council tax arrears cleared, now bailiff fees??

National_Debtline

Hi again

silvercar wrote: »

So should the £75 fee be paid to the council? They seemed to sound satisfied on the phone that the council tax had been paid.

If the £75 is owed to anyone, it's to Rossendales. Ordinarily the council might have allocated £75 of the payment you gave them for this and passed it on to Rossendales, but obviously not on this occasion.


Dennis
@natdebtline

Herbie21

silvercar wrote: »

So should the £75 fee be paid to the council? They seemed to sound satisfied on the phone that the council tax had been paid.


Also any advice on this?

The Compliance Fee of £75 is due to Rossendales.

'Direct' payments should be allocated in line with legislation. The local authority should deduct the compliance fee (of £75) in full and with regards to the balance, this should be allocated on a 'pro rata' basis with approx 60% being allocated towards reducing the debt to the council and the remaining 40% being allocated towards reducing the bailiff companies 'enforcement fee' of £235.

The following page from our website should explain this more simply.

http://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/index/council-tax-national-non-domestic-rate-nndr/can-i-avoid-bailiff-fees-by-paying-the-council


PS: Any questions, please post back.

silvercar

Herbie, that wasn't at all what the council said. They said I could pay the tax owed and then send in an appeal to have the fees removed. She explicitly said that paying the tax owed would be looked on as wanting to sort the matter out. I made very clear that the payment I was making was for council tax only.

Do they then have the right to apportion money that I haven't agreed to? I'm making the payment as a third party, so can they allocate it to items that I have not agreed to pay for? Particularly as they have agreed to allocate it to council tax only and it is for the exact amount of council tax owed.

("Owed" in the loosest sense of the word, in that we are now appealing that also.)

Oldwood

Herbie21 wrote: »

The Compliance Fee of £75 is due to Rossendales.

'Direct' payments should be allocated in line with legislation. The local authority should deduct the compliance fee (of £75) in full and with regards to the balance, this should be allocated on a 'pro rata' basis with approx 60% being allocated towards reducing the debt to the council and the remaining 40% being allocated towards reducing the bailiff companies 'enforcement fee' of £235.

PS: Any questions, please post back.

I'm sorry Herbie but you're incorrect. Pro-rata payments can only occur if the EA has taken control of goods and sold them. It is very clear within legislation when the 'pro-rata' kicks in. Please do not mislead people into believing they have no choice other than pay the bailiff's fees.

Oldwood

National_Debtline wrote: »

If the £75 is owed to anyone, it's to Rossendales. Ordinarily the council might have allocated £75 of the payment you gave them for this and passed it on to Rossendales, but obviously not on this occasion.


Dennis
@natdebtline

Dennis, that's because legislation does not actually say that direct payments are to be split. An EA takes his fee from proceeds of enforcement - this is described in legislation as 'taking control of goods and selling them'.

This council seem to be fully aware of this.

silvercar

Oldwood wrote: »

I'm sorry Herbie but you're incorrect. Pro-rata payments can only occur if the EA has taken control of goods and sold them. It is very clear within legislation when the 'pro-rata' kicks in. Please do not mislead people into believing they have no choice other than pay the bailiff's fees.

Oldwood wrote: »

Dennis, that's because legislation does not actually say that direct payments are to be split. An EA takes his fee from proceeds of enforcement - this is described in legislation as 'taking control of goods and selling them'.

This council seem to be fully aware of this.

Thanks to oldwood for this. I was almost taken in by Herbie's post and the website he linked to.

silvercar

As an update, the appeal on the original council tax was rejected and then accepted. The full amount of council tax paid refunded. This was somewhat of a surprise as we did nothing further once the appeal rejection had come through.

Rossendales have sent a couple of texts, so the council must have taken it off hold at some point.

It appears that the approach by the council is uncoordinated.

Herbie21

Oldwood wrote: »

I'm sorry Herbie but you're incorrect. Pro-rata payments can only occur if the EA has taken control of goods and sold them. It is very clear within legislation when the 'pro-rata' kicks in.

Please do not mislead people into believing they have no choice other than pay the bailiff's fees.

Item 8.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 explains why the pro rata distribution of monies was introduced.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

silvercar

Herbie21 wrote: »

Item 8.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 explains why the pro rata distribution of monies was introduced.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

7.1 .... There is, therefore, an inherent incentive for enforcement agents to engage in, and charge for, unnecessary enforcement activities or to rapidly escalate enforcement action. The current availability of discretionary fee arrangements has also provided incentives for unscrupulous behaviour. .....

In my case the council has refunded the tax paid, so it clearly doesn't think that any money should be passed over to the debt collectors. Also, given that the council tax has now been set as fully exempt, any pro-rata would give all the money to the debt collectors - for a council tax that isn't even due!

Herbie21

silvercar wrote: »

As an update, the appeal on the original council tax was rejected and then accepted. The full amount of council tax paid refunded. This was somewhat of a surprise as we did nothing further once the appeal rejection had come through.

Rossendales have sent a couple of texts, so the council must have taken it off hold at some point.

It appears that the approach by the council is uncoordinated.

EXCELLENT outcome !!! well done.