One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

[MissFM]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

I agree Bluebottle ... The ECHR is our friend in things like this. I just hope that the UK population as a whole actually agree (before we leave the EU)

But our enemy in other areas, sad to say...:tinysmile_hmm_t2: x

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Well done Kati-You've put me to shame, I'm the worlds worst when it comes to PC's.

It is interesting that they all seem to list the same potential cases of vulnerability in the same order. There must be some common source where they are receiving this guidance.

To be fair, it doesn't really tell us anything that we don't already know. We know that these categories could fall into the vulnerability bracket. My feeling is that in many cases, vulnerability will not be an issue. We could probably all make a case for ourselves of being vulnerable but this doesn't excuse us from repaying debts. The same applies here-Just because someone is on benefits, they can't expect not to pay council tax. The benefits that they receive caters for council tax in any case. You can't simply not pay it & then claim vulnerability because you're on benefits. What kind of message does that send out to the majority on benefits who do pay, even though they can't afford it?

[Crazy council]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

It is interesting that they all seem to list the same potential cases of vulnerability in the same order. There must be some common source where they are receiving this guidance

They sort of agree a framework with the regulators ( CIPFA SOLACE ) and and each council adjusts to suit there needs. I have the older ones from councils in 2009 someware. Its the frase i pointed out that i have not seen before in one of these.

Of the three councils, Manchester City Council is the only one that reminds civil enforcement companies of compliance with Human Rights legislation

Years ago, manchesters internal council policys around admin of CT and NNDR, had a bonus system attached that paid bonuses to actions beyond LOs, for atachment orders to bankrupting people.. They also had a side policy that seem to reward baillif firms for not passing the accounts back within the fisrt year.

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Well done Kati-You've put me to shame, I'm the worlds worst when it comes to PC's.

It is interesting that they all seem to list the same potential cases of vulnerability in the same order. There must be some common source where they are receiving this guidance.

To be fair, it doesn't really tell us anything that we don't already know. We know that these categories could fall into the vulnerability bracket. My feeling is that in many cases, vulnerability will not be an issue. We could probably all make a case for ourselves of being vulnerable but this doesn't excuse us from repaying debts. The same applies here-Just because someone is on benefits, they can't expect not to pay council tax. The benefits that they receive caters for council tax in any case. You can't simply not pay it & then claim vulnerability because you're on benefits. What kind of message does that send out to the majority on benefits who do pay, even though they can't afford it?

I have to agree ... I would be first in line to pay any legitimate debt! My problem comes when a LA or EA doesn't follow their own guidelines/regulations. Vulnerability is not an infallible defence and should not be used as an excuse for non-payment. BUT, the guidelines are there in order to help those that need it :tinysmile_grin_t:

[MissFM]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Well done Kati-You've put me to shame, I'm the worlds worst when it comes to PC's.

It is interesting that they all seem to list the same potential cases of vulnerability in the same order. There must be some common source where they are receiving this guidance.

To be fair, it doesn't really tell us anything that we don't already know. We know that these categories could fall into the vulnerability bracket. My feeling is that in many cases, vulnerability will not be an issue. We could probably all make a case for ourselves of being vulnerable but this doesn't excuse us from repaying debts. The same applies here-Just because someone is on benefits, they can't expect not to pay council tax. The benefits that they receive caters for council tax in any case. You can't simply not pay it & then claim vulnerability because you're on benefits. What kind of message does that send out to the majority on benefits who do pay, even though they can't afford it?

The fact that they are receiving the above official guidance is significant - especially if it isn't being acted upon (as we know, anecdotally, from people coming here).

There is no point in councils issuing "guidelines" and "good practice" directives if they do not ensure that they're observed, both to the spirit and to the letter.

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

The one thing I found strange when I started looking into this was how FEW LAs actually have a copy of their own guidelines for the general public to look at ... Many just have a single page on EA involvement and say something along the lines of "the Enforcement Agents will act in accordance with their regulations in regards to fees and collection" NO mention whatsoever of the fact that LAs have the ability to recall the action and halt he EA process/fees etc...

[bluebottle]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. Its incorporation into domestic legislation is a condition of membership of the EU, but the EU has no influence over it, nor can it interfere with the workings of the European Court of Human Rights and its Grand Chamber. The Rome Convention (ECHR's other name) is administered by the Council of Europe which is made up of the 47 countries that are signatories to ECHR, including Russia and Switzerland, and it is the Council that administers the Strasbourg court and Convention, not the EU. The EU and Council of Europe are two entirely separate bodies; one is political, the other is concerned with preventing and curbing abuses of power by the governments of those countries that have signed ECHR.

It would make no difference if the UK left the EU; the UK signed ECHR long before it joined what is now the EU - it was the UK that helped draft ECHR in the aftermath of WW2 - and it would still have to comply with ECHR, no matter what Dodgy Dave, Odious Osborne, Mad Madame Mim May and the other assorted anti-Europe loonies would try to have us all believe. Much of the bad press ECHR gets is down to mainstream media which is owned by hard-right leaning factions and political agitators of similar ilk. ECHR keeps despotism and tyranny on a very short choke chain.

