Discussion on pay bailiff or council direct and fees etc

[ploddertom]

I don't know that to be true in the case of council tax, but I don't know for sure. Let's agree that is the case - it doesn't alter the parameters of the debate.

 

In that case I suggest you research it. Bailiffs are only 1 of a raft of measures Councils may "employ" to enforce debts, one of the reasons they use the Bailiff first is that it is a no cost option to the Council, as can be seen from those who have moved where Warrants have been data cleansed but instead of doing the correct thing and advising the said Council the Bailiff still goes ahead with trying to enforce.

 

There is no law that states anyone has to deal with or speak to a Bailiff and in the case of Council Tax providing he has not gained peaceful entry or otherwise made a levy on goods outside his fees are capped. Therefore advising someone to pay the Council direct + lawful fees allows the Council to pay his fees direct - as they should do - and the rest then satisfies the outstanding Liability Order.

[sequenci]

so you are saying old council tax debt takes priority over current year?

 

No, I'm saying that all council tax debt is regarded as a priority debt. Thus old council tax debt would be treated as a priority over actual non-priorities such as credit cards, loans, overdrafts, old fuel debts, mortgage shortfalls, old rent arrears. That kinda thing.

 

If individuals are paying their current year monthly then that would be regarded as a regularr outgoing.

If the council have called in the year and demanding payment in full, it would bear no difference in importance to any previous years.

 

Hope that makes sense.

[brassnecked]

In that case I suggest you research it. Bailiffs are only 1 of a raft of measures Councils may "employ" to enforce debts, one of the reasons they use the Bailiff first is that it is a no cost option to the Council, as can be seen from those who have moved where Warrants have been data cleansed but instead of doing the correct thing and advising the said Council the Bailiff still goes ahead with trying to enforce.

 

There is no law that states anyone has to deal with or speak to a Bailiff and in the case of Council Tax providing he has not gained peaceful entry or otherwise made a levy on goods outside his fees are capped. Therefore advising someone to pay the Council direct + lawful fees allows the Council to pay his fees direct - as they should do - and the rest then satisfies the outstanding Liability Order.

 

That is exactly my take on it, as there is no LEGAL compulsion on anyone to deal with the bailiff , and, the FMOL brigade will wind a bailiff up with Strawman and no contract arguments, unless the bailiff has a levy, and even if they claim to do, on a random car, if the levy is void due to the agrument in the LGO report on Blaby Council and Rossendales; then they only get the capped fees as mentioned by PT.

 

As tomtubby has advised also it is a very bad idea indeed to let a bailiff in under any circumstances if he has no levy.

 

As I see it it is damage limitation , and with the best will in the world, as most enforcement is against can't pays, why should an impoverished family pay over the odds to a bailiff whose fees legal or dodgy compound and vastly increase the debt making the situation worse?. Why do bailiffs pursue when they know that deductions from benefit are appropriate, as the family are on income based benefits, and the Lo was granted on the back of waiting for the Council tax benefit to be calculated and backdated therefore clearing the arrears?

 

Lord Denning had it right Bailiffs and Distress belong in the dark medieval world of King John, and the Sheriff of Nottingham, not 21st Century Britain

Edited September 21, 2012 by brassnecked

[Jamberson]

so you think that if a bailiff is unable to collect a council tax debt they will not hand it back to the council

 

I've already said - they reserve an option on doing that. It doesn't follow that they will - they may let the case sit dormant for a while then re-action it. If you tell people they WILL (your capitals) return it, you are laying a booby trap for them.

[Jamberson]

In that case I suggest you research it. Bailiffs are only 1 of a raft of measures Councils may "employ" to enforce debts, one of the reasons they use the Bailiff first is that it is a no cost option to the Council, as can be seen from those who have moved where Warrants have been data cleansed but instead of doing the correct thing and advising the said Council the Bailiff still goes ahead with trying to enforce.

 

There is no law that states anyone has to deal with or speak to a Bailiff and in the case of Council Tax providing he has not gained peaceful entry or otherwise made a levy on goods outside his fees are capped. Therefore advising someone to pay the Council direct + lawful fees allows the Council to pay his fees direct - as they should do - and the rest then satisfies the outstanding Liability Order.

 

Well I don't need to research it. I have never given out any advice pertaining to legal ownership of the money, and neither will I.

 

I understand your scenario will settle the debt - it is also laden with pitfalls which could seriously harm the debtor, as I have been saying all along.

[ploddertom]

 

I understand your scenario will settle the debt - it is also laden with pitfalls which could seriously harm the debtor, as I have been saying all along.

 

Can't be any more than your take on it. How many (Bailiffs) are now saying they can only enter into a payment arrangement if they can come in and levy on goods - may protect the debt but increases the bill for the debtor considering the Bailiffs will engineer a default on payments made.

[wonkeydonkey]

Well I don't need to research it. I have never given out any advice pertaining to legal ownership of the money, and neither will I.

 

I understand your scenario will settle the debt - it is also laden with pitfalls which could seriously harm the debtor, as I have been saying all along.

 

As I see it...you have advocated the only way forward is to deal/pay the bailiff and that suggests you consider the bailiff to be the' legal owner of the deb/money owed'? If you wish to continue advising on cag then PT is right to suggest you need to study before doing so.

 

WD'

[brassnecked]

Can't be any more than your take on it. How many (Bailiffs) are now saying they can only enter into a payment arrangement if they can come in and levy on goods - may protect the debt but increases the bill for the debtor considering the Bailiffs will engineer a default on payments made.

 

This is a salient point for people on low income faced by the extra fees the bailiff will apply, legal or dodgy, after garnering the default, and the escalating attendance and van fees etc etc.

 

If Jamberson is correct, we must allow the bailiff in to levy and the fees to escalate, as they "own the debt" whether or not the debtor can afford the fees. At least you can get a stay against a HCEO if you are on benefits and cannot afford the fees, not so a bailiff who is intent on garnering fees for himself for a debt that should be deducted from benefits, but they ignore vulnerability and ramp up fees and apply undue pressure anyway.

[mellymoo74]

If you owe a debt plus bailiff fees (let's just stick to legitimate fees for the moment - there is a seperate but real problem with illegitimate fees) - if you pay the council there is no formal process by which the council will pass any fees onwards to the bailiff other than in exceptional cirumstances and BY PRIOR AGREEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. You cannot just unilaterally start paying the council and expect this to help.

 

Post 35, the document from Rossendales talks specifically about cases which have been WITHDRAWN. Not live cases. Read it - it says "Where any case has been withdrawn, Rossendales will ensure no further action is taken..." etc etc.

 

Post 37 quotes regulation but says nothing specifically about the council or bailiffs. It just talks about "recovery" - so I can't see it has any real bearing on the issue of who to pay. The purpose of it is to establish that fees are deducted first (as we already know).

 

Post 38 by Mellymoo says, "the debt is still with the council" which is partly true but also partly false. The bailiff fees are not owed to the council so only some of the debt is with them, and paying them will only discharge some of the debt, leaving you a live case with bailiffs chasing you.

 

... and goes on to say "I will stand by my advice of pay the council directly". Then you will continue to give out bad, dangerous advice.

 

As for the comment "Advice can only be offered based on experience (unless your a legal expert)" this is logical nonsense. You give advice based on knowledge of the facts, not something which happened to you. Every situation is different and you can only predict the outcome on the basis of knowledge of the sytem. It may surprise you to learn that some people on here do actually have legal expertise. Leave the advice to them.

 

Now to the central point - If you owe bailiffs, say £100, and you pay the council, you STILL OWE THE BAILIFF £100. The real risk is the bailiff comes visiting because you have not made an arrangement with them. So - they add on more fees. Or they clamp your car. Or they gain entry into your home and start levying. Or your money just disappears into the system and you are out of pocket for nothing. How can anyone in their right mind think this is good advice to be giving out to people who are in debt?

 

let me answer my points first

the debt that is the original amount on the LO is being discharged it is not having random amounts that don't equate to any legitimate fees taken out is being cleared by the amount I am paying each month I also don't have to pay a £1.50 card processing fee.

You may not agree with my advice but I constantly state it is from experience whilst repeatedly asking you what yours is based on to date no response.

I have actually believed for some time that you maybe a bailiff this is why your so firm in the belief you should pay them what they ask for then claim it back if you can prove its not legitimate I stand by pay the council who OWN the debt! And if there are legitimate fees pay those to the council to pass on.

Edited September 21, 2012 by mellymoo74

[mellymoo74]

Well I don't need to research it. I have never given out any advice pertaining to legal ownership of the money, and neither will I.

