Bailiff fees council tax debt

Lychee

I've read this old thread from 2016 :

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5487104/council-tax-arrears-cleared-now-bailiff-fees

which mentions that enforcement agents don't usually chase oustanding fees (£75 + £235) once the council tax debt has been cleared.

Has anyone had recent experience/evidence if this is usually still the case?

fatbelly

@CIS is still around...

CIS

Lychee said:

I've read this old thread from 2016 :

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5487104/council-tax-arrears-cleared-now-bailiff-fees

which mentions that enforcement agents don't usually chase oustanding fees (£75 + £235) once the council tax debt has been cleared.

Has anyone had recent experience/evidence if this is usually still the case?

They still typically don't as a general matter but they could do so.

Lychee

Thank you @CIS . Out of curiosity, why don't they, as a general matter, chase outstanding fees?

I have another question, if anyone can help please?

The council tax debt was for a rental property covering a void period between tenants. The assumption is a notice of enforcement was sent to the rental property address and the bailiff claims to have visited this address, hence the £235 charge. Since finding out that the debtor (landlord) does not live at that address, the bailiffs traced the correct address for the landlord and another notice of enforcement was sent to the landlord's address. This is when the landlord found out about the debt, bailiffs, etc. The tenants claim no one has visited and the bailiffs have not provided evidence or details about this visit.

Is it right that the bailiffs can charge £235 for visiting the rental property address i.e. not the debtor's current address?

CIS

Lychee said:

Thank you @CIS . Out of curiosity, why don't they, as a general matter, chase outstanding fees?

I have another question, if anyone can help please?

The council tax debt was for a rental property covering a void period between tenants. The assumption is a notice of enforcement was sent to the rental property address and the bailiff claims to have visited this address, hence the £235 charge. Since finding out that the debtor (landlord) does not live at that address, the bailiffs traced the correct address for the landlord and another notice of enforcement was sent to the landlord's address. This is when the landlord found out about the debt, bailiffs, etc. The tenants claim no one has visited and the bailiffs have not provided evidence or details about this visit.

Is it right that the bailiffs can charge £235 for visiting the rental property address i.e. not the debtor's current address?

The agents find it's often easier just to move on to the next case rather than try and fight over costs.

Yes. They only need to attend the last known address so, in most cases, attending the property address is perfectly fine until any other address is known.

Lychee

Thank you.

Would the bailiffs negotiate? if that's worth considering. For example, the landlord offers to pay some of the fees, forget the rest, file closed, no further chasing/action?

CIS

Lychee said:

Thank you.

Would the bailiffs negotiate? if that's worth considering. For example, the landlord offers to pay some of the fees, forget the rest, file closed, no further chasing/action?

That would be up to the enforcement agents in respect of whether or not they'd wipe or reduce their fees.