Equita + CTax. excessive fees? **WON - refunded both levy fees and ATR fee**

[CookieRocks]

Hi,

 

The lastest word from the Council when I suggested that they are not taking the LGO's Reports into account:

 

"Regard was had to both case law and LGO guidance. As I said in an earlier email you have to look at the LGO’s findings in their entirety and not just at individual points. Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the “Blaby” report need to be read together, in addition regard needs to be had to case law. The LGO offers guidance on administration after looking at the particular way a case has been dealt with and is not a definitive guide to legislation and case law."

 

On another note, I have a hypothetical question which I'd like your views and comments on.

 

1. I received a reply to my FOI request and within the SLA document, it quite clearly states that sub-contracting is not allowed.
   
2. The online Certified Bailiff Register doesn't provide an 'Employer' for the Bailiff concerned.
   
3. With the likelihood that the Register is not up to date, I have an email from HMCTS confirming that they don't hold any 'Employer' information, therefore the Bailiff is likely to be self-emplyed.
   
4. The County Court where the Bailiff was Certified, will hopefully be sending me the information they hold on Monday.
   

So with the above in mind, my question is:

 

If the County Court inform me that the Bailiff is self-employed, does that make any difference to him being used by Equita to collect on the Liability Order?

 

If yes, what should I say, write or do?

 

Thanks

[outlawla]

"In their reply the Council state 'The attendance charges relate to both the bailiff time and van costs. It is evident from the facts that the bailiff did indeed attend at your property with a van. If the bailiff had considered that a bigger van/lorry was required, he would have called for one. I find nothing illegal about the attendance and I consider the attendance charges justifiable.'

 

It's interesting what our old favourite authority, Mid Sussex District Council, views as incurred costs making up the attendance charge.

 

It amounts to subsidising private firms by funding their overheads just because councils don't want to bother with in-house enforcement.

Edited March 23, 2013 by outlawla

[CookieRocks]

Hey again. Hope everyone had a good weekend, pity about the weather we're having at the moment.

 

So, I received a reply from the County Court, the Bailiff that attended is employed by GLA Bailiff Services Ltd according to their records.

 

So any advice on what impact this has on the ability of the Bailiff to collect the Liability on behalf of the Council? Also, as the SLA between Council/Capita and Equita clearly states sub-contracting isn't allowed, does this have implications Re D.P.A. and possibly Fraud?

 

As always, I really appreciate all the help and advice I've received so far. I know people are busy with life and all too, so Thank You.

 

Regards.

[CookieRocks]

Anyone?

[ploddertom]

You will need to get back to the Council and advise them that the Bailiff that attended is not Certificated to work for Equita, make sure a copy goes to your Councillor(s), leader of the Council and his opposite number. Ask if this common practice.

[tomtubby]

Sorry can you remind me which local authority this concerns.

[brassnecked]

Brent I Think TT Op sent this complaint in as indicated at post 27 Brent Council Complaint.pdf‎ (149.4 KB, 9 views)

[tomtubby]

Equita have online access to DVLA records and can check themselves who own the vehicles.

[brassnecked]

Equita have online access to DVLA records and can check themselves who own the vehicles.

 

In which case both Brent and Equita have some serious questions to answer, and issues to address.

[CookieRocks]

You will need to get back to the Council and advise them that the Bailiff that attended is not Certificated to work for Equita, make sure a copy goes to your Councillor(s), leader of the Council and his opposite number. Ask if this common practice.

 

Hi PT, in your opinion, does this proposed email sound okay to send to the Council?

 

I was going to mention DPA issues and possibly fraud, but thought that may make the email too aggressive/ threatening.

[ploddertom]

Hi PT, in your opinion, does this proposed email sound okay to send to the Council?

 

I was going to mention DPA issues and possibly fraud, but thought that may make the email too aggressive/ threatening.

 

Sounds fine to me, should have one or two looking for a way out. Their response will be classic fudge and worthy of a Booker prize for most inventive answer - of course I could be wrong and they will admit defeat - might have a tenner on the result.

[CookieRocks]

Okay, sent the email yesterday. Hopefully will hear something early next week, what with it being a long weekend.

[CookieRocks]

Sounds fine to me, should have one or two looking for a way out. Their response will be classic fudge and worthy of a Booker prize for most inventive answer - of course I could be wrong and they will admit defeat - might have a tenner on the result.