 

I understand your scenario will settle the debt - it is also laden with pitfalls which could seriously harm the debtor, as I have been saying all along.

 

Evidence please

[mellymoo74]

* If the bailiffs refuse your offer it is important to put the money you have offered aside so you can pay it to the council as soon as the debt is passed back to them. Write to the bailiffs and the council telling them you are saving the money up as the bailiffs have refused to take your payments.

 

 

you will find that in most cases the bailiff wont enter into a payment arrangement that can be afforded by the debtor therefore the advice given by myself and others is correct

Edited September 21, 2012 by mellymoo74
link removed

[Jamberson]

Melly - experience is based on running a team dealing with bailiff debts for my local council. Thousands and thousands of case studies compared to your one. I've spoken to countless debtors, bailiffs, MPs, CAB, solicitors - you name it. And I've already told you this.

 

OK. To the point. I will sketch a very realistic scenario, and itemise it. Anyone who disagrees with me - you can jump in and say exactly where I am wrong.

 

1. Someone has a debt with the council which goes to bailiffs.

 

2. Under the Data Protection Act, the bailiffs cannot view the council's personal records.

 

3. As a consequence of (2) the bailiff has its own customer database.

 

4. When the bailiff is chasing a case, there is no obligation on them to accept a payment arrangement. They are at liberty to take action against the debtor and charge for this.

 

5. If the debtor makes a payment to the council, the payment comes off the balance.

 

6. The payment does not affect the bailiff's database and does not put anything on hold.

 

7. There remains a live case with the bailiff, and the bailiff remains at liberty to take action and charge for it.

 

Everyone agreed so far?

 

Now someone goes ahead and gives the council some money, without any arrangement with the bailiff.

 

Step (7) is a very real possibility. The upshot is that the debt has now increased, despite the fact that the debtor has surrendered some money into the council's coffers. That is the very real risk which arises if one pays the council directly.

 

Now, where am I going wrong?

[outlawla]

Just one point for the moment.

 

If the debtor has settled outstanding council tax directly and the authority doesn't communicate this to the bailiff firm, that is the council's mistake and problem.

 

The debtor will have proof of payment which would settle any dispute about when payment was made, i.e. before the bailiff's further action in your scenario.

[brassnecked]

There is nothing wrong with your steps apart from there is no legal compulsion to deal with him, he can tow a car whether or not it is yours on a whim if it is parked outside your gaff, he can take all your goods in a van, but still there is no law which forces you to deal with a bailiff, something wrong there!

 

.Let us just consider that if bailiff cannot levy, or is prevented from seizing any goods and debt is paid off all debtor has to factor in are First And second visit fees, he can charge no more no matter how many times he calls or work he does, whether or not the case remains live with with bailiff at stage 7. Once debt is paid to council or bailiff including the lawful fees, then Lo is satisfied is it not?

 

The idea is to limit what hard pressed debtors have to pay in fees, as if they have difficulty paying the debt, the bailiff fees will drive them deeper into debt, which is why distress and bailiffs are disasterous to people in these straightened times.

[mellymoo74]

Melly - experience is based on running a team dealing with bailiff debts for my local council. Thousands and thousands of case studies compared to your one. I've spoken to countless debtors, bailiffs, MPs, CAB, solicitors - you name it. And I've already told you this.

 

OK. To the point. I will sketch a very realistic scenario, and itemise it. Anyone who disagrees with me - you can jump in and say exactly where I am wrong.

 

1. Someone has a debt with the council which goes to bailiffs.

 

2. Under the Data Protection Act, the bailiffs cannot view the council's personal records.

 

3. As a consequence of (2) the bailiff has its own customer database.

 

4. When the bailiff is chasing a case, there is no obligation on them to accept a payment arrangement. They are at liberty to take action against the debtor and charge for this.

 

5. If the debtor makes a payment to the council, the payment comes off the balance.

 

6. The payment does not affect the bailiff's database and does not put anything on hold.

 

7. There remains a live case with the bailiff, and the bailiff remains at liberty to take action and charge for it.

 

Everyone agreed so far?

 

Now someone goes ahead and gives the council some money, without any arrangement with the bailiff.

 

Step (7) is a very real possibility. The upshot is that the debt has now increased, despite the fact that the debtor has surrendered some money into the council's coffers. That is the very real risk which arises if one pays the council directly.

