A bailiff sent by Caerphilly County Borough Council to collect a council tax debt threatened to change the locks of a Bargoed woman’s home if she did not pay up.
The unnamed mother said the bailiff first visited her home last month over a £180 unpaid council tax bill.
The woman, who does not wish to be named, told the Western Mail there were no warning letters and that when she contacted the council, she was told the bailiff had added a further £200 charge.
The bailiff reportedly came back to visit the woman last week and told her that if she did not pay £75 he would come back and change the locks. Each visit from the bailiff adds a further £20 to the total.
The unpaid council tax dates from March 2012.
The woman told the newspaper: “I’ve got four children – how am I going to get that money?”
A Caerphilly Council spokesman said: “We are unable to comment on individual cases, but the council makes every effort to assist residents who are in arrears before taking further action.”
It's such a shame that the council don't cut back in other areas and not reply on praying on the weak! All the events that are put on all the money that gets wasted on things like unnecessary pay rises could go to helping people who are struggling in this financial climate. It's not a huge amount of money to be in debt with so to threaten to make the lady homeless is heartless and typical of the council! Shame on you. Try taking some expenses back or not giving stupidly high pay rises to people that don't actually work hard for their money!
Try and assist???? All you get when you phone them and try to explain difficulties is the it must be paid response, followed with the threat of legal action! There is no help if you're not on benefits, prime example of punishing the hard working low paid members of society yet again.
This is a scandal,whatever happened to social responsibility and a vow to serve the people of Caerphilly. How is making a mother and four children homeless serving them? Social landlord no social conscience. Shame on you.
This is scandalous Caerphilly council threatening to make a mother and her four children homeless. Whatever happened to care in the community. Caerphilly Council clearly don't care.
This is the disgusting shame of a Labour Council, ( and for the eternal shame of it I am a Labour supporter) issuing instructions to a Debt Collector, to do its dirty work, in collecting, what is an insignificant amount of unpaid rent or council tax, that amount has now grown by disproportionate increments to line the pockets of the Debt Collector.
The council also knew full well that this would be the consequence of its actions in abdicating its responsibility to collect the debt itself, they knew full well what the charges are which are made by the debt collector because the Labour Council has a ` contract` with the debt collector clearly laying out it costs and charges to the debtor.
This is an appalling situation in which the Labour run Council have placed this lady and her children, and they knew it would happen in the way it has. It is a deliberate `ploy` by the Cabinet Members and the leaders of the Labour Council in order to send a message to others who may not be able to pay the bedroom tax etc, or, will the Caerphilly Council Labour Party who run the Council deal with those people in a `less` severe way?, if they do they will have to suffer the consequences in the ballot box.
Shame on every Labour Councillor on Caerphilly County Borough Council, shame on Jeff Cuthbert Assembly Member LABOUR, shame on Wayne David MP LABOUR for not influencing their side kicks on the Council who they speak to day in day out in formulating Council Policies.
Lets hear some excuses on these pages from Labour Councillors, James Prichard, Harry Andrews, Gerald Jones, Tom Williams, Barbara Jones, Elaine Forehead, Christine Forehead, Huw David, Huw Davies, David Poole, and the rest of them who the electorate trusted to run the council on behalf of the people
It would be interesting to be told how such a relatively small sum of money, £180, was left uncollected, by officers of the council, in the first place?. Who is the officer that failed in his or her duty which has had such consequences on this one parent family?.
This amount, £180, is less than most senior officers of the council claim a month in car allowances and expenses, it is less than the council can spend on `hospitality` a day, and it is less than the cost of the cheapest office chair in the council offices, thousands of pounds being the best chairs.
Where is this Council going?, do they know?, have they got a plan?, and is this story part of that greater plan? . God Knows.
Utterly appalled! This is one of the reasons why I detest the council. I agreed in reclaiming unpaid council tax (if you and I pay it, they should too) HOWEVER, this is not the way to go about it. There needs to be an investigation into the woman's financial situation first. Why did she not pay up?
Something wrong here and a shame the council did not respond. If this is true then its not legal. I suspect the true story is that the bailiff did gain access inside her home before and 'levied' on goods allowing her time to pay, she failed and he now has the power to force entry to take the goods and charge further costs. This is poor journalism, so a few more facts please.
I don't think we can blame labour as a whole as some of these officers who made this decision could be plaid members or supporters. Lets not take it down the political route as such let just say that someone somewhere be it plaid or labour has messed up royally! I also can't see how certain labour councillors especially out of this lady's ward could have prevented this happening? Please explain Jeff how a caerphilly based councillor is meant to have an effect on someone in bargoed?
Unnamed, it's the council members who work for the council. It's the council members who are on scrutiny committees and it's the council members who vote in the cabinet. Ultimately, council members help write the policy covering CBBC. The policy allowing this to happen needs changing.
