Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Jones260387
    • By Jones260387 5th Jun 17, 4:45 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Jones260387
    Jacobs unfair charges
    • #1
    • 5th Jun 17, 4:45 PM
    Jacobs unfair charges 5th Jun 17 at 4:45 PM
    Hi please can someone give me advice.
    I have a council tax debt with Jacobs originally for £1150.88. Jacobs added £75.00 compliance fee. I received a letter whilst away saying I needed to pay £48.00 p/w this was the start of the agreement. Even though I said I could only afford £20p/w. I missed the deadline by 3 days so paid £100.00 on my return. Then another payment of £50 3 days later so at this point I had paid £150. 1 week later I received a letter from a bailif who had visited the property to say I had broken the agrreement and he added a charge of £235.00. I rang the bailiff who confirmed he had received the £150 and didn't have an idea who he had been sent out. I rang Jacobs who said I had broken the agreement because I hadn't confirmed with them that I would be paying £50pw even though they had rceived the money. Is that legal? Can they add the extra charges. Any advice is appreciated
Page 2
    • simon the poet
    • By simon the poet 6th Jun 17, 1:54 PM
    • 170 Posts
    • 76 Thanks
    simon the poet
    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.
    • Oldwood
    • By Oldwood 6th Jun 17, 2:12 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Oldwood
    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.
    Originally posted by simon the poet
    The OP has confirmed their takehome pay is around £200 per week. This would see an AOE of about £14 per week, much better than the £50 Jacobs are demanding, plus the fees will be removed.

    How on earth would this be avoiding the debt? Perhaps you can explain such a false statement?
    • simon the poet
    • By simon the poet 6th Jun 17, 2:26 PM
    • 170 Posts
    • 76 Thanks
    simon the poet
    The OP has confirmed their takehome pay is around £200 per week. This would see an AOE of about £14 per week, much better than the £50 Jacobs are demanding, plus the fees will be removed.

    How on earth would this be avoiding the debt? Perhaps you can explain such a false statement?
    Originally posted by Oldwood
    A point wich various "advisers " often fail to take into consideration.

    Perhaps the £14 is not an acceptable offer for the creditor.
    There are two parties in this.
    Also, I think I said avoiding confronting the debt.

    Does it really need to be explained, how putting off the bailiff and getting the debt sent back for reconsideration puts off confronting the debt?

    Of course, you do know that the bailiffs are following their employer's instructions?
    • Oldwood
    • By Oldwood 6th Jun 17, 2:35 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Oldwood
    A point wich various "advisers " often fail to take into consideration.

    Perhaps the £14 is not an acceptable offer for the creditor.
    Originally posted by simon the poet
    And entering into a punitive arrangement is not acceptable for the debtor, who you may remember we are supposed to be helping.

    Also, I think I said avoiding confronting the debt.
    If you read your post you, and everyone else, can see what you put:

    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.
    You are saying that by seeking an AOE a debtor is somehow avoiding the debt. Wonder if you'll ever explain this thinking?

    Does it really need to be explained, how putting off the bailiff and getting the debt sent back for reconsideration puts off confronting the debt?
    How is it? It's trying to get the debt paid at a rate the OP can afford, plus getting the fees removed. Why are you so against that?
    • simon the poet
    • By simon the poet 6th Jun 17, 2:42 PM
    • 170 Posts
    • 76 Thanks
    simon the poet
    I think you are becoming excited and the thread will end up ss one of your usual flame wars. I will leave you to your rant in peace.
    • Oldwood
    • By Oldwood 6th Jun 17, 2:51 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Oldwood
    I think you are becoming excited and the thread will end up ss one of your usual flame wars. I will leave you to your rant in peace.
    Originally posted by simon the poet
    Thank God - we could do without your advice that benefits the council and the bailiff rather than the debtor. See ya.
    • simon the poet
    • By simon the poet 6th Jun 17, 2:56 PM
    • 170 Posts
    • 76 Thanks
    simon the poet
    Thank God - we could do without your advice that benefits the council and the bailiff rather than the debtor. See ya.
    Originally posted by Oldwood
    says it all, about your real motivations.
    • Oldwood
    • By Oldwood 6th Jun 17, 2:58 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Oldwood
    says it all, about your real motivations.
    Originally posted by simon the poet
    What that my advice is for the benefit of the debtor, trying to save them money. Indeed it is. Strange that you don't approve.
    • CIS
    • By CIS 6th Jun 17, 3:33 PM
    • 10,029 Posts
    • 5,722 Thanks
    CIS
    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.
    Originally posted by Oldwood
    Not discouraging at all, merely pointing out that the Local Authority have done nothing wrong in respect of what has been posted. (Guidance does not equal legislation ).

