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

[Leakie]

TobyJugg2

 

"so they didn't have to make a visit for the £235 charge"

 

This my understanding, from previous discussions on the forum. and from Experience.

 

My second letter from Newlyns already had the £235 charge added before they even attempted to visit.

 

I personally think that the charge should be a success fee, only applied once a reasonable repayment agreement has been set up,

The new Fee regs have made it easier to understand, and is less open to abuse,

 

I also think that adding on these fees to people who are unable to pay do not help the situation.

 

an example one of my LO's was for £95 ( I was unaware of it until Newlyn's contacted me) then doubled with the councils charge,

 

when forwarded to Newlyn's another £75 was added so a £95 debt went to £265

I have 3 LO's at the moment due to my family circumstances beyond my control,

the total added to the Debt with council fee's is £745.EA company £460 Council £285.

if this was the true cost I would not mind

 

I can not pay at the moment,

 

 

 

Now that you put "Apologist" has a wide range of meanings we must all be apologists for something

[tobyjugg2]

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

I wasn't even aware there was consultation, so couldn't give my opinion.

 

 

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

 

Which contradicts leakies explanation and brings us right back around to my initial questions and issues.

[Peterbard]

Yes i did not want to go into the $235 fee nd when it is due, A because the point has been made earlier in the thread and B Because it is off topic, and opens the door to all kind of off topic argument and debate

 

I to contributed to the consultation on behalf the the third section coalition if it makes any difference, but as said the time for debate has gone, if anyone wants to question fees they will have to get their particular MP to raise a question in the lords/coms and get the statutory instrument removed.

 

This whole particula argument is about nothing useful as far as i can see, and was only brought about by the poor knowledge and daft idea which was probably been implanted by some FMoTL type forum.

[tobyjugg2]

Yes i did not want to go into the $235 fee nd when it is due, A because the point has been made earlier in the thread and B Because it is off topic,

 

How can asking relevant questions to clarify something posted by the OP of this thread be off topic?

As you are not the OP, it seems to me that your claiming the OPs posts (and questions about them) are off-topic seems rather inane, particularly as it you that is posting self-contradictory statements.

The ops posts just seem to describe a strange (and possible unreasonable) set of circumstances.

 

This whole particula argument is about nothing useful as far as i can see, and was only brought about by the poor knowledge and daft idea which was probably been implanted by some FMoTL type forum.

 

Nothing to do with FMoTL rubbish, despite some of your posts here clearly being self-contradictory, hence rubbish in themselves.

 

Now leakie says he was charged despite no attendance despite the op claiming its charged at a visit.

This needs clarification

 

Also needing clarification, depending on the result of above, is why a bailiff would attend and generate a charge of £235 when they apparently had no intent of seizing goods, if that is the case.

 

Then there is the interpretation (depending on what folk think the right way is) as to whether the £235 is intended as a charge to cover seizure costs, as seems to me to be be implied in the regulation wording) or simply a fee on passover, as leakie seems to have experienced.

 

 

All these seem highly relevant to understanding the 'judgement/finding posted by the op.

[Peterbard]

Look log off and search about fees, there are ample sites which give a peter and paul explanation about when fees are due.

Then come back and you can debate more knowledgeably.

 

Because at the moment not only are you on a different page you are in a different library

[*RainbowTears*]

Hi Tobyjugg,

 

Try the following link as it states each stage of enforcement & the fees applicable.

 

http://www.civea.co.uk/bailiff-enforcement-agent-charges-fees.htm

 

There are plenty of other sites that give out the same information. I personally do not have anything to do with EA/Bailiffs, nor do I know a great deal about them.

 

But I do understand the need to know what, why & when with regards to them & the fees charged.

 

Hope this helps!

[Peterbard]

Yes it is a good informative site.

 

Just found this, I had forgotten BA did a sticky on the subject on here some time ago.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453292-Bailiff-enforcement-A-Simple-Guide-to-the-Taking-Control-of-Goods-Regulations

[tobyjugg2]

Because at the moment not only are you on a different page you are in a different library

 

Thankyou.

If you dont want you posts queried, perhaps you should be posting them on your lobby sites not on a forum which values questioning these sort of events.

