Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Whatthewho
    • By Whatthewho 12th Jan 19, 10:04 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Whatthewho
    Is this Bailiff fee valid?
    • #1
    • 12th Jan 19, 10:04 PM
    Is this Bailiff fee valid? 12th Jan 19 at 10:04 PM
    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!!!
Page 1
    • CIS
    • By CIS 12th Jan 19, 10:53 PM
    • 10,987 Posts
    • 6,397 Thanks
    CIS
    • #2
    • 12th Jan 19, 10:53 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Jan 19, 10:53 PM
    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.
    I no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a self employed Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.
    • Whatthewho
    • By Whatthewho 13th Jan 19, 7:39 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Whatthewho
    • #3
    • 13th Jan 19, 7:39 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Jan 19, 7:39 PM
    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
    • By CIS 13th Jan 19, 8:49 PM
    • 10,987 Posts
    • 6,397 Thanks
    CIS
    • #4
    • 13th Jan 19, 8:49 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Jan 19, 8:49 PM
    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.
    I no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a self employed Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

694Posts Today

6,805Users online

Martin's Twitter