Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

I have :-)

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

I take it the answer to the question asked is a very simple 'No' then. I agree the avenue you suggest is worth exploring, in fact I like it and think it should be explored, but maybe on the TCE thread rather than here?

For the OP here, the SAR suggested in the post above is still your best way forward for the moment IMO.

I suggest you take a look on a thread Milo started on CAG.

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

BB,

Here and elsewhere you have put a very credible argument about the Rome Convention and the HRA. Is there any case law at all to back this up yet, or are we awaiting a test case by someone brave enough to invest, or lucky enough to get pro bono representation?

At this stage it is still best to stick to the basics IMO, and I'd be inclined to send a SAR to both the bailiff company and the council (Number 3 from here http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...Useful-Letters)

The Convention rights of the Rome Convention (aka European Convention on Human Rights) are enshrined within Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. They are inalienable and inviolate. Public authorities, their contractors and employees should be compliant with the Convention in any case.

As Bizzybob has quite rightly pointed out, a lot of local and public authorities are driving a fleet of juggernauts through the HRA in their dealings with the public, i.e. you and me.

More and more people are finding out, on a daily basis, of the corruption and fraud that has been and is going on within local and public authorities and the way in our basic human rights are being ignored and/or violated. There is no harm whatsoever in highlighting breaches of Convention rights where they are blatant and of the fact that acts of public authorities which are incompatible with the Convention rights are unlawful, as defined by Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998.

The Convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 affect our everyday lives whether we wish to acknowledge this fact or not, but local and public authorities who feel they can ignore the Convention and Act will find that doing so can have a very far-reaching effect on the way they operate and interact with members of the public.

I have no doubt that it will be one or more of the pro bono legal charities that spearhead a string of human rights cases that kicks the UK government, local and public authorities and their employees and contractors into line. Notwithstanding that Canada and The Netherlands have publicly voiced concerns about human rights violations by the UK government against the British people and so has the United Nations. The clamour is growing, voices are getting louder and international condemnation of the UK government over its human rights violations is growing by the day. If the UK government is ignoring the law of the land and passing increasingly draconian and oppressive legislation which clearly breaches human rights, then human rights law is the only way to put those who seek to undermine our basic freedoms back in their box and to keep them there.

I take it the answer to the question asked is a very simple 'No' then. I agree the avenue you suggest is worth exploring, in fact I like it and think it should be explored, but maybe on the TCE thread rather than here?

For the OP here, the SAR suggested in the post above is still your best way forward for the moment IMO.

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Do you really think anyone will worry ?

Yes.

[wales01man]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Do you really think anyone will worry ?

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Until someone Gets a ruling against a Council regarding the HRA Councils will ignore it Their own legal departments must know what the act allows or disallows but deliberately ignore it.
Who is going to take it on and a what cost

Publicly embarrassing local and public authorities by pointing out such breaches with well-researched arguments can be just as effective. Exposing or threatening to expose those responsible for such breaches is known to be very effective. It may sound unfair, but the Achille's Heel of those responsible for breaches is exposure; they are terrified of it because they know they will face justice and have to account for what they have done or been involved in one way or another.

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

BB,

Here and elsewhere you have put a very credible argument about the Rome Convention and the HRA. Is there any case law at all to back this up yet, or are we awaiting a test case by someone brave enough to invest, or lucky enough to get pro bono representation?

At this stage it is still best to stick to the basics IMO, and I'd be inclined to send a SAR to both the bailiff company and the council (Number 3 from here http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...Useful-Letters)

The Convention rights of the Rome Convention (aka European Convention on Human Rights) are enshrined within Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. They are inalienable and inviolate. Public authorities, their contractors and employees should be compliant with the Convention in any case.

As Bizzybob has quite rightly pointed out, a lot of local and public authorities are driving a fleet of juggernauts through the HRA in their dealings with the public, i.e. you and me.

More and more people are finding out, on a daily basis, of the corruption and fraud that has been and is going on within local and public authorities and the way in our basic human rights are being ignored and/or violated. There is no harm whatsoever in highlighting breaches of Convention rights where they are blatant and of the fact that acts of public authorities which are incompatible with the Convention rights are unlawful, as defined by Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998.

The Convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 affect our everyday lives whether we wish to acknowledge this fact or not, but local and public authorities who feel they can ignore the Convention and Act will find that doing so can have a very far-reaching effect on the way they operate and interact with members of the public.

I have no doubt that it will be one or more of the pro bono legal charities that spearhead a string of human rights cases that kicks the UK government, local and public authorities and their employees and contractors into line. Notwithstanding that Canada and The Netherlands have publicly voiced concerns about human rights violations by the UK government against the British people and so has the United Nations. The clamour is growing, voices are getting louder and international condemnation of the UK government over its human rights violations is growing by the day. If the UK government is ignoring the law of the land and passing increasingly draconian and oppressive legislation which clearly breaches human rights, then human rights law is the only way to put those who seek to undermine our basic freedoms back in their box and to keep them there.

[wales01man]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Until someone Gets a ruling against a Council regarding the HRA Councils will ignore it Their own legal departments must know what the act allows or disallows but deliberately ignore it.
Who is going to take it on and a what cost

[bizzybob]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

BB,

Here and elsewhere you have put a very credible argument about the Rome Convention and the HRA. Is there any case law at all to back this up yet, or are we awaiting a test case by someone brave enough to invest, or lucky enough to get pro bono representation?

At this stage it is still best to stick to the basics IMO, and I'd be inclined to send a SAR to both the bailiff company and the council (Number 3 from here http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...Useful-Letters)

Just a thought from the "other" BB there is merit in considering impact of HRA, I would suggest that where these council rules are posted up, or legislation quoted we have a specific live thread to weigh these snippets and law and regulations in general against the provisions of HRA and the Articles of the ECHR. You never know, a savvy lawyer from the National Pro Bono Centre may run with it.

These Public Authorities are at present driving a brace of juggernauts like a couple of Volvo F12 units with a 40' trailer through the HRA in their dealings with the public.

there could then be a reference to where there may be a potential breach of HRA indicated and shown as a consideration without derailing or taking a thread off topic or affecting tried & tested advice.

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

BB,

Here and elsewhere you have put a very credible argument about the Rome Convention and the HRA. Is there any case law at all to back this up yet, or are we awaiting a test case by someone brave enough to invest, or lucky enough to get pro bono representation?

At this stage it is still best to stick to the basics IMO, and I'd be inclined to send a SAR to both the bailiff company and the council (Number 3 from here http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...Useful-Letters)

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Page 4 of the following explains how the council's system might allocate payments:

HYNDBURN BOROUGH COUNCIL COUNCIL TAX AND NATIONAL NON DOMESTIC RATES RECOVERY POLICY – GUIDANCE

"When any payment is received by the Council it will, unless otherwise specified by the Taxpayer, reduce the balance outstanding for the current year’s outstanding Council Tax or NNDR. Once payment in full has been made for the current financial year any payments subsequently received will go towards reducing any outstanding arrears from previous financial years.

If a Taxpayer advises the Council that a payment that has been made and used to reduced indebtedness for the current year was actually intended to reduce outstanding arrears for previous years then the payment will be moved to where it was intended to go by the Taxpayer, subject to the Council’s discretion. However, if moving the payment would actually result in a summons that had been quite properly issued, being rendered unnecessary the payment will not usually be moved.

There is one exception to this general principle, where a Taxpayer makes a payment which matches an instalment or other amount outstanding such payment will automatically be posted to the matched sum outstanding. Wherever possible these payments will be reallocated as indicted above if brought to the Council’s attention.

Nice one, Outlawlgo. What you have posted has revealed potentially unlawful practices by the public authority whose name appears at the beginning of the post. I have highlighted the practices in red. Notwithstanding that the court hearings at which any Liability Orders were granted breach Article 6 of the Rome Convention in any case, the practices revealed in your post may well breach Article 6 also. A public authority, which includes a local authority, council officers, civil enforcement companies contracted by a local authority and individual bailiffs, acts unlawfully if it or they perform any act which is incompatible with a person's Convention rights. This is covered by Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998. Convention rights are to be found under Schedule 1 of the Act.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Page 4 of the following explains how the council's system might allocate payments:

HYNDBURN BOROUGH COUNCIL COUNCIL TAX AND NATIONAL NON DOMESTIC RATES RECOVERY POLICY – GUIDANCE

"When any payment is received by the Council it will, unless otherwise specified by the Taxpayer, reduce the balance outstanding for the current year’s outstanding Council Tax or NNDR. Once payment in full has been made for the current financial year any payments subsequently received will go towards reducing any outstanding arrears from previous financial years.

If a Taxpayer advises the Council that a payment that has been made and used to reduced indebtedness for the current year was actually intended to reduce outstanding arrears for previous years then the payment will be moved to where it was intended to go by the Taxpayer, subject to the Council’s discretion. However, if moving the payment would actually result in a summons that had been quite properly issued, being rendered unnecessary the payment will not usually be moved.

There is one exception to this general principle, where a Taxpayer makes a payment which matches an instalment or other amount outstanding such payment will automatically be posted to the matched sum outstanding. Wherever possible these payments will be reallocated as indicted above if brought to the Council’s attention.

[ploddertom]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

You are not the first or the last this will happen to. The Council probably haven't a clue and therefore invariably believe everything the Bailiffs tell them. This is one of those moments when the Bailiff tells the Council the moon is made of cream cheese and are believed. usually if the Bailiffs tell them they have to jump the Council want to know how high. Of course they become very embarrassed once they are sussed.

Once you have the figures from both Council & Bailiffs we can help you sort fact from fiction.

As for you now being in credit this is because the reference you are using will be this years. On the paperwork the Bailiff has left you are the reference numbers the same or not? You will have to tell the Council your amounts in credit need to be credited to the arrears otherwise it will be credited against next years bill.

[Gonzalo]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

OK, I'm not sure what to say! I'm both baffled and curious?

So, I've read the attached PDF file and the other letters you've pointed me towards in some amazement. If, as you point out, the fees being charged by the bailiffs are clearly unlawful, and in direct contravention of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations, as amended by Statutory Instrument in 2006: how do they get away with it?

It must be fraudulent!?

The council(s) must be aware of the situation and the level of fees that their agents - the bailiffs in this case - are charging people who're falling into arrears with their Council Tax payments. I assume the council(s) has a duty of care and various other legal obligations in owes its local taxpayers, and if so what remedies does someone like me have in terms of obtaining some measure of redress. I'm saying this because it seems to me that I've paid fees and charges substantially in excess of what I was legally required to pay the bailiff?

So, right now, it seems to me that Bailiffs can indulge themselves in a substantial amount of illegal and speculative invoicing with the full knowledge of the local council?
Finally, I'm paying off my 'arrears' and that includes both the 'fees' and some arrears in Council tax from previous years at an agreed rate per month by standing order. I am in credit on my Council Tax for the current year. Should I stop or reduce the standing order?

Thanks again.

G

[ploddertom]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Have a read