Bailiff advice

[lgfa92]

Re: Bailiff advice

Well that is what has happened, I couldnt believe it. I asked the chap at the council and he confirmed that the balance was zero after my payment and that some days later (cant remember the exact date) the balance was £75.00. He said he didnt know why and said would I like to speak to recovery dept which I did. They were totally unhelpful and just kept repeating that I had to deal with/pay the collection company directly.

It looks like the council have passed £75 to the enforcement agent against the fees - this then leaves the £75 outstanding as council tax.

I'm lead to believe there was a court case recently held regarding the payment of the £75 and the apportionment - the case apparently went against the debtor however I have yet to see the case report to know exactly how it applies.

Craig

[lgfa92]

Re: Bailiff advice

There is no legislative authority that allows the council to add an invoice to a taxpayer's council tax account in this manner. Yes, the fee was due but the council has no remit to take money that was paid towards a council tax bill and apportion it elsewhere. They wouldn't take money in this manner to pay for the office windows to be cleaned would they? They wouldn't say 'oh, we need more loo roll - stick it on Mr Smith's council tax account'.

Imagine the uproar if someone paid their gas bill and the gas company decided to reallocate that payment to pay for something else leaving the bill still owing. What has happened here is no different.

There wasn't a court case but an LGO case recently that had something to do with the £75 fee stating that the debtor was liable for this fee despite paying the council directly but of course no-one disputes that - the fee is due, it's a case of how it's paid. The council in that case did not pass on any money to the bailiff.

I am aware of LGO decisions regarding their opinion on fees but it was also indicated to me that there was a recent High Court case as well on the issue of fees- I have not seen it myself however so I cannot say for certain until a case report or similar surfaces (or not). Case reports can take some time to appear, if it is indeed the case.

Craig

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiff advice

The 2014 Regulations state that the £75 must be given to the bailiffs, and the £235, paid pro rata on any agreement, so by paying the bill minus the £75 the debt is not paid off, and the council is under a duty to give the Compliance fee to the bailiff once sent for Enforcement.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Bailiff advice

, in my humble opinion, a council is at liberty to either keep all of the payment, or hand over the £75 as either way, a bailiff has the right to continue enforcing...

The position regarding the council handing over the £75 payment would in my opinion only be lawful if the debtor expressed his wishes that payment was intended to cover bailiff fees. An example of where these circumstances would arise would be where it is more convenient for him to deal with the council.

If no indication was given that payment was intended to cover bailiff fees, or the debtor expressly stated that the payment was solely for his council tax liability then the council would seem to have no option but to allocate the amount to his outstanding council tax debt (not bailiff fees). However, once all the council tax debt is settled, the council would be at liberty to compensate the bailiff but from the public purse, not the debtor's payment. I should imagine contracts are drawn up which means effectively that the bailiff company has to suffer the loss in these cases.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Bailiff advice

I would imagine there are tight controls over local authorities recklessly enriching their bailiff contractors with taxpayer's money, which is why I mentioned contracts to safeguard this. Potential bailiff firms agreeing the contract would have to decide whether or not the terms were acceptable. If the council were to misallocate customers payments then it would likely come up against the relevant laws of appropriation of payments as an obstacle.

[suffering]

Re: Bailiff advice

Just thought i'd add my experience albeit i was dealing with a fine i refused to pay the £235 fee and paid the fine on line along with the £75 compliance stage fee and received a letter from the court collections informing me they had forwarded the money to the enforcement agent and i still had to pay costs of £235
Here is my reply i sent to them:
I write with reference to your letter dated 17/02/2017 where you stated in paragraph 2 "Your payment has been forwarded to the approved enforcement agency". Firstly thank you for confirming the payment of the fine was accepted, and secondly what you do with the money does not concern me, whether it be made to a third party,a charity or you keep it, it is irrelevant, THE FINE WAS PAID IN FULL.further more in paragraph 2 you mention the collection of COSTS there are no costs
p.s i've never paid the £235

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Bailiff advice

Hi folks, I had a council tax debt that went to enforcement. I was then in a position to pay the debt in full which I did directly to the council, I spoke to them as well informing them that I had paid in full online, they told me I would need to pay the compliance fee of £75 directly to the bailiff company. I never actually got round to doing this.
Today 4 or 5 months after paying the council I have had a hand delivered letter stating that they have attended and want the £75 plus £235, can they legally charge me for visiting to collect the £75 pound which isn't a council tax debt.
Regards Cap.

The fees are legally imposed and must be paid.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiff advice

The fees are legally imposed and must be paid.

Tried telling them that but it wasn't welcome news.

[des8]

Re: Bailiff advice

IMO this "discussion" has the makings of becoming personal, but is all a bit pointless now that he OP has paid in full (post 32)