    The OP is free to ask the council whatever they wish, whenever they wish as equally as much as the council can say we've followed the relevant legislation so tough.

    Craig
    Last edited by CIS; 06-06-2017 at 3:41 PM.
    I no longer work in Council Tax Recovery as I'm now a self employed Council Tax advisor and consultant with my own Council Tax consultancy business. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.
    • Oldwood
    • By Oldwood 6th Jun 17, 3:48 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Oldwood
    Not discouraging at all, merely pointing out that the Local Authority have done nothing wrong in respect of what has been posted. (Guidance does not equal legislation ).
    Originally posted by CIS
    Yes Craig we know that, but it is a best practice guide from the Government and we should expect the council to abide by it. If they don't then it follows they are not acting in a way the Government expects.

    We don't know if the authority has acted wrongly which is why the OP needs to establish whether the AOE option was disregarded. If the council have acted unreasonably then we should expect them to rectify it - we should never assume they have acted fairly.
    • Jones260387
    • By Jones260387 6th Jun 17, 4:28 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Jones260387
    So in short the council may accept the debt back? I'm ok with paying £50pw I'm in a much better situation than last year, id rather the debt be paid sooner. It's just the charge Jacobs added they knew full well I had been paying. Yes it was a geunine mistake on my behalf not ringing to confirm but the letter just stated I needed to pay not ring to confirm. Is it just a case of accepting the charge?
    • Oldwood
    • By Oldwood 6th Jun 17, 4:35 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Oldwood
    I don't think they'll just take it back by arguing Jacobs were too swift in adding extra fees, but if you can show that they went straight to sending it to the bailiffs without establishing if there were alternatives then they could take it back and apply for the attachment. There's nothing to stop you paying extra direct each week if you want to, but it would allow you more financial breathing space.

    They may persuade Jacobs to remove the extra fees - you have paid what was asked, it's just the first payment was 3 days late as you were away and didn't know about the arrangement until you returned.
    • simon the poet
    • By simon the poet 6th Jun 17, 6:06 PM
    • 170 Posts
    • 76 Thanks
    simon the poet
    Why should Jacobs 0r the authority remove anything, as said earlier they have done nothing wrong.

    As for the debtor paying a bit extra if he wants.
    I don't think you realize this is a debt due under a warrant, not another agreement which the debtor can accept or deny as he wishes.

    The enforcement agent will consider he has had an opportunity to just pay in his own time.

    If you want to help debtors, try doing what countless professional agencies do and find ways which they can discharge their lawfully owed debts, don't keep seeking silly loopholes which you think may remove their obligation to pay.
    Last edited by simon the poet; 06-06-2017 at 6:23 PM.
    • CIS
    • By CIS 6th Jun 17, 7:01 PM
    • 10,029 Posts
    • 5,722 Thanks
    CIS
    So in short the council may accept the debt back? I'm ok with paying £50pw I'm in a much better situation than last year, id rather the debt be paid sooner. It's just the charge Jacobs added they knew full well I had been paying. Yes it was a geunine mistake on my behalf not ringing to confirm but the letter just stated I needed to pay not ring to confirm. Is it just a case of accepting the charge?
    Originally posted by Jones260387
    The telephone call will have made no difference - it was the fact, for what ever reason, you were late paying. Once an enforcement agent is acting on a case they will very rarely not default an arrangement that is late - once it's defaulted then you could make as many payments as you like they can , and usually do, continue action for the remaining balance (and from the enforcement agents I used to deal with daily Jacobs were one of the more tolerant ones).

    Once the payment plan has been defaulted Jacobs certainly wouldn't refuse any more payments but nor does their acceptance mean there is a payment plan in place.

    The council can withdraw the enforcement agent but there's no requirement to do so, and from what has been posted it appears it has been issued within their powers. You can ask, they can say no.

    The earlier mentions to the DCLG guidance are simply that, guidance. It's not written in to legislation so it's not something the local authority have a legal requirement to follow. Most local authorities will filter cases to identify those where they have employment details so they cam make a decision on whether they want to issue an attachment but that decision is purely theirs to make and they don't have.

    Craig
    I no longer work in Council Tax Recovery as I'm now a self employed Council Tax advisor and consultant with my own Council Tax consultancy business. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.
    • Oldwood
    • By Oldwood 6th Jun 17, 8:37 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Oldwood
    Why should Jacobs 0r the authority remove anything, as said earlier they have done nothing wrong.
    Originally posted by simon the poet
    In a sense of fairness - the OP did not know of the arrangement, as soon as they did they paid double what was asked and then continued the payments on time. Why do you not want to try to help this OP?

    As for the debtor paying a bit extra if he wants.
    I don't think you realize this is a debt due under a warrant, not another agreement which the debtor can accept or deny as he wishes.
    What on earth are you going on about? Accept or deny? Why do you continually disrupt threads with your misinterpreations to what you think someone has posted?

