Is this Bailiff fee valid?

Whatthewho

Hi All,

I have a council tax enforcement question and would be very grateful if anybody can give me some advice.

Here's the short version:
Can anybody tell me if bailiffs have to state who they are collecting on behalf in correspondence? A letter was sent to an old address headed "Magistrates Liability Order Removal Notice" but with the wrong council down as the client, for which I was charged £235. It's not clear to me at what stage a bailiff can charge this fee e.g. is it when they get to the property, or when they issue the notice, or something else? Does the wrong client invalidate the notice/fee?

Here is the long version:
I have a flat in Camden (London) that was empty whilst I did some work on it. I used to live there years ago, but now rent it out and rent a different place in Tower Hamlets (also London). The council asked me to provide evidence via email that it was undergoing a major refurb and so eligible for a discount, which I did. I didn't hear anything and forgot about it.

Fast forward a few months and I get a call from an old neighbour to say a letter to me was tucked in the gate to the block of flats I used to live in (in Tower Hamlets). It was a letter from Rundles with Magistrates Liability Notice Order Removal Notice at the top. The letter gives the client as LB of Tower Hamlets.

I almost ignored it as a scam because I still live in Tower Hamlets and know that the council knows I moved 3 years ago (within Tower Hamlets) and I definitely have no CT debt. However, the managing agents at my old flat in Tower Hamlets was recently hacked and I was worried someone was pretending to be me or something so I looked into it further.

Turns out it is a CT debt from Camden. They have no record of my submitting docs about the building work and unfortunately I sent it from my old work address (just moved jobs) and have no record myself. This is annoying, but I can't prove otherwise so I've just got to suck it up. I was waiting for an email reply from them with a new bill, or perhaps something to my Camden flat (I'd asked the new tenants to keep a look out). Instead they have been writing to me at my old
Tower Hamlets address, and I expect those letters and any from Rundles have been recycled long ago.

I've paid the tax, the summons fee (or something), and two lots of £75 (4 months tax, but straddling April so technically two accounts). I've no idea if Rundles made the council name error on all the reminders (which I would have binned as spam) or not. Obviously I'd sooner not pay the £235 if the fee is voided be an incorrectly served notice, but that's the end of my knowledge.

Any views??

Many thanks!!!

CIS

Can anybody tell me if bailiffs have to state who they are collecting on behalf in correspondence? A letter was sent to an old address headed "Magistrates Liability Order Removal Notice" but with the wrong council down as the client, for which I was charged £235.

Does the wrong client invalidate the notice/fee?

Possibly but it would likely need legal action to try and argue the interpretation - the requisite information is given in regulation 7 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/regulation/7/made

It's not clear to me at what stage a bailiff can charge this fee e.g. is it when they get to the property, or when they issue the notice, or something else?

The £235 fee becomes due once they visit the property with the intent to remove goods.

I've paid the tax, the summons fee (or something), and two lots of £75 (4 months tax, but straddling April so technically two accounts). I've no idea if Rundles made the council name error on all the reminders (which I would have binned as spam) or not. Obviously I'd sooner not pay the £235 if the fee is voided be an incorrectly served notice, but that's the end of my knowledge.

The enforcement agent would not issue any reminder - they'd send the initial notices and then attend to remove goods.

Whatthewho

Many thanks for your reply.

Do you haven to know

Looking at the link you provided, it looks like that the failure to put "sufficient details of the debt to enable the debtor to identify the debt correctly" means that they might not have been entitled to take any goods on that occasion, but from what you say the fees would have already been incurred.


Do you happen to know where I'd find the authority that says fees are incurred when they visit rather than when they serve a valid notice?

Thanks again!

CIS

Do you happen to know where I'd find the authority that says fees are incurred when they visit rather than when they serve a valid notice?

The £235 isn't directly incurred on the basis of any letter - the initial notice (£75 fee) gives 7 days warning that an agent may visit, after that 7 days they can arrive immediately or a month later if the wish - it is the visit date which is the fee date for the £235. Regulation 5 outlines what each stage covers.

it looks like that the failure to put "sufficient details of the debt to enable the debtor to identify the debt correctly" means that they might not have been entitled to take any goods on that occasion,

If it was sufficient to make the notice invalid then they couldn't look to remove goods on the back of it but the £75 is for the instruction of the enforcement agent, the letter is ancillary to the instruction itself of the agents.. The letter is only required to be sent to progress the action to the enforcement stage - it does happen where an agent is instructed and the debtor gets in touch after the £75 fee but before the 7 day letter.