Bailiff enforcement re Council Tax: Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) decisions

[tobyjugg2]

London Borough of Hackney

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/15-014-848

 

 

4. Mr X was in arrears with his council tax payments in 2014/5. He says that he paid the amounts owed to the bailiffs and the Council. However, he disputes a charge of £235 imposed by the bailiffs for visiting him.

 

5. He acknowledges that the bailiff visited but not in order to seize goods. Bailiffs are entitled to impose an enforcement charge where a visit is made, even if no goods are able to be seized on that visit. However, the charge cannot be imposed again if a further visit is made.

 

6. Mr X accepts that a debt of £32 existed at the time the visit was carried out.

 

7. I appreciate Mr X’s concern that the charge was out of proportion to the amount of debt remaining, but there appears to be a legal basis for the charge. Mr X can dispute the imposition of the charge through the courts.

 

8 From the evidence the Local Government Ombudsman could not conclude that the imposition of the fee was maladministration. She could not therefore be critical of that decision.

 

 

I'm confused by this.

 

So bailiffs will just knock on a door to say say 'you owe' with no intent to seize goods, or actually do anything really that wouldn't be far better done by letter stating the exact issue and options, and whether anyone answers or not they add £235 to the debt?

 

Then they start charging interest on it I assume? or am I mistaken?

 

Genuine questions.

 

 

 

Just noting this bit

"He acknowledges that the bailiff visited but not in order to seize goods. Bailiffs are entitled to impose an enforcement charge where a visit is made, even if no goods are able to be seized on that visit. However, the charge cannot be imposed again if a further visit is made.

[Coughdrop]

The legislation does not state they need to intend to take control of goods in this scenario:

 

"5.—(1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows—

 

(b) the enforcement stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the premises in relation to the instructions up to but not including the commencement of the sale or disposal stage;"

 

( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/en/uksi/2014/1/regulation/5/made )

[Peterbard]

I'm confused by this.

 

So bailiffs will just knock on a door to say say 'you owe' with no intent to seize goods, or actually do anything really that wouldn't be far better done by letter stating the exact issue and options, and whether anyone answers or not they add £235 to the debt?

 

Then they start charging interest on it I assume? or am I mistaken?

 

Genuine questions.

 

 

 

Just noting this bit

"He acknowledges that the bailiff visited but not in order to seize goods. Bailiffs are entitled to impose an enforcement charge where a visit is made, even if no goods are able to be seized on that visit. However, the charge cannot be imposed again if a further visit is made.

 

They can add what fees they like but unless they pursue the debt with the debtor they will not be able to recover them.

Just to add fees to the debt would be counter productive as when the debt went back the fees would disapear and the bailiff would be left with nothing.

[tobyjugg2]

The legislation does not state they need to intend to take control of goods in this scenario:

 

"5.—(1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows—

 

(b) the enforcement stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the premises in relation to the instructions up to but not including the commencement of the sale or disposal stage;"

 

( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/en/uksi/2014/1/regulation/5/made )

 

I understand that it is an interpretation of the wording, but it does not seem to be in the spirit of the intended use ..

 

The wording seems to me to intend it to be used to recover bailiff costs when they attend to seize goods

"even if no goods are able to be seized on that visit",

not just as a mechanism to ramp up the profit/costs to the victim when no seizure was ever intended - perhaps because the DCA already know the victim has nothing worth seizing..

[Peterbard]

Victim ? DCA ?

 

I think you are talking about something else here.

 

Also ther is no requirement for bailiffs to seize goods in none HCEO cases.

[tobyjugg2]

Victim ? DCA ?

 

I think you are talking about something else here.

 

Also ther is no requirement for bailiffs to seize goods in none HCEO cases.

 

 

Requirement to seize goods?

There is never a requirement - its an option to recover costs is it not (ignoring the threat aspect)

 

Now I think recovery of costs is could be reasonable withing the mechanism (IMO) (ignoring whether the whole mechanism is reasonable or not)

and £235 at a seizure stage, with all the mechanisms and requirements for seizure met (and intended) is far better (in my opinion) than leaving costs in the hands of the bailiff/sheriff/DCA

 

but £235 just for walking up to a door and effectively saying (or not even saying) thats another 235 pound ta - does not seem reasonable at all

 

Now I dont doubt that you think the latter perfectly reasonable

and I dont doubt that your lawyers fought hard for that against someone who probably knew very little about anything about this,

 

but hopefully anyone else finding themselves in this situation might raise this for the courts/ombudsmans/MPs consideration

 

Because £235 just for just walking up to a door of someone clearly in financial difficulty, apparently with no intent to do anything other than generate another £235 of profit for their organisation does not seem reasonable at all to me,

and I have faith that most of our laws and regulations do have a positive intent, even if in difficult circumstances.

