Worried mum

[Caspar]

Re: Worried mum

I am happy for the OP to do this as you say, and indeed that is what all professional bailiff advisers would advise. However, I still think there is merit in trying to isolate the bailiffs and clear the debt, then deal with bailiff fees later.

Any payments can still be made via automated telephone system or on-line ensuring the correct account number is used so it is allocated to the right account. If you go to the council in person, in all proabability they will refuse payment and tell you to deal direct with the council.

I did it this way with over 40 people last year and every single one had a successful result and every single one ended up have the bailiffs fees waived by the council due to their position of being vicariously liable.

Both ways work, so it's splitting hairs in many ways. Whichever way you decide to go, make sure you post up all details of bailiff fees so we can have a look at them and help you to identify which are and which are not legitimate.

[WendyB]

Re: Worried mum

Any payments can still be made via automated telephone system or on-line ensuring the correct account number is used so it is allocated to the right account. If you go to the council in person, in all proabability they will refuse payment and tell you to deal direct with the council.

.

I'm sorry but I don't agree. The council tax account number will not change from year to year. If you pay by the automated system there is a very real possibility that the payments will not get allocated to the arrears. Once the bailiff's are involved, the debt tends to be with the council's recovery department so it is best if they can be dealt with direct, they will ensure it is allocated to the correct year.

Once the Op has sent a SAR to the bailiffs and can work out what fees are due, then this can be argued and will in all probability result in the erroneous fees being credited or refunded.

[Caspar]

Re: Worried mum

I'm sorry but I don't agree. The council tax account number will not change from year to year. If you pay by the automated system their is a very real possibility that the payments will not get allocated to the arrears. Once the bailiff's are involved, the debt tends to be with the council's recovery department so it is best if they can be dealt with direct, they will ensure it is allocated to the correct year.

Once the Op has sent a SA to the bailiffs and can work out what fees are due, then this can be argued and wil in all probability result in the errononeous fees being creidted or refunded.

OK Wendy. I've just been into my local council and they let you modify the payment to ensure it goes against the correct year. I would imagine, as none of the cases I dealt with last year had problems, this is the same across most counties. The problem I see with paying the bailiffs direct is that they take their fees before passing on payment to the council. You then have the problem of trying to reclaim inaccurate fees, or arguing over the fees while still being put under intense pressure to pay in full. Many bailiffs, as you know, lie and say they cannot accept payment plans at all. If you pay the council direct, the bill reduces, any bailiff fees then fall due at the end. If the bailiffs have acted unlawfully in their charging of fees, there is a strong argument with the council via vicarious liability for getting the fees waived. If they haven't acted unlawfully, then you still go through the fees to check, then pay anything that is outstanding to the bailiffs, which as long as they have been stopped from levying on anything should only be £42.50 if you live in England (slightly less in Wales).

I'm accutely aware that on the other end of this is a worried lady trying to find the best way forward, so I'll back out now and leave her in your capable hands. You know both sides in full now. If you (or the OP) decides this route, then I have loads of letters should unlawful fees be supplied - what you do is write to the Head of Revenues first, who 99% of the time backs up the bailiffs, then to the CEO pointing out the Head of Revenues is leaving the council open to litigation as they don't know their job and ask for the council to take the debt back on the assurance repayments will continue at the current level.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Worried mum

One possible problem with giving money to a bailiff may be that the payment does not reach the intended recipient - link :tinysmile_hmm_t2:

[WendyB]

Re: Worried mum

I never at any point suggested paying the bailiffs direct.

I quite agree that the best way is to pay the council direct, but with the proviso that it the money must be allocated to the correct year otherwise it will get allocated to the current year, with the consequence being that the arrears does not get paid, thus the bailiffs will keep visiting adding fees sending ever more threatening letters etc.
My local council will not let you modify the payment online, the only way to do it with them is to pay it directly to their CT recoveries department.

Ignoring the bailiffs will not make the fees go away. The best way to do it, in my opinion and experience, is to get the SAR info from the bailiffs. Once you know what fees have been added, you can contest these, copying the letter to the council and reminding them of their vicarious liability. They can then either call the debt back completely or instruct the bailiffs how much to accept in instalments.

Obviously I haven't dealt with 40 cases, but have dealt with 5 ( including my own) recently and this approach has worked every time.

The fees form part of the LO so if you merely pay the Council Tax then the LO is not satisfied and remains outstanding.

As it happens, I am myself paying the bailiffs direct, but this is only after i have liaised with the council, and had all erroneous charges removed, therefore am only paying the arrears of council tax and the visit fees. Each council has a different approach, as do each bailiff company, so it's not always as black and white as it may seem, there needs to be the odd tweak here and there to the advice given depending on the OP's individual circumstances.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Worried mum

The fees form part of the LO so if you merely pay the Council Tax then the LO is not satisfied and remains outstanding.

Really?

So what does a council do if, having obtained a Liability Order against a tax payer, they obtain payment in full without needing to send a bailiff even once?

[WendyB]

Re: Worried mum

Yes, really.

Once an LO is obtained, if the LO is paid in full, before any bailiff fees are added, then obviously there would be no bailiff fees due, so if the LO was paid, then it would be satisfied. However, once bailiffs have been instructed and fees added, the fees automatically become part of the LO, until and unless the council decide otherwise, that the fees are incorrect or should be removed. This is covered by the vicarious liability of the council.

If the debtor pays the bailiffs, then the bailiffs only send the money to the council once the fees have been paid. This is why it is imperative to sort out which fees are correct and which ones are not. By the same token, paying the council direct will not wipe out any fees due to the bailiffs, so again, it is imperative to sort out what fees are actually due to the bailiffs. If fees are due under an LO, and the debtor pays what they think is the CT, the amount outstanding would not be the bailiffs fees, because these fees would be taken out of that amount, therefore it would be CT owing, not fees. So it is entirely incorrect to think that the bailiffs can be cut out of the loop in this way. They will pursue for the outstanding amount on the LO, which, as their fees will have been paid upfront, will be CT outstanding, not fees.