 

You clearly dont like my questioning what happened, tough, thats what forums are for despite your apparent desire for a simple propaganda outlet.

 

 

 

The links so far provided are just the lobby member bodies stating what they want you to know in a way they want it presented.

 

Are there any quality independent (NOT FMoTL crap) assesments of these rules and their interpretations anywhere please? anybody?

 

 

as a relevant point, the decision by the local government ombudsman is carefullly worded

 

"

 

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
   

"

 

So the Ombudsman only says s/he could not clearly state there was maladministration - thats all.

[*RainbowTears*]

Thankyou.

If you dont want you posts queried, perhaps you should be posting them on your lobby sites not on a forum which values questioning these sort of events.

 

You clearly dont like my questioning what happened, tough, thats what forums are for despite your apparent desire for a simple propaganda outlet.

 

 

 

The links so far provided are just the lobby member bodies stating what they want you to know in a way they want it presented.

 

Are there any quality independent (NOT FMoTL crap) assesments of these rules and their interpretations anywhere please? anybody?

 

 

as a relevant point, the decision by the local government ombudsman is carefullly worded

 

"

 

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
   

"

So the Ombudsman only says s/he could not clearly state there was maladministration - thats all.

 

 

A little light reading for you Tobyjugg...

 

All are non FMOTL & non lobby members links.

 

Google is your friend!

 

 

www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules

 

www.gov.uk/government/publications/bailiffs-and-enforcement-agents-national-standards

 

www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs/what-you-can-do-when-a-bailiff-visits

 

www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/fact-sheets/benefits-and-tax/bailiffs

 

Hope these links help make things clearer for you...

 

EDIT: Copy & paste if links not working.

[tobyjugg2]

A little light reading for you Tobyjugg...

 

All are non FMOTL & non lobby members links.

 

Google is your friend! ��

 

 

www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules

 

www.gov.uk/government/publications/bailiffs-and-enforcement-agents-national-standards

 

www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs/what-you-can-do-when-a-bailiff-visits

 

www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/fact-sheets/benefits-and-tax/bailiffs

 

Hope these links help make things clearer for you...

 

EDIT: Copy & paste if links not working.

 

 

I really found part 79 of your first link interesting,

PART 79 - PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE COUNTER-TERRORISM ACT 2008 AND PART 1 OF THE TERRORIST ASSET-FREEZING ETC. ACT 2010

 

Are you suggesting that these people are using the proceeds from these fees for terrorism Rainbowtears? I think thats very unlikely.

 

Anything somewhat more targeted at the issues at hand - or are they later in the links?

[Peterbard]

I really found part 79 of your first link interesting,

PART 79 - PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE COUNTER-TERRORISM ACT 2008 AND PART 1 OF THE TERRORIST ASSET-FREEZING ETC. ACT 2010

 

Are you suggesting that these people are using the proceeds from these fees for terrorism Rainbowtears? I think thats very unlikely.

 

Anything somewhat more targeted at the issues at hand - or are they later in the links?

 

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it think. RT:)

[*RainbowTears*]

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it think. RT:)

 

Awwwwwww schuckkkssssss!!!

 

Tobyjugg you just asked the 1 question I cannot answer, what are the odds on that eh?

 

So as I'm busy right now re-writing out the Magna Carta into Cockney, I've got the MOJ phone number just for you, so you can give them a quick call & ask them for yourself.

 

I would be so glad to have the answer, so I know for future reference myself.

 

Ministry of Justice;

 

020 3334 3555

 

Regards....

[tobyjugg2]

Awwwwwww schuckkkssssss!!!

 

Tobyjugg you just asked the 1 question I cannot answer, what are the odds on that eh?

 

So as I'm busy right now re-writing out the Magna Carta into Cockney, I've got the MOJ phone number just for you, so you can give them a quick call & ask them for yourself.

 

I would be so glad to have the answer, so I know for future reference myself.

 

Ministry of Justice;

 

020 3334 3555

 

Regards....

 

Great TY

 

... Wouldn't you know - on hold - and the repetitive 'tune' is darned awful.

[tobyjugg2]

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it think. RT:)

 

They must be fracking down the road from your water - its smells and tastes bad.