    If you want to help debtors, try doing what countless professional agencies do and find ways which they can discharge their lawfully owed debts, don't keep seeking silly loopholes which you think may remove their obligation to pay.
    What loopholes? How is an AOE a loophole? Who has tried to remove the obligation to pay? An AOE would see all fees removed, yet you don't want that to happen. What is wrong with you? Why don't you actually do something to help for once rather than snipe from the sidelines? You are a nasty vindictive old man.
    • Oldwood
    • By Oldwood 6th Jun 17, 8:46 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Oldwood
    The earlier mentions to the DCLG guidance are simply that, guidance. It's not written in to legislation so it's not something the local authority have a legal requirement to follow. Most local authorities will filter cases to identify those where they have employment details so they cam make a decision on whether they want to issue an attachment but that decision is purely theirs to make and they don't have.
    Originally posted by CIS
    It is a best practice document Craig, things that should not need to be legislated for - being prepared to deal with the debtor at all times, not forcing punitive payment arrangements, dealing with vulnerable debtors, not incentivise bailiff action, etc - areas that are subject to simple decency that shouldn't need to be written into law.

    Remember, the bailiff regs only came is as the bailiffs wouldn't regulate themselves or the LA's keep them in check. They had to be forced to stop ripping people off, adding monstrous fees, acting like gangsters. If the councils are minded to ignore the best practice guide then it will end up becoming law, and that would be shameful.
    • simon the poet
    • By simon the poet 7th Jun 17, 7:37 AM
    • 170 Posts
    • 76 Thanks
    simon the poet
    It is a best practice document Craig, things that should not need to be legislated for - being prepared to deal with the debtor at all times, not forcing punitive payment arrangements, dealing with vulnerable debtors, not incentivise bailiff action, etc - areas that are subject to simple decency that shouldn't need to be written into law.

    Remember, the bailiff regs only came is as the bailiffs wouldn't regulate themselves or the LA's keep them in check. They had to be forced to stop ripping people off, adding monstrous fees, acting like gangsters. If the councils are minded to ignore the best practice guide then it will end up becoming law, and that would be shameful.
    Originally posted by Oldwood
    Really I would stop talking now.
    • Oldwood
    • By Oldwood 7th Jun 17, 8:53 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Oldwood
    Really I would stop talking now.
    Originally posted by simon the poet
    You still here? Perhaps you could offer the OP some advice that actually helps them.
    • Herbie21
    • By Herbie21 7th Jun 17, 11:02 AM
    • 767 Posts
    • 979 Thanks
    Herbie21
    So in short the council may accept the debt back? I'm ok with paying £50pw I'm in a much better situation than last year, id rather the debt be paid sooner.

    It's just the charge Jacobs added they knew full well I had been paying. Yes it was a geunine mistake on my behalf not ringing to confirm but the letter just stated I needed to pay not ring to confirm. Is it just a case of accepting the charge?
    Originally posted by Jones260387
    If I can just repeat, you neither accepted their payment proposal OR paid the agreed amount (of £48 per week) in the 7 day period. Instead, what you did was pay a different amount of £50 per week when you returned from holiday 10 days after the date of the letter from Jacobs.

    In short, it would be highly unlikely for the council to recall your account and even if they did so, this would not achieve 'Oldwoods' aim of getting your bailiff fees removed and the reason for this is as follows:

    By next week you would have already repaid £500 (and by the way...well done). From those payments, Jacobs are legally permitted to deduct their Compliance fee of £75. From the balance (of £425) the enforcement company are permitted to distribute the payment on what is called a ‘pro rata’ basis. Accordingly, the payment is split with approx 60% being allocated towards reducing the principal debt (the amount subject to the Liability Order), with the remaining 40% being allocated towards reducing the ‘enforcement fee’ of £235.

    So you see, using the above scenario, the bailiff fees will not be removed.
    Last edited by Herbie21; 07-06-2017 at 11:05 AM.
    • Herbie21
    • By Herbie21 7th Jun 17, 11:08 AM
    • 767 Posts
    • 979 Thanks
    Herbie21
    You still here? Perhaps you could offer the OP some advice that actually helps them.
    Originally posted by Oldwood
    Perhaps the best help that can be given to the OP is for you to stop making such inflammatory (and perhaps defamatory) comments about the enforcement industry and Jacobs such as the following that you have made in this thread over the past 48 hours.

    Jacobs are notorious for engineering additional fees and not complying with notice periods.

    Punitive payment arrangements

    Ripping people off

    Adding monstrous fees

    Acting like gangsters
    Last edited by Herbie21; 07-06-2017 at 11:12 AM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

254Posts Today

2,692Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin