Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'local'.
-
I have received a PCN from a local authority. I have not opened the envelope (but its contents is obvious and I was expecting it). It was not sent by recorded mail. If I were to "return to sender" "Not at this address". Would I be committing a criminal offence? (I know this would be morally wrong given I did deserve the PCN!) -
3053548.thumb.jpg.6ea05a752ac6bbf38ae4e7be9676053a.jpg)
The following is another very recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsman on the subject of vulnerability. Once again, the LGO confirm that evidence needs to be provided if a person considers that they may be 'vulnerable'. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council PS: The following is a short version of the decision. A link to read the full report is at the end of this post. The complaint Mr X complains that the Council has unreasonably taken Council tax enforcement action against him despite his vulnerability. What I found The law says people must pay their council tax before the installment date stated on the bill. If people pay late on more than two occasions they lose the right to pay by installments. The Council can then demand that they pay the full amount which is due for the rest of the year. If they do not pay the Council can serve a summons and ask the magistrates for a liability order. A liability order is an order confirming the person must pay the council tax and costs. Further costs are incurred when magistrates grant a liability order. If someone does not pay the council tax, and the costs, the Council can ask enforcement agents to collect the debt. Enforcement agents charge fees which must also be paid. Mr X has council tax arrears from 2013/14 and 2014/15. The Council has provided evidence of Mr X’s non payment of Council tax and the courts upheld the summonses when they issued the Liability Orders. Mr X did not make any arrangements to pay his council tax arrears. In November 2014 Mr X told the Council he was a vulnerable person. The Council asked him to provide evidence and held his account for a month to give him time to provide the evidence. Mr X did not provide evidence of his vulnerability and the Council sent his account to enforcement agents (bailiffs) for collection. Councils can use enforcement agents to enforce Council tax debts. Mr X says they should not be used as he is vulnerable person. The enforcement agents wrote to Mr X in November 2014 asking for medical evidence of his vulnerability signed by his GP or a medical professional. They did not receive any medical evidence from Mr X. In September 2015 Mr X sent the Council a copy of a letter from his local mental health team inviting him to an appointment as evidence of his vulnerable status. In October the enforcement agents wrote to Mr X detailing the amounts he had to pay to clear his council tax arrears. Mr X provided the council tax department with a copy of a letter to the Housing Office on 25 January 2016 about his mental health. The Council told the enforcement agents who arranged for its welfare team to deal with him as they are experienced in dealing with vulnerable people. The enforcement agents returned Mr X’s accounts to the Council as they could not contact him. The Council contacted Mr X numerous times about the arrears on this council tax accounts. The law allows councils to instruct enforcement agents once the court has issued a liability order. The law also says that the court costs and fees charged by the enforcement agents must be paid. Although Mr X says he is a vulnerable person, he did not provide evidence of this to the Council until January 2016. Without evidence to support Mr X’s contention that enforcement agents should not be used, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to utilise them. Final decision There is no evidence the Council has been unreasonable in its decision to take enforcement action against Mr X for council tax arrears. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/16-001-201 -
Unfortunately, many people consider that because, they have problems with mental health that a local authority should not pursue them for road traffic debts or refer cases to bailiffs. The following recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsman is therefore of importance: PS: The following is a short version of the LGO's decision. Please refer to the link at the end of the post to read more. London Borough of Hounslow. The complaint Mr A complains the Council harassed him and discriminated against him by using bailiffs to collect a debt relating to two unpaid Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) when it already had notice of his mental health problems. Mr A maintains the Council should have treated him as a vulnerable adult and told the bailiffs of his condition. He seeks a refund of the enforcement costs he has paid and compensation. What I found Council parking enforcement officers issued Mr A with two PCNs. As Mr A did not pay the charges the Council followed its usual enforcement procedures to obtain payment of the PCNs and the accrued costs. In February 2015, following the Council’s actions in sending out Charge Certificates to Mr A in relation to the PCNs, he wrote to the Council explaining he had mental health problems and enclosed a letter from his GP and the Jobcentre. The Council responded by advising Mr A that while his medical condition had been noted it was not accepted as mitigation to cancel the PCNs. An Order for Recovery was then issued in April for the two charges. As the debt remained unpaid, the Council passed Mr A’s case on to bailiffs acting on its