Yes I realise its the council but again the council isn't made up of labour only therefore feel it was unfair of Jeff to state that caerphilly based labour councillors should have sorte this problem! If you look at my first comment I actually say shame on the council. Which as we all know is made up of all sorted of political supporters. Not just labour!
It sounds as if you're one of those Labour councillors haplessly trying to defend their party.
It's quite simple, the council is Labour controlled. Labour party members have final say over internal policy on how to deal with event such as these
If I were a labour councillor would i slag off the council? Think about that! I am defending people who are targeted to sort the problem when it is out of their hands. I.e caerphilly councillor dealing with a bargoed issue. Just explain that one to me and I'll shut up!!'n
Another example of the absurd thought processes of the council. Not so very long ago 'Lawrence House', Caerffili, better known to locals as 'Co-Co' was a decaying structure with pieces falling off it. This eyesore was a serious blight on the Town but, so far as I know, the private owner of this building was 'exempt' from paying rates.
This situation went on for years and some local councillors even championed a scheme where advertising was to be placed on this building, at tax payers expense; all proceeds from the sale of advertising space would go to the owner.
This woman owes a relatively small sum of £180 but due to the heavy handedness of the council will now have to pay huge costs to a bailiff. This is ridiculous and a poor use of the powers available to the council to collect arrears. As has been already stated if the the council is short of money it should look at cancelling the pay rises awarded to senior officers last year instead of concentrating their minds on the pursuit of someone owing so little.
You do not have to pay council tax, just send the bill back with NO Contract written on it. This country is run on Common Law which is the Law of the land. Council tax is based on Admiral Law which is the law of the sea (hence why they have a dock in court).
You are only breaking the law if you cause harm or loss to anyone. The council is a corporate business if you do not choose to do business with them then there is no contract.
You do not have to pay a bailiff as YOU do not have a contract with them, ask them to produce the signed contract with them and you will pay. As they can not produce one because you have not signed one, then you owe them nothing. Tell them you will take them to court for harassment as their is no contract.
If you get a letter stating you have to attend court, phone the court up you may find that they have no case against you. Check that the court logo is genuine and not photocopied. Go to the court and ask them if they produced the letter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-Us0UT2EfY
Unnamed: I will explain how ALL LABOUR Councillors, and the Areas MP and AM are culpable in this case and in this situation, first, all Labour Councillors are responsible for ALL the actions of ALL Council Officers, i.e. their employees, and of course they set the policies under which all Officers work. In fact, one Labour Councillor, the Cabinet Member for the Finance Department ( chief Executives office) is particularly responsible, but we will hear nothing from him I predict.
The AM Jeff Cuthbert, and Wayne David meet regularly with elected Labour Councillors, during which local Labour policies are discussed and debated, this is, for no better reason, than neither of them want to be `Surprised` by the action of the council, I know that those attempts have fallen apart recently nut nonetheless the process still exists. Plaid Cymru on the other hand have nothinf whatever to do with the current operations, day to day, by the council and certainly do not have any infuence over the actions of officers, unless of course they are `rouge` officers who fail to take instruction from their paymasters. In this case one of them messed up, name and shame I say.
Be very Careful about following the process advised by HANNAH above.
Anyone confronted by a debt collector with a Court Order, ( And everyone should check he or she actually has one, you are entitled to be handed a copy) should take due notice of the order, this has come from the COURT and not the Council even though it is a, probable, Council debt, the fact remains that to obtain such orders Officers of the council have been known to have been economical with the truth, but, Magistrates never ever question an officer of the council who presents themselves in Court to obtain such orders and simply rubber stamp the order which the officer seeks, many magistrates are themselves local Councillors but will rarely declare it and have been known to have signed such orders in the past.
Anyone confronted by such an order of the court, however flawed the process to obtain it, has to take due notice of it, these orders are very serious documents and in some cases can contain an order for the cretin who hands it to you to escort you to prison for not paying the debt, these orders apply to Council debts so be careful.
You do have a RIGHT to seek to appear before the Magistrates and oppose the order, in which case you simply inform the Debt Collector you intend to do so to `swear some form of opposing declaration before the magistrates`, this allows you to see the `evidence` placed before the court by the council to get the order in the first place, you can then check how accurate or not that information is, after you tell the Debt Collector this, he or she CANNOT take enforcement action to remove goods, or, more importantly, remove you, change locks etc, and in some cases commit you to prison. Never ever let one over the door, never invite one in to your home, and never ever trust what they tell you, they cannot force entry unless it is for specific Debts and in specific circumstances and with certain safeguarding stipulations for the householder.
If anyone ever has any complaint about the conduct of a registered `enforcement` officer acting as a Debt Collector you can complain directly to the court that issued that person with their licence to operate, this gives you the right to appear before a JUDGE and explain their actions and you complaint, this is quite separate to the opposing of an order before a Magistrate.
