Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) decision....Paying the council direct will not avoid bailiff fees.

[Bailiff Advice]

The Local Government Ombudsman's office has just released the following decision.

 

 

Re: London Borough of Haringey.

 

 

The complaint

 

1.

The complainant, who I shall call Ms A, complains the Council allowed her to make payment towards an outstanding Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) although it had passed the matter to its enforcement agents (bailiffs), incurring additional costs.

 

 

 

What I found

 

4

The Council issued Ms A a PCN for a parking contravention on 29 September 2015. Ms A did not pay or make formal representations against the PCN so the Council pursued the debt against her. It issued a warrant of execution and passed the debt to its bailiffs to enforce on 16 June 2016.

 

5.

Ms A made a payment of £97 for the PCN using the Council’s online system on 23 June 2016. However by this point the Council had already passed the case to its bailiffs, incurring further costs. Ms A says she paid the fine so bailiff action should cease. However, the Council says she is still liable for the bailiff fees.

 

Ms A says the Council should not have allowed her to make a payment online when the case was with its bailiffs. The Council confirmed it passed the debt onto the enforcement agency on 13 June because it had not received payment and sent a Notice of Enforcement on 16 June.

 

6.

Ms A complained to the Council that she had not received the statutory notices the Council says it sent. The Council confirmed it sent the notices to the registered keepers address. These included the Notice to Owner, the Charge Certificate and the Order of Recovery. Each notice summarised the amount due at each stage. The Council said Royal Mail did not return the letters as undelivered so considered them served. The Council included copies of the notices it sent to Ms A in its response to her complaint.

 

7.

A motorist may make part-payment towards a PCN debt and there was no reason for the Council to refuse Ms A’s payment made on 23 June 2016.

 

Ms A sought to challenge the Council’s action but was unsuccessful, and the Council is therefore entitled to pursue the debt against her, including by passing the case to its bailiffs. Ms A made payment only after the case had been referred to bailiffs and the Ombudsman cannot therefore say she is not liable for the bailiff’s fees. The Council’s acceptance of Ms A’s payment has also not caused Ms A an injustice as it has been put towards the cost of the PCN and bailiff’s fees incurred to pursue it.

 

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/16-008-073

[foley]

Ms A says she paid the fine so bailiff action should cease. However, the Council says she is still liable for the bailiff fees.

 

So the PCN was paid and the fees were outstanding?

[wonkeydonkey]

Ms A says she paid the fine so bailiff action should cease. However, the Council says she is still liable for the bailiff fees.

 

So the PCN was paid and the fees were outstanding?

 

Ms A made a payment of £97 for the PCN using the Council’s online system on 23 June 2016. However by this point the Council had already passed the case to its bailiffs, incurring further costs

 

and...I suspect that payment, once bailiff fees were deducted, left a balance owing on the PCN

[Bailiff Advice]

Ms A made a payment of £97 for the PCN using the Council’s online system on 23 June 2016. However by this point the Council had already passed the case to its bailiffs, incurring further costs

 

and...I suspect that payment, once bailiff fees were deducted, left a balance owing on the PCN

 

Quite right WD.

[foley]

Ms A made a payment of £97 for the PCN using the Council’s online system on 23 June 2016. However by this point the Council had already passed the case to its bailiffs, incurring further costs

 

and...I suspect that payment, once bailiff fees were deducted, left a balance owing on the PCN

 

I don't see where it says that. It says fees have been added, as is correct, but it doesn't say any of the PCN was left owing after Ms A made a payment of £97. All it says is that Ms A is liable for the fees.

 

Quite right WD.

 

I'm sorry, but you can't suspect or assume there was a balance owing on the PCN. Indeed the implication is that the PCN was paid leaving only the EA fees outstanding.

[Bailiff Advice]

I'm sorry, but you can't suspect or assume there was a balance owing on the PCN. Indeed the implication is that the PCN was paid leaving only the EA fees outstanding.

 

I was conscious when I posted this important Local Government Ombudsman's Decision that it would not sit comfortably with 'debt avoidance' campaigners but I did expect 'new posters' to wait a little longer before trying to disrupt the thread.

 

I would suggest that you take into consideration the first line of paragraph 7 of the above decision. It states this:

 

A motorist may make

part-payment

towards a PCN debt

and there was no reason for the Council to refuse Ms A’s payment made on 23 June 2016.

 

The LGO have clearly recognised that the payment made of £97 was merely a 'part-payment' which of course is correct.

[foley]

The LGO have clearly recognised that the payment made of £97 was merely a 'part-payment' which of course is correct.

 

But they haven't, they've just confirmed that the whole PCN doesn't have to be paid in one payment. There is absolutely nothing here that is saying that any part of the PCN was outstanding, I'm sorry but it just doesn't. All it says is that Ms A is liable for the fees and they remain outstanding despite her paying £97.

 

This is not in any way about 'debt-avoidance' and I take exception at that. If EA fees can be removed or avoided then I'm all for it. In this case, the debt to the council was paid so I'm really not sure how this can be classed as debt avoidance.

[Bailiff Advice]

Foley, we will have to agree to disagree. Let's not allow this thread to be disrupted.

[foley]

I was conscious when I posted this important Local Government Ombudsman's Decision that it would not sit comfortably with 'debt avoidance' campaigners but I did expect 'new posters' to wait a little longer before trying to disrupt the thread.

 

It sits perfectly comfortable with me. The council confirm they accepted payment for the PCN, the LGO confirm Ms A is liable for the fees and the LGO confirm these fees remain outstanding. The PCN is paid and the fees are outstanding. That seems right to me.

[foley]

Foley, we will have to agree to disagree. Let's not allow this thread to be disrupted.

 

I'm just asking for someone to show where it says any part of the PCN remains outstanding. I welcome this LGO decision and thank you for posting it as it confirms that the council hadn't given any of the £97 payment to the EA, which of course is correct.

[dx100uk]

thread closed you lot

go play elsewhere

 

 

dx