Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

[WendyB]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Wendy - OP states the original LO has been paid so only bailiffs fees outstanding. This means she must have paid to the council, hence my suggesting the SAR to identify charges made and see what is lawful and what is not.

I hope the idea of witholding the October payment of £200 is to offset any unlawful bailiff fees before finally clearing the bill. Perhaps the OP could clarify this?

I'm so glad you clarified that Caspar, it wasn't immediately clear to me from the OP's posts. Especially as in the normal course of things the bailiffs tack on their fees to the front of the instalments so the LO is not satisfied when you think it is, because of this. So in that respect the fact that the LO was paid wouldn't necessarily mean it had been paid direct to the council.

But anyway, it's good to know we can leave Jim in your capable hands , I'm up to my neck in stuff at the moment.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

If the basta... bailiff is charging excessive fees, to whom are those fees paid?

Are they paid directly to the bailiff or are they paid to Arun Council?

[Caspar]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Normally if the bailiffs are being paid, they take their fees before passing on the remainder of the money to the council. If money is paid directly to the council, then obviously the bailiffs have been passed by, so any legitimate fees remain outstanding.

However, I do not believe the bailiffs can claim those fees under the same liability order as the council had, so they would have to go to court in their own right to collect the fees.

Any overpayments in the bailiffs' pockets may prove somewhat hard to get back.

[WendyB]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

They don't necessarily claim them as part of the LO as such, but they take them out of the instalments then hand the remainder of the money over to the council, with the resulting effect that debtors may think they have paid the LO, when in fact they haven't. So in effect the LO wouldn't be discharged till after the bailiffs fees were paid, if they were paying the instalments to the bailiffs. The reverse of this, of course, is that just because the OP says the LO is paid, it doesn't automatically mean the instalments have been paid direct to the council, does it?

[ploddertom]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

If the basta... bailiff is charging excessive fees, to whom are those fees paid?

Are they paid directly to the bailiff or are they paid to Arun Council?

In this instance the Bailiffs are Council employees which means they are either cheating their employer by skimming off the unlawful fees or the employer is complicit in the overcharging. It would be interesting to see a receipt and for what it is issued for.

PT

[Caspar]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

I know exactly what you mean, but I took it that way as the two were separated out. The LO has been settled. The bailiffs' fees remain outstanding.

If the bailiffs had been paid first their fees would not be outstanding as they would have taken their fees out of the payment made to them. The remainder would have gone towards the LO.

If the OP is sure the LO is settled, and bailiffs fees are outstanding, then the only way this can happen is if the council were paid first.

What am I missing?:tinysmile_grin_t:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

In this instance the Bailiffs are Council employees which means they are either cheating their employer by skimming off the unlawful fees or the employer is complicit in the overcharging. It would be interesting to see a receipt and for what it is issued for.

Exactly!

If the bailiff is "skimming" excessive payments made in cash, the council may still be vicariously liable but, if the overpayments were to be made directly to the council, the council would be directly responsible. Moreover, if the latter applies, the council and.or its officers could be guilty of fraud, either directly or as an accessory under section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 (link) or section 44(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (link).

[WendyB]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

We obviously interpreted it differently. At least now the OP has all the angles and can proceed accordingly, depending on what the circumstances are

[wahoo_thomas]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Ok all thanks for the help I have sent a FOI request with just about anything I could think of that the council do on a day to day basis not just about Bailiffs (just wanted them to work for there money for once).

To make it clear the Bailiff charges where added directly to my council tax account by Arun Council .I have never paid a penny to any bailiff and have always paid the council direct .Therefore I am with holding any more payments as I am certain the Liability orders have been paid in full.

I am awaiting the councils response regarding the Illegal charges and have spoken to my local councilor who is extremely interested in the case and would like to meet me to discuss it further as he has no idea on Bailiff law.(seems my councilor is a normal person who only lives a street from me and also drinks in my local....so may have to buy him a beer or two to sweeten him up )

Again thanks for any help and will post any information I receive.

Jim

[CleverClogs]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

To make it clear the Bailiff charges where added directly to my council tax account by Arun Council .I have never paid a penny to any bailiff and have always paid the council direct .Therefore I am withholding any more payments as I am certain the Liability orders have been paid in full.

The danger with that tactic is that the council's pestilential pen-pushers will not back down on the excessive charges but, instead, will argue that you are wilfully refusing to pay and try to have you sent to gaol.

As you have already been overcharged, have you complained to the Local Government Ombudsman or told the local press about it?

[wahoo_thomas]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

The danger with that tactic is that the council's pestilential pen-pushers will not back down on the excessive charges but, instead, will argue that you are wilfully refusing to pay and try to have you sent to gaol.

As you have already been overcharged, have you complained to the Local Government Ombudsman or told the local press about it?

All my payments to the council where agreed by myself and the recovery team to be towards the liability orders .This was made clear in writing and I have a letter from the Recovery team agreeing to this.With this in mind I have paid in full both Liability orders in fact i paid the last amount of 98 pounds yesterday.If they have added the bailiff costs to my account (which they have) then it is not council tax that they claim I owe in fact charges for Bailiff fees and are not covered by there Liabilty orders or the provision for recovery of council tax.The charges are Illegal and I will not pay them .The council can not use council tax legislation to pursue this debt even if the block heads can not see they are made up charges .


I am eagerly awaiting there answers as after speaking to there head of revenues it became apparent he has no clue of the law .

before contacting the LGO i am awaiting there response to see if I can take legal action against them .I believe that once it is in the hands of the LGO i can not go down this route .Can someone confirm this for me.

thanks again
Jim

[Caspar]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Normally I would totally agree with you, and you may well be right here Jim. However, exercise a little caution as they are council employed bailiffs. I read a pretty convincing argument from one council ages ago who argued they could lawfully collect the charges under the same LO. Hopefully someone here with a better memory than mine will remember the thread and post up a link.

I'm not saying you're wrong, you could well be right; I'm just saying make sure you're 100% certain in order to avoid trouble for yourself.


Just to add to the above, as the bailiff had already made a visit and incurred legitimate fees before you discharged the LO in full, after further reading, I think they can use the original LO to collect these fees. Again, double check what I'm saying, but the information comes from a pretty reliable source - though NOT legislation.

[ploddertom]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

I am awaiting the councils response regarding the Illegal charges and have spoken to my local councilor who is extremely interested in the case and would like to meet me to discuss it further as he has no idea on Bailiff law.(seems my councilor is a normal person who only lives a street from me and also drinks in my local....so may have to buy him a beer or two to sweeten him up )

Again thanks for any help and will post any information I receive.

Jim

If your Councillor is interested then one of the best ways to show them what is happening is to invite them round and show them this site and/or others like it where he can see at first hand what sort of tricks Bailiffs get up to. Better still get him to sign up as a member.

PT

[WendyB]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Just to add to the above, as the bailiff had already made a visit and incurred legitimate fees before you discharged the LO in full, after further reading, I think they can use the original LO to collect these fees. Again, double check what I'm saying, but the information comes from a pretty reliable source - though NOT legislation.

I think I said in posts #16 and #18 that the fees could be included in the LO, as the LO would not be discharged whilst fees were outstanding due to fees usually being taken first.

[Caspar]

Re: Arun Councils own Bailiff acting Illegally

Fees can only be tacked on first if the bailiff is being paid directly. What we're discussing here is whether, when the LO has been satisfied in full, that same LO can be used to collect the bailiffs fees.

The only reason it can be used here if my understanding is correct, is that the bailiffs had already incurred legitimate fees before the LO was discharged in full.

If the bailiffs had not incurred the fees legitimately before the LO was discharged, then they would need to get a separate LO to reclaim their fees.