Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

[bizzybob]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

BB,

Here and elsewhere you have put a very credible argument about the Rome Convention and the HRA. Is there any case law at all to back this up yet, or are we awaiting a test case by someone brave enough to invest, or lucky enough to get pro bono representation?

At this stage it is still best to stick to the basics IMO, and I'd be inclined to send a SAR to both the bailiff company and the council (Number 3 from here http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...Useful-Letters)

Just a thought from the "other" BB there is merit in considering impact of HRA, I would suggest that where these council rules are posted up, or legislation quoted we have a specific live thread to weigh these snippets and law and regulations in general against the provisions of HRA and the Articles of the ECHR. You never know, a savvy lawyer from the National Pro Bono Centre may run with it.

These Public Authorities are at present driving a brace of juggernauts like a couple of Volvo F12 units with a 40' trailer through the HRA in their dealings with the public.

there could then be a reference to where there may be a potential breach of HRA indicated and shown as a consideration without derailing or taking a thread off topic or affecting tried & tested advice.

[wales01man]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Until someone Gets a ruling against a Council regarding the HRA Councils will ignore it Their own legal departments must know what the act allows or disallows but deliberately ignore it.
Who is going to take it on and a what cost

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

BB,

Here and elsewhere you have put a very credible argument about the Rome Convention and the HRA. Is there any case law at all to back this up yet, or are we awaiting a test case by someone brave enough to invest, or lucky enough to get pro bono representation?

At this stage it is still best to stick to the basics IMO, and I'd be inclined to send a SAR to both the bailiff company and the council (Number 3 from here http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...Useful-Letters)

The Convention rights of the Rome Convention (aka European Convention on Human Rights) are enshrined within Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. They are inalienable and inviolate. Public authorities, their contractors and employees should be compliant with the Convention in any case.

As Bizzybob has quite rightly pointed out, a lot of local and public authorities are driving a fleet of juggernauts through the HRA in their dealings with the public, i.e. you and me.

More and more people are finding out, on a daily basis, of the corruption and fraud that has been and is going on within local and public authorities and the way in our basic human rights are being ignored and/or violated. There is no harm whatsoever in highlighting breaches of Convention rights where they are blatant and of the fact that acts of public authorities which are incompatible with the Convention rights are unlawful, as defined by Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998.

The Convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 affect our everyday lives whether we wish to acknowledge this fact or not, but local and public authorities who feel they can ignore the Convention and Act will find that doing so can have a very far-reaching effect on the way they operate and interact with members of the public.

I have no doubt that it will be one or more of the pro bono legal charities that spearhead a string of human rights cases that kicks the UK government, local and public authorities and their employees and contractors into line. Notwithstanding that Canada and The Netherlands have publicly voiced concerns about human rights violations by the UK government against the British people and so has the United Nations. The clamour is growing, voices are getting louder and international condemnation of the UK government over its human rights violations is growing by the day. If the UK government is ignoring the law of the land and passing increasingly draconian and oppressive legislation which clearly breaches human rights, then human rights law is the only way to put those who seek to undermine our basic freedoms back in their box and to keep them there.

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Until someone Gets a ruling against a Council regarding the HRA Councils will ignore it Their own legal departments must know what the act allows or disallows but deliberately ignore it.
Who is going to take it on and a what cost

Publicly embarrassing local and public authorities by pointing out such breaches with well-researched arguments can be just as effective. Exposing or threatening to expose those responsible for such breaches is known to be very effective. It may sound unfair, but the Achille's Heel of those responsible for breaches is exposure; they are terrified of it because they know they will face justice and have to account for what they have done or been involved in one way or another.

[wales01man]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Do you really think anyone will worry ?

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Do you really think anyone will worry ?

Yes.

[labman]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

BB,

Here and elsewhere you have put a very credible argument about the Rome Convention and the HRA. Is there any case law at all to back this up yet, or are we awaiting a test case by someone brave enough to invest, or lucky enough to get pro bono representation?

At this stage it is still best to stick to the basics IMO, and I'd be inclined to send a SAR to both the bailiff company and the council (Number 3 from here http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...Useful-Letters)

The Convention rights of the Rome Convention (aka European Convention on Human Rights) are enshrined within Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. They are inalienable and inviolate. Public authorities, their contractors and employees should be compliant with the Convention in any case.

As Bizzybob has quite rightly pointed out, a lot of local and public authorities are driving a fleet of juggernauts through the HRA in their dealings with the public, i.e. you and me.

