Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

[Marincor]

Hello Legalbeaglers!

Does anyone have, or know where I can find an actual case law or legal statement that incontrovertibly proves a council is responsible for its bailiff?

I'm aware it is widely known that they are but I would like an actual legal point of reference if possble.

Any thoughts, le me know asap.

Thanks!

[bluebottle]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

Hello Marincor and welcome to Legal Beagles.

There are a number of cases and statutes through which a local authority can be held vicariously liable for the actions of a bailiff it employs, either directly or as an agent. However, which case or statute law will depend on what the bailiff has done. If you could let us know, we can provide you with more information.

[berniel]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

I believe the 1988 distress for rent rules were amended in 1999 to include the provision for claims to be made against councils for the actions of bailiffs.
Bernie

[Marincor]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

Hello Bluebottle and Berniel and thanks for the quick reply.

It wasn't a specific issue per say, it's that I like to help people with these issues and I've often made the statement that "it is widely known a local authority is responsible for its bailiffs actions" and I've then gone on to give good reasons why.

It's just that I'm tired of making general references to case law, I want a specific case/s law I can quote and I remember seeing a case law sometime ago but for the life of me I cannot find it again and I know there must be quite a few.

I am aware of the Distress for Rent Act 1988 but I don't remember that amendment - I will look it up and in the meantime I'm still open to any other points of reference anyone can suggest.

Thanks for your input.

[berniel]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

HOw about this

Regulation 45(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
Appeals in connection with distress
46.—(1) A person aggrieved by the levy of, or an attempt to levy, a distress may appeal to a magistrates' court.
(2) The appeal shall be instituted by making complaint to a justice of the peace, and requesting the issue of a summons directed to the authority which levied or attempted to levy the distress to appear before the court to answer to the matter by which the person is aggrieved.
Bernie

[ploddertom]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

You have to remember that the Council are 100% responsible for the actions of all their 3rd Party contractors no matter whether they be Bailiffs, electricians, plumbers etc. It's exactly the same as you employing a builder for a new extension and he sub-contracts the work out to others.

[bluebottle]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

Good old vicarious liability! What would we do without it?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

Good old vicarious liability! What would we do without it?

What indeed.

And remember, it's not just for vicars and their curates.

[Guest]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

Does anyone have, or know where I can find an actual case law or legal statement that incontrovertibly proves a council is responsible for its bailiff?

I'm aware it is widely known that they are but I would like an actual legal point of reference if possble.

Any thoughts, le me know asap.

Thanks!

Its the The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1.../contents/made

[berniel]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

Its the The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1.../contents/made

I can see that this act lists the way that duties are prescribed to bailiffs by an authority but I cannot see anthng that says the council is liable for any action of its bailiff.
Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place could you give a link
Bernie

[Guest]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

The the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 provides the regulations which enables the council to levy on a non-payers goods and recover unpaid council tax.

The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996 allows councils to contract out the work.

It is no different you employing a builder to install a kitchen, if he chooses to employ a contractor to install the sink and taps and floods your house, its the builder you employed that is liable, and the contractor who caused the flood is liable only to the builder.

You dont have a contract with the contractor, the builder does - and you have a contract only with the builder.

[berniel]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

The the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 provides the regulations which enables the council to levy on a non-payers goods and recover unpaid council tax.

The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996 allows councils to contract out the work.

It is no different you employing a builder to install a kitchen, if he chooses to employ a contractor to install the sink and taps and floods your house, its the builder you employed that is liable, and the contractor who caused the flood is liable only to the builder.

You dont have a contract with the contractor, the builder does - and you have a contract only with the builder.

I can see the logic here of course but it would be nice to have case law, or something in black and white where the authority was held liable for the actions of their appointed bailiff.

Bernie

[Guest]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

You wont find one because His Honour, the Judge cannot make a precedent that is already ratified on the statute book, nor can he contradict one.

The council has a statutory liability for its agents under section 1(2) of the 1996 Order. Its not a vicarious liability.

[berniel]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

You wont find one because His Honour, the Judge cannot make a precedent that is already ratified on the statute book, nor can he contradict one.

The council has a statutory liability for its agents under section 1(2) of the 1996 Order. Its not a vicarious liability.

Section 1(2) Interpretation ?

(2) In this Order, “contractor” means any person to whom an authorisation is given by virtue of Part II, Part IV or Part VI of this Order, and includes the employees of that person

Isnt this just the definition applied to the term by the regulation.

OK a case where this particular" statute" was enforced will do.

If the agent and the authority are jointly liable(which is what i think you are saying).

Then a missdeed by the bailiff can be reported to the majistrates court under
Regulation 45(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 ?

Has a case like this ever been reported?

The problem is compounded by the frequency in which the bailiffs breaches of guidlines and regulations are often encouraged by authorities( see the recent Lada report).

Bernie

[Guest]

Re: Actual Law for Council being responsible for its Bailiff

I cant really any more than I already have.

But as for the LADER report, it comes down to what the UK government accuse rogue foreign governments of doing - making and breaking its own rules. The word is CORRUPTION.