Set out below are copies of email correspondence with Rossendales concerning the smaller of two old liability orders for which I received an undated and unsigned notice of intent which was claiming full payment of both outstanding liability orders despite the document only carrying the reference number of the smaller debt.
Their response was a surprise in as much that they have reset the arrangement imposed on them by Arun DC, but the answer they give on the issue of the undated single referenced notice of intent still puzzles me. Does "in good faith" provide an excuse to charge a fee of £247 split between the two orders? Why is it not split equally rather than £89.77 on the smaller and £157.23 on the larger?
If anyone can shed some light, I'd be grateful.
TO ROSSENDALES:*
Sent: 26 October 2016 05:44
To: Enquiries Rossendales <enquiries@rossendales.com>
Subject: CASE REF ******** CLIENT REF **********Councill Tax Liability Order
*I received recently an undated enforcement agent attendance notice unsigned but rubber stamped with the name"****** *********" with the above case number and client reference . The notice includes a demand for £1894.04 and an indication that an initial payment of £1450 would facilitate continuation of payment by instalments.
*My concern is that the amount due to be paid in respect of this liability order is £859.10 plus £75 costs, totalling £934.10.*
This order was passed to Rossendales by Arun District Council on 13th June 2016. On 16th June 2016 Rossendales confirmed the arrangement advised by Arun District Council of weekly payments of £23.80 per week commencing 24th June 2016.
Payments of £140.80 (17th October 2016), £23.80 (24th October 2016) and £23.80 (25th October 2016) made on-line through Rossendales' website show payments to date totalling £547.70. Given that the commencement date of the arrangement was 24th June 2016, 18 weeks ago (to 21st October 2016) at a rate of £23.80 per week, this total represents additional payments of £119.30 to date, in addition to clearing some earlier missed payments.
Weekly payments of £23.80 will continue to be made on-line through Rosendales' website.
I note also that an additional £89.77 enforcement costs have been added to the account and would be grateful if you could indicate what these additional costs are for.
I am particularly concerned that the undated and unsigned enforcement agent attendance notice and the incorrect information it contains may not be in accordance with appropriate regulations relevant to this liability order and have therefore forwarded a copy of this email to the Revenues Manager at Arun District Council.
FROM ROSSENDALES:
Thank you for your email.
Case: ******** Client reference:********** Balance: £1007.27***************
Instalments set: £23.80 every 7 days set from the 4.11.2016
With regards to the balances, for us dealing with collection of the case you are liable for the £75.00 Compliance Fee on each case which has been legally incurred on the 13.5.2016, when the Compliance letter was generated on each case.* The Enforcement Fee of £247.00 *has been split over the two cases and was legally incurred when the Enforcement Agent attended in good faith on the 12.10.2016, as the balance outstanding at the time had not been paid in full and the instalment arrangement that was set had not been kept.
*
***********
Their response was a surprise in as much that they have reset the arrangement imposed on them by Arun DC, but the answer they give on the issue of the undated single referenced notice of intent still puzzles me. Does "in good faith" provide an excuse to charge a fee of £247 split between the two orders? Why is it not split equally rather than £89.77 on the smaller and £157.23 on the larger?
If anyone can shed some light, I'd be grateful.
TO ROSSENDALES:*
Sent: 26 October 2016 05:44
To: Enquiries Rossendales <enquiries@rossendales.com>
Subject: CASE REF ******** CLIENT REF **********Councill Tax Liability Order
*I received recently an undated enforcement agent attendance notice unsigned but rubber stamped with the name"****** *********" with the above case number and client reference . The notice includes a demand for £1894.04 and an indication that an initial payment of £1450 would facilitate continuation of payment by instalments.
*My concern is that the amount due to be paid in respect of this liability order is £859.10 plus £75 costs, totalling £934.10.*
This order was passed to Rossendales by Arun District Council on 13th June 2016. On 16th June 2016 Rossendales confirmed the arrangement advised by Arun District Council of weekly payments of £23.80 per week commencing 24th June 2016.
Payments of £140.80 (17th October 2016), £23.80 (24th October 2016) and £23.80 (25th October 2016) made on-line through Rossendales' website show payments to date totalling £547.70. Given that the commencement date of the arrangement was 24th June 2016, 18 weeks ago (to 21st October 2016) at a rate of £23.80 per week, this total represents additional payments of £119.30 to date, in addition to clearing some earlier missed payments.
Weekly payments of £23.80 will continue to be made on-line through Rosendales' website.
I note also that an additional £89.77 enforcement costs have been added to the account and would be grateful if you could indicate what these additional costs are for.
I am particularly concerned that the undated and unsigned enforcement agent attendance notice and the incorrect information it contains may not be in accordance with appropriate regulations relevant to this liability order and have therefore forwarded a copy of this email to the Revenues Manager at Arun District Council.
FROM ROSSENDALES:
Thank you for your email.
Case: ******** Client reference:********** Balance: £1007.27***************
Instalments set: £23.80 every 7 days set from the 4.11.2016
With regards to the balances, for us dealing with collection of the case you are liable for the £75.00 Compliance Fee on each case which has been legally incurred on the 13.5.2016, when the Compliance letter was generated on each case.* The Enforcement Fee of £247.00 *has been split over the two cases and was legally incurred when the Enforcement Agent attended in good faith on the 12.10.2016, as the balance outstanding at the time had not been paid in full and the instalment arrangement that was set had not been kept.
*
***********
Comment