behalf and they wrote to him at the beginning of June. As no response was received, an enforcement agent, Mr X, attended Mr A’s property. Having taken control of Mr A’s vehicle, Mr X spoke to Mr A who informed him of his mental health problems. Mr X told Mr A he had no knowledge of Mr A’s condition but declined Mr A’s request to call his office or the Council to confirm it. Instead, Mr X told Mr A he could seek legal advice. Mr A offered payment by card but made clear he believed he was doing so under duress. Mr X told Mr A it was his choice whether or not to make the payment and Mr A paid the outstanding debt in full. Mr A then made a complaint to the Council about its and the bailiffs’ lack of understanding of his illness and vulnerability and that he had been forced under duress from Mr X to make payment. Having contacted the bailiffs and sought their comments, the Council responded in August 2015 but did not uphold the complaint. It concluded Mr A’s case had been dealt with in an appropriate manner. The Council confirmed it had been aware of his mental health problems but, having considered matters, decided that his particular circumstances did not warrant the cancellation of the PCNs. Because it had decided to pursue the charges, and refer his case on to enforcement agents, it did not consider it necessary to make the agents aware of Mr A’s correspondence about his mental health problems. It did not uphold his complaint. Analysis When Mr A told the Council of his mental health problems, it considered what he had said, and the evidence he had provided, but decided his condition was not sufficient mitigation to stop collection of the charges. It informed him of its decision. The merits of this decision are not open to review by the Ombudsman no matter how strongly Mr A may disagree with it. I have viewed the recording of Mr X’s visit to Mr A’s property. In it Mr A tells Mr X his condition is such that the Council should be working with him to which Mr X replies he can make a payment arrangement with Mr A. He did not doubt Mr A when he was told of Mr A’s mental health problems and told him he could seek legal advice. I saw nothing in Mr X’s behaviour which amounted to harassment or discrimination and he reasonably took the card payment which was offered to him by Mr A. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/16-000-771
-
A very popular enquiry that appears on the forum concerns bailiff enforcement for arrears of council tax in relation to a previous property and where notification of the arrears is only known when a bailiff visits the individuals new address. In the first instance, the vast majority of people pay their yearly council tax by direct debit. When a person moves from an address, there are usual steps that will be undertaken by the homeowner. Taking a reading of the gas or electricity meters is one such obvious step. Another obvious step should be to inform the local authority of the moving out date. The council will then adjust the yearly council tax bill. The council will request a new address so that a final bill can be sent. The individual should not cancel their previous direct debit without first contacting the council. If they do so, and there are council tax arrears, the council may issue a summons and the regulations (in this case, Regulation 35.2© of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992) are very clear, in that the summons is deemed served if sent by post to the individuals usual or last known place of abode. If a Liability Order is granted for the arrears, it can be passed to a firm of bailiffs to enforce. Before a personal visit is made, the enforcement company must send a Notice of Enforcement. Once again, the regulations (in this case, Regulations 8 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013) are very clear in that the Notice of Enforcement is deemed served if it is posted to the address where the individual usually lives. If the individual moves from his previous address and fails to contact the council to settle his council tax bill and provide a new address, then naturally the Notice of Enforcement will be sent to 'the last known place of abode' (i.e. the previous address). If a subsequent complaint is made to the Local Government Ombudsman, it will usually be the case that they will not will find fault with the local authority. The following are two recent decisions from the Ombudsman on this very subject:
-
Another parking problem and any advice would be most helpful. Last year on the 14th nov at 6.20 pm, my son parked on a car park in Bradford, We have used it several times in the past and understood it to be Council owned, pay and Display 8AM to 6PM Monday to Friday. We went to a restaurant and returned 1hour later and drove away. On the 18th January we received a parking charge notice alleging that a PCN had been attached to window and we had missed time to pay reduced fine. Given the time lapse, we ignored this and other notices from company, Local Car Park Management. Was notified debt sold to MIL collections, then got a form from Northampton court of judgement in default. At this time my son paid to have this set aside and moved case to Bradford. MIL sent witness pack and there are several points i need to clarify if possible. Photos show windscreen of car, no number plate visible and no PCN attached to car, PCN photo taken separately with no details of where it is from and other details for paying it etc missing, photos of car parked on night of 'breach' Raining dark etc. Evidence of signage supplied shows photos supporting signage taken at a completely different time eg it's daylight, trees in picture have leaves on , signage claimed in diagram of car park do not exist either then or now. I have pulled all this together but i'm trying to confirm that photo's should be contemporaneous to car photo's,? if no PCN is issued as claimed, is the gap from November to January acceptable? Sorry for length of this , and if possible details of cases that i can refer the Judge to. Any help would be appreciated -
There has been much debate on the forum regarding the important subject of 'vulnerability' when a debt (usually council tax arrears) is being enforced by a bailiff. Many posters have different opinions as to whether or not, when vulnerability is identified, the account should be returned to the local authority and bailiff fees removed, or managed by the enforcement companies in house Welfare Dept etc etc. Whilst opinions will no doubt vary on this very important subject, it may be of interest to know what the Local Government Ombudsman's view is of this subject. If a debtor wishes to have a complaint considered by the Local Government Ombudsman, they must first take their complaint to the relevant local authority and exhaust the first stage and second stage complaints procedure. The complaint may then be considered by the LGO. All Local Government Ombudsman's decisions are reported on-line. These reports are made public 3 months after the final decision. The local authorities name is revealed but the complainants details are not.
-
I mentioned yesterday on the forum that since the new regulations came into effect in April 2014, the Local Government Ombudsman has dealt with 304 enquiries relating to a council tax complaint that involved bailiff enforcement, and 418 enquiries relating to a penalty charge notice (including congestion charging) that involved bailiff enforcement. The following decision has just been released and again, another local authority has agreed to refund bailiff fees an Out of Time witness statement has been accepted at the Traffic Enforcement Centre. The following is an extract of the decision. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Mrs X complains the Council failed to refund bailiff costs and the parking fine following the decision of the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). Background: 4 The Council issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) to Mrs X. It says Mrs X did not either appeal the notice or pay the fine. The Council continued to take action to recover the outstanding amount which resulted in bailiffs visiting Mrs X’s property. 5 Mrs X says the first time she knew of the PCN was when the bailiffs visited. She says she panicked when the bailiffs attended and so paid the fine in full. Afterwards she decided to challenge the recovery as she had never received the PCN. Mrs X made a late appeal to the TEC. Her appeal was upheld. 6 The bailiff sent a cheque to Mrs X for £310 on 17 February 2016. This was the return of their fees following the decision of the TEC. The Council retained £82 which is the original penalty charge of £50, £25 for the non- payment before the Council sent a charge certificate and £7 for the debt registration. 7 The Council says it has retained this amount because it did not form part of the TEC decision. It says at no time has Mrs X challenged the PCN and so it is still valid. 8. In response to my enquiries the Council says it will reissue the Notice to Owner to Mrs X. This will give her the opportunity to challenge the original PCN. If it is found the PCN was not correctly issued the Council should make a further refund. Final Decision: My decision is the complaint will not be pursued further. The return of the bailiff fees has provided a remedy for most of Mrs X’s complaint. When we spoke on the telephone previously, she said this is what she was seeking. In addition the Council will now reissue the Notice to Owner which gives Mrs X the right to appeal the PCN if she considers it was wrongly issued. I consider this provides a suitable remedy for Mrs X’s complaint so I will not pursue it further. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/15-017-156
-
Hi I received a letter on Saturday, spent all weekend worrying about what it is about. I telephoned the number this morning to try and find out more, was advised he has not looked at the case yet but need to wait until Friday when the interview is booked for. I explained i suffer from serve anxiety and nerves and not knowing what it is about is causing me a huge amount of stress, I explained even an interview with my GP I find very stressful but the person I spoke to could not bring it forward or advise me of anything. Can anyone give me some advice. -
All Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) decisions appear on the LGO website six months after the date of the decision. Personal information about the complainant is naturally removed but the name of the relevant local authority is made public. For this discussion thread I have only selected important decisions that concern council tax enforcement where a liability order had been obtained and passed to an enforcement company. Although the following decision relates to events prior to the new regulations taking effect (April 2014) it is nonetheless a very important one to refer to. The decision date was August 2014 and was published November 2014. The local authority is London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and the complaint made by the debtor was that: The debtor was vulnerable and the local authority should not have referred to account to bailiffs. That the council forwarded payments to the bailiff company. The council refused to recall debt from the bailiff company.
