Please help Marston bailiff came today

[macajl08]

Please help, I am in a bit of a stew!

My husband had a fine for non payment of tv license, we were paying it at £20 per month and though it had ended. We were sent a letter to say still owed £25 so I paid it as soon as I could. 2 days later we had a letter from Marston saying we now owed £100 as they had added £75 charges and pay in 7 days I think. As I had paid the £25 I ignored it......big error as a bailiff has been to the house today and told my husband he is going to seize the car (on hire purchase in my name and used (sign written) for my husband's self employment) unless we pay £310. We do not have this money but will next week as I get paid. He refused to accept this and hubby put him on the phone to me.

The Court confirmed we have paid the £25 but let the bailiff get on with it. Bailiff told me he was being nice as should clamp the car and has given us til Friday to pay even though we can't then he says car will be taken from midnight Friday.

I am trying to see if I can borrow money but not sure if I can, is there anything I can do???

Thanks in advance!

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

What I have provided is the evidence from the Justice's Clerk's Society regarding summonses and Liability Orders.

Additionally, I have provide evidence from Lord Lucas which outlines the governments intention when introducing the Contracting Out regulations in 1996.

Laws do get changed but in the main, this is very difficult indeed and will come about from either intense lobbying or rulings from the Court of Appeal.

A good example that is current concerns the matter of ANPR and private parking. There has been an astonishing level of press coverage (mainly from the Daily Mail) and only today Eric Pickles has publicly stated that he is now looking at the way in which private parking companies enforce their charges.

On a personal note, I am pursing both DCLG and MOJ on the matter of the '14 day' letter from the local authority which has now been scrapped. This is the letter that under the old regs had to be sent to the debtor after a Liability Order had been obtained warning that if unpaid within 14 days the account would be sent to the bailiffs. That requirement has been revoked. Instead, it has been replaced with a letter from the bailiffs providing just 7 working days and worse still...a charge of £75 is being applied.

In my case, I am putting together EVIDENCE in support of a change in the regulations. Without supporting evidence a change will not be made.

Regarding the 14 day letter. I was also interested in this. there is a provision in the council tax regs for a 14 day period for customers to provide information regarding attachment of earning orders also, my contention is that unless this avenue is first exhausted the order should not be passed onto the EA in any case. I am aware of the SI which revokes the 14 day period you are referring to though

[Milo]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

What I have provided is the evidence from the Justice's Clerk's Society regarding summonses and Liability Orders.

Additionally, I have provide evidence from Lord Lucas which outlines the governments intention when introducing the Contracting Out regulations in 1996.

Laws do get changed but in the main, this is very difficult indeed and will come about from either intense lobbying or rulings from the Court of Appeal.

A good example that is current concerns the matter of ANPR and private parking. There has been an astonishing level of press coverage (mainly from the Daily Mail) and only today Eric Pickles has publicly stated that he is now looking at the way in which private parking companies enforce their charges.

On a personal note, I am pursing both DCLG and MOJ on the matter of the '14 day' letter from the local authority which has now been scrapped. This is the letter that under the old regs had to be sent to the debtor after a Liability Order had been obtained warning that if unpaid within 14 days the account would be sent to the bailiffs. That requirement has been revoked. Instead, it has been replaced with a letter from the bailiffs providing just 7 working days and worse still...a charge of £75 is being applied.

In my case, I am putting together EVIDENCE in support of a change in the regulations. Without supporting evidence a change will not be made.

[bizzybob]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

perhaps a little more living the real world would also be helpful, the law is the law as far as you and me are concerned, you can try telling the authorities that they have it all wrong whilst they re posses your house if you like, but I think that you will find they will be somewhat inflexible to your interpretation and you will still find yourself out on your ear.

Do you know what? They will do what they do, we will lobby for change, and let them know of any abuses of the system. If a debtor engages at the earliest opportunity and they ignore vulnerabilities, and finacial destitution we will complain. end of now can we all work together or should we slag each other off for differences of opinion,?

That way the bully bailiffs and inept councils win.

