jacobs Demanding more money for ctax arrangement.

[ppauls150]

Can the bailiffs demand more money once an agreement has been agreed and have paid for the last three months on time?

 

 

I came home today to find a letter from Jacobs saying with regards to the £100 a month agreement

that's in place for some time (3 months) that due to the length of time their clients allow them to collect their debts

that they must review this agreement and need to increase the payments.

 

 

Can they do this after an agreement has been setup?

 

 

It's for council tax years ago around £1200 and the council did an attachment of earnings

but due to the wages my wife was earning they didn't get a penny

after two years they cancelled the attachement of earnings and sent it to the bailiffs.

 

 

We rang them and knowing we wanted to get this paid as we did try to setup extra payments with the council

but they wouldn't with the attachment in place

 

 

told the bailiffs we could possibly pay £100 a month over 12 months.

 

 

They agreed to this and we've paid on time for the last 3 months and now this landed on our door.

 

 

Can we just tell them that's all their having and If they wanted to take it further

could they cancel the agreement and send a bailiff round

or I'm sure if they or us took them to court over this a judge would side with us

as clearly I'd have thought you can't demand more money when you have an agreement.

[dx100uk]

when is this LO from?

 

 

dx

[Bailiff Advice]

Can the bailiffs demand more money once an agreement has been agreed and have paid for the last three months on time?

 

I came home today to find a letter from Jacobs saying with regards to the £100 a month agreement that's in place for some time (3 months) that due to the length of time their clients allow them to collect their debts that they must review this agreement and need to increase the payments.

 

Can they do this after an agreement has been setup?

 

It's for council tax years ago around £1200 and the council did an attachment of earnings but due to the wages my wife was earning they didn't get a penny after two years they cancelled the attachement of earnings and sent it to the bailiffs.

 

I am pleased to tell you that I have not come across such an enquiry as this before. The debt to the council is £1,200 and so far you have paid £300 to Jacobs and at the rate of £100 per month, will be paid off in full in a further 9 months (which is far better outcome than under the previous Attachment of Earnings.

 

When the agreement was reached to pay £100 per month, was this arrangement made over the telephone on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement?

 

What bailiff fees have so far been applied?

[brassnecked]

Have you anything in writing regarding the agreement? Jacobs may well be trying to engineer a visit, which would open you up to application of the £235 Enforcement Fee they might suggest you let them in for a chat,so they can "secure" the arrangement by taking control of your goods. If There is absolutely no need for Jacobs to call if you made an arrangement at Compliance Stage which attracts the £75 fee, and you have not defaulted So long as they have not been into your home you do not have to let them in.

 

Jacobs are one of the most duplicitous shower in the business, and this could be that they are trying to milk you for fees.

 

If they do turn up and you are not in default, a Formal complaint to the council CEO and elected leader is an option Which council is this please?

[Bailiff Advice]

Have you anything in writing regarding the agreement? Jacobs may well be trying to engineer a visit, which would open you up to application of the £235 Enforcement Fee they might suggest you let them in for a chat,so they can "secure" the arrangement by taking control of your goods. If There is absolutely no need for Jacobs to call if you made an arrangement at Compliance Stage which attracts the £75 fee, and you have not defaulted So long as they have not been into your home you do not have to let them in.

 

Jacobs are one of the most duplicitous shower in the business, and this could be that they are trying to milk you for fees.

 

I too hope that a fee of £235 is not going to be applied and I look forward to reading the reply from the poster.

 

I note your comment about Jacobs (being one of the most 'duplicitous showers' in the business). In fact I find the company very easy to deal with and sympathetic to vulnerable cases. Nonetheless, your comment in interesting.

[brassnecked]

I too hope that a fee of £235 is not going to be applied and I look forward to reading the reply from the poster.

 

I note your comment about Jacobs (being one of the most 'duplicitous showers' in the business). In fact I find the company very easy to deal with and sympathetic to vulnerable cases. Nonetheless, your comment in interesting.

I hope ppauls gets back to us with the information regarding the arrangement and what stage the enforcement was at when it was set up.

 

Jacobs were noted for seizure and sale of third party cars under the old system, in fact there was a case I have posted links to previously regarding a VW camper and a thread in Volksworld. Jacobs got the vehicle back for her, wonder if the fact she was related to an ex chief constable had anything to do with it. They ware also the firm who were after my motor just because I was parked opposite a debtor's house to take a phone call.