[Peterbard]

Hceos are required to take control of goods, sorry about that.

[tobyjugg2]

Hceos are required to take control of goods, sorry about that.

 

Yet in this case they apparently had no intent to seize goods - hows that then?

 

"5. He acknowledges that the bailiff visited but not in order to seize goods."

[Coughdrop]

I understand that it is an interpretation of the wording, but it does not seem to be in the spirit of the intended use ..

 

The wording seems to me to intend it to be used to recover bailiff costs when they attend to seize goods

"even if no goods are able to be seized on that visit",

not just as a mechanism to ramp up the profit/costs to the victim when no seizure was ever intended - perhaps because the DCA already know the victim has nothing worth seizing..

 

The Explanatory Memorandum Section 7.3 seems to back up the expectation that any visit at the Enforcement Stage would be to take control of goods ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf )

 

It comments on the enforcement stage by comparing it to the first enforcement stage for High Court enforcement:

 

"Unless a debtor pays in full at the compliance stage, the enforcement agent is obliged to visit the debtor in every High Court case in order to take control of goods, thereby triggering the first enforcement stage........

 

........ For non-High Court debt there is no such obligation and therefore we have introduced an incentive to enter into an agreement without taking control of goods at the (earlier) compliance stage which avoids triggering the enforcement stage with its larger fee."

 

Does the part in red suggest the intent would be for any visit at the enforcement stage in non-High Court cases to be to take control of goods?

[Peterbard]

"Now I think recovery of costs is could be reasonable withing the mechanism (IMO) (ignoring whether the whole mechanism is reasonable or not)

and £235 at a seizure stage, with all the mechanisms and requirements for seizure met (and intended) is far better (in my opinion) than leaving costs in the hands of the bailiff/sheriff/DCA"

 

EH ?

 

As said fees are taken out of proceeds, no proceeds no fees. In the days where there where multiple enforcment fees, it may have been worth creeping up the garden path, but no longer.

[tobyjugg2]

"Now I think recovery of costs is could be reasonable withing the mechanism (IMO) (ignoring whether the whole mechanism is reasonable or not)

and £235 at a seizure stage, with all the mechanisms and requirements for seizure met (and intended) is far better (in my opinion) than leaving costs in the hands of the bailiff/sheriff/DCA"

 

EH ?

 

As said fees are taken out of proceeds, no proceeds no fees. In the days where there where multiple enforcment fees, it may have been worth creeping up the garden path, but no longer.

 

but they apparently didnt attend to seize goods, yet still applied the 235 - which the victim disputed.

 

and they clearly didnt seize goods as you lot claim they are 'required' to

[Peterbard]

but they apparently didnt attend to seize goods, yet still applied the 235 - which the victim disputed.

 

and they clearly didnt seize goods as you lot claim they are 'required' to

 

, apply to what ?

If they do not recover anything by interacting with the debtor there is nothing to apply it to. They only get to apply the fe once, so it would need another visit. for nothing.

[daverules]

They can add what fees they like but unless they pursue the debt with the debtor they will not be able to recover them.

Just to add fees to the debt would be counter productive as when the debt went back the fees would disapear and the bailiff would be left with nothing.

 

Does that include the£ 75 compliance/letter fee?

[tobyjugg2]

, apply to what ?

If they do not recover anything by interacting with the debtor there is nothing to apply it to. They only get to apply the fe once, so it would need another visit. for nothing.

 

what your mate or whatever posted and I queried

or are you just trying to tie things up in knots - I will summarise to prevent that

 

"4. Mr X was in arrears with his council tax payments in 2014/5. He says that he paid the amounts owed to the bailiffs and the Council. However, he disputes a charge of £235 imposed by the bailiffs for visiting him.

 

5. He acknowledges that the bailiff visited but not in order to seize goods. Bailiffs are entitled to impose an enforcement charge where a visit is made, even if no goods are able to be seized on that visit. "

 

 

So they didnt seize goods despite the claim here that it is 'required' - in fact it would appear that there was never any intent to seize goods.

 

and they apparently added the £235 despite not seizing goods (or apparently even intending to seize goods)- despite the claims here that "As said fees are taken out of proceeds, no proceeds no fees"

 

so did these whatevers breach their requirements as "Hceos are required to take control of goods, sorry about that". and add a 235 pound fee they shouldn't "As said fees are taken out of proceeds, no proceeds no fees."

All this aside from the fact that it would seem they apparently just effectively walked up to a victim (of circumstance) door and said thats another 235 pound TY very much - apparently the only intent there was.

 

 

"Bailiffs are entitled to impose an enforcement charge where a visit is made, even if no goods are able to be seized on that visit. "

 

That clearly does say 'not able' to seize goods - NOT 'never intended'

[Peterbard]

Does that include the£ 75 compliance/letter fee?

 

yes fees are taken from proceeds of enforcment, 8if no money is recovered then there is nothing to take fees out of.

[daverules]

Thank you for that clarification on fees.

 

Regards to all

 

.

[Peterbard]

what your mate or whatever posted and I queried

or are you just trying to tie things up in knots - I will summarise to prevent that

 

"4. Mr X was in arrears with his council tax payments in 2014/5. He says that he paid the amounts owed to the bailiffs and the Council. However, he disputes a charge of £235 imposed by the bailiffs for visiting him.

 

5. He acknowledges that the bailiff visited but not in order to seize goods. Bailiffs are entitled to impose an enforcement charge where a visit is made, even if no goods are able to be seized on that visit. "

 

 

So they didnt seize goods despite the claim here that it is 'required' - in fact it would appear that there was never any intent to seize goods.

 

and they apparently added the £235 despite not seizing goods (or apparently even intending to seize goods)- despite the claims here that "As said fees are taken out of proceeds, no proceeds no fees"

 

so did these whatevers breach their requirements as "Hceos are required to take control of goods, sorry about that". and add a 235 pound fee they shouldn't "As said fees are taken out of proceeds, no proceeds no fees."

All this aside from the fact that it would seem they apparently just effectively walked up to a victim (of circumstance) door and said thats another 235 pound TY very much - apparently the only intent there was.

 

 

"Bailiffs are entitled to impose an enforcement charge where a visit is made, even if no goods are able to be seized on that visit. "

 

That clearly does say 'not able' to seize goods - NOT 'never intended'

 

here was still a sum due as i understand it. The EA ws entitled to call. He did not have to take control of goods in order to merit his fee under the regulations, all there is to it really,.

[tobyjugg2]

here was still a sum due as i understand it. The EA ws entitled to call. He did not have to take control of goods in order to merit his fee under the regulations, all there is to it really,.

 

Your (IMO) unreasonable interpretation of the law aside, where it seems to me it should be a fee on an attempt (successful or otherwise) to seize goods, not just wander up to a door and add £235

 

"Hceos are required to take control of goods, sorry about that"

 

"As said fees are taken out of proceeds, no proceeds no fees."

 

Neither of these claims appear to be the case

No goods were apparently seized/taken control of despite your claiming it is required,

No goods were seized, or apparently intended to be seized, yet fee added

[Peterbard]

Now your just trying to be insulting. Don't waste your breath you do not have the knowledge to argue with me on EA issues. One erroneous statement at a time then i will leave you to your ignorance.

 

You Seem to think that the EAs function and intent is just to inconvenience the debtor by inflating his bill, it may come as a shock to you to learn that biliffs like to collect their fees, just to add a fee to the account with no intention of recovering it would be absurd and a waste of time.

 

The enforcment here was not made by s HCEO, it was a certified bailiff, HCEOs do not charge £235 for their first enforcment fee. None HCEO enforcment is not dependant on taking control of goods as per the memorandum and there is no requirement to take control of goods in order to meit the fee.

 

The answer i provided was to your original question, attempting to respond was I admit a mistake as you did not really require an answer it was just an excuse in order for you to start an argument and introduce you silly erroneous views.

[tobyjugg2]

Now your just trying to be insulting. Don't waste your breath you do not have the knowledge to argue with me on EA issues. One erroneous statement at a time then i will leave you to your ignorance.

 

You Seem to think that the EAs function and intent is just to inconvenience the debtor by inflating his bill, it may come as a shock to you to learn that biliffs like to collect their fees, just to add a fee to the account with no intention of recovering it would be absurd and a waste of time.

 

The enforcment here was not made by s HCEO, it was a certified bailiff, HCEOs do not charge £235 for their first enforcment fee. None HCEO enforcment is not dependant on taking control of goods as per the memorandum and there is no requirement to take control of goods in order to meit the fee.

 

The answer i provided was to your original question, attempting to respond was I admit a mistake as you did not really require an answer it was just an excuse in order for you to start an argument and introduce you silly erroneous views.

 

Then answer the questions. This was you and your other apologist here who posted the OP I queries and the responses which raised more questions and no answers - just poor excuses and conflicting claims..

 

you now say

"just to add a fee to the account with no intention of recovering it would be absurd and a waste of time"

but the issue was with why the bailiff went with apparently no intention of seizing goods, yet added £235 to the 'debt,

despite not seizing anything (in contradiction to the 'justification' given by you that they are 'required' to seize goods, and that they dont charge if they dont

 

Your justification for the call and the £235 added to the debt would appear to be:

"The EA ws entitled to call." and hence entitled to charge

(even if the call was effectively meaningless)

 

Which brings us right back around to the unreasonableness (despite 'entitlement') of the call and associated charge for that meaningless call...

 

 

Is there anyone her apart from these apologists who can:

 

a) explain to me why that call was reasonable in any way without any intention to seize goods ('entitlement' to call aside) thereby generating a £235 addition to the debt to no purpose whatsoever?

 

b) clarify why despite these apologists claiming the officer was required to seize goods - despite the apparent fact they didn't even intend to per the OP I queried (seems clear to me that there is no actual requirement - its just an option but the apologists are BS'ing to avoid awkward questions) - but understanding I could be wrong there and the officer(s) could just be breaching their requirements)?

[Leakie]

Tobyjugg2

 

I have to butt in here,

DB and I assume you also mean BA are not apologists for the new regs.

 

you have your point of view and DB has his,

I do not agree with DB most of the time,

But the reg state that as soon as it is passed to the EA the £235 is automatic. (no visit necessary for the fee to be added which IMO is not how it should be)

 

So why would an EA just call around with out the intention of trying to enforce?

it would be a waste of time.

May be the OP was smart enough, not to let the EA into the property.

 

But there will probably be another attempt at some point.

 

Leakie

[Peterbard]

HI Leakie no Butt away.

 

I dont understand the term TBH leakie. I see nothing to apologize for, the TCE seems to be working very well in most areas, although it would work a lot better ivf people did not keep misinterpreting it and going to court on some half baked nonsense.

 

It came as a great shock to me TBH, when the act was going through the housse, very few of us thought it had a cat in hells chance of being fit for use.

 

I must add that i can only speak for myself in this BA will have her own opinion.

[tobyjugg2]

Tobyjugg2

 

I have to butt in here,

DB and I assume you also mean BA are not apologists for the new regs.

Leakie

 

 

I think apologist was and is an apt and responsible descriptor

Apologist

synonyms:defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, apostle, champion, backer, promoter, campaigner, spokesman, spokeswoman, spokesperson, speaker, arguer, enthusiast

 

 

 

But the reg state that as soon as it is passed to the EA the £235 is automatic. (no visit necessary for the fee to be added which IMO is not how it should be)

 

So why would an EA just call around with out the intention of trying to enforce?

it would be a waste of time.

May be the OP was smart enough, not to let the EA into the property.

Leakie

 

Leakie, Thanks for butting in and actually answering my initial query.

 

So the charge is added, even if they do absolutely nothing!

I was mislead by the following in the OP I referred and asked for clarification on as as posted it really didn't make any reasonable sense.

 

"he disputes a charge of £235 imposed by the bailiffs for visiting him"

But you clarify that it wasn't 'for visiting him' it was already there the second it was passed. (please correct me if I am still mistaken)

 

If the apologists here had simply said what you just said, rather than waffling on about god knows what, actually adding to the confusion and misunderstandings, this would have been far simpler and a lot shorter.

 

So they didn't even have to visit for the £235 charge - it was already there.

Now it makes a lot more sense.

Shame (for the industry) that these waffling nincompoops apparently representing the industry on this forum cant see past their own blinkers LOL.

 

Thank you for the clarification Leakie

 

 

 

Does still raise the question of whether debts that are less than the initial debt recovery fees should be allowed to be passed over,

or perhaps that the debt recovery fee should never be more than (capped at) the initial debt.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

So they didn't even have to visit for the £235 charge - it was already there.

 

Does still raise the question of whether debts that are less than the initial debt recovery fees should be allowed to be passed over, or perhaps that the debt recovery fee should never be more than (capped at) the initial debt.

 

Can I just make a couple of points. This thread was started by me to highlight decisions (good or bad) from the Local Government Ombudsman's Office. It is already the case that outside viewers will very likely not bother reading any of the important decisions on this thread given that the thread has turned so damn argumentative.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the fees are set in statute law and the time to complain about them was during the Consultation period.

 

Given my interest in this matter, I naturally responded to the Consultation (in fact I provided a 47 page submission). You may care to note that I also proposed that there should be a momentary limit to debts referred to enforcement agents. My suggestion was rejected (and rightly so). This thread is not the place to discuss the reason.

 

The £235 enforcement fee is added to the account 'when the visit is made' to the debtors property (not before).

 

Whilst there may be some element of truth in that the enforcement agent does not have to do an awful lot to be able to charge this fee, the fact remains that the fee (of £235) and with it his commission....may only be recovered if:

 

The enforcement agent is able to 'take control of debtors goods' within the property.

 

By seizing a vehicle outside

 

Or by obtaining payment (or agreeing a payment arrangement). by way of a Controlled Goods Agreement).

[Bailiff Advice]

Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a bailiff's apologist.

 

As I have not personally had a visit from a bailiff or enforcement agent I do not 'hold a grudge' or have personal bad feelings about bailiffs. I consider that I am good at my job as I can 'sit on the fence' and see both sides of the argument.

 

Hopefully, we can now see if there is a way of getting this thread back to the important subject of Ombudsman's decisions.