Equita - What to do now?

josephspartan

Hi all,

Apologies if this is posted in the wrong spot.

I hope someone can give me some advice – any and all is appreciated.

I owed £500 in council tax arrears – it was long overdue, but as most, I tried to bury my head in the sand. So, the debt was eventually passed on to Equita and they slapped me with a £75 compliance fee. Fair enough.

I received a letter that starts with:

“A notice of enforcement was issued to you. We note from our records that the Council Tax Debt still remains outstanding and at risk of enforcement action”.

Now, this was the very first communication I have received from Equita. The letter has 01/12/2018 as the ‘date of notice’. Upon research, I now know what a N.O.E letter is supposed to look like, the key points that validate it, and what it’s meant to look like and be issued by… it’s safe to say, I have not received this letter from the registered bailiff. I also know that if it goes to this stage, then there is a fee of £235 added.

Long story short, I called Equita to pay in full yesterday and they refused payment… they said it is now with an agent and they have no notes on their system from him/her. At this point, it sounds like it has gone to stage 2 – the enforcement stage. So, I called the number they gave me and it went straight to voicemail. I called Equita back to explain and they hung up on me twice. So, I thought there is no way I’m dealing with fools; so, I paid the council tax directly online to the council.

I called the council this morning to explain and they said they are happy the debt is cleared, they will notify Equita by the end of next week. They suggested that they can no longer legally chase me for such money as the liability order issued from the court was for the debt that is now paid. They will have to go to court to chase me for such costs, which they said will be unlikely as it is simply not cost effective.

I was hoping someone could help answer a few questions given the context above.

I never received a Notice of Enforcement – do they have to prove that I have received communication via post/email for this to be enforced. I am unsure of which letters must be received and given to go to the enforcement stage?

Now that the debt is paid – how do I stand legally with Equita?

Any other advice would be great. I don’t really know where to go from here.

Joseph

CIS

I called the council this morning to explain and they said they are happy the debt is cleared, they will notify Equita by the end of next week. They suggested that they can no longer legally chase me for such money as the liability order issued from the court was for the debt that is now paid. They will have to go to court to chase me for such costs, which they said will be unlikely as it is simply not cost effective.

What should ordinarily happen is that that the £75 fee is covered first and then any council tax balance is covered. If all is then paid before the £235 is due then you'd be fine.

Once the £235 is due then situation then changes as any monies are supposed to be apportioned between the remaining council tax and the fees so, if done correctly, there should never at that stage be any council tax due without a proportion of the £235 also being due.


When paying the council direct it leads to a different issue - some councils will apportion the money, some will will not. If the council don't apportion there comes a situation where only the enforcement agent fees and Equita could then take county court action against the the fees - don't rule out that they won't, there has been at least one case (and likely more) where they have pursued fees to the courts and won.

I never received a Notice of Enforcement – do they have to prove that I have received communication via post/email for this to be enforced. I am unsure of which letters must be received and given to go to the enforcement stage?

An initial letter would have been sent when they were instructed by the council to show the balance plus £75 costs. Providing this letter was correctly posted and addressed it would be up to you to show it was not received.

Once the initial letter is sent then, once the time line in that letter has been passed, they don't need to give any further notice of attendance.

WillGoodfellow

The compliance letter is the first stage of enforcement, giving you time to settle before the bailiffs attempt to take control of goods.

After receiving the compliance letter, the bailiffs must then issue a notice of enforcement giving seven clear days (not including Sundays and Bank Holidays) before attempting to take control of goods.

If you did not receive a notice of enforcement, the bailiffs have no right to take your goods. However, proving that you were not sent a notice of enforcement may be difficult.


See The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 paragraph 6(1)


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/part/2/crossheading/notice-of-enforcement-prior-to-taking-control-of-goods/made

josephspartan

Thank you both for your reply.

I called Equita and they have said the £235 was wrongly added to the account; how? Because there absolute scum. Adding a substantial amount without the proper legal steps to do so is scandalous.

Sorted now. Paid the compliance fee and the account is closed.

Much appreciated

CIS

josephspartan wrote: »

Thank you both for your reply.

I called Equita and they have said the £235 was wrongly added to the account; how? Because there absolute scum. Adding a substantial amount without the proper legal steps to do so is scandalous.

Sorted now. Paid the compliance fee and the account is closed.

Much appreciated

Chances are they simply removed it rather than chase it or argue the point - I used to deal with Equita on a daily basis and they often did so, they're unlikely to risk a licence by adding fees that aren't correct ('added in error' was a simple catch-all they used on their system, it tended to bear no resemblance to the actual reason).

sourcrates

CIS wrote: »

added in error' was a simple catch-all they used on their system, it tended to bear no resemblance to the actual reason.

Roughly translated, they were chancing their arm, and when challenged, thought better of it.

CIS

sourcrates wrote: »

Roughly translated, they were chancing their arm, and when challenged, thought better of it.

Usually not, surprisingly. It was rare that I came across any that looked possibly dodgy. In most cases it was used where the monies had been paid to the council to clear the balance and they chose not to chase the fees, very similar to this situation.

It would have been better if they had a proper reason to use instead of a generic one.