Hello, it's been a while and just wondering if anything has changed.

I have a customer who has three council tax accounts for previous years which have been handed to Rossendales, the initial (pre fee) amounts come to about £1000, no doubt will be substantially more by the time Rossendales add their pound of flesh. same old story, she offered a repayment amount, they want treble her offered and won't budge.

It used to be the best advice was to simply ride ride it out, lock the doors, relocate the car, allow no access and sign nothing and hide everything, so they couldn't get a WP, try to get the accounts returned to the council, is this still the best advice?

What is the general period they have to collect on an account before it's returned?

Same advice re keep doors locked, cars out of the way. There can be no forced entry.

What has changed is that Enforcement Agents can take action on behalf of councils if they have a prior agreement with councils i.e they can seek attachment to earnings/benefits, they can refer it to Magistrates as a refusal to pay and get them to attend the court.

It might not get returned to the council, as Rossendales are now due their fees under the law that exist. Best advice is to write a letter offering repayment at an affordable level and providing basic details of income/expenses. Send this to head of revenues at the Council with a copy to Rossendales. In the letter advise that Rossendales had so far refused payment offered. Also inform of any issues of vulnerability or hardship.

Excellent advice UB

Excellent advice UB

I get it right sometimes.

Enjoy your course. Tell them, if they wear cameras, it must be on a recording device that cannot be tampered with. Full date/time stamp on recording and placed somewhere safe for a relevant period so can be available for legal requests eg. Data protection . They need to have same standards expected by Police.

Why would they refer to the magistrates court ? All they do is issue a liability order, unless they are challenging the debt is owed. It is the authority who decide on the enforcment method.

Also the debt would have to be passed back to the authority in order to end the section 12 enforcment procedure, before an instruction to commence an A of E| was given to the contractor(section 55)

If it is three orders issued the same day i believe that they can only charge £225 for the letter fee and combine all orders under one visit fee (if visit made) £310. Where do the get thier pre loaded £1,000 from

if I am wrong I stand corrected.

If it is three orders issued the same day i believe that they can only charge £225 for the letter fee and combine all orders under one visit fee (if visit made) £310. Where do the get thier pre loaded £1,000 from

 

if I am wrong I stand corrected.

No your correct.

Why would they refer to the magistrates court ? All they do is issue a liability order, unless they are challenging the debt is owed. It is the authority who decide on the enforcment method.

 

Also the debt would have to be passed back to the authority in order to end the section 12 enforcment procedure, before an instruction to commence an A of E| was given to the contractor(section 55)

From memory, when the new Enforcement law came in, there were a number of threads on here, discussing EA's getting more involved in taking further enforcement steps, subject to prior agreement with councils. Where councils have have reduced staffing and outsourced so much, they have delegated some decisions to enforcement companies.

You raise the point, as whether councils can delegate to EA's or whether the council has to by law take all decisions on further enforcement measures.

If it is three orders issued the same day i believe that they can only charge £225 for the letter fee and combine all orders under one visit fee (if visit made) £310. Where do the get thier pre loaded £1,000 from

 

if I am wrong I stand corrected.

Made error in the post, it should be £235 for the visit not £310

Made error in the post, it should be £235 for the visit not £310

Near enough ,310 in total with the compliance fee

From memory, when the new Enforcement law came in, there were a number of threads on here, discussing EA's getting more involved in taking further enforcement steps, subject to prior agreement with councils. Where councils have have reduced staffing and outsourced so much, they have delegated some decisions to enforcement companies.

 

You raise the point, as whether councils can delegate to EA's or whether the council has to by law take all decisions on further enforcement measures.

Yes the authority has to decide on which enforcement power to use they can then contract out using the provisions of the contracting out legislation.

In addition the ctax regs do not permit two enforcement powers to operate at the same time. So the schedule 12 procedure would first have to end.

The contractor would also have to make arrangement with the authority lfor payment for this service.

Hello, it's been a while and just wondering if anything has changed.

 

I have a customer who has three council tax accounts for previous years which have been handed to Rossendales, the initial (pre fee) amounts come to about £1000, no doubt will be substantially more by the time Rossendales add their pound of flesh. same old story, she offered a repayment amount, they want treble her offered and won't budge.

 

It used to be the best advice was to simply ride ride it out, lock the doors, relocate the car, allow no access and sign nothing and hide everything, so they couldn't get a WP, try to get the accounts returned to the council, is this still the best advice?

 

What is the general period they have to collect on an account before it's returned?

The taking control of goods regs say an order must be enforced within 12months, after this time the enforcement power ceases and it cannot be used. In practice the unsuccessful enforcement usually gets returned within ,3 to 6months.