-
Strictly, speaking this is not a subject that would normally feature on the 'bailiff discussion' section of the forum. However, with the subject matter regularly featuring on the popular TV series; Can't Pay We'll Take it Away' it may well assist some viewers. Anyone watching the TV series would have seen the many instances of a tenant is being evicted. Routinely, the tenants had been advised by their local authorities that in order to gain assistance with emergency housing, that they must remain in the property until the actual eviction. It would seem that this practice must stop. The following is taken from a recent article from the Sheriffs Office: Housing minister, Brandon Lewis has told all local authorities to stop routinely advising tenants to stay put until the enforcement agent arrives before they can be accepted as homeless. Mr Lewis has written to all the chief executives of local councils saying that households should not be put in this position, and clarifying the guidance about homelessness. In his letter he says, “Authorities should not routinely be advising tenants to stay until the bailiffs arrive; there is no barrier to them assisting the tenant before this. By doing this, local authorities miss a valuable opportunity to prevent homelessness.” Mr Lewis writes that the statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance, which local authorities are required by law to have regard to, is clear on this matter and contains guidance on how they should treat homelessness applications where a tenant has received a valid S21 notice. This is what Mr Lewis’s letter highlights about what the guidance states: -Housing authorities should not, in every case, insist upon a court order for possession and that no local authority should adopt a blanket policy in this respect. -If the landlord intends to seek possession and there would be no defence to an application for a possession order, then it is unlikely that it would be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation. -Unless a local authority has very good reason to depart from the statutory guidance, then they should not be placing households in this position.
-
I've had an issue with a PCN going on for a little while. Essentially I got no ticket on my vehicle and no communication from the LA, the first I heard of it was when the TEC sent the order for recovery I completed a witness statement which was accepted, then the same thing happened again. Again I completed a witness statement which was accepted, this time the LA said they wouldn't accept it and would continue to pursure for recovery under the order (which had been cancelled!) After I challenged the legality of this, they eventually issued an NTO. I raised representations which were rejected so I took it to the TPT. At the hearing my appeal was upheld and the TPT confirmed in writing that they had directed the council to cancel the ticket. I am well aware that the council is aware of the hearing since they send a bundle to it and I've had no communication from them in over a year (the hearing took a long time). The council has now ignored the hearing outcome and sent out a charge certificate on what is now a cancelled PCN! There can be no claim of 'crossing with post' as this has been sent 5 weeks after the hearing. I've already fired off an email demanding they withdraw it, but this is now the second time the council has acted what I believe to be illegally. What's the best way forward if they ignore my email and escalate it to the TEC again? Is there any action I can take based on the actions they've already taken? -
Story so far: Three days ago I received a Further steps notice from Thames Valley Magistrates saying I owed £922.50. I had no idea what this was about, but discovered (on ringing them) it was for non-payment of car tax (or driving an untaxed vehicle, it's not clear precisely). This was a total surprise as I thought I was taxed and up to date. However, it turned out I had indeed forgotten to pay (18 months ago!), and what compounded it was that I moved house (Dec 2014) and didn't update my log book. (I did update the address on my driving licence, and didn't think I needed to do anything else.) So all communications - prior to this last notice - must have been sent to my previous address. Obviously I'm guilty as charged, but equally obviously it's unfair that I had no chance to put this right earlier and pay a smaller fine. I was told I could make a Statutory Declaration, which - after advice from my CAB on wording - I have done, and have had it signed by a solicitor. So far so good. I have also sent a letter to the Thames Valley address explaining the circumstances, and been given a "grant of time to pay" to 19 May. My problem now is what to do about getting the Statutory Declaration to a magistrates court. I've been told I can present it at my "local" magistrates court (rather than Thames Valley magistrates), but I've had serious trouble (a) finding our which one that is, and (b) actually managing to talk to anyone. I live in Twickenham, and (after various levels of recorded messages) have been put through to either Brent or Lavender Hill. The phone rings for minutes on end, and when (if) someone actually answers they tell me what I already know, or something different, or they try to put me through to someone else and I'm cut off. The most recent conversation I had promised to pass my details to someone else who will call me back. Obviously I'm not expecting that to happen (and cannot stay in all day anyway - it's a landline, my mobile is unreliable). I haven't been able to find out if I need to make an appointment (and if so where and how), or whether I can just turn up. Should I turn up anyway and make an appointment there? And at which one? (Feltham is actually my closest court, but the recorded message there took me to Brent. The "court counter", if that's relevant, closed in February.) I've also seen advice online which suggests I can simply fax my declaration in - but perhaps that only applies for the original issuing court? Sorry for the long post, and I hope someone can give me some clear advice. Naturally this is relatively urgent. -
Hello guys. So, back in January I was doing some work in Swindon and needed to park my bus. After driving around for half an hour and finding no street parking within walking distance of the job and residents only parking, I decided to park in the local authority car park across the road. The bus didn't fit in one bay, which according to the board contravened the terms of the car park, but I didn't have a great deal of choice and the car park was practically empty, so I bought a ticket and would take a gamble on getting a PCN. After finishing the job and going back to the bus, I did indeed have a ticket, which I had half expected anyway. It gave me 14 days to pay at a reduced rate of £25 and £50 after that point, and within 28 days. If I appealed within the 14 days it would stay at £25 if it was not successful. Using their online system I put an appeal in within the 14 days, as I felt a little hard done by, as there didn't seem to be any provision for vehicles larger than a car. The online system stated I would get a response within ten days. I carried on with life and forgot about it, until... A week ago, a letter from Swindon arrived stating I now owed them £50. It made no reference to my appeal and is the first thing I've heard from them since I entered it online. I gave them a ring to find out what was going on, to be told that they had indeed received my appeal and replied to me on March 8th by email rejecting it. Now, I absolutely have not received any email, or other correspondence from them apart from the letter I received a week ago. I advised the lady of this only to be told that basically it was tough and there was no way to go back to the £25 rate and I would need to stump up £50 now! This seems wholly unfair. Their attitude is 'well we sent the email', so there. Do I have any ground for recourse on this? Fair enough, I've lost the appeal and will now pay, but to lose the right to pay the reduced rate as I've not received their email seems unduly harsh! Many thanks in advance! -
Approx two years ago the Local Government Ombudsman changed the way in which they record decisions. Previously, when a final decision was made, copies would be sent to the relevant local authority and the complainant. The significance of the change was that all decisions are now made public on the LGO website three months after the decision. There have been quite a few recent decisions made to the Local Government Ombudsman concerning successful Out of Time witness statements to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the position regarding 'bailiff fees'. Up until this decision, most local authorities when notified of a successful Out of Time witness statement will refund some or all of the amount of the PCN...and will then advise the individual that they must contact the bailiff company for a refund. Out of Time witness statements and the Traffic Enforcement Centre are subjects that I am passionate about and this is why I am DELIGHTED to read this very recent decision (made public on 23rd March 2016) from the LGO regarding London Borough of Haringey. The LGO advised LB of Haringey that they should refund Miss X the following amounts: Charge certificate surcharge of £65 TEC court fee of £7 Bailiff fees of £310. Analysis: Item 17: As detailed at Paragraph 15, the TEC’s decision to accept Miss X’s late witness statement ordered that recovery action be taken back to the original PCN. While the Council says it has discretion over whether to refund fees in this situation as the TEC’s decision makes no direction on this point, the TEC’s decision clearly directs the revocation of the order for recovery and the cancellation of the charge certificate. These documents form the basis of the Council’s action from December 2013, as well as the further fees added to Miss X’s debt. Item 18. The Ombudsman considers in this situation that as the TEC has withdrawn the basis for the fees, the Council cannot legitimately refuse to refund them. Had the TEC’s decision not intended to result in this action it would be meaningless as it would have no effect. I therefore consider that the Council’s refusal to refund the fees resulting from steps in the process which the TEC has ordered are cancelled, is fault. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-...ties/15-000-612
-
Well now you know why your Local Library or Swimming pool is closing down ! No money for social care - because staff are being paid to prevent whistleblowing or criticism of bosses. Local Authorities are apparently requiring staff who are taking early retirement/redundancy or leaving after a dispute, to sign a gagging order (compromise agreement). It would appear that the person leaving receives more money if they do this. -
I work in a small office. I'm the only part time employee. Due to my chronic fatigue syndrome and other illnesses I work one day a week. That was the deal with the employee before me due to her family comitments. Additionally I cover holiday and sometimes sickness. I was of the opinion that this was by mutual agreement, when it suited me and them and that I could say "no" Apparently not. A few months ago, I was ill and received a call asking me to go in, I said no as I was ill. My boss was very abrupt and I heard later that she'd been angry that I hadn't. My job was to cover sick leave. I get sick too, that's why I'm doing this job that pays the bills if I'm very lucky. This week, I've covered for her being away longer than her agreed holiday. There are family reasons why she had to be away, I understand them, but I've been working through a chest infection and she has never asked me if it was OK for me to come in, just left a message with a colleague that she was off until further notice. She hasn't informed anyone of her plans. I've understood that she's been away longer, these things happen, but she assumes I'll cover for her. There's a reason that I work part time. I have to pace myself and I can't work beyond the point where I've agreed to stop. Anyway, I think next week she's going to demandthat I cover when ordered. I can't and won't live like this. Basically if this is the case my time is theirs even if not paid. If my phone rings, I have to go in. That cannot be right? I know it's hearsay so far but I want to prepare myself so I can stand up for my rights. I have rarely refused to cover, been really flexible. My contract says "Stand by cover will be necessary from time to time" Surely I must have some say in when and can't be made to suffer for not going in when ordered. I hope this makes some kind of sense. I understand a lot of this is what I've heard from others, but if she does make demands directly, I'd like tobe prepared.
-
Why am i putting this on. Well as i walk about and chat to different people,some who work for councils there is fear and worry and many stressed out people out there.Worried about their security,families,mortgages,rents. And also people in their local communities.Things like that if things go pear shaped. Is this if true anyway to live in these modern times. Now it is a bit late for me to look about,do a little research.But will as time goes on.A little tired.Soft,i know. And if you have a view and are looking in and want to have your say how you are feeling about things. Austerity State: how has your council’s budget changed? Between 2009/10 and 2014/15 spending by England’s local authorities was cut by a fifth — more than twice the rate of spending cuts to the rest of the UK public sector. Our Local Cuts Checker database brings together a myriad of data to allow readers to explore the impact of those cuts in their areas. Check it out.Take a look at the link. http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/local-cuts-checker/#E06000009ZZE06000009 And if you are outside looking in and want your say,a link,we are a friendly lot. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php -
Hi forum, a quick question to start off on what has become a massive issue for me, (with Judicial Review potentially the only way out). Is the legal department of a local council duty bound to disclose evidence of clear fraud I have submitted in course of a legal dispute to the Police who were investigating their housing department at the same time, )arresting at least one member of staff for fraud). are they "public officers" in a wide sense - and therefore upholdable to a different standard were they to be a private landlord prosecuting a section.20 invoice bill). I understand that Lawyers need to "represent' their clients to the best of their ability, but if they are presented with "smoking gun" evidence of fraud, should they not have forwarded this to the police who were raiding their offices? thanks, bert
-
Got a PCN from Derby CC in 2013. Moved and was unaware they had not accepted my appeal nor given me any official notification that they had so bailiff left me handwritten note in June 2014 saying what was owed and his mobile number, NOT a Notice of Enforcement. According to CAB website bailiff MUST send the notice 7 days before any action can be taken. Due to my sate of mind at the time I just paid it to get the matter off my back. Was the bailiff at fault for not sending the notice? What action can I take against the council? The council never officially told me they would not accept my appeal and they also did NOT formally advise me of the right to an independent appeal which I believe is the law. Many thanks. -
I am waiting a response from the local authority regarding council tax which I understand they have 20 days to reply. If they fail within that time, what is the next step I should take ? -
Credit is given to mikeymack2002 for this find. https://tinyurl.com/z2nc5vq http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?393992-Bedroom-Tax-Sources-of-Interest-**Correct-as-at-Oct-2015**&p=4851541&viewfull=1#post4851541 -
Here on the discussion section of the forum there have been various threads that have touched upon the matter of 'in house' bailiff enforcement. For those unfamiliar with this term....this is where local authorities are setting up their own 'in house' bailiff operations. The decision to do so is mainly a financial one spurred on by the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 which provides that enforcement companies may charge a 'Compliance fee' of £75 when sending a statutory Notice of Enforcement to the debtor. If payment (or a payment proposal) is not made within the 'compliance stage, an enforcement agent may make a personal visit. An enforcement fee of £235 is chargeable. To assist with discussions on this subject, it may help to read the view of 'in house' bailiff enforcement from the perspective of the enforcement industry (who are naturally opposed to local authorities taking bailiff enforcement 'in house'). The following is a word copy of an article that featured in a trade magazine a few months ago.
-
Hello folks, please can you advise me. I have helped an Indian lady complete her ESA50 Income Based Form as she was migrating from Incapacity Benefit around October last year (2015). She lives in a bungalow owned by her mother in law (the daughter in law has separated from her husband - the mother in law's son). The bungalow is owned outright by the mother in law - no mortgage. Now the mother in law, no joking is aged between 90-100 years, she is not in the best of health as you can imagine, she claims her pension and income based pension credit. She also lives at the same property but spends quite a few number of weeks at different family members houses as she needs 24 hour care. When I helped her daughter in law with the ESA50 migration, I completely forgot that she 'lives' with her mother in law, as the mother in law is hardly there. I have since discovered that the mother in law does claim Council Tax Benefit and has done for many years (before her daughter in law moved in with her around 4-5 years ago) and receives a 25% discount. This very elderly lady has alzheimers and does not speak English. The other day a card was posted through their letter box from the Revenues Department. The daughter in law's son asked me what it could be as neither his mother or grandmother claim Housing Benefit, but that his nan does claim Council Tax and gets 25% single person discount. I said it's probably due to the migration of the ESA50 and the 25% Council Tax discount. Can someone throw some light on how the Council will deal with this. The nan is very old, has alzheimers and stays for a few weeks at one relatives house, comes back home, then is cared for by her grandson and his wife together with her daughter in law, then she is taken to another relatives house. I did not give the Council Tax a thought when I helped her apply for her migration to ESA as I knew she was not claiming Housing Benefit, and I completely forgot about the elderly lady who only lives in the property part time. Will either of these ladies get into trouble and how do we go forward with this? Any help would be gratefully received.
-
Need some help please a few years ago i could not work and fell behind with my council tax and was taken to court which was my fault and i took it on the chin and agreed to pay the arrears off at £100 per month this plan is up to date and has never been missed. However the council use the same agreement number for arrears and the currant years tax and this is where the problem is. I was sent a letter to say i had missed payments on the currant years tax which i had not so i spoke to the council and they said they would sort it, next thing i know is a summons is at my door. So i attend court and provide receipts that show all my payments have been made both on the arrears and on the currant years so both are up to date. The council do not take records to court so could not comment and asked for the case to be brought back to court in a months time. So i attend court again and the council admit they have taken this years payments and taken them off the arrears along with the £100 i have been paying for the arrears. The summons is withdraw so i have now had 2 days off work travel to and from the court because the council made a mistake. I find it hard they they could not have withdrew the summons the moment they found out saving me a day of work and trip to the court so i am planning to sue them for the cost of my days work and travel to court -
Hi all Am new here and have joined for some advice about a parking charge I received today. The car park at the shopping centre where I work( Scott arms great Barr Birmingham) is run by local parking security ltd and charges 50p per hour every day 8am till 8pm. To be honest I think it's ridiculous anyway to charge until 8pm when there is about 10 shops and a pub( frequented by a few regulars daily) with 2 shops being open at this time ( both betting shops) the car park which probably caters for about 30 cars never has more than 10 in it even at weekends! I popped home for a break around 7 arriving back at 7;20 because the place I normally park around the rear of the premises is secluded and unlit I parked in the car park in the only space visible from my counter at work so I can keep an eye on it. As luck would have it whilst distracted I got issued a ticket at 7;31pm despite there being 5 cars in the car park! £85 which I feel is disgraceful Would appreciate some advice in the past I know people would have said just not to pay but I know things have changed Cheers Paul
