Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

You are correct L Bizzy. Sch 12 is actually reasonably straightforward on the whole. By far the best option IMO, once things have got this far, is to sit it out and wait for the return of the warrant.

FP - your experience is very similar to my own. Assuming you don't live near me, that's at least two LA's take that approach then.

It would be three then, because I was referring to two of them. The other one also did much the same thing, they issued summons but then accepted payment via debit card and reinstated the installment order.

[Wombats]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

As is so often the case, early intervention and communication are key. Unfortunately by the time EA's are instructed, at the risk of stating the obvious, it's too late.

[Kati]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

As is so often the case, early intervention and communication are key. Unfortunately by the time EA's are instructed, at the risk of stating the obvious, it's too late.

Not always Wombats .... they just need to be 'shamed' into accepting they were wrong

[Guest]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Hi @L.Bizzy

there isa more than just the legislation your quoting, you need to understand the local government finance act sections that deal with delegated powers, also, the accounting standards ( both governmental and independant ( like cipfa ) ). Its BVPI indicators 9 to 11 i think ( i may remember wrong ) that deal with accounting around CT and NNDR and further actions
@outlawlgo was spot on, they simply process the LOs becuase its easier and cheaper than following the proper accounting rules.. These rules, include stuff like

reasonable effort to confirm contact with the debitors,
assessment of the appropriateness of taking further actions
plus many more

each council also has there own constitution, and can vary the rules under certan conditions ( when @outlawlgo found our council applying for liability orders for as low as a penny, but over 6000 for onder £ 100 ( the minimum at the time ) ), our monitoring officer, gave himself special powers, then reduced the minimum they couold apply for, down to a £ 10 ( 2013 )

So, ignoring and holding out, probebly not a good idea in these curcs
Pay what you owe, into there bank, and if reasonable, the LO fee, Is at least heading in the right direction. then complain to the right officer

I have told you before-Legislation over rides anything like cipfa and any other accounting standards you can think of. A liability order is applied for in most cases because a debtor has failed to respond to previous notices. All other considerations are not relevant.

If a debtor ignores correspondence, a summons will be issued. A debtor then has one final chance to dispute the claim by attending court. If he/she fails to do so, a LO will be issued. The time to contest/complain ends at that point. It is lunacy to allow a debt to reach this crisis point and then decide to pay, including LO fees and to launch a complaint. Why not just pay before the LO is issued?

If a debtor corresponds with a council at any time prior to the summons being issued, the likleyhood is that the matter can be resolved without the need to obtain a LO.

Finally, nobody has suggested the debtor "ignore and hold out" although, if a debtor does not own a vehicle, or anything else of value outside their home, it is in fact relatively easy to "ignore and hold out".

If someone has the means to pay, they would be advised to pay, not wait until a LO is issued before they dispute the matter-That is a ridiculous suggestion.

[Wombats]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

Not always Wombats .... they just need to be 'shamed' into accepting they were wrong

Do you know many cases nowadays being taken back by the council (excepting vulnerability issues etc....)? I know of many where they have refused.

They do take them back occasionally, but I think (note think, not know for certain) that this is the exception, not the rule. :tinysmile_grin_t:

- - - Updated - - -

I have told you before-Legislation over rides anything like cipfa and any other accounting standards you can think of. A liability order is applied for in most cases because a debtor has failed to respond to previous notices. All other considerations are not relevant.

If a debtor ignores correspondence, a summons will be issued. A debtor then has one final chance to dispute the claim by attending court. If he/she fails to do so, a LO will be issued. The time to contest/complain ends at that point. It is lunacy to allow a debt to reach this crisis point and then decide to pay, including LO fees and to launch a complaint. Why not just pay before the LO is issued?

If a debtor corresponds with a council at any time prior to the summons being issued, the likleyhood is that the matter can be resolved without the need to obtain a LO.

Finally, nobody has suggested the debtor "ignore and hold out" although, if a debtor does not own a vehicle, or anything else of value outside their home, it is in fact relatively easy to "ignore and hold out".

If someone has the means to pay, they would be advised to pay, not wait until a LO is issued before they dispute the matter-That is a ridiculous suggestion.

Yep!

[Crazy council]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

will agree to disagree @L.Bizzy , i understand your perspective, but your not accounting for the section 151 officers responsibility , or monitoring officer, also, you can not hold either post without agreeing accounting standards with the likes of cipfa, the legislation and accounting conditions are seporate, not one on top of the other. You have to pass all accounting standards before you process the account further. thats both the monitoring office asnd 151 officer responsibility

OP , pay the CT as a minimum, if you feel a bit responsible, pay the LO fee as well, then formally complain, request suspension of further action for 14 days whilst they review if they acted correctly.
[MENTION=48400]Wombats[/MENTION]

Do you know many cases nowadays being taken back by the council (excepting vulnerability issues etc....)? I know of many where they have refused.
They do take them back occasionally, but I think (note think, not know for certain) that this is the exception, not the rule.

The key to my action at the moment was gaining them figures, and having to fight for over 4 years to get them. The above action, has a relation to the BVPI indicators i mentioned.

[Kati]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

They do take them back occasionally, but I think (note think, not know for certain) that this is the exception, not the rule. :tinysmile_grin_t:

and THAT'S where groups like LB come in .... we can tell people the rules/regs & help them

[Debt Camel]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

In this scenario, it makes no difference why the debtor has arrived at this crisis point, and nothing can be gained by interrogating as to why the debt remained unpaid.

Nonsense. The fact is that we know almost nothing about this debt apart from the fact the cars are not the property of the OP. If one of the reasons I previously listed (or the many alternatives) applies, there could be good reason to suggest either that the LA should not have applied for a LO or that they should not have sent it for enforcement by the bailiffs. We need to find out what happened.

Council tax recovery is particularly harsh and punitive. People should be encouraged to post for help, not made to feel they are criminals for being in debt.

I completely agree. But the best way to help is to provide clear and relevant advice.

[mcg]

Re: Jacobs attend when on Holiday!

For clarity;

Council Tax bills from Chorley Council send to not current address.

Liability Order sent to current address (suspect Land Registry search) for circa £170.

Point unhappy about is 6 months expiry of enforcement imminent so Jacobs quickly fudged levy; as would clearly see pile of mail in glazed porch as on holiday and proceeded to send confirmation of supposed agreed payment plan even though never came into contact?!