Once returned any unpaid fees also die and do not form part of the amount outstanding. The debt can be reissued however too another EA.

Cheers muchly for that, pretty much as advised, although I will get her to keep an eye out for multiple fees on the same LO, as I'm not sure how they have applied them up to now. It did look like they'd charged a fee against each account, but then they may have a seperate LO for each one and be serving them individually, not sure as yet.

My understanding is also that when Rossendales have exhausted their respective options, it would need to be returned to the council for re-evaluation or for transfer to a proper court session, let's hope it goes that way and she gets the option to negotiate a real repayment schedule, instead of having one imposed on her

Rossendales only have one option and that is to enforce using schedule 12 procedure (taking control of goods)

When the account goes back, the authority will decide on what further enforcment power to use.

They may seek an attachment of earnings, seek a committal order, reissue to another bailiff,

I have no idea what you mean about "refer to proper court session", ther is no such thing available, unless you mean committal proceedings.

 

It used to be the best advice was to simply ride ride it out, lock the doors, relocate the car, allow no access and sign nothing and hide everything, so they couldn't get a WP, try to get the accounts returned to the council, is this still the best advice?

 

What is the general period they have to collect on an account before it's returned?

A while ago I posted the following on the forum. This may assist in answering your query:

It is a real gamble if you have a car to wait it out, or even a premium cycle as they can be the thick end of £2,000 and more, if the EA saw you arriving on one they would be most interested in Taking Control of it.

Rossendales only have one option and that is to enforce using schedule 12 procedure (taking control of goods)

 

When the account goes back, the authority will decide on what further enforcment power to use.

 

They may seek an attachment of earnings, seek a committal order, reissue to another bailiff,

 

I have no idea what you mean about "refer to proper court session", ther is no such thing available, unless you mean committal proceedings.

Just this once correcting some more silly dangerous advice i saw elsewhere regrading committal orders. Important for people to know if they are going to ignore the bailiff.

As stated here the authority may of course seek a committal order if the bailiff was unable to take enforcement and cannot recover money owed.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/14/schedule/4

Commitment to prison

8(1)Regulations under paragraph 1(1) above may provide that—

(a)where an authority has sought to levy an amount by distress under any provision included by virtue of paragraph 7 above, the debtor is an individual who has attained the age of 18 years, and the person making the distress reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the debtor on which to levy the amount, the authority may apply to a magistrates’ court for the issue of a warrant committing the debtor to prison

and herre#

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/47/made

Commitment to prison

47.—(1) Where a billing authority has sought to levy an amount by distress under regulation 45, the debtor is an individual who has attained the age of 18 years, and the person making the distress reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the debtor on which to levy the amount, the authority may apply to a magistrates' court for the issue of a warrant committing the debtor to prison.

ammendenmtstp terms in here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/600/schedule/made

If the person has tried to make an arrangement but is on low income or a Sanction backed by I & E don't see how they can commit to prison,

If the person has tried to make an arrangement but is on low income or a Sanction backed by I & E don't see how they can commit to prison,

They cannot, if there is an issue of not being able to pay but there can still be a warrant issued for proceedings to take place.

In any case the law says they can, so in short, they can.

They cannot, if there is an issue of not being able to pay but there can still be a warrant issued for proceedings to take place.

 

In any case the law says they can, so in short, they can.

For the sake of pedantry of course they can issue a warrant or summons the debtor that is beyond dispute, whether they can then prove wilful refusal and then commit is up to the court. They would look heartless if they sent a single mother on a Sanction down though, would probably get the Twitterati in a frenzy and raise a petition for release on 38 Degrees.

For the sake of pedantry of course they can issue a warrant or summons the debtor that is beyond dispute, whether they can then prove wilful refusal and then commit is up to the court. They would look heartless if they sent a single mother on a Sanction down though, would probably get the Twitterati in a frenzy and raise a petition for release on 38 Degrees.

Yes of course , my point was that some were saying that the authority cannot apply for a warrant of committal, patently they can, if it is expedient for them to do so is another matter.

Yes of course , my point was that some were saying that the authority cannot apply for a warrant of committal, patently they can, if it is expedient for them to do so is another matter.

Agree, that is my point, the option remains no matter what certain others think, but it is an option and Committal is not a forgone conclusion.

Agree, that is my point, the option remains no matter what certain others think, but it is an option and Committal is not a forgone conclusion.

It may not even be likely in many cases.

It may not even be likely in many cases.

But it is foolish to dismiss the possibility out of hand.

But it is foolish to dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Absolutely and even more so to believe or advise others to believe that you do not have to pay the debt because all you have to do is ignore the bailiff, even if you can afford to do so.