 

I sincerely hope they are not now going to make attempted default on agreements made without a call at Compliance stage to det the £235 their MO.

[Bailiff Advice]

.

 

Jacobs were noted for seizure and sale of third party cars under the old system,

in fact there was a case I have posted links to previously regarding a VW camper

and a thread in Volksworld. Jacobs got the vehicle back for her.

 

I remember the case well.

 

 

She had left her VW Camper at the friend's propery for repairs and a new MOT.

The friend was a mechanic and he was undertaking repairs to the VW and a new MOT.

 

 

He kept stalling her as to the progress of the repairs and it was not for about a month

or so that he finally had to admit that her VW Camper had been taken by Jacobs in respect of a debt owed by him.

 

 

Apparently he said that he told the bailiff that the VW was not his but despite this,

the campervan was sold at auction for £1,500.

 

 

Unlike some other companies (not mentioning any names) Jacobs held their hands up and admitted wrongdoing

and within a space of less than a week they had managed to locate the new buyer

(even though it had been resold) and purchased the VW camper back and returned it the the owner.

[brassnecked]

Yes BA we must give them due credit for that and as you indicate they seem to have cleaned up their act, i just hope ppaul's case is a glitch and not a return to naughtiness. There seems to be issues with fees where there is no CGA in place as there shouldn't be if agreement during Compliance Stage. Perhaps all bailiffco's might try this one to max out fees.

 

Hope ppauls gets back to us regarding when the agreement was put in place, Compliance or Enforcement?

[ppauls150]

Thanks for the replies

 

 

just got home and rang them to sort it out as I think £100 a month was more than enough with what outgoings we have.

 

 

We setup the agreement over the phone when they sent the very first letter saying they would send bailiffs if we didn't get in touch.

 

 

They charged us I think £150 for the two separate council tax bills even though I was unhappy with the one £75 charge

even worse having to pay for each council tax order but had to bite the bullet and agree to them if I wanted to set up the agreement

and stop bailiffs coming round.

 

 

They sent us a payment card and possibly a letter about the agreement possibly in the draw.

Would have dug it out if the conversation had just gone another way when I spoke to them.

 

 

They said they sent the letter to review if we could pay any more and I said no we can't s

o they said ok just carry on paying the £100.

 

 

That is probably what they may have been trying to see if we responded or not

so they could send the bailiffs round if we didn't respond within 7 days but it looks

 

 

all sorted now.

[ploddertom]

May be my memory playing tricks but is this not the first time we have heard this. Bailiff agrees affordable payments with the debtor and a few months later insist payments have to increase to stupid amounts that are clearly not acheivable.

[Bailiff Advice]

Thanks for the replies just got home and rang them to sort it out as I think £100 a month was more than enough with what outgoings we have. We setup the agreement over the phone when they sent the very first letter saying they would send bailiffs if we didn't get in touch. They charged us I think £150 for the two separate council tax bills even though I was unhappy with the one £75 charge even worse having to pay for each council tax order but had to bite the bullet and agree to them if I wanted to set up the agreement and stop bailiffs coming round. They sent us a payment card and possibly a letter about the agreement possibly in the draw. Would have dug it out if the conversation had just gone another way when I spoke to them. They said they sent the letter to review if we could pay any more and I said no we can't so they said ok just carry on paying the £100. That is probably what they may have been trying to see if we responded or not so they could send the bailiffs round if we didn't respond within 7 days but it looks all sorted now.

 

Very pleased to hear that this has been resolved and pleased too that you have updated the forum. On the matter of the fees of £150, the legal position is that the enforcement agency can charge a Compliance Fee of £75 for EACH Liability Order. However, if a visit is made, only one enforcement fee of £235 can be applied.

[brassnecked]

May be my memory playing tricks but is this not the first time we have heard this. Bailiff agrees affordable payments with the debtor and a few months later insist payments have to increase to stupid amounts that are clearly not acheivable.

They probably take continued payment of the arrangement without any default, but debtor not responding to contact as excuse to visit and add £235, looks naughty to me

 

Glad it looks like ppauls is not getting a visit and a bill for £235