 

Now, where am I going wrong?

 

point 7 erm no because once the liability order is discharged THERE IS NO LIABILITY ORDER! Once this has gone the bailiff has less rights than they had previously which are no where near what is sometimes claimed. If there are legitimate fees these should be paid to the council with clear instruction of what they are for

it isnt just one have you done any research at all! I have advice is only ever a starting point I remain concerned as you keep claiming that more than the amounts agreed under law can be charged to an account I would dispute your knowledge.

The debt does not increase it decreases as you are paying it to the body it is owed and working this way if you have never signed a WPO and have no levy ensures that the likes of Equita can't do the usual front loading of lots of random fees.

Do you actually read the advice given or do you just see pay the council and roll out the same tired argument?

Put yourself in the place of a vulnerable debtor (there are many threads on here and lots of other boards) would you be happy paying a company anything when they have already proved themselves untrustworthy?

 

Oh and that still isnt evidence thanks

[Jamberson]

Just one point for the moment.

 

If the debtor has settled outstanding council tax directly and the authority doesn't communicate this to the bailiff firm, that is the council's mistake and problem.

 

The debtor will have proof of payment which would settle any dispute about when payment was made, i.e. before the bailiff's further action in your scenario.

 

The council tax is not settled until after the bailiff fees have been deducted. This is the debtor's problem.

[mellymoo74]

it is

the once the LO is settled the bailiff has less powers would you like me to find you the necessary bits of information to backup my statement? I will do once you have answered mine

Seriously go away and do some research start with the legislation this will tell you what the legitimate fees are then maybe you will stop trying to scare already scared people

[brassnecked]

The council tax is not settled until after the bailiff fees have been deducted. This is the debtor's problem.

If the legitimate fees have been paid in on top of the debt, there is no problem surely.

 

If the bailiff towed a third party motor, whilst it was parked near a debtor's home and police became involved it would be the bailiff that had a problem.

[Jamberson]

Melly, trying to pick some facts out of your last two posts is not easy, but from what I can see, you said once the liability order is discharged, it is gone. I don't see anything else in there except remarks aimed at me which I will ignore.

 

Yes, once it is discharged, it is gone. How do you discharge it? By paying it off, and you have to pay the bailiff fees first. So, I agree with that much although it's no help to the issue under discussion.

 

You seem to be using this as an argument against my point 7. You are presumably aware that a bailiff can revisit and seek entry, and get in through an open window? How long do you generally advise people who can't pay should put their homes in lock-down?

[outlawla]

The council tax is not settled until after the bailiff fees have been deducted. This is the debtor's problem.

 

I'm throwing in the mouse. Hanging it up or whatever the expression is....

[mellymoo74]

bless not only do we advise people to pay fees that are incorrect directly to the company charging them which is against the advice of several of the major charities and message boards but we've lost the ability to process information.

 

You don't have to pay the bailiff fees first, you have to pay the debt and any legitimate fees the bailiff companies just take their cut first.

[brassnecked]

I'm in permanent lockdown after a Jacobs bailiff went after my motor for a debt belonging to a house I was parked outside whilst on the phone sat in the car, he even breached DPA and gave details of debt in his zeal to levy, and have had random bailiffs for an occupier who left 15 years ago. This is what is wrong the enforcement industry is out of control, with seemingly more rogue bailiffs than law abiding ones.

[sequenci]

it is

the once the LO is settled the bailiff has less powers would you like me to find you the necessary bits of information to backup my statement? I will do once you have answered mine

Seriously go away and do some research start with the legislation this will tell you what the legitimate fees are then maybe you will stop trying to scare already scared people

 

I would be keen to learn more, as this would contradict opinion of John Kruse who wrote the CAG book on dealing with bailiffs.

 

Unless I@m getting my wires crossed, and often I do!

[mellymoo74]

I'm in permanent lockdown after a Jacobs bailiff went after my motor for a debt belonging to a house I was parked outside whilst on the phone sat in the car, he even breached DPA and gave details of debt in his zeal to levy, and have had random bailiffs for an occupier who left 15 years ago. This is what is wrong the enforcement industry is out of control, with seemingly more rogue bailiffs than law abiding ones.

 

I think of them as naughty little robbers in striped jumpers with a bag called swag on it

[mellymoo74]

two mins let me find the bits of legislation I took this from as part of my case.