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Perhaps a little less ner ner ner ner ner would be good, Law is developing and changing constantly, and there may well be fiuture scrutiny of the provisions if blatant abuse and bending of the rules becomes apparent. You remind me of the Policeman in Thomas the Tank Engine, Thomas in Trouble, who says "The law is the law and we can't change it" Well yes the judiciary can and do chasnge it when it becomes apparent it isn't working as intended.

perhaps a little more living the real world would also be helpful, the law is the law as far as you and me are concerned, you can try telling the authorities that they have it all wrong whilst they re posses your house if you like, but I think that you will find they will be somewhat inflexible to your interpretation and you will still find yourself out on your ear.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Perhaps a little less ner ner ner ner ner would be good, Law is developing and changing constantly, and there may well be fiuture scrutiny of the provisions if blatant abuse and bending of the rules becomes apparent. You remind me of the Policeman in Thomas the Tank Engine, Thomas in Trouble, who says "The law is the law and we can't change it" Well yes the judiciary can and do change it when it becomes apparent it isn't working as intended.

There is a Circuit Judge on the Western Circuit who quotes something similar. I believe it is called positivism.

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Thank you for posting this, Milo. However, in some cases, it has lead to abnegation of responsibility by local authorities and abuse of people's rights by private-sector contractors, lack of transparency and, most concerning, lack of accountability.

So how does this tally with your assertion that the issuance and collection of liability orders by LAs is inherently fraudulent ?

[bizzybob]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Perhaps yuo should wait until these allegations are supported by fact before you mention them. Just an idea.

Perhaps a little less ner ner ner ner ner would be good, Law is developing and changing constantly, and there may well be fiuture scrutiny of the provisions if blatant abuse and bending of the rules becomes apparent. You remind me of the Policeman in Thomas the Tank Engine, Thomas in Trouble, who says "The law is the law and we can't change it" Well yes the judiciary can and do change it when it becomes apparent it isn't working as intended.

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

What you have said echoes what I have heard from MacKenzie Friends who represent people at Council Tax Liability Order hearings, Milo. Plymouth City Council took the administration of Council Tax back in-house from Capita, but contracted-out enforcement to JBW, who are being watched like hawks by Plymouth CAB. However, I have heard some concerning reports, which are subject to confirmation, that PCC has been issuing warrants to JBW for unpaid PCNs without first obtaining a charge certificate from TEC at Northampton. If these reports are confirmed as correct, it is not only very worrying, it also means any enforcement action is potentially unlawful.

Perhaps yuo should wait until these allegations are supported by fact before you mention them. Just an idea.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The government's intention of the role that should be played by private contractors is clearly outlined by Lord Lucas in July 1996 when debating the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order in the House of Lords.

The following is from Hansard:


http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...tax#column_757


Lord Lucas


Many functions of local government may be carried out only by officers of a local authority. The two orders before your Lordships are intended to give local authorities greater freedom, where they so wish, to use the private sector to provide services which they would normally have to provide themselves.

The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order is intended to clarify an authority's powers to contract out its billing, collection and enforcement functions on council tax, community charge and national non-domestic rates.

The order will enable local authorities to delegate to a contractor most of their statutory functions and decision-making powers relating to the administration of local taxes—for example, whether a dwelling should be regarded as exempt from council tax or, where payments have not been made, whether to initiate enforcement action against a taxpayer.

Each decision which is taken by a contractor must be based very firmly on the conditions which are set out in statute. There should therefore be no greater risk if a contractor takes those decisions than there is when the decision is made by a local authority officer.

Of course, not all decisions should be in the hands of a contractor. For example, where taxes are unpaid and other enforcement action has proved unsuccessful, an authority can apply for the debtor's commitment to prison. Because of the serious nature of that ultimate penalty, its use should remain exclusively with local authorities. The order therefore does not allow the delegation of these powers to a third party.

Local taxpayers' rights will not be affected by this legislation. They will still have the same rights of appeal, both to the local authority and to the valuation tribunals. And if they are aggrieved at anything which has been done in the council's name, they will still be able to lodge a complaint through the council's own procedures or through the Local Government Ombudsman.

In summary, this is a sensible and worthwhile change which is widely supported by local authorities because it achieves the right balance between allowing an authority to use a contractor for its revenue collection services, while reserving the most difficult decisions for the authority.

