Attachment of earnings

[messycess]

Re: Attachment of earnings

REF:

Dear sirs,


An issue has arisen regarding above ref. And as of yet I have not received a satisfactory reply.


After receiving notice of a further liability order against me, I have been pursuing information from Kettering borough council.


The information required is for the purposes of obtaining legal advice and establishing, exercising and defending my legal rights.


I fully believe that as I am asking for the information Kettering borough council have used against me for liability orders, it does not amount to a request under section 7, data protection act 1998, and therefore, its disclosure should not be subject to a fee.


My aim is to discover (as I have been paying 4 AOE`s back to back) whether your appointed enforcement agency has been acting lawfully and deducting correct amounts which do not differ from the total sums I owe the council, and how many (if any) charges have been added to the accounts.


Unfortunately however, after receiving information from jacobs bailiffs, there is evidence of at least 1 incident of "double charging" for visit fees. This has prompted me to find out exactly what I lawfully owe and for what i have unlawfully been charged.


These bailiffs are acting on behalf of Kettering borough council and it is within the councils control to contractually curb excessive charges by the bailiffs.


I hope we can agree to clear this matter up promptly and I look forward to a complete response to my original request in email dated --- within 14 days.


Regards

[messycess]

Re: Attachment of earnings

If anyone would like to add/correct anything I would be very great full.

Thanks again for the help

[bluebottle]

Re: Attachment of earnings

You could add something about the LGO's scathing report against Blaby Council. Something along the lines of -

"I would remind the Council of the Local Government Ombudsman's report against Blaby Council and allowing the charging of multiple fees."

Where you have quoted "14 days", I would be inclined to change this to read -

"14 calendar days from the Council's receipt of this email/letter"

This leaves the recipient in no doubt as to how long they have in which to get their response to you. If you just say "14 days" the buggers will extract the urine and claim they thought it meant "14 working days". Always be specific, as this removes any doubt and makes it harder for them to argue later on.

Hope this helps

[messycess]

Re: Attachment of earnings

jacobs reply :-

In regards to multiple fees being charged for the same visit. The fees incurred are per Liability Order / Warrant and are chargeable even though the visits were made on the same day. Fees added to date are in accordance with statutory legislation and if you are aggrieved with them you should seek independent legal advice.

[bizzybob]

Re: Attachment of earnings

jacobs reply :-

In regards to multiple fees being charged for the same visit. The fees incurred are per Liability Order / Warrant and are chargeable even though the visits were made on the same day. Fees added to date are in accordance with statutory legislation and if you are aggrieved with them you should seek independent legal advice.

What part of the LGO findings in the Blaby Council and Rossendales investigation don't Jacobs understand. They like to make it up as they go along and browbeat a debtor, by bloddy mindedness and stonewalling.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Attachment of earnings

jacobs reply :-

In regards to multiple fees being charged for the same visit. The fees incurred are per Liability Order / Warrant and are chargeable even though the visits were made on the same day. Fees added to date are in accordance with statutory legislation and if you are aggrieved with them you should seek independent legal advice.

Typical flim-flam, but they have admitted that they have imposed multiple charges for the same visit.

In my opinion, it would not be worthwhile taking up this matter any further with the bailiffs, as bailiffs are not directly subject to rulings by the Local Government Ombudsman. The council is, though.

It does seem odd, though, that Jacobs should have forgotten about Blaby Council being censured over this.
http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2012/jul/...iliff-charges/

[bluebottle]

Re: Attachment of earnings

jacobs reply :-

In regards to multiple fees being charged for the same visit. The fees incurred are per Liability Order / Warrant and are chargeable even though the visits were made on the same day. Sphericals! The LGO made it quite clear what the position was as regards the charging of multiple fees on the same visit in the Blaby Council case.
Fees added to date are in accordance with statutory legislation...msl:
...and if you are aggrieved with them you should seek independent legal advice. About the only sensible advice they have given. However, do they realise they are leaving themselves open to some pretty scathing criticism and possible litigation, As the song lyrics go, "...when will they ever learn?"

@@@@

[ploddertom]

Re: Attachment of earnings

I agree wholeheartedly with CC, drop this firmly in the lap of the Council & lets see if they want to drop themselves in it.

[messycess]

Re: Attachment of earnings

Right oK guys.

I didnt actually send the letter I posted on here last week so I think I'll fire off template letter #4 from the useful letters section to the head of revenues and see what kind of reply I get.

I'll post the reply on here :-)

[messycess]

Re: Attachment of earnings

Having read through the LGO report posted by cleverclogs, paragraph 46 does mention multiple fees are legal ??