As the council have vicarious liability, this is why it is so important to keep the Council informed of what is going on, and what the bailiffs are doing wrong.

Personally, once the correct amount is established, I don't see any problem with paying the bailiffs direct, or the Council, as long as the correct amount is paid, and in instalments that the debtor can afford. This is why it is so important to SAR the bailiffs early on and sort out what fees are correct, and which aren't. Otherwise you don't have the full picture and cannot argue the case fully.

Every letter to the bailiffs should be copied to the Council, and also extra letters to the council if needs be appraising them of the situation, the conduct/wrongdoings of their bailiffs, and reminding them of their vicarious liability.

[Caspar]

Re: Worried mum

Purely for accuracy's sake, the bailiffs' fees never become part of the LO. You are very nearly correct in what you're saying though Wendy.

Say an LO was awarded to the council for £400. The bailiffs make one visit for which they charge a fee in England of £24.50. So there are now two things to pay, the LO for £400 and the bailiff's fee of £24.50.

The debtor then goes to the council and pays £400 thinking they've discharged the debt. Not so. The law states (as you say) that bailiffs fees have to be paid first, so out of the £400 paid, £24.50 goes to the bailiff and £375.50 goes towards the LO, so there is still £25.50 of the original LO to discharge. If you pay this before the bailiff visits again the LO is fully discharged.

Imagine now the bailiff visits a second time before you pay (for which he charges £18 in England). You then pay 25.50 thinking you've discharged the LO, but £18 of that goes to the bailiff under the same law that the council pays bailiff fees first.

This then leaves £7.50 of the LO outstanding and so on, until you pay the LO in full BEFORE the bailiff adds further charges.

The fees are never part of the LO, but are paid before the LO.

It is rarely as simple as this as bailiffs make up fees off the top of their head, and few councils know the law pertaining to CT and bailiffs.

[WendyB]

Re: Worried mum

Which is why it is important to get the breakdown of fees from
the bailiffs in the first place and keep the council informed.

[Caspar]

Re: Worried mum

Totally agree if it's done the way you suggest. You shouldn't need to SAR them to get their fees though as the fees are set down in statute. Obviously the bailiffs can't say what they're going to need to do to recover the debt BEFORE they start recovering it. That's the bit I don't get about the way you are suggesting.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Worried mum

This does not concern me directly, as I do not pay Council Tax and have not done for some years.

However, I did wonder if Wendy might have mixed up the Liability Order - Council Tax plus the costs of getting the LO - with a Warrant of Execution, which latter is one means of enforcing a Liability Order. It is also perhaps the least effective way of enforcing a Liability Order, as a attachment order for wages or benefits will ensure that all lawful costs are included rather than the shenanigans caused when bailiffs add their own invented fees.

[WendyB]

Re: Worried mum

I'm quite aware that the fees are laid down in the Act, however by the time people get here, there are usally a multitude of fees which have been applied by the bailiff, which is why you need a breakdown of them. If you don't get a breakdown of the fees charged by the bailiff, how do you know which ones are erroneous? If you have it in black and white from them, then you can argue them. How can you be specific as to which ones should be removed if you don't know what they have applied in the first place? I wasn't suggesting getting a crystal ball out to guess what they MIGHT charge. I was pointing out that you need to know what they HAVE charged.

[Caspar]

Re: Worried mum

Right, I'm with you at last! I was confused by phrases like you need to get the bailiffs fees in the first place. To me I was thinking you can't get them before you know what they are. When you say first place, you actually mean when they first arrive here with a problem, and bailiffs are already involved and have charged fees. Gottcha! lol

In which case, yours is a perfectly reasonable route to take. Not for this post, as the OP needs to get their problem sorted, but I'd be interested to know how you've found reclaiming unlawful fees from bailiffs / councils, or whether you deduct them yourelf and only pay what is genuinely owed, leaving them to pursue you if they disagree with your interpretation of unfair charges.

[WendyB]

Re: Worried mum

The OP can use the route I suggested.

In my own personal case, I got all fees taken off before I started paying any instalments, because I complained to the recovery dept of my council, who were very helpful. They removed all fees, agreed how much I would pay, and instructed the bailiffs to accept that amount per month. Actually, now I come to think about it, I think I even got the legitimate visit fees removed.

In all the other cases, no instalments whatsoever have been agreed or paid until a full breakdown of added costs was received from the bailiffs, inflated/fraudulent fees complained about and removed, and correct debt owing agreed with the Council who then either instructed the bailiffs how much to accept in instalments, or took the debt back and accepted the instalments direct. It's worked every time, doing it as per my posts #20 and 22. The latest one, over £700 in fees was completely removed, doing it this way.

Obviously no two cases are alike and each has to be dealt with according to the partiular situation, which bailiff company it is etc, what stage it's got to, but the basic approach is the same. It's not a question of what we think should happen, or think someone should do, it's using the Act etc correctly and following it correctly, whilst making sure the advice given is correct and any letters are watertight.

[WendyB]

Re: Worried mum

Just to add to the above, I wouldn't advocate deducting fees and leaving them to pursue. I would always get them sorted and agreed before commencing payment. Also, I would never just rely on my interpretation per se, they should always be interpreted, then argued, then eventually mutually agreed.
If the worst came to the worst, I would advocate paying a small payment upfront, but never more than enough so that the bailiffs owe you money. Always best to be in the position that if fees are to be refunded, they come off the CT balance. If you've already paid everything, trying to get a cheque out of the bailiffs would be a nightmare.