Thank you for posting this, Milo. However, in some cases, it has lead to abnegation of responsibility by local authorities and abuse of people's rights by private-sector contractors, lack of transparency and, most concerning, lack of accountability.

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Gosh that is a last from the past. NOt seen that for many moons, it just reminds us that all these provisions no matter how much we may or may not agree with them have been discussed and democratically approved, there is no point ranting against them , if anyone feels they are in some way contrary to the common good then there are way for changing the system.

There are abuses of the system in that LAs and councils will attempt to short cut their legal requirements and these should be challenged, but you cannot complain about the LAs enforcing there right to reclaim sums due under the legislation and the law of the land, because it may not be convenient or suite a particular circumstance, the law does not work like that.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

It is worrying quite how much power the 'private back office' companies such as Capita, Liberata, Vertex, etc have been given. The actual statutory regulations is the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996.

What you have said echoes what I have heard from MacKenzie Friends who represent people at Council Tax Liability Order hearings, Milo. Plymouth City Council took the administration of Council Tax back in-house from Capita, but contracted-out enforcement to JBW, who are being watched like hawks by Plymouth CAB. However, I have heard some concerning reports, which are subject to confirmation, that PCC has been issuing warrants to JBW for unpaid PCNs without first obtaining a charge certificate from TEC at Northampton. If these reports are confirmed as correct, it is not only very worrying, it also means any enforcement action is potentially unlawful.

[Milo]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The government's intention of the role that should be played by private contractors is clearly outlined by Lord Lucas in July 1996 when debating the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order in the House of Lords.

The following is from Hansard:


http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...tax#column_757


Lord Lucas


Many functions of local government may be carried out only by officers of a local authority. The two orders before your Lordships are intended to give local authorities greater freedom, where they so wish, to use the private sector to provide services which they would normally have to provide themselves.

The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order is intended to clarify an authority's powers to contract out its billing, collection and enforcement functions on council tax, community charge and national non-domestic rates.

The order will enable local authorities to delegate to a contractor most of their statutory functions and decision-making powers relating to the administration of local taxes—for example, whether a dwelling should be regarded as exempt from council tax or, where payments have not been made, whether to initiate enforcement action against a taxpayer.

Each decision which is taken by a contractor must be based very firmly on the conditions which are set out in statute. There should therefore be no greater risk if a contractor takes those decisions than there is when the decision is made by a local authority officer.

Of course, not all decisions should be in the hands of a contractor. For example, where taxes are unpaid and other enforcement action has proved unsuccessful, an authority can apply for the debtor's commitment to prison. Because of the serious nature of that ultimate penalty, its use should remain exclusively with local authorities. The order therefore does not allow the delegation of these powers to a third party.

Local taxpayers' rights will not be affected by this legislation. They will still have the same rights of appeal, both to the local authority and to the valuation tribunals. And if they are aggrieved at anything which has been done in the council's name, they will still be able to lodge a complaint through the council's own procedures or through the Local Government Ombudsman.

In summary, this is a sensible and worthwhile change which is widely supported by local authorities because it achieves the right balance between allowing an authority to use a contractor for its revenue collection services, while reserving the most difficult decisions for the authority.

[Milo]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The point is that LAs are authorized to serve and process liability orders and that is the situation, there are no "human rights issues" this is all FMOTL nonsense, the authority has a prefect right to recover delinquent council tax and the legal process are perfectly and properly in place for them to do so.
It is not for any of us to prove any of this to your satisfaction, if you feel this is not the case then talk to your MP, if he will give you any time for such nonsense.

It is worrying quite how much power the 'private back office' companies such as Capita, Liberata, Vertex, etc have been given. The actual statutory regulations is the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Milo and BlueBottle, what this amounts to if examined in the light of the Articles of the ECHR and Human Rights Act, is that the whole procedure as outlined by yourselves may well be contrary to the Convention and the ACT insofar as it breaches right to a fair trial or hearing, and it allows non judicial private companies to basically run the court for the day. Similarly the Crapita TVL stitch up is flawed also.

It's the same with utility companies and their warrants of entry, BB. It needs the decent and honest people within the Courts and Tribunals Services, Central and Local Government and public pressure to bring this situation to an end.