More and more people are finding out, on a daily basis, of the corruption and fraud that has been and is going on within local and public authorities and the way in our basic human rights are being ignored and/or violated. There is no harm whatsoever in highlighting breaches of Convention rights where they are blatant and of the fact that acts of public authorities which are incompatible with the Convention rights are unlawful, as defined by Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998.

The Convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 affect our everyday lives whether we wish to acknowledge this fact or not, but local and public authorities who feel they can ignore the Convention and Act will find that doing so can have a very far-reaching effect on the way they operate and interact with members of the public.

I have no doubt that it will be one or more of the pro bono legal charities that spearhead a string of human rights cases that kicks the UK government, local and public authorities and their employees and contractors into line. Notwithstanding that Canada and The Netherlands have publicly voiced concerns about human rights violations by the UK government against the British people and so has the United Nations. The clamour is growing, voices are getting louder and international condemnation of the UK government over its human rights violations is growing by the day. If the UK government is ignoring the law of the land and passing increasingly draconian and oppressive legislation which clearly breaches human rights, then human rights law is the only way to put those who seek to undermine our basic freedoms back in their box and to keep them there.

I take it the answer to the question asked is a very simple 'No' then. I agree the avenue you suggest is worth exploring, in fact I like it and think it should be explored, but maybe on the TCE thread rather than here?

For the OP here, the SAR suggested in the post above is still your best way forward for the moment IMO.

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

I take it the answer to the question asked is a very simple 'No' then. I agree the avenue you suggest is worth exploring, in fact I like it and think it should be explored, but maybe on the TCE thread rather than here?

For the OP here, the SAR suggested in the post above is still your best way forward for the moment IMO.

I suggest you take a look on a thread Milo started on CAG.

[labman]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

I have :-)

[Gonzalo]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

This is my reply bringing contribution to the thread up-to-date as at Bluebottle's post stamped at 23:47 24th February 2014

I may have mislead you slightly. But, certainly unintentionally.

What's been happening is that since April 2013 to date I have been paying both the bailiff and the council separately by standing order. I have been paying the bailiff £125 per month to towards the alleged arrears and £147 per month in Council Tax.

Basically, the Council Tax has been paid in full and directly to the Council over a period of ten months. My bank statements confirm this to be the case and I therefore believe that my Council Tax is up-to-date for the current year, i.e. 2013-2014. Unfortunately, neither the bailiff nor the council (bless them!) believe this to be the case and I have written to them both - and separately - to disabuse them of this idea. Separately, to the bailiffs because they're the entity that holds my account for the 'alleged' arrears for the prior years. These date back over a period of years and back 2008.

So, if I'm not the only person to find myself in this position, what remedies are there available to us in law? Should I approach the Ombudsman or perhaps, the audit Commission for help?

Moving on, I'm thinking this maybe just another form of stealth tax - most of which seem to fall upon people who can least afford to pay it for one reason or another?

[bizzybob]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

"Moving on, I'm thinking this maybe just another form of stealth tax - most of which seem to fall upon people who can least afford to pay it for one reason or another?"

That is the fundamental issue with Council Tax, it takes no account of ability to pay, beyond a fiendishly complicated relief scheme, and can be more than the rent, or mortgage payments

[ploddertom]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Did you obtain the information from the Council as suggested in Post 4? Did you send off for a breakdown of Bailiff Fees?

[Gonzalo]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Hi Ploddertom,

I wrote to the Bailiff along the lines suggested in post #4 and I gave them fourteen days in which to reply. I also wrote to the council asking them to explain to me why they thought I was in arrears on my council tax for the current year 2013/14 having paid in full, i.e. the charge for Band D which was £1466.05. I also pointed out that I should have been in credit because I qualified for the single persons discount of 25 percent for three months during the year.

Hey Ho!

I am writing for replies to both of my letters one from the Bailiffs and the other from Council.

Thanks again for your help.

G

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

This is my reply bringing contribution to the thread up-to-date as at Bluebottle's post stamped at 23:47 24th February 2014

I may have mislead you slightly. But, certainly unintentionally.

What's been happening is that since April 2013 to date I have been paying both the bailiff and the council separately by standing order. I have been paying the bailiff £125 per month to towards the alleged arrears and £147 per month in Council Tax.

Basically, the Council Tax has been paid in full and directly to the Council over a period of ten months. My bank statements confirm this to be the case and I therefore believe that my Council Tax is up-to-date for the current year, i.e. 2013-2014. Unfortunately, neither the bailiff nor the council (bless them!) believe this to be the case and I have written to them both - and separately - to disabuse them of this idea. Separately, to the bailiffs because they're the entity that holds my account for the 'alleged' arrears for the prior years. These date back over a period of years and back 2008.

So, if I'm not the only person to find myself in this position, what remedies are there available to us in law? Should I approach the Ombudsman or perhaps, the audit Commission for help?

Moving on, I'm thinking this maybe just another form of stealth tax - most of which seem to fall upon people who can least afford to pay it for one reason or another?

Okay. If your Council Tax for the 2013/2014 Financial Year is up-to-date, fine. If you owe the local authority no more until the new Financial Year - In the case of 10-month years, this runs May - March - pay no more until the 2014/2015 Council Tax Bill falls due.

In the case of those years where you are in arrears, could you list the following details, please -

Council Tax Year Amount Due Amount Paid

Then, separately, any lawful bailiff fees due.

From this, it will become clear if you owe anything, have cleared the arrears or are being ripped-off by the bailiffs.

[Gonzalo]

Re: Council Tax - Bailiff's Fees and Charges

Hello,

Sometime has passed since I last posted on this board about my problem with local council and I need to bring you up to date on my situation. Suffice to say to that the matter seems to be to be going backwards at the moment and here is an outline or timeline on the main sequence of events, so far as I understand them.

1.) On 10^th March 2014 I sent two separate SAR requests one each to both the Tunbridge wells Borough Council (TWBC) and to Stanford & Green the Bailiffs. The council replied within the legally defined time scales. However, the bailiffs failed to reply and I assumed that they simply decided to ignore it which for all intents and purposes they clearly had.

2.) On the basis that the Bailiff had ignored SAR request, I decided to cancel the Standing Order for £10 per month that I had set up previously agreed to pay to the bailiff. I did this on 1^st January 2015.

3.) On 16^th March 2015 I was ‘door stepped’ by the Bailiff’s Enforcement Agent who presented me with ‘Attendance Notice to Take Control of Goods’ (Ref: 215743) and demand for settlement of £1072.28 due to my failure to clear my arrears. This Notice had a reference number of 215743.

4.) At my request, the Enforcement Agent went away and later presented me with a breakdown of the sum of £1072.28 shown on the Attendance Notice. The sum shown of £1072.28 was a net figure comprising:
a.) Original due £1187.62
b.) Compliance Fee £42.50
c.) Enforcement Charge £235.00
d.) Less payments Received (£636.85)
Balance Due £1072.28

5.) The amount owing as at 16th March 2015 the balance due was therefore £1072.28 as shown on the Attendance Notice being made up of three separate case numbers, the first two of these have been inherited from my previous address with the Borough.


1.) #240151 2004/05 £416.42
2.) #240152 2005/06 £203.79
3.) #237025 2012/13 £175.93
4. Compliance Fees (£42.50 x 3) £127.50
Sub-Total £923.64
Difference £148.64

I assume difference of £148.64 arises from the cost of the Attendance Notice (Ref 215743) at £110.00 plus the compliance fee of £42.50 amounting to £152.50, give or take some arithmetical errors.

Note that the first two of these reference numbers date back some ten years ago when I lived at another address within the Borough. (Note that I was seriously ill at this time and I was unable to keep up with any of my bills).

5.) On 18^th March, and on being served with the Attendance Notice by the Enforcement Agent on 16th March I wrote to the Stanford and Green asking them to clarify the situation. I also sent them a copy of my original SAR request and asked to provide me with the information I had ask them for and which I understood they were legally required to do. Once again, I received no reply to my SAR request.

Moving on and to bring you up to date.

6.) On 25^th July 2015, I received a Removal Notice Council Tax Arrears letter dated 22^nd July which was sent to me by second class post. There are a several issues or questions I have about this Notice. First, the Removal Notice shows a Total Balance due of £453.43, a figure that is clearly different from the previous figures that I have set out for you above. Secondly, the Notice states that ‘despite previous visits, you have failed to effect settlement of the above account’. Third, I will now call on a Saturday or a Sunday to enforce the Liability Order against you. It goes on to state that in certain circumstances such action can be taken in your absence and where necessary with a removal contractor and locksmith….

I am unclear about my next steps, not least because I have no idea whether this figure of £453.43 comes from? As it states it is the Total Balance Due, is a figure in full and final settlement or just a first of more actions to come. I am not sure about how all this works.

I would be grateful for your advice on the best way for me to proceed.

I should also add that my Council Tax is up to date for the period 2015/16 and paid in full for 2013/14 and 2014/2015.

Many thanks

Gonzalo