Chandlers Baillifs Bristol and Council Tax confusion!

Oldwood

absolutereturn wrote: »

It should be noted that, in the case in question, the debtor was ordered to pay £7,000 as a result of an unfortunate sequence of events, not just because he went and made an online payment to the council. The debtor in this case issued legal proceedings against the enforcement company and the council, and the £7,000 in costs were the result of these proceedings, not a direct result of his not having paid the fees to the enforcement agents.

He thought he would be immune to costs because the claim was below the small claims limit and costs are not routinely awarded in the small claims track. He made a series of mistakes along the line that resulted in these costs.

At last the truth is out there! It won't stop Herbie from waging her war on that site or it's owner, but at least we have someone who can see through the bull-plop.

The only positive that came out of it was the clarification regarding direct payments - the authority should not be passing anything on to the bailiff.

delmonta

I asked the council earlier if I could just pay her directly for the council tax bill which included the summons for £230 and deal with the Bailiffs separately. She said no, that I had to pay the Bailiffs.

I don't know what to do. I have spent all day on the phone ripping my hair out, having arguments with the agents and being quite plainly lied to.

The agents are claiming that they didn't receive the letters, even though the council apparently sent about 15 of them, reminders, notices etc.I asked them why they didn't respond to my emails, and she just made up some story about some woman on maternity leave. They will take no responsibility for it whatsoever

My tenants have just moved out and I complained about them not having found anyone else as they advertised so late. She said they are not allowed to advertise more than a month in advance. I said 'I know for a fact that is not true'. And she then got flustered and said 'well, uh, umm, the tenants didnt want us to'. At that point I just knew she was lying to me.

You know sometimes you just know someone is lying, often estate agents! It makes me so mad

Oldwood

Does it state in your contract with the agents that they will forward any of your mail? If so, you're route is to pay the bailiffs then make a small claims against the agent for your loss.

You would need to send a letter before action before taking any court action. Find your contract and see what it says.

delmonta

The fact is they say they did not receive any mail which Im certain is a lie.

But maybe that is the only way. I will go to Bristol tomorrow to deal with them face to face, its easier to tell if they are lying.

What an ordeal

simon_the_poet

absolutereturn wrote: »

It should be noted that, in the case in question, the debtor was ordered to pay £7,000 as a result of an unfortunate sequence of events, not just because he went and made an online payment to the council. The debtor in this case issued legal proceedings against the enforcement company and the council, and the £7,000 in costs were the result of these proceedings, not a direct result of his not having paid the fees to the enforcement agents.

He thought he would be immune to costs because the claim was below the small claims limit and costs are not routinely awarded in the small claims track. He made a series of mistakes along the line that resulted in these costs.

Litigation isn't an easy course of action, and a similar warning would apply should you decide to take action against the letting agents if you find they have been negligent in their duties.

The claimant in the judgment did admit he was trying to "get away with not paying fees".
Also, this was the second action embarked on by him, the first being an injunction, which also failed.

I do agree that he was poorly advised all along, but can't help thinking that there was an element of is own bloody-mindedness involved, he was fully able to pay apparently.

absolutereturn

simon_the_poet wrote: »

The claimant in the judgment did admit he was trying to "get away with not paying fees".
Also, this was the second action embarked on by him, the first being an injunction, which also failed.

I do agree that he was poorly advised all along, but can't help thinking that there was an element of is own bloody-mindedness involved, he was fully able to pay apparently.

Yes, but the costs order was made because he issued proceedings and his conduct during these proceedings was considered unreasonable, not because he didn't pay the fees. If he hadn't decided to take legal action, he would never have had a costs order made against him. He may have incurred further fees, but nothing close to £7,000! :eek:

simon_the_poet

Oldwood wrote: »

At last the truth is out there! It won't stop Herbie from waging her war on that site or it's owner, but at least we have someone who can see through the bull-plop.

The only positive that came out of it was the clarification regarding direct payments - the authority should not be passing anything on to the bailiff.

I think perhaps you misread the judgment.

It started that bailiffs can continue to enforce ater direct payment is paid. This, and this only was the issue at question.

The judge said the question of how direct payments are dealt with is irrelevant.

It has always been irrelevant in my view.

The enforcement agent is always able to continue to enforce until the sum outstanding is paid, whatever theories may exist on the lesser informed websites and forums.

simon_the_poet

absolutereturn wrote: »

Yes, but the costs order was made because he issued proceedings and his conduct during these proceedings was considered unreasonable, not because he didn't pay the fees. If he hadn't decided to take legal action, he would never have had a costs order made against him. He may have incurred further fees, but nothing close to £7,000! :eek:

Indeed section27 of the CPR.

Yes but if he had not taken out the case and lost, no costs order would be applicable either.

One of the reasons he lost was because he failed to indemnify his losses by paying the fee at an earlier stage. Although I do see where You are coming from.

absolutereturn

simon_the_poet wrote: »

Indeed section27 of the CPR.

Yes but if he had not taken out the case and lost, no costs order would be applicable either.

Precisely my point, without legal action, there would be no costs order, it wasn't the result of not paying the fees but of bringing proceedings.

simon_the_poet wrote: »

One of the reasons he lost was because he failed to indemnify his losses by paying the fee at an earlier stage. Although I do see where You are coming from.

That was only one point, there were a number of things where the case went wrong. We can't really extrapolate this case to anyone else.

Oldwood

simon_the_poet wrote: »

I think perhaps you misread the judgment.

It started that bailiffs can continue to enforce ater direct payment is paid. This, and this only was the issue at question.

The judge said the question of how direct payments are dealt with is irrelevant.

It has always been irrelevant in my view.

The enforcement agent is always able to continue to enforce until the sum outstanding is paid, whatever theories may exist on the lesser informed websites and forums.

Another positive is that we've discovered another one of your aliases.:beer: