CT bailiff fees

Hi all. Thought I'd join this forum as well. I've been posting on another one but it seems they don't like what I'm trying to raise.

I'm wondering where the outrage is regarding the 1200%+ increase in bailiff fees for making one visit in respect of council tax. Before April, one visit would carry a fee of £24.50 - it's now £310!! How was that allowed to happen?

Hopefully this site is more open to honest debate; I'm visiting a few sites to get this discussed!! :tinysmile_aha_t:

[dansal]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Apparantley they were loosing money with the old charges! :tinysmile_aha_t:

[doubleslap2]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Apparantley they were loosing money with the old charges! :tinysmile_aha_t:

Well, it seems I've been banned for life from one forum - Consumer Action Group, for simply raising this issue. That is very, very sinister.

I have no sympathy if they were losing money. The job is what it is and no-one forces them to become bailiffs. If they wanted a better paid job, get an education.

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

I believe you need to go back before the changes were bought in in April and look at the original charging structure and what people were actually being charged by baliffs, get some breakdowns of fees together and compare those to the new charging structure. Which should give a better idea of why the changes were bought in.

[wales01man]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Problem.
The rise in fees is here to stay its now a statute one way to avoid the fees after thel £75 fee when Bailiffs are instructed is to pay this is IMO why the fees have been raised to get people to pay.
If someones informed that a Bailiff is on the case they should Pay if the debt is theirs or get advice if its not theirs .
You will not find many on here who are fans of Bailiffs but what they do and the Fees charged is Legal when they step outside the laws and rules many members are able to give advice.

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

eg. collect some of these breakdowns together (there's lots across various forums as well as posts listing the fees) and then compare old structure vs new structure.

[doubleslap2]

Re: CT bailiff fees

The problem is whether bailiffs play by the rules. We are all aware of the post-dated letter trick, when a letter dated say 1st July is not sent out until 4th July and delivered on 8th July by which time the bailiff has already visited or visits that day, thus being able to charge £235.

It also does not take into account that even if the letter is handled correctly, the debtor may be away and unaware of the bailiff involvement and return to discover the letter, plus another hand delivered note with fees totalling £310.

All this will do is ensure more and more people will try everything they can to avoid these gross fees. How can it be justified to charge £235 to knock on someone's door? If they visited 3 other people that day, that's nearly a grand in charged fees for 1 day!

In any case, as I have read on the forums I've been visiting, it seems that many bailiffs are still up to the same tricks - clamping cars that don't belong to the debtor, charging double fees, threatening locksmiths, and generally acting like sad bullies. Why do they still do it?

[doubleslap2]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Re post #6 - you're not getting the argument. Where is the justification of fees of £310 for sending a letter, then knocking on the door? What amount of work has taken place to justify that?

All those other fees you've shown are disgraceful, but at least there is an argument that they are applied if the initial visit did not garner results, and a levy may have taken place.

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

No argument from me it is excessive. However, the fees are now £75 for letter and £235 for a visit, set in stone.

Previous fees were up down left right all over the place, all I'm saying is it's been discussed in an argumentative manner so many times, it might be constructive to get together all the old breakdowns for fees and then replace those fees with the fees under the new structure and see if that explains why they have been changed. Evidence based discussion is more likely to come up with answers.

Maybe FOI the decision makers for calculations and discussions surrounding the setting of the level of fees.

Find the hansard / general committee documents/transcripts that detail discussions on fee levels.

(ie. if you want to know the answer to the question you asked, as opposed to just fancy a shout about and a bit of a row over the unfairness of it all)

I can't explain where the outrage is.

[wales01man]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Bailiff Companies Do Not have to justify the Fees as Ame has said these are set in stone so no amount of arguing will get them reduced or starting an argument on here.
In this Country many laws are passed that some of us do not like until there is a system in place for us mere mortals to repeal the legislation.

[Paulxo]

Re: CT bailiff fees

The problem is whether bailiffs play by the rules. We are all aware of the post-dated letter trick, when a letter dated say 1st July is not sent out until 4th July and delivered on 8th July by which time the bailiff has already visited or visits that day, thus being able to charge £235.

Ah, this hasn't only happened to me then! I've explained what happened in a separate post, here

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...nd-Council-Tax

[Wombats]

Re: CT bailiff fees

No argument from me it is excessive. However, the fees are now £75 for letter and £235 for a visit, set in stone.

Previous fees were up down left right all over the place, all I'm saying is it's been discussed in an argumentative manner so many times, it might be constructive to get together all the old breakdowns for fees and then replace those fees with the fees under the new structure and see if that explains why they have been changed. Evidence based discussion is more likely to come up with answers.

Maybe FOI the decision makers for calculations and discussions surrounding the setting of the level of fees.

Find the hansard / general committee documents/transcripts that detail discussions on fee levels.

(ie. if you want to know the answer to the question you asked, as opposed to just fancy a shout about and a bit of a row over the unfairness of it all)

I can't explain where the outrage is.

Totally 100% agree with this. Arguing nastily about it is pointless and counterproductive. If someone has time to do the spadework suggested above and come back and email it through to admin, I imagine it would be a very useful resource for the site and might help explain the changes.

Of course we need to remember that the changes were not only about council tax, they were intended to tackle a much broader issue. On the whole they have arguably been successful, though there is no doubt that a fair bit of 'tweaking' and a lot of EA training needs to take place.

One of my biggest frustrations is if you take the scenario of two EA's carrying out the same week's work now; one EA is honest and abides by the rules, the other likes to 'push the boundaries' or possibly act unlawfully.

EA1 agrees 50 repayment agreements having charged £75 fee for the Compliance Stage.

EA2 agrees no agreements (despite knowing what the council would accept - usually aimed to be over 3 - 6 months) and pushes onto the Enforcement Stage, thus charging £310 in fees.

We know which type of EA we see on these forums most. I know EA's are paid in part on the money they bring in, so where is the incentive for them to be honest? Salaried EA's would be the ideal.

I think two things would be really useful:

1. To encourage debtors to engage as early as possible to try to arrange affordable repayments at the Compliance Stage.

2. FOI requests to every council asking their position over repayment agreements. There is no reason I can see why this should not be made public.

The entire reform needs to be looked at within the broader picture though, not purely council tax.

[MissFM]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Salaried EA's would be the ideal.

:amen:

[Amethyst]

Re: CT bailiff fees

I wonder if most of the problems are with employed or self-employed enforcement officers? Does it say what each is on their registration?

Starting salaries in private firms can be around £18,000 a year. With experience this can rise to around £25,000. As a self-employed bailiff, you may be able to earn up to around £40,000 a year or more, though your salary wouldn’t be guaranteed and would depend on the amount and type of work you were willing to do.
Bailiffs with HM Courts and Tribunals Service earn between £19,000 and £23,000.
Many firms pay a basic salary plus some form of commission or incentive payment to boost earnings.
Figures are intended as a guideline only.

---

[MissFM]

Re: CT bailiff fees

Do the salaried ones also get a performance bonus? (That would defeat any advantage, methinks).

Whoops - just reread and seen that they do. Outrage.