Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

[mcg]

Just arrived back from a 10 day holiday to find Jacobs Bailiffs have attended twice and posted through letters for removal for originally a £35 Council Tax Bill, which now has a liability order for a rental property I have.

Now they demand £400+ and left a Control letter for my vehicles parked on my drive: also a letter came through the mail stating i had agreed to pay £10 every 14 days or my cars will be removed?

Was unaware of matters and would highlight both cars are on Hire Purchase with one log book in my company name.

Any help would be really appreicated.

[nemesis45]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Good morning,

You will need to inform Jacobs that you do not own the cars and provide evidence of
the HP contracts to back this up.

Why if you knew of this very small amount of tax for which it seems there has been
contact from the council prior to the debt being handed to a bailiff did you not pay it.
Costs have been levied for the visits by the bailiff which will have to be paid even if you
pay the £35.00.

nem

[Wombats]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Good morning,

You will need to inform Jacobs that you do not own the cars and provide evidence of
the HP contracts to back this up.

Will that stop them taking control of the vehicle then Nem?

Why if you knew of this very small amount of tax for which it seems there has been
contact from the council prior to the debt being handed to a bailiff did you not pay it?

Is that relevant?

Wom

[Guest]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

The car in the company name COULD be exempt, dependant on whether the HP agreement is in the company name, whether the car is hired by the company and who is paying the HP installments.

It is of course totally irrelevant as to why the £35 was not paid and will not advance the issue any further forward, not will it help the debtor. People coming on here for genuine help should not be interrogated as to why they are in a certain predicament nor should they be made to feel guilty for being there.

The other car is certainly at risk, as we have discovered recently. I am doubtful whether the vehicle would be removed but it could possibly be clamped which IMO is in conflict with the Schedule 12 procedure. If the bailiff has no intention of removing goods for sale, he should not take control of them-Doing so is purely punitive, in an underhand attempt to force payment.

Another "trick" that appears to be happening is bailiffs claims that debtors enter into repayment agreements when none have been entered into. This again is completely illegal and the purpose for doing so is to start the clock ticking again regarding the lifespan of the enforcement power. It is usually used towards the end of the 12 month lifespan.

The OP should check who is legally responsible for the company HP car. Check if there is any equity in the other HP car and contact the council to ascertain when the LO was issued and when the case was passed for enforcement. This will give an indication as to how long the power will remain "live"

In the meantime, care should be taken with the vehicles. If possible, park them on a neighbours drive which will render them untouchable as far as enforcement is concerned.

[Wombats]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Absolutely right LBizzy! I agree with you 100%.

People coming on here for genuine help should not be interrogated as to why they are in a certain predicament nor should they be made to feel guilty for being there.

Too right - it is not relevant and is none of our business. We are here to help the debtor, not to interrogate them with pointless questions.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Some information which may be relevant concerns payments made direct to the council (if such a decision to do so is made).

A local authority has stated (which I suppose would need verifying):

They [enforcement fees] will not show on an individual's council tax or non-domestic rate account as they do not form part of the amount due to the authority.

This in theory means that payments which are expressly intended to pay off the council tax debt (paid to the council) can't be allocated against the bailiff fees.

But the council goes on to say:

If payment is received by the authority in respect of fees due to the enforcement agent, the appropriate amount is transferred to the enforcement agent.

Presumably this would be against the law and almost certainly unlawful if payment was made directly into the relevant council tax account (by internet banking) and the authority fished it out (so to speak) and diverted it to the enforcement agent.

[nemesis45]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Hi, if you had paid the £35 then none of this would have happened.

Jacobs cannot touch the cars they are not your property, but you
must show proof.

Maybe approach the council about issuing a LO for just £35 it is to my mind unreasonable.

nem

[Guest]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Yes-We all know that if the debt had been paid, then none of this would have happened. How is this helping the OP though? Do you not think he/she doesn't know this as well? If every debtor had paid their debt, there would be no need for these forums but as you can see, they are full of people seeking help. It is not for us to judge or to question why a debtor is in debt and it is very condescending to simply state "if you had paid, then none of this would have happened".

Jacobs can touch the cars if they believe that there is equity belonging to the debtor in them. In practice, they won't check and will clamp them, in an attempt to force payment.

[Wombats]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Just a thought but you say the amount was due to rental properties, "you have", were these unoccupied during the period in question ?

[Guest]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Some information which may be relevant concerns payments made direct to the council (if such a decision to do so is made).

A local authority has stated (which I suppose would need verifying):


This in theory means that payments which are expressly intended to pay off the council tax debt (paid to the council) can't be allocated against the bailiff fees.

But the council goes on to say:


Presumably this would be against the law and almost certainly unlawful if payment was made directly into the relevant council tax account (by internet banking) and the authority fished it out (so to speak) and diverted it to the enforcement agent.

It is interesting that the argument appears to be that if you pay the council directly, you have paid "less than the amount outstanding"

Can a council divide this payment pro-rata? This is the $64million question.

My own feeling is that they can't. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the author of the fees regulations states at 13(1) " Subject to paragraph 50(6) of Schedule 12, when the proceeds FROM THE EXERCISEOF AN ENFORCEMENT POWER are less than the amount outstanding, they must be applied in accordance with this regulation.

Clearly, any monies paid to the council can not be categorically from the exercise of the enforcement power. It could well be that the enforcement power has prompted payment but it cannot be proven beyond doubt that this is the case. A debtor could have intended to pay the arrears but was not in a position to do so until payment was made. It could be by coincidence that the case had reached the enforcement stage.

My only concern would be that the bailiff would continue to visit just for his fees. Whether he can enforce for them or not is another question. I personally think if a debtor wishes to go down this road, he/she is better off paying nothing at all and then waiting for the bailiffs to return the debt. I would also write to the council, explaining what the intentions are, so that they are aware that the debtor is not intending to avoid payment of the debt-Just the harsh fees that the bailiff wants.

[Crazy council]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Some information which may be relevant concerns payments made direct to the council (if such a decision to do so is made).

A local authority has stated (which I suppose would need verifying):


This in theory means that payments which are expressly intended to pay off the council tax debt (paid to the council) can't be allocated against the bailiff fees.

But the council goes on to say:


Presumably this would be against the law and almost certainly unlawful if payment was made directly into the relevant council tax account (by internet banking) and the authority fished it out (so to speak) and diverted it to the enforcement agent.

interesting that [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION] our bunch ( nelc ), for some of the period 2003-2011, seemed to be getting around this in an odd accounting way, the contracts with rossenrobbers included collecting other debts as well, like owed rent on council propertys.

What i caught our bunch of gymnastic legal and accounts team doing, was paying bailiffs fees, for incorrect accounts they had sent, and had returned, ( like your penny ones ) from other accounting budget, ie, rent collections. I only noticed it because i noticed and odd vat payment from our council accounts, and followed it thorugh

To the OP

Just arrived back from a 10 day holiday to find Jacobs Bailiffs have attended twice and posted through letters for removal for originally a £35 Council Tax Bill, which now has a liability order for a rental property I have.

whos the council, they may not be allowed to go for them that low, there are also a number of other considerations they should have gone through before going for a LO, for such a small amount.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

....I personally think if a debtor wishes to go down this road, he/she is better off paying nothing at all and then waiting for the bailiffs to return the debt. I would also write to the council, explaining what the intentions are, so that they are aware that the debtor is not intending to avoid payment of the debt-Just the harsh fees that the bailiff wants.

I would say that route would be the safest option and put the responsibility squarely on the council for any delay in payment.

[nemesis45]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Yes for £35 what's to argue!

nem

[Wombats]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Yes for £35 what's to argue!

nem

You clearly have not been in a position where you do not have £35 to pay. If you haven't got it, £35 might as well be a million pounds.

I've been there several times, and it was horrendous. Nobody should ever, ever be questioned like that. It is not our business and is irrelevant to helping the debtor move forwards.

I agree that sitting it out is the best thing to do if possible. The vehicle would, of course, need putting on private ground, or kept away from the property.

Can the council apportion funds? As you say, the million dollar question! We get back to the age old argument of other forums over proceeds etc... which is probably best left for those forums to argue. Ultimately it may need either a court case or a change in legislation - though I appreciate the latter is not as easy as it might be believed to be.

Wom

[Kati]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Yes for £35 what's to argue!

nem

You clearly have not been in a position where you do not have £35 to pay. If you haven't got it, £35 might as well be a million pounds.

I've been there several times, and it was horrendous. Nobody should ever, ever be questioned like that. It is not our business and is irrelevant to helping the debtor move forwards.

OK boys ... can we give it a rest and help the OP please - instead of nit-picking :tinysmile_hmm_t2: