swift bailiff and CTAX debt has levied on my car

[outlawla]

I've been down this road, had no success with the police, nor the complaints procedure of the police force involved; the same goes for the IPCC. However, I haven't given up, further research has given me reason to believe the problem is so bad that the serious fraud office need involving. The complaint however, will not solely be about the bailiff companies involved but also the authorities for abetting them.

 

From Parliament publications, 20 April 2007:

 

Crime: Fraud

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94

 

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

 

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

You're welcome to details if you think it would reinforce any complaint you may decide to make to the police. The incident I reported to the police was about Rossendales by the way.

Edited April 19, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

I've just had a quick scan through your thread and noticed this charge:

 

"Removal fee / Where no sales takes place: £22.50"

 

Did they ever remove anything? If not, is it still listed as being owed?

[outlawla]

their answer to this fee was:

 

"A “Where no sale takes place” fee of £22.50 has been charged. The fee is payable under heading “H” of the legislation where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender and is payable once the account has been paid in full."

 

I should think they are deliberately trying to mislead you.

 

This fee compensates the bailiff firm for out of pocket expenses incurred for advertising levied goods which have to be returned to the debtor because of settlement of the outstanding debt.

 

Releasing the goods back to the debtor's control is a consequence of the debt being settled before a sale has taken place, which in any case has not occurred (?).

 

This may not agree with your council/bailiff's interpretation of schedule 5 of the regulations but then it's in their interest to have interpreted it to suit themselves.

 

 

H) Where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender in the Circumstances referred to in Regulation 45(4);

For fees incurred in respect of advertising

Either:

 

(i) £24.50

(22.50)

, or

 

(ii) the actual costs incurred, to a maximum of 5% of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made.

 

whichever is the greater.

They are charging the minimum fee of £22.50 for advertising the levied goods which means they would have to had incurred £22.50 or less.

 

You could of course ask for the receipt proving the amount they incurred for this advertising.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Have a look at this:

 

Freedom of Information Reply – Head H fee.doc

Edited May 4, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

I appreciate you would be more concerned about the much higher fee of £170, but I'm trying to focus on what you have as ammunition to put your council/bailiff firm at a disadvantage.

 

If you can prove to the authority that the bailiff is trying to defraud you with the head H fee, I'd guess the council would more likely want to drop the whole case and fees.

 

By the way, £170 for attending with a vehicle when not necessary doesn't sound a very reasonable charge.

[outlawla]

I noticed 3 charges were made on the same day. Second visit, levy and the attending with a vehicle fee.

 

Were any of these resolved? From what I believe, a levy and visit fee can not be charged at the same time. If they levy, they can't also charge you a visit fee.

 

I also take it the bailiff must have been speculating that he would need a vehicle to remove goods if he had not already made a valid levy. To speculate at your expense (£170) is neither responsible nor reasonable, and certainly reckless of your council if they continue to support their contractor to impose this charge.

[outlawla]

I found this on the net some time ago. It was CAB advice but there's no reference to it that I can find today.

 

"

.....A van to remove goods may be charged for, but only for one visit and only if a levy has been made.

"

 

Schedule 5 states "Reasonable costs and fees incurred". Could it be argued that they are not reasonable?

[outlawla]

Some thoughts on the "Reasonable costs and fees incurred" for attending with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed).

 

All fees and charges detailed in Schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations are the council's fees in law, both those that are prescribed and those that are simply stated as being "reasonable" in the legislation.

 

Part of the authority's contractual arrangements with the bailiff company will detail the fact that the council will allow the bailiff firm to retain the enforcement fees themselves. In fact external bailiff fees do not exist in the collection of council tax debt, they are always the council's enforcement fees.

 

Bearing in mind the above and assuming it was the council enforcing payment. The associated costs 'reasonably incurred' in connection with attending with a vehicle would be limited to those additional to what the council would incur in any event. In other words, internal bailiffs would be salaried so could not attribute costs to man hours while attending with a vehicle.

 

Because councils outsource enforcement to private companies, these firms have overheads such as in the case of Rossendales, a millionaire chairwoman's lifestyle. However, creating millionaires [on the back of struggling householders] is not what the fees and charges connected with distress was intended. The council can not expect householders to meet the additional costs of sustaining private companies purely because it is convenient for councils to have this arrangement.

 

Another point:

 

If these costs are to reflect those reasonably incurred, why do they vary so much from one bailiff firm to another?

 

For the bailiff firm to justify that £170 was the reasonable cost incurred, the vehicle would have needed to have been purposely hired, solely for attending your home without other visits to any other debtors. I doubt this was the case, why not call them on it?

Edited May 5, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

Excellently explained sir Maybe the OP can copy this and send it to the council

 

Use it incorporating brassnecked's comment, it would be interesting to see what they'd come back with. There's an edited addition in there just for extra effect.

 

Also been thinking about the ambiguity of the way Head C of schedule 5 is worded:

 

C. For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed):

Reasonable costs and fees incurred

This, I should think would mean that a levy (valid or otherwise) must have needed to already been made for the bailiff to form a view that there was any point in incurring costs of hiring a vehicle to remove goods. To do otherwise, i.e. turn up with a removal van without first levying, would be done intentionally for the purpose of making a gain for himself or his company.

[outlawla]

Re; hallowitch

 

It seems there must be hundreds of thousands of cases where bailiffs, abetted by councils, are applying charges unlawfully for advertising levied goods (Head H) and attending with a view to remove goods (Head C).

 

If the statistics published on Rossendale’s website are anything to go by, it would not be unreasonable to assume the figure could run into hundreds of thousands throughout the country, if not millions for unlawfully charging the head H fee.

 

It states on Rossendale’s website that where goods are actually removed by bailiffs, this nationally only represents 1% of cases. 1.4 million council tax Liability Orders were issued to bailiffs last year, so if all councils allowed their contracted bailiff firms to routinely charge this fee when no goods have been removed, then potentially, a maximum of 1.386 million could have been defrauded with this charge last year.

 

Freedom of Information requests should be put to all our councils to determine just how endemic this systematic fraud is.

Edited May 6, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

...."Further to your e-mail below I made contact with Mr XXXX XXXXXXX today about your request for the fee schedules. His response is set out below:

 

The fee schedule is prescribed in Government Regulations and is not specified by the Council. Swift Credit Services have informed the Council that the reasonable fees they charge that are prescribed in Regulations for the attendance at a property with a view to removing goods is £170.00. The council should specify to Swift Credit Services what reasonable fees they charge, not the other way round. The enforcement fees are in law, the council's.

 

The council feels these are reasonable. However if Mr XXXXXX thinks they are not reasonable then he can challenge the fees through an application to the County Court. It is not for the council to feel that the fees are reasonable, they are the council's fees.

 

Mr XXXXXX can view the Regulations relating to fees on the following Government website. The first link is to the original Regulations made in 1992 and the second and third links are amendments to the Regulations whereby the fees were altered/increased.

 

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/schedule/5/made

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/773/schedule/made

www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2004/1013/regulation/3/made

 

Just read through those links (admittedly very quickly) and saw nothing indicating that the reasonable fees they can charge for the attendance at a property with a view to removing goods is £170.00.

 

 

 

Any thoughts peeps?

 

Court time?

 

Lock them up!

[outlawla]

.....The Council’s Corporate Complaint Policy and Process includes a definition of what is regarded as a complaint. It also lists matters which would not be considered as a complaint......

 

Unbelievable!!!!

 

The council is dictating to you what you can and cannot be aggrieve by.

 

This is a classic example of how the British public have somehow been indoctrinated to believe that a complaint must conform to some standard for it to be valid and qualify for an organisation’s consideration.

 

This is madness! You can't complain about something you are aggrieved by, you have to complain about something the council allows you to complain about.

 

Remember this is the council's corporate complaint policy, not yours.

 

I notice they haven't made a comment about the head H charge...

 

The unreasonable vehicle fees are the council's which they are responsible for authorising so they're fobbing you off with the county court referral.

 

What about the case law in an earlier post (Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1......)? Have you quoted that to them?

 

"

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage

."

 

 

EDIT:

 

Remember this:

 

The purpose of a visit from a Bailiff for the collection of Council Tax is for him to"levy distress" on your goods in order to force you into paying in full or entering a payment arrangement.

SCHEDULE 5 - CHARGES CONNECTED WITH DISTRESS

A. For making a visit to premises with a view to levying distress (whether the levy is made or not):

 

Therefore if the vehicle was available at the time of the 1st Visit he should have seized it then. However if he had done this he would have had to forego his 1st & 2nd Visit charges, total £42-50. It follows that the Bailiff is guilty of garnering his fees to make a financial gain for himself & his Company. In my view he has committed a cardinal sin.

 

PT

Edited May 11, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

Re, http://legislation.data.gov.uk/uksi/....htm?wrap=true

 

 

"(

C)

For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed):

"

It doesn't state that the levy and the charge for attending with a vehicle can be on the same day.....it states "following the levy"

[outlawla]

And hallowitche's reference to case law in an earlier post (Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1......)?

"

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of

distress

and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage

."

 

[outlawla]

I'm out of ideas except for just one more observation....

 

It's obvious that this "Head C" charge is for the bailiff's out of pocket expenses for turning up 'unnecessarily' with a removal van, because the debtor either settles the debt there and then, or enters into a payment agreement/walk in possession.

 

However, despite bailiffs typically never removing goods on the levy visit (council tax), they must – as the regulations state – be attending with a view to remove goods.

 

To fulfil that view, the bailiff is obliged to turn up in a vehicle suitable for a house clearance which would incur costs accordingly.

 

If he turned up in one of those Noddy vans, which I suspect he did, this would not be complying with the regulations and the charge under schedule 5's "Head C" would be unlawful.

[outlawla]

...I would therefore remind you that it is your responsibility to ensure that your payments are made on the due dates and whilst this matter is ongoing you must continue to pay your council tax as required by Government Regulations. As a result unless you contact the Council within 7 days in order to make a satisfactory arrangement to clear the full balance, including all costs, then further recovery action will be taken...

 

These communications are just generic template letters selected from the council's armoury of intransigent correspondences which they taylor to the particular situation, only by inserting "customer" specific details like name, dates, amounts and deadlines etc. This enables council officers to expend the least possible amount of time dealing with the issues, hence the reference to the county court to challenge fees.

 

It's interesting that one of their "template" paragraphs, threatens to take further recovery action if an arrangement is not made to clear the full balance, including all costs, within 7 days.

 

What more charges can they add, haven't they already maxed out on the possible fees?

 

If you take brassnecked's advice and pay off arrears direct to the council, they won't be permitted to bring a case against you for a custodial sentence. They threaten that all costs must be included in an arrangement....I doubt the council would pursue you further once its own debts are recovered.

[outlawla]

but what happens if the council tell the bailiff to reinstate actions and they have a levy on my car?

 

car disappears....

 

I suppose that's the only potential risk.

 

You could do with finding out how many cases (if any) there have been occurrences of levied vehicles actually being removed by bailiffs while enforcing council tax debt for your local authority. This would allow you to assess the potential risk involved in having the bailiff take off with your car. A Freedom of Information request might be worth making to your council to get a realistic view of the situation.

[outlawla]

This is a draft copy (extract of larger report) and might contain some useful information in connection with the Head H charge....

 

Extract Fraud Office – Header H.pdf

 

[EDIT]

 

I just had to laugh at this.....

 

I note that you state that this fee cannot be charged at the same time of the levy, however the legislation states the following:-

 

‘For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where following the levy, goods ARE not removed).’

 

The legislation is worded in the present tense which demonstrates that the fees are charged at the same time without any gap. If the legislation intended to provide for two distinct separate stages then it would have been worded in the past tense as follows: -

 

‘For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where following the levy, goods WERE not removed).’

 

 

[EDIT AGAIN]

 

Either bluffing or a complete incompetent..

 

You also mention advertisement and resale fees under Heading ‘H’. This is incorrect as these fees are specified under Heading ‘G’ of the legislation and at present are not applicable in your case.

 

 

Heading 'G' charges are specific to out-of-pocket expenses for auctioneer’s commission fees. Both 'G' and 'H' are costs in respect of advertising.

Edited June 7, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

I just had a thought about the 1st visit, 2nd visit and the attendance with a vehicle (visit).

 

I don't know if this is going anywhere.....but....

 

Is there any legislation which states that Head 'C' of schedule 5 (For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods), has to occur after either one or both of the visits which incur the £24.50 and/or £18 fees?

[outlawla]

I just had a thought about the 1st visit, 2nd visit and the attendance with a vehicle (visit).

 

I don't know if this is going anywhere.....but....

 

Is there any legislation which states that Head 'C' of schedule 5 (For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods), has to occur after either one or both of the visits which incur the £24.50 and/or £18 fees?

 

 

Let's say for arguments sake that the "attendance with a vehicle" charge cannot be extorted from the alleged debtor without at least one prior visit.

 

You would then need to ask why the bailiff would not be permitted to do this.

 

I would argue that owing to the precise wording of schedule 5:

 

The bailiff is compensated for a maximum two attempts to levy goods (statutory visit fees), after which if he still has not managed to levy, must continue enforcement, without further charge until goods have been seized (levy fee). Only then can he progress enforcement to the next stage, where under certain circumstances will be permitted to impose a charge for attending with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods, i.e. where goods are not removed.

 

I would also argue that the reason for goods not being removed on the "attendance with a vehicle" visit, would be because "following the levy" (made on a previous visit) the debtor either found funds to settle the liability order or had made a payment arrangement. The charge therefore would be to compensate the bailiff for out of pocket expenses for the unnecessary hire of either a removal van, or breakdown recovery truck, if he'd levied a vehicle.

 

Essentially (in my opinion) a levy must be in place before the bailiff can charge for attending with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods.

 

The two visits under 'Head A' are not meant to be exhaustive of the number of times the bailiff can call on the debtor, they are only the number of times he will be compensated for failing to seize goods.

 

 

A For making a visit to premises with a view to levying distress (where no levy is made)—

 

(i) where the visit is the first or only such visit:

£24.50

(ii) where the visit is the second such visit:

£18

C For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed):

Reasonable costs and fees incurred.

Edited June 8, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

Exactly Outlawla, if there is no prior levy, they are not attending to remove, as the debtor may decide to pay up at the door, and if the ATR and other fees like head h are added, and debtor pays, they are entitled to reclaim the possibly fraudulent overcharge, fraudulent if the bailiff in full knowledge that as it was settled at the door, the ATR, and other fees beyond the first visit fee were unlawful imho

 

Another point worth mentioning is that nearly every complaint I've seen put forward on CAG include charges for first and second visits which are effectively indicators of the enforcement agent's incompetence as a bailiff. This is because they fail to achieve the objective on both visits, which is to levy distress.

 

Systematically adding both these fees is either an indicator of the bailiff's ineffectiveness to do his job or evidence that these statutory fees detailed in schedule 5 are exploited to make a gain for the bailiff firm, along with the 'head H' and attending to remove charges.

Edited June 8, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

Glad to see you haven't given up on this RITC.

 

I know this isn't exactly the response you're looking for, but it shows that to some degree the MoJ has awareness of this. Hopefully it will serve to keep the interest going until this conundrum is solved.

 

Have a look at the bottom of page 193 of this MoJ document under the heading "Nature of alleged abuses"

Nature of alleged abuses

 

• “Sending letters claiming that the Enforcement agent has made visits when no visit has been made and adding charges for such visits”. (Enforcement Agency)
  
  

• “Charging a fee for attending to remove goods in respect of Council Tax and NRD debts
  where no levy has been made
  ”. (Enforcement Agency)
  
  

• “The fees where the values are not specified (where it states “Reasonable”), are prone to abuse by unscrupulous Enforcement agents, especially where the creditor has no interest or does not check/ monitor the level of fees being charged by their contractor.” (Enforcement Agency)
  
  

Other reference Page 59 (10.2.2. Nature of current abuses)

 

If the link to the MoJ document doesn't work let me know and I'll upload and post it here.

 

 

 

[EDIT]

 

Hopefully a bit closer with this LGO report.

 

Report on an investigation into complaint nos 95A01890 & 95A04826 against London Borough of Ealing

 

Page 10 of the report

.......

 

32

. The Secretary of the Certificated Bailiffs Association says that where there has been no levy there is, in his view, no doubt that a van charge cannot be made.

 

33

. The Head of Revenue at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy also says that in his view the law is quite clear, and that van charges cannot be made unless distress has first been levied.

 

34

. The Department of the Environment says it does not believe that there can be any interpretation of the regulations other than that no charge can be made for a van unless distress has been levied. Any charges for visits when distress has not been levied are limited to £27.50 (

£42.50 in today's money

) for two visits.

 

35

The Council initially took the view that the bailiffs could charge for attendance with a vehicle even if distress had not been levied, but now agrees that no charge can be made for a van unless distress has been levied.

.......

 

Page 15

 

60

. The bailiffs point out that, although they acknowledge that the regulations do not permit the charging of van fees where distress has not been levied, this creates an anomaly. They say that if a debtor prevents the bailiffs from entering the premises, the bailiffs are prevented from charging for expenses actually incurred. Nonetheless, they accept that van charges cannot be made if distress is not levied, and say that the error in Mr Martin’s case was an isolated one.

.......

 

Page 16

 

62

. The evidence from this investigation is that there were irregularities in the charges the bailiffs imposed on Mr Martin’s accounts.

 

• There is a conflict of evidence as to whether the bailiffs visited Mr Martin on 3 November 1994. I conclude on balance that they did not visit, but that they sought to charge a £15 (

£24.50

) first visit fee, which they termed an ‘administration fee’ and recorded on the computer as ‘other costs’ (see paragraph 15).

 

• The bailiffs visited Mr Martin on 20 January 1995 and at first sought to charge a total of £122.50, which bore no relation at all to the sums allowed under the regulations. They said subsequently that they had made an arithmetical error.

 

• The bailiffs made two visits to Mr Martin on his 1993/94 account, and were entitled to charge a total of £27.50 (

£42.50

). On the second visit the bailiffs also charged £80 for the costs of attending with a van. But no distress had been levied, and

they were not entitled to make a van charge

.

..........

 

Page 17

 

67

. There were also irregularities in the charges the bailiffs imposed on Mr Taylor’s account. The bailiffs made two visits and were entitled to charge a total of £27.50 (

£42.50

). They also charged Mr Taylor £100 for the costs of attending with a van. But no distress had been levied, and

they were not entitled to make a van charge

.

.......

 

[EDIT AGAIN]

 

tomtubby's July 2011 News letter: The charging of an "enforcement fee"

 

 

Citizens Advice page 29 Item 4.17.

Edited June 9, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

......but it does not clearly state that a levy and and the attendance fee cannot be made on the same visit......

 

I thought the same thing, but wonder if there's any need for it to be stated, as it would be understood that for a bailiff to remove goods, he'd need to know what they were to decide which kind of vehicle would be approriate for their safe removal. If the bailiff had not seized goods he wouldn't have a clue whether to turn up in a tow-truck, removal van or need to hire a professional removal outfit specialising in crystal chandelier transportation.

[outlawla]

A freedom of information request has been made to the Ministry of Justice but unfortunately it side stepped the issue as is typical for these types of requests.

[outlawla]

A couple of Freedom of Information requests submitted to the Ministry of Justice, might be worth keeping an eye on.

 

Although the MoJ has stated they are enquiries and do not fall under the Freedom of Information regime they will be dealt with by the department as Official Correspondence.

 

 

FOI – Attending with a vehicle “with a view to the removal of goods"

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulation 1992 – Speculative enforcement fees

 

Dear Ministry of Justice,

 

The following is an amendment to schedule 5 of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, and introduced by the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1993, to compensate a bailiff firm for out of pocket expenses for attending with a vehicle “with a view to the removal of goods”

 

SI 1993/773:

 

© For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to the removal of goods (where, following the levy, goods are not removed)

Reasonable costs and fees incurred.

 

 

 

Q.1. Has this legislation been created to provide for a charge to be made by enforcement agents speculatively?

 

In other words, does the Statutory Instrument provide for an enforcement agent to charge an "attendance with a vehicle" fee, without first having made a levy?

 

Or, alternatively allow him to charge an "attendance with a vehicle" fee, on the same day/visit that a levy is made?

 

Bearing in mind he would have to speculate that:

 

a) he had arrived in a suitable vehicle for the safe removal of goods (which would be unknown)

 

b) there would in fact be suitable goods to levy.

 

 

If I have directed this request to the wrong department, please inform me of the appropriate public body I should seek the information.

 

Please be aware I'm not seeking local government's interpretation of the legislation, so have no interest in how councils make decisions regarding the enforcement and collection of council tax. My request is to determine specifically what was intended by whoever created the statutory instruments.

 

I therefore consider that the Department for Communities and Local Government will not be the appropriate department to forward this request.

 

 

 

FOI – Legislation in connection with 'Head H' charge

 

Shedule 5 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

Dear Ministry of Justice,

 

The following is an amendment to schedule 5 of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, and introduced by the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1993, to compensate a bailiff firm for costs it incurs with respect to advertising levied goods when a debtor settles their council tax liability before any sale of their goods takes place.

 

SI 1993/773:

 

SCHEDULE 5 CHARGES CONNECTED WITH DISTRESS

 

H) Where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender in the Circumstances referred to in Regulation 45(4);

Reasonable costs and fees incurred in respect of advertising.

 

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 – PART VI Enforcement, distress regulation 45(4)

"

REGULATION 45 distress

 

(4) Where an authority has seized goods of the debtor in pursuance of the distress, but before sale of these goods the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall accept the amount, the sale shall not be proceeded with and the goods shall be made available for collection by the debtor

."

 

In a further change to the schedule, the fee was amended from “reasonable costs” to either a fixed sum or actual costs incurred by the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 1998.

 

 

SI 1998/295:

 

Charges connected with distress

 

8.—(1) Schedule 5(1) is amended as follows.

 

(2) In column (2) of the Table to paragraph 1—

 

© in relation to head H (prior payment etc.), for "Reasonable costs" to the end of the Table there is substituted—

"Either—

 

(i) £20, or

(ii) the actual costs incurred, to a maximum of 5 per cent. of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made.

 

whichever is the greater."

 

 

Clearly the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1993, introduced the fee specifically for out of pocket advertising costs.

 

Hence:

"

Reasonable costs and fees incurred in respect of advertising

."

 

It would appear the amendment (SI 1998/295) was made solely to replace “reasonable costs” with either a fixed sum or actual costs incurred.

 

This view however, is clouded by the similarly formed secondary legislation for NNDR Regulations with its amendment, the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) (Amendment) Regulations 1998.

 

Here, the reference to fees incurred in respect of advertising is not specifically stated.

 

SI 1998/3089:

 

H. Where no sale takes place by reason of payment or tender in the Circumstances referred to in Regulation 14(4)

Either—

 

(i) £20, or

(ii) the actual costs incurred, to a maximum of 5 per cent. of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made.

 

whichever is the greater

 

 

Q.1. Have the amendments (SI 1998/295 for council tax and SI 1998/3089 for NNDR) been introduced to eliminate the advertising element which was the specific purpose for the "Head H" fee in the first place?

 

In other words, has legislation been amended to allow enforcement agents to recover cost they incur in making available for collection, goods which have been previously seized, other than those for advertising?

 

Q.2. For the purpose of imposing the "Head H" fee, do goods need to have been physically removed with respect to Regulation 45(4), to be define as being "available for collection by the debtor"?

 

Or in other words, has this legislation been created to provide that the charge be made in all cases were goods are released from the control of the enforcement firm whether physically removed or not?

Edited June 12, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

From post #14 of this thread

 

FOI – Legislation in connection with 'Head H' charge

 

Shedule 5 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

Dear Ministry of Justice,

 

The following is an amendment to schedule 5 of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, and introduced by the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1993, to compensate a bailiff firm for costs it incurs with respect to advertising levied goods when a debtor settles their council tax liability before any sale of their goods takes place.....

 

.............

 

Q.1. Have the amendments (SI 1998/295 for council tax and SI 1998/3089 for NNDR) been introduced to eliminate the advertising element which was the specific purpose for the "Head H" fee in the first place?

 

In other words, has legislation been amended to allow enforcement agents to recover cost they incur in making available for collection, goods which have been previously seized, other than those for advertising?

 

Q.2. For the purpose of imposing the "Head H" fee, do goods need to have been physically removed with respect to Regulation 45(4), to be define as being "available for collection by the debtor"?

 

Or in other words, has this legislation been created to provide that the charge be made in all cases were goods are released from the control of the enforcement firm whether physically removed or not?

 

 

 

An expected but disappointing response by the Department for Communities and Local Government to a Freedom of Information Request put originally to the Ministry of Justice and fobbed-off until eventually these got lumbered with it.

 

 

Your e-mail of 11th June has been passed to this department for answering as we hold policy responsibility for council tax. I apologise for the delay in replying.

 

You ask two questions relating to Schedule 5 of the Council tax (Administration and enforcement) regulations 1992. These are

 

Q.1. Have the amendments (SI 1998/295 for council tax and SI 1998/3089 for NNDR) been introduced to eliminate the advertising element which was the specific purpose for the “Head H” fee in the first place?

 

Heading G of Schedule 5 to SI 1992/613) provides for reasonable costs incurred in respect of advertising to be included in the aggregated amount under regulation 45(20 of the regulations.

 

Q.2. For the purpose of imposing the “Head H” fee, do goods need to have been physically removed with respect to Regulation 45(4), to be define as being “available for collection by the debtor”?

 

This is for the local authority to decide, as it is they, not central government, who interpret the legislation. However, definitive interpretation of any legislation is a matter for the courts.

 

 

A complete waste of time, why do we pay these people?

Edited August 31, 2012 by outlawla