Jacobs unfair charges

Options
124

Comments

  • Oldwood
    Oldwood Posts: 85 Forumite
    Options
    I don't think they'll just take it back by arguing Jacobs were too swift in adding extra fees, but if you can show that they went straight to sending it to the bailiffs without establishing if there were alternatives then they could take it back and apply for the attachment. There's nothing to stop you paying extra direct each week if you want to, but it would allow you more financial breathing space.

    They may persuade Jacobs to remove the extra fees - you have paid what was asked, it's just the first payment was 3 days late as you were away and didn't know about the arrangement until you returned.
  • simon_the_poet
    simon_the_poet Posts: 186 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 6 June 2017 at 6:23PM
    Options
    Why should Jacobs 0r the authority remove anything, as said earlier they have done nothing wrong.

    As for the debtor paying a bit extra if he wants.
    I don't think you realize this is a debt due under a warrant, not another agreement which the debtor can accept or deny as he wishes.

    The enforcement agent will consider he has had an opportunity to just pay in his own time.

    If you want to help debtors, try doing what countless professional agencies do and find ways which they can discharge their lawfully owed debts, don't keep seeking silly loopholes which you think may remove their obligation to pay.
  • CIS
    CIS Posts: 12,260 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    Jones260387 wrote: »
    So in short the council may accept the debt back? I'm ok with paying £50pw I'm in a much better situation than last year, id rather the debt be paid sooner. It's just the charge Jacobs added they knew full well I had been paying. Yes it was a geunine mistake on my behalf not ringing to confirm but the letter just stated I needed to pay not ring to confirm. Is it just a case of accepting the charge?

    The telephone call will have made no difference - it was the fact, for what ever reason, you were late paying. Once an enforcement agent is acting on a case they will very rarely not default an arrangement that is late - once it's defaulted then you could make as many payments as you like they can , and usually do, continue action for the remaining balance (and from the enforcement agents I used to deal with daily Jacobs were one of the more tolerant ones).

    Once the payment plan has been defaulted Jacobs certainly wouldn't refuse any more payments but nor does their acceptance mean there is a payment plan in place.

    The council can withdraw the enforcement agent but there's no requirement to do so, and from what has been posted it appears it has been issued within their powers. You can ask, they can say no.

    The earlier mentions to the DCLG guidance are simply that, guidance. It's not written in to legislation so it's not something the local authority have a legal requirement to follow. Most local authorities will filter cases to identify those where they have employment details so they cam make a decision on whether they want to issue an attachment but that decision is purely theirs to make and they don't have.

    Craig
    I no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a specialist Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers with council tax disputes and valuation tribunals. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.
  • Oldwood
    Oldwood Posts: 85 Forumite
    Options
    simon_the_poet wrote: »
    Why should Jacobs 0r the authority remove anything, as said earlier they have done nothing wrong.

    In a sense of fairness - the OP did not know of the arrangement, as soon as they did they paid double what was asked and then continued the payments on time. Why do you not want to try to help this OP?
    As for the debtor paying a bit extra if he wants.
    I don't think you realize this is a debt due under a warrant, not another agreement which the debtor can accept or deny as he wishes.

    What on earth are you going on about? Accept or deny? Why do you continually disrupt threads with your misinterpreations to what you think someone has posted?
    If you want to help debtors, try doing what countless professional agencies do and find ways which they can discharge their lawfully owed debts, don't keep seeking silly loopholes which you think may remove their obligation to pay.

    What loopholes? How is an AOE a loophole? Who has tried to remove the obligation to pay? An AOE would see all fees removed, yet you don't want that to happen. What is wrong with you? Why don't you actually do something to help for once rather than snipe from the sidelines? You are a nasty vindictive old man.
  • Oldwood
    Oldwood Posts: 85 Forumite
    Options
    CIS wrote: »
    The earlier mentions to the DCLG guidance are simply that, guidance. It's not written in to legislation so it's not something the local authority have a legal requirement to follow. Most local authorities will filter cases to identify those where they have employment details so they cam make a decision on whether they want to issue an attachment but that decision is purely theirs to make and they don't have.

    It is a best practice document Craig, things that should not need to be legislated for - being prepared to deal with the debtor at all times, not forcing punitive payment arrangements, dealing with vulnerable debtors, not incentivise bailiff action, etc - areas that are subject to simple decency that shouldn't need to be written into law.

    Remember, the bailiff regs only came is as the bailiffs wouldn't regulate themselves or the LA's keep them in check. They had to be forced to stop ripping people off, adding monstrous fees, acting like gangsters. If the councils are minded to ignore the best practice guide then it will end up becoming law, and that would be shameful.
  • simon_the_poet
    simon_the_poet Posts: 186 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Oldwood wrote: »
    It is a best practice document Craig, things that should not need to be legislated for - being prepared to deal with the debtor at all times, not forcing punitive payment arrangements, dealing with vulnerable debtors, not incentivise bailiff action, etc - areas that are subject to simple decency that shouldn't need to be written into law.

    Remember, the bailiff regs only came is as the bailiffs wouldn't regulate themselves or the LA's keep them in check. They had to be forced to stop ripping people off, adding monstrous fees, acting like gangsters. If the councils are minded to ignore the best practice guide then it will end up becoming law, and that would be shameful.

    Really I would stop talking now.
  • Oldwood
    Oldwood Posts: 85 Forumite
    Options
    simon_the_poet wrote: »
    Really I would stop talking now.

    You still here? Perhaps you could offer the OP some advice that actually helps them.
  • Herbie21
    Herbie21 Posts: 562 Forumite
    edited 7 June 2017 at 11:05AM
    Options
    Jones260387 wrote: »
    So in short the council may accept the debt back? I'm ok with paying £50pw I'm in a much better situation than last year, id rather the debt be paid sooner.

    It's just the charge Jacobs added they knew full well I had been paying. Yes it was a geunine mistake on my behalf not ringing to confirm but the letter just stated I needed to pay not ring to confirm. Is it just a case of accepting the charge?

    If I can just repeat, you neither accepted their payment proposal OR paid the agreed amount (of £48 per week) in the 7 day period. Instead, what you did was pay a different amount of £50 per week when you returned from holiday 10 days after the date of the letter from Jacobs.

    In short, it would be highly unlikely for the council to recall your account and even if they did so, this would not achieve 'Oldwoods' aim of getting your bailiff fees removed and the reason for this is as follows:

    By next week you would have already repaid £500 (and by the way...well done). From those payments, Jacobs are legally permitted to deduct their Compliance fee of £75. From the balance (of £425) the enforcement company are permitted to distribute the payment on what is called a ‘pro rata’ basis. Accordingly, the payment is split with approx 60% being allocated towards reducing the principal debt (the amount subject to the Liability Order), with the remaining 40% being allocated towards reducing the ‘enforcement fee’ of £235.

    So you see, using the above scenario, the bailiff fees will not be removed.
  • Herbie21
    Herbie21 Posts: 562 Forumite
    edited 7 June 2017 at 11:12AM
    Options
    Oldwood wrote: »
    You still here? Perhaps you could offer the OP some advice that actually helps them.

    Perhaps the best help that can be given to the OP is for you to stop making such inflammatory (and perhaps defamatory) comments about the enforcement industry and Jacobs such as the following that you have made in this thread over the past 48 hours.
    Jacobs are notorious for engineering additional fees and not complying with notice periods.

    Punitive payment arrangements

    Ripping people off

    Adding monstrous fees

    Acting like gangsters
  • simon_the_poet
    simon_the_poet Posts: 186 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Oldwood wrote: »
    You still here? Perhaps you could offer the OP some advice that actually helps them.

    The only advice worth reading on this thread was that given in the first few posts.

    The rest of the dialogue has been just about protecting the OP from your silly avoidance schemes.

    You would have helped the OP far more, by just not posting.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.9K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.2K Life & Family
  • 248.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards