Jacobs unfair charges
Comments
-
The agreement is still in place. I've paid £450 so far. When the first letter was sent saying I needed to pay £48 within 7 Days to start the payments I was away. I paid £100 on day 10 this was the very start of the agreement. They said the bailiff was sent 2 week later because I had not rang to say I would pay £48 p/w even though by this time they had received x3 payments. The letter didn't say I needed to ring to confirm it just said I needed to pay £48.0
-
Is it not obvious to them that I would pay £48p/W when they had received 3 payments and another payment due that day. That had not yet shown in there account.0
-
Jones260387 wrote: »The agreement is still in place. I've paid £450 so far. When the first letter was sent saying I needed to pay £48 within 7 Days to start the payments I was away. I paid £100 on day 10 this was the very start of the agreement. They said the bailiff was sent 2 week later because I had not rang to say I would pay £48 p/w even though by this time they had received x3 payments. The letter didn't say I needed to ring to confirm it just said I needed to pay £48.
If the arrangement was still in place then they would not have added the £235 fees - don't confuse the fact they are accepting payment and have not re-visited as acceptance of an arrangement. Unless, since the fee was added, you've had something in writing from them confirming the arrangement is in place then don't assume it is.
The original letter would not have said you had to contact them to confirm as payment as shown would have been acceptance as far as the enforcement agent was concerned - payment was not made as shown on the arrangement which is why they decided to move to the next stage.
CraigI no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a specialist Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers with council tax disputes and valuation tribunals. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.0 -
All of this "could have, should have" is utterly unhelpful.
Jones, stop contacting the bailiff and go direct to the creditor to explain the situation. You paid 2x payments as soon as you were aware of the agreement and have stuck to that ever since - the creditor remains liable for all actions the bailiff takes.
Jacobs are notorious for engineering additional fees and not complying with notice periods.
Also, it would help if you answered the question about your takehome pay. Is it under £355 per week? Is it under £225 per week?0 -
The local authority may intervene but there's no requirement to do so.Jones, stop contacting the bailiff and go direct to the creditor to explain the situation. You paid 2x payments as soon as you were aware of the agreement and have stuck to that ever since - the creditor remains liable for all actions the bailiff takes.
How are they engineering fees - if they sent the letter to advise what they were willing to accept and for whatever reason the payment arrangement wasn't complied with then they are within their rights to default the arrangement. Yes, it appears that it may be because the OP was on holiday when the letter arrived, but that doesn't alter the facts. If the council or enforcement agent want to intervene and give another arrangement then it would be purely at their discretion.Jacobs are notorious for engineering additional fees and not complying with notice periods.
It makes no difference at all at this point - it only becomes relevant if an attachment of earnings is used or the council/enforcement agents want income/expenditure to agree an arrangement.Also, it would help if you answered the question about your takehome pay. Is it under £355 per week? Is it under £225 per week?
CraigI no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a specialist Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers with council tax disputes and valuation tribunals. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.0 -
Take home is app £200pw0
-
Jones260387 wrote: »Take home is app £200pw
Ok, you now need to approach the council and ask them if they considered an attachment of earnings before going straight to the bailiffs. Section 3.5 of the good practice guide says:Once a liability order has been granted a Local Authority should explore other enforcement options which are available to them, such as direct deductions from benefit or an attachment of earnings order.
On your wages, this would be less than £15 per week and no bailiff fees can be added. If the council went straight to the bailiffs then you need to make a formal stage one complaint to the revenues manager plus copy in the CEO of the council.The local authority may intervene but there's no requirement to do so.
Craig you know full well that part 4.5 of the guide says:Local Authorities should remain prepared to deal directly with individuals at any point. It is perfectly within their gift to call action back from the bailiffs at any time and where there is a case to do so they should consider such action.
If they have gone straight to the bailiffs then that is not in the debtor's best interest and just adds more to the debt.0 -
Ok, you now need to approach the council and ask them if they considered an attachment of earnings before going straight to the bailiffs. Section 3.5 of the good practice guide says:
Except you also know fine well that that DCLG guidancesays nothing at all about the debtors best interest nor does legislation.If they have gone straight to the bailiffs then that is not in the debtor's best interest and just adds more to the debt.
Yes the local authority have the legal powers to withdrawn the agent or not to use one in the first place however within legislation there is no requirement to take or consider any action prior to using an enforcement agent (guidance is not legislation and cannot overrule legislation unless the guidance is written in to legislation). A debtor can request for a specific form of recovery to be used but they have no powers to demand one.
CraigI no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a specialist Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers with council tax disputes and valuation tribunals. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.0 -
Except you also know fine well that that DCLG guidancesays nothing at all about the debtors best interest nor does legislation.
The DCLG has many references about working positively with bill payers, ensuring they do not enter into punitive arrangements, and guidance on general interaction rather than simply giving it straight to to the bailiffs.
The OP needs to see whether the council considered an AOE order, and if not make a complaint. I don't know why the OP is being discouraged to take this route.0 -
Attachments of earnings are considered to be something of a panacea for debt amongst some forums. I suspect because it represents a further opportunity to avoid addressing the debt.
They are not always the best option. They can represent a severe reduction in the debtors living standards, as he or she has to subsist on a reduced income for a substantial period.
If the debtor genuinely has no assets and cannot afford to repay, the bailiff will confirm this, and the debt will go back, any fees will die. Then the authority will have to find another remedy.
You cannot pick and chose which guidelines you would like the authority to follow on your behalf.
The authority has a legal right to enforce however they wish, and of course, we are not aware of all the circumstances which are relevant to the choice of enforcement power.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards