An alternative to bailiffs

“This might be useful reading if you find yourself in this position....

http://tinyurl.com/7rcxh2h"”

“Once a liability order is granted, a number of options are available to enforce payment, one is to instruct bailiffs.


If this happens you're potentially going to have several hundred pounds added to your outstanding bill. You can avoid this by...........


1) Ignoring the bailiffs completely, do not be tricked into opening the door to them. There is no law which says you must deal with bailiffs.

2) If you've outstanding Council Tax owing, pay it directly to the council.

3) If the council refuses because it's with the bailiffs, ask them to put it in writing that they're refusing payment. In any event you can pay them on-line, through their website, or by internet banking etc.

4) Bailiffs must leave details of fees and charges you incur for each visit etc. There must be evidence they attended in person. Hand delivered (not posted) documentation. Charging without attending is a "Phantom visit" and an attempt to defraud you. In the event payment is taken by the bailiff for such an offence, this will be fraud.

5) They may bill you around £130 for what's called an "attendance fee" or similar. This would almost certainly be spurious. To enquire contact:

nelc.bailiffs@talktalk.net or check out (or may be register) with this forum

http://tinyurl.com/7jppcez

6) They may bill you £24.50 for what they may term a "redemption fee" or "Head H fee". This would almost certainly be spurious. Again contact above”

“..............Continued

Ironically the council's citizens, partners and support services portfolio holder states that "there is every help out there for people who are struggling...." and "...with the economic climate, some people are inevitably really struggling." These statements seem at odds with the council's recent penalty charge hike and subsequent changes to how enforcement fees are incurred. The changes ensure more households are caught out with these penalties and sooner, overall penalty costs have increased by 23% meaning an extra £70 cost before bailiff fees that might add several hundred more to struggling taxpayers bills.

Those more cynical would argue that this has hardly been a step to help "people who are struggling", but rather an exercise in raising a forecasted £188,000 for each of the following 4 years as "income generation".

This was set out in a budget report of savings proposals put forward as a result of council discussions taking part in private session. The press and public were excluded as the details were deemed to be exempt from publication under the Access to Information rules of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Those even more cynical would also understandably assume that the savings proposal described under "Income Generation" as "Increase Summons Cost" would not have been a compensatory measure for increased Council Tax recovery costs, but savings, by way of income generation.

Support offered through the "Quids In campaign" will obviously be helpful to households struggling who are entitled to benefit. However, this campaign will not entirely be in the interest of people having difficulty paying their bills. A read through a report entitled "Council Tax Collection Good Practice" – dealing primarily with improving council tax performance and collection rates – reveals that the more probable motive behind encouraging benefit take-up is the improvement reflected in collection rates.

In section "9.2. Benefits" the report describes how giving benefits to those that need them can be beneficial to the authority. This is highlighted with a reference to pensioners being encouraged to claim what they are due "This would eliminate some of the problem residents, meaning the council would have less to collect, and would effectively improve their collection rate."

9.2.4. of the same report elaborates further by stating "Giving benefits to those that need them has been described as a double bonus. It means residents that might have struggled to pay no longer have to, and the council does not have to collect money from someone that would find it difficult to pay. For this reason it is good to encourage take-up of benefits."”

“I think Jon-Paul Howarth may go far as a Councillor. He is obviously taking an interest in things that affect a large number of households throughout the country.

As he has quoted figures pertaining to NELC, maybe the following letter found on the Grimsby Telegraph's website (edited slightly) might make a fitting accompaniment to the above article.

http://tinyurl.com/3lvdx4b

It quoted in a Grimsby Telegraph's article recently that 8,000 households in North East Lincolnshire were taken to court in 2010–11. Could this number really account for those failing to pay council tax?

Decisions prompting court action are not taken by council staff but are in fact initiated by soul-less computer systems, whose input data – having met the required criteria – are subsequently triggered to generate 'en mass', the requisite computer printouts, admissible as evidence that the householder has defaulted. In light of this process it is hard to accept that "a liability order issued by Grimsby Magistrates' Court is the council's last resort when it comes to non-payment of council tax".

Statistics provide overwhelming evidence that many taxpayers incur added penalties and suffer bailiff visits because of court action who clearly present no threat of defaulting. Figures obtained from a freedom of information request, revealed that the court issued Liability Orders to households for debts of 1p.

The figures also revealed that over the past five years, 1,387 liability orders were issued for debts of no more than £25, of those, 544 were issued for outstanding balances under £15, and 45 accounted for debts less than £5.

Administration errors or households caught out by late payments will account for those receiving court action for trivially small outstanding balances. Given these circumstances, it is unlikely that residents would have difficulty paying their council tax, so for those falling into this category there is unlikely to be 'help out there'. As long as the authority attempts to administer council tax with no human involvement, so too will there continue to be these victims. Unless householders are entitled to council tax benefit who were otherwise unaware was available, little can be done by the council to help them............To be Continued”