outlawla
-
Posts
1,790 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by outlawla
-
These fees are not so insignificant as they're being made out to be. In fact they're indefensible. Even the chairman of LACEF admits that fees have been set so favourably that even local authorities, if they brought enforcement in-house would be provided with a nice little earner. Article, page 42
-
This advises of the pitfalls:
-
Isn't that the point? What other reason would someone obviously struggling to pay their council tax in the first place want to seek a lawful way out of incurring even more debt? The enforcement agent is merely called upon by the council in the hope that they will collect the money, there's no legal obligation for the debtor to engage with the council's contractor. EDIT: If the debtor is willing to pay the council, that only suggests that the council were irresponsible in the first place to instruct the bailiffs.
-
It is essential to be mindful that the enforcement fees can only be recovered from the proceeds of enforcement. If you elect to pay your account directly, which you are lawfully entitled to do, there is no conceivable way that the payment is from the proceeds of enforcement.
-
Part response For a broader context see here
-
If you are referring to my allegations of perjury (NELC) or for perverting the course of justice (Grimsby Magistrates' court), then neither are mentioned in the witness statement, so why change the subject?
-
Before you start making spurious statements, make sure you are fully aware of the facts. Suggested reading. Look at para 71 and start again. Are you on NELC or Grimsby Magistrates court's payroll or something?
-
Nothing has changed. You are still wrong. Please get your facts right before posting utter **** like the above.
-
Please get you facts right before posting utter **** like the above. EDIT: For a start, final column of Page 34
-
Therefore, any money paid to the council in respect of the debtor's council tax account must be paid against that debt, otherwise the local authority is breaking the law.
-
Obviously not the debtor's council tax account according to Birmingham City: " Enforcement agent fees are due to the enforcement agent and not to the council. They 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 .
-
To which account has the £235 fee been added?
-
Put your glasses on and engage the proverbial before posting.
-
Is it a commonly held belief that being a vulnerable person removes the obligation to pay the debt ? P.S. You don't have to be (or claim to be) a vulnerable person if you would rather not interact with the bailiff. You just don't.
-
Thanks for your reply. I'll put a formal complaint in, but include also why the council tax department haven't replied to a simple email in over a month. How can a local authority operate when they obviously have no admin staff? A complaint for the Local Government Ombudsman is being prepared, with it recommended that with the Parliamentary Ombudsman jointly investigates the MoJ's failings under powers granted by 2007 Regulatory Reform legislation. The papers will be with the LGO once all supporting documents have been finalised and complaint updated to reflect the latest maladministration. The complaint (LGO Complaint) is currently in draft form.
-
My Council (North East Lincolnshire) obtained a liability order on 30 October 2015 to enforce whatever sum it considered was outstanding at the time of the court hearing. In a letter received 13 November 2015 the council proposed the following payment arrangement which included an amount which I dispute (£120) and am not willing to pay: The following was sent to the council on 10 November and although the council aims to respond in 10 working days there has not yet been a reply. I have not agreed to the council's rescheduled instalment plan (01-Dec-2015 – £100.66) and continued making payments as per usual. It looks as though they'll be sending the bailiffs round as I have no income to which they can attach deductions. However, I have had no further communications from the council regarding this and wonder if they see the futility in appointing bailiffs when they know they have no possibility of obtaining the disputed outstanding sum.
-
Can we now please get back on topic.
-
You would be at a much greater advantage if you could find out exactly where your online payments have been allocated, especially as you have outstanding amounts relating to more than one financial year. If you can't get any cooperation from your council, or you suspect it is lying to you, it might be worth going onto the council's website (on-line payments) to see if it gives a balance outstanding when you enter you council tax reference number (worth a shot). Anyway it might be an advantage to see what the council's response is to a letter along the following lines:
-
Before even considering re-posting the evidence, this has already been reinforced in a post a day or two ago by bailiff advice. Is this an admision to posting comments which are tongue in cheek? EDIT: Will you please edit the post above, because no one will bother to read it in the vertical style you have presented it. Even the Chinese have fallen in line with the rest of the world and conformed to writing horizontally.
-
Just to make it plain, I don't take you seriously, but for the sake of others taken in with your B.S. you never provide any evidence of your spurious claims. NEVER!
-
Start one then, but don't do it on my behalf. I'm pretty sure you've threatened to do this before but not followed through with it because you know you are on to a loser. I'm calling your bluff. Give us the evidence that people can rely on your advice that effectively states that choosing to enrich the enforcement industry is the only way round settling council tax liability one it has been outsourced to these opportunists crooks?
-
The important point is that it suggests that bailiff fees are optional and that election to pay the fees is determined entirely on whether the debtor chooses to engage with the bailiff. Provided a cautious approach is taken, i.e., the debtor categorically refuses to allow the bailiff into his home and it is communicated in writing to the council that payment is intended to reduce the indebtedness of his council tax liability (not bailiff charges) and the debtor made aware of the possibility of goods outside being taken control of whilst the debt is outstanding, it would be madness to lay out an additional £300+ on top of whatever council tax liability is outstanding (and court costs) just to pay indirectly.
-
The council obviously has no intention of parting with this presumably £75 compliance fee then?
-
It's a good job local authority automatons are as unscrupulous as enforcement agents or they'd only get away with a fraction of their swag.
-
I think if anything is relevant it's being picked here: From £125 to £102: has Haringey quietly reduced their Court Summons charge?