 

Hi ploddertom,

 

Surprisingly I have already received a response from the 'Council', which is attached. What are you thoughts on it?

 

Also, to all others that are helping do you have any thoughts?

 

I am a bit annoyed in the last part of their reply. It's all well and good that they have instructed Equita to seek authorisation from them in future debts, but will not apply that to the case in question.

[ploddertom]

That response is about as clear as mud. Time for a Formal Complaint to the Council CEO, copies being sent to your local Councillor(s) + Leader of the Council and his opposite number. They are just making it up as they go along.

[CookieRocks]

That response is about as clear as mud. Time for a Formal Complaint to the Council CEO, copies being sent to your local Councillor(s) + Leader of the Council and his opposite number. They are just making it up as they go along.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Would that be in addition to my original Formal Complaint, disputing the Bailiff fees? Or a separate new Formal Complaint?

[brassnecked]

I would send it as an escalation of the first complaint, this puts you one step closer to the LGO imho, and add other informatuion where their response to the initial complaint is not addressed, or where the bailiff is obviously winging it and the clueless council are backing him.

[CookieRocks]

Apologies for not updating any sooner.

 

Equita Ltd refunded both Levy fee and ATR fee. I could still technically try argue the Card fee but I'm not sure if it's worth contacting the LGO over that. The Council seem certain that they can charge it.

 

Regards

[dx100uk]

hey that's great news

 

thread title updated.

 

dx

[tomtubby]

Excellent news !!!

 

There is little point with going to the LGO with card fees and they would reject the complaint given that the amount in question to you personally is not worth a complaint.

 

What you may wish to do is to make an FOI request to the council for a copy of the contract with the bailiff provider to ascertain the amount of credit card fees that have been agreed with the council.

 

There is a very important legal case regarding credit card charges in relation to local authorities and parking charge notices and the same principle must apply for council tax. debts as well.

 

Bailiff companies may well find themselves in difficulty with these charges very shortly ???

[ploddertom]

With Card Fees now they cannot charge you more than what it costs. However as I assume this will be be before this came into effect then Day v Davies makes reference to the fact that Bailiffs may only charge what Legislation permits them to and any other is not permissible. As the CT Enforcement Regulations do not allow for Card Fees then in my view they cannot charge them and should refund whatever you have paid. Mind I agree no point in involving the LGO.

[CookieRocks]

Thanks for the replies. Since it was all going on since January and at all times they were adamant that they and/or equita were doing everything by the book, it's quite refreshing that eventually they realised that they were talking out of their behinds.

 

With Card Fees now they cannot charge you more than what it costs. However as I assume this will be be before this came into effect then Day v Davies makes reference to the fact that Bailiffs may only charge what Legislation permits them to and any other is not permissible. As the CT Enforcement Regulations do not allow for Card Fees then in my view they cannot charge them and should refund whatever you have paid. Mind I agree no point in involving the LGO.

 

I did quote Day v Davies, but their reply was:

 

'Your letter repeats your view that as there is no provision within the Statutory Instruments to charge a Card Fee of £2.50, and that therefore the fee should be refunded. This was addressed in my previous reply and by Mr blahblahblah. The Card Fee does not have to be prescribed by statute: it is a charge that reflects the bailiffs’ reasonable costs in offering payment by this method – which they do not have to do. On that basis I can confirm that this will not be refunded.'

[lamma]

From April 6th 2013 their reply is defunct.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3110/made

[CookieRocks]

From April 6th 2013 their reply is defunct.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3110/made

 

Can I still use this even though the fee was charged in January 2013?

[lamma]

Not without a time machine. The date of coming into force is clear and it is not retrospective (law isn't enacted retrospectively).

[ploddertom]

I did quote Day v Davies, but their reply was:

 

'Your letter repeats your view that as there is no provision within the Statutory Instruments to charge a Card Fee of £2.50, and that therefore the fee should be refunded. This was addressed in my previous reply and by Mr blahblahblah. The Card Fee does not have to be prescribed by statute: it is a charge that reflects the bailiffs’ reasonable costs in offering payment by this method – which they do not have to do. On that basis I can confirm that this will not be refunded.'

 

Were you told from the outset there was fee being charged for paying by card? Were you offered alternatives where no fee payment would be made? Was it Equita who said the above?

Edited December 5, 2013 by ploddertom
Additional question