Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

[nemesis45]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

********

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.********
No further comment from me.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

********

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.********
No further comment from me.

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.

[Crazy council]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

As i always suggest, pay it into the council bank from yours ( just the CT you owe ) , email the council the reference number so they allocate the payment.

Complain to the head of finance that the amount applied for is ridiculously low compared to the other methods available to them, ask them to remove the fee, tell them if not, you require confirmation that they have followed all there internal steps both properly and appropriately before applying for a liability order. Thye will tell you there not doing it, push the complaint upto the level were it gets to iether the 151 officer ( head of finance or monitoring officer head of legal ).

oddly enough, these roles have general responsibility for the appropriateness of the councils actions.

Can i ask, how much was the charge for summons/liability order ?

[Debt Camel]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Nem wrote

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.

Which is a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to ask.

The answer could have been
- "I didn't know of the £35 as I have never received any communication about this"
- "I knew there was a debt but I was disputing it"
- "I didn't know there was a LO because the letter from the council arrived whilst I was on holiday / was delivered to the other property the LO relates to not the one I live in despite me having asked the council to send all letters to my address"
- "I had called the council to make an arrangement to pay so I ignored the LO"
- "My daughter was in hospital after a serious car accident"
- "I should have been receiving Council Tax Support so I assumed it was a mix up which would get resolved"

or many other things. The best way to get the problem resolved often depends on why it has arisen in the first place.

Much though I dislike bailiffs there is nothing to suggest that Jacobs have actually done anything wrong here. the council may have - but it's hard to tell.

[Guest]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

I'm not sure that the council have any options available to them before a LO is issued.

The correct procedure for them to follow is:

1. Reminder notice
2. Final notice (7 days to pay in full)
3. Summons
4. LO issued
5. Notification that summons has been issued and notification that enforcement may be used

[Kati]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

I got a letter from the council threatening bailiff action over £8 (ish) earlier this year ... I questioned why and how they'd got a LO to be told they'd sent all the paperwork to my previous address (when they knew I'd moved as was shown by their sending the letter I got to my current address). Guess what?? They removed the LO and the debt because it was "their error" :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Guest]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Nem wrote



Which is a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to ask.

The answer could have been
- "I didn't know of the £35 as I have never received any communication about this"
- "I knew there was a debt but I was disputing it"
- "I didn't know there was a LO because the letter from the council arrived whilst I was on holiday / was delivered to the other property the LO relates to not the one I live in despite me having asked the council to send all letters to my address"
- "I had called the council to make an arrangement to pay so I ignored the LO"
- "My daughter was in hospital after a serious car accident"
- "I should have been receiving Council Tax Support so I assumed it was a mix up which would get resolved"

or many other things. The best way to get the problem resolved often depends on why it has arisen in the first place.

Much though I dislike bailiffs there is nothing to suggest that Jacobs have actually done anything wrong here. the council may have - but it's hard to tell.

[/COLOR]

I disagree-I believe that this line of questioning could well shame or embarrass the debtor sufficiently, for them not to want to return to the forum.

We are not here to judge or to make assumptions. Nobody is saying that Jacobs have acted inappropriately.

The "you should have paid when you had the chance" attitude stinks. You have outlined a handful of reasons why a debtor has not paid. The list is infinite.

The OP has asked for help in dealing with the bailiffs, not help in disputing the debt. In this scenario, it makes no difference why the debtor has arrived at this crisis point, and nothing can be gained by interrogating as to why the debt remained unpaid. Help and assistance needs to be given moving forward, not condescending comments about why the debt exists.

Council tax recovery is particularly harsh and punitive. People should be encouraged to post for help, not made to feel they are criminals for being in debt.

[Guest]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

I got a letter from the council threatening bailiff action over £8 (ish) earlier this year ... I questioned why and how they'd got a LO to be told they'd sent all the paperwork to my previous address (when they knew I'd moved as was shown by their sending the letter I got to my current address). Guess what?? They removed the LO and the debt because it was "their error" :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Because you had notified them of the address change. Many people do not. The council can legally send correspondence to the last known address. In your case, they hadn't done so because of their own incompetence. It is a common trait in councils and many do not know what one department is doing compared to the other. The only thing they are efficient at is chasing debts owed to them.

[Wombats]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

I think they will usually put repayment plans into place before applying for a LO, and often even allow one or two hiccups on it. That was my personal experience, though I can obviously speak only for my own LA and what it did a few years ago.

I think the choice of enforcement option is significant, as there were other remedies available which would have got the money without the need for bailiffs. This is often the case.

Re other points DC, the OP states they were unaware of the debt. This is highly improbably if the bailiffs had the right address (as appears to be the case as the EA visited the right address). It would be unlucky not to receive one letter. To not receive three which, coincidentally, are the exact ones you need to receive about this, is massively unlikely. This is why I stated about the address - a house move is usually the cause for this, but in this case it appears the EA's had the correct address.

Kati - hi again! I agree, we need to help the OP - see my first post in the thread. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Crazy council]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

[MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] there are a number of considerations that the officer that decides to apply for the LO is supposed to consider, that's why i suggest paying the CT direct to the council, and, if the op is a little bit at fault, also pay the LO costs

Then complain asking them if they have followed all the correct procedures. There are internal accounting and audit standards to follow, and the officers i named, have overall responsibility for the application of the processes, thats why 9/10 times, they get withdrawn

[outlawlgo]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

I'm not sure that the council have any options available to them before a LO is issued.

The correct procedure for them to follow is:

1. Reminder notice
2. Final notice (7 days to pay in full)
3. Summons
4. LO issued
5. Notification that summons has been issued and notification that enforcement may be used

The council has discretion whether to apply for a liability order, but in theory, I should think no human is involved and the council just rely on the council tax software (the cheapest option).

[Wombats]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

The council has discretion whether to apply for a liability order, but in theory, I should think no human is involved and the council just rely on the council tax software (the cheapest option for them, and sod the debtor!).

Wom....

[Guest]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

@Kati there are a number of considerations that the officer that decides to apply for the LO is supposed to consider, that's why i suggest paying the CT direct to the council, and, if the op is a little bit at fault, also pay the LO costs

Then complain asking them if they have followed all the correct procedures. There are internal accounting and audit standards to follow, and the officers i named, have overall responsibility for the application of the processes, thats why 9/10 times, they get withdrawn

Again, you are incorrect. Legislation provides for the sequence of events as laid out in my previous post. There is no requirement to make any other consideration and councils rarely do as they have followed the correct procedure.

You may get enforcement temporarily suspended by complaining that correct procedures have not been followed but your complaint will be dismissed. There are also no cases involving the LGO where complaints of this nature have been successful.

You are still falling into the trap of not understanding the implications of the Schedule 12 procedure. Simply paying the council directly is not going to stop bailiffs visiting.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

I think they will usually put repayment plans into place before applying for a LO, and often even allow one or two hiccups on it. That was my personal experience, though I can obviously speak only for my own LA and what it did a few years ago.

Also from experience with two different councils, they have a policy of sending two reminders, however, they are two per CT year, then they go on to issue a summons and demand repayment of the tax for the whole tax year as paying by installments is allegedly a privilege not a right. At this stage they'll still accept a payment from you and agree to re-instate the installment order though, at least they have done with me.

Because you had notified them of the address change. Many people do not. The council can legally send correspondence to the last known address. In your case, they hadn't done so because of their own incompetence. It is a common trait in councils and many do not know what one department is doing compared to the other. The only thing they are efficient at is chasing debts owed to them.

Yes, and so can creditor serving court papers, which is why we have so many default CCJs. :tinysmile_cry_t:

The council has discretion whether to apply for a liability order, but in theory, I should think no human is involved and the council just rely on the council tax software (the cheapest option).

When I rang the council a few years ago to ask why they'd issued summons when I'd been paying the CT every month they said the payments had been going through a few days late every month and that had automatically triggered the software to issue the summons so yes, it seems to be automated but only to a certain point. If you speak to them you can sort it out before it reaches the LO point. The problem seems to be that the OP had not received anything about the debt.

[Wombats]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

You are correct L Bizzy. Sch 12 is actually reasonably straightforward on the whole. By far the best option IMO, once things have got this far, is to sit it out and wait for the return of the warrant.

FP - your experience is very similar to my own. Assuming you don't live near me, that's at least two LA's take that approach then.

[Crazy council]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Again, you are incorrect. Legislation provides for the sequence of events as laid out in my previous post. There is no requirement to make any other consideration and councils rarely do as they have followed the correct procedure.

You are still falling into the trap of not understanding the implications of the Schedule 12 procedure. Simply paying the council directly is not going to stop bailiffs visiting.

Hi @L.Bizzy

there isa more than just the legislation your quoting, you need to understand the local government finance act sections that deal with delegated powers, also, the accounting standards ( both governmental and independant ( like cipfa ) ). Its BVPI indicators 9 to 11 i think ( i may remember wrong ) that deal with accounting around CT and NNDR and further actions
@outlawlgo was spot on, they simply process the LOs becuase its easier and cheaper than following the proper accounting rules.. These rules, include stuff like

reasonable effort to confirm contact with the debitors,
assessment of the appropriateness of taking further actions
plus many more

each council also has there own constitution, and can vary the rules under certan conditions ( when @outlawlgo found our council applying for liability orders for as low as a penny, but over 6000 for onder £ 100 ( the minimum at the time ) ), our monitoring officer, gave himself special powers, then reduced the minimum they couold apply for, down to a £ 10 ( 2013 )

So, ignoring and holding out, probebly not a good idea in these curcs
Pay what you owe, into there bank, and if reasonable, the LO fee, Is at least heading in the right direction. then complain to the right officer