Incidentally, the UK is the worst offender for breaches of ECHR out of all the 47 countries that have signed the Convention. On average, 10 cases a year go before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg where the UK government is the defendant. Other governments, on average, go before the Court, maybe, once or twice a year, if at all.

[Crazy council]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

The fact that they are receiving the above official guidance is significant - especially if it isn't being acted upon (as we know, anecdotally, from people coming here).

There is no point in councils issuing "guidelines" and "good practice" directives if they do not ensure that they're observed, both to the spirit and to the letter.

Hi

The old policy's were included in the bailiff contracts between councils, the bailiffs are responsible for following them, but the council are still responsible for the application of them. Thats why, previously, for CT, the bailiffs had to contact the council on the morning of any action, to ensure the accounts were still to be actively challenged.

There is a bit more to that side you mention about guidelines within councils. In most cases, there not guidelines, there part of the internal legal structural set up. Meaning, that there is always a senior officer in line of responsibility, and a legally agreed way to operate.

[MissFM]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

The one thing I found strange when I started looking into this was how FEW LAs actually have a copy of their own guidelines for the general public to look at ... Many just have a single page on EA involvement and say something along the lines of "the Enforcement Agents will act in accordance with their regulations in regards to fees and collection" NO mention whatsoever of the fact that LAs have the ability to recall the action and halt he EA process/fees etc...

It's just not good enough, is it Kati?

[Guest]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

The fact that they are receiving the above official guidance is significant - especially if it isn't being acted upon (as we know, anecdotally, from people coming here).

There is no point in councils issuing "guidelines" and "good practice" directives if they do not ensure that they're observed, both to the spirit and to the letter.

The guidelines are nothing that hasn't already been mentioned in the national Standards or elsewhere. The time honoured answer to vulnerability claims is that if you are receiving income (be it benefits or whatever) then you can afford to make payments (even if its the Government approved minimum of £3.50)

What exactly are vulnerable people arguing about? If its just that they are scared of bailiffs visiting then set up an arrangement. Its not rocket science.

This is one of the few arguments that I agree with the enforcement side of the argument. If you are vulnerable & a bailiff visit is going to have an adverse effect then surely you would be wise to pay your debt? I don't see what the issue is here?

Hiding behind vulnerability is as bad as debt avoidance in my eyes and can only have a detrimental effect on the genuine hardship cases who really are vulnerable.

[Wombats]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Kati, I have somehow managed successfully to miss your magnificent work - thank you!

Were these sourced on the internet from the Councils' websites or via FOI requests or how?

I agree they don't tell us anything we don't know, but they might well be used against them if we can get commonality between a lot of councils and others are doing something different.

[bluebottle]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

They sort of agree a framework with the regulators ( CIPFA SOLACE ) and and each council adjusts to suit there needs. I have the older ones from councils in 2009 someware. Its the frase i pointed out that i have not seen before in one of these.



Years ago, manchesters internal council policys around admin of CT and NNDR, had a bonus system attached that paid bonuses to actions beyond LOs, for atachment orders to bankrupting people.. They also had a side policy that seem to reward baillif firms for not passing the accounts back within the fisrt year.

There is a lot of corruption and fraud going on with regard to bankruptcy proceedings involving local authorities chasing alleged CT arrears. I am currently helping someone involved in such a case. The local authority has breached disclosure rules and rules of evidence and the judge appears to have sussed something is not right. This was shown by his statement to the local authority solicitor on adjournment. The local authority wanted a two-week adjournment, but the judge told them, "Three weeks and I am minded to make it longer."

[MissFM]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Incidentally, the UK is the worst offender for breaches of ECHR out of all the 47 countries that have signed the Convention. On average, 10 cases a year go before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg where the UK government is the defendant. Other governments, on average, go before the Court, maybe, once or twice a year, if at all.

@ Bluebottle

I'm sorry BB but the level of cases going before the court doesn't necessarily reflect the level of offences - it could reflect the level of freedom to be litigious and incentives to act thus.

I mean no disrespect at all, btw, just that there is a bit of a flaw in logic (an ungrounded assumption) in your above statement

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

Kati, I have somehow managed successfully to miss your magnificent work - thank you!

Were these sourced on the internet from the Councils' websites or via FOI requests or how?

I agree they don't tell us anything we don't know, but they might well be used against them if we can get commonality between a lot of councils and others are doing something different.

hi Wombats ... I found these three on the councils own websites after appealing against my own EA action on the grounds of non-notification from my previous LA.

I'm all for fighting against wrongs and kinda got interested in the subject

[Kati]

Re: One Councils bailiff regulations 2014

It's just not good enough, is it Kati?

I don't think so MissFM ... If the rules and regs are there, they should be adhered to!