the bailiff "levied" on a door mat and charged £230 for this action. When Mr Worden subsequently complained to the bailiff firm and then the Council he was told the fees were legal.
The Council then decided to instruct the bailiffs to withdraw the fees, which included £224.50 for attendance and removal costs, and £50 as a levy fee.
A subsequent investigation by the Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, concluded it was unreasonable for the bailiff to levy on such a low value item and to charge fees for doing so, and found evidence that other bailiffs are behaving in the same way.
Dr Martin said "I find that the distraint on the door mat, the charging of the fees for this, and not considering the reasonableness of this action were maladministration.
"The Council has cancelled the costs and fees, and has instructed the bailiffs that such low value levies should not happen again. Given this and taking into account Mr Worden’s failure to pay his council tax, I do not think any significant injustice has resulted and therefore no financial remedy is required."
Comment