I did some research into what Hannah 'advised' and a long story put short, there are strong legal arguments for paying and not paying. The law seems to contradict itself. I think I would rather see many, many more people go to court with such an argument before trying it myself.
You wouldn't believe the needless number of cases that are instructed for bailiff action. These are largely due to automation of council tax administration.
Liability orders, which give councils permission to instruct bailiffs, are obtained for as little as 1 penny because of the lack of monitoring in the computerised system. Add to this the slack or non-existent monitoring in the judicial system, where courts rubber stamp applications, then there's no wonder people are being hounded by bailiffs when little or no money is owed.
The money claimed to be collected by bailiffs is very much exaggerated. Healthy profits have been put these private bailiff firms way unnecessarily in many cases, for money which would not have gone unpaid.
Many cases will have been sent to bailiffs purely as a consequence of instalment facilities being cancelled. Authorities are unfortunately permitted to sting householders with extra penalties because of flawed Council Tax legislation. Councils artificially create a debt by demanding the entire liability at once because of cancelled instalments.
Householders struggling to hit instalment dates will have been pushed into paying the entire council tax in one go and consequently forced into paying additional fees for court costs and bailiffs when they obviously struggled in the first place.
In these cases, the majority of the money would have been paid by the end of the financial year despite court action and bailiff enforcement. Perhaps the reason they don't want to change things is because each council can make at least a couple of hundred thousand pounds a month in court costs.
http://tinyurl.com/d6l3bkr
Council Tax Summons earn town halls £millions each year
Many millions of pounds have been overcharged by Councils in the pursuit of Council Tax recovery since its introduction in 1992.
It has long been speculated that Councils profit from taking householders to court for being late with Council Tax payments.
Local Authorities are charged a fraction of the amount passed on to residents in costs. Each Liability Order applied for costs councils £3 according to the Magistrates’ Courts fee schedule. Struggling householders are then charged many multiples of this, for example, one London Borough Council imposes £125 costs for making late payments for Council Tax, but for Business rates, this increases to £220 for an identical process.
Further irregularities are highlighted where costs – predetermined by councils – are imposed in advance of the hearing. According to law, an award of costs are at the discretion of Magistrates' courts on hearing the complaint.
Another Council in the South of England reveals in a document reviewing court costs that where previously it was necessary to seek approval from the Court to ensure costs being levied were reasonable, this was no longer required and "confirmed that it is for the Council to decide on an appropriate level".
One authority, North East Lincolnshire Council, admits court costs are determined in-house. A Freedom of Information request uncovered a letter sent to the Magistrates' court advising that the "Council has taken the decision to increase the court costs which it charges to tax payers for the non payment of Council Tax".
The same council revealed that it aimed to cover the entire budget for running its Council Tax department from court penalties, and with £0.88 million costs raised it had not made a bad attempt. It claimed its annual budget for all activity associated with recovery of Council Tax amounted to around £1.13 million, this compared with a figure of £1.04 million as the cost for council tax administration including staff costs, contact centre costs, enforcement, other running costs and central recharges.
The law doesn't allow for profits, only reasonable cost incurred for the administration involved, but councils increase costs as a “deterrent” element or to coerce payment. The same council documented that "the extra cost is seen as a way of encouraging prompt payment", and as a bonus would raise additional income of £38k a year. There is nothing in legislation to support an increase in costs on this basis.
According to statistics obtained from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), court costs for Council Tax and Business rates in England and Wales raised more than £179 million in 2010-11. Based on these figures and indexing inflation – since 1992 (the introduction of Council Tax) the best part of £3.5 billion may have been overcharged by councils in a bid to finance Council Tax administration.
You wouldn't believe the needless number of cases that are instructed for bailiff action. These are largely due to automation of council tax administration.
Liability orders, which give councils permission to instruct bailiffs, are obtained for as little as 1 penny because of the lack of monitoring in the computerised system. Add to this the slack or non-existent monitoring in the judicial system, where courts rubber stamp applications, then there's no wonder people are being hounded by bailiffs when little or no money is owed.
The money claimed to be collected by bailiffs is very much exaggerated. Healthy profits have been put these private bailiff firms way unnecessarily in many cases, for money which would not have gone unpaid.
Many cases will have been sent to bailiffs purely as a consequence of instalment facilities being cancelled. Authorities are unfortunately permitted to sting householders with extra penalties because of flawed Council Tax legislation. Councils artificially create a debt by demanding the entire liability at once because of cancelled instalments.
Householders struggling to hit instalment dates will have been pushed into paying the entire council tax in one go and consequently forced into paying additional fees for court costs and bailiffs when they obviously struggled in the first place.
In these cases, the majority of the money would have been paid by the end of the financial year despite court action and bailiff enforcement. Perhaps the reason they don't want to change things is because each council can make at least a couple of hundred thousand pounds a month in court costs.
Jeff maybe you do not understand what Common Law means, I think it is about time that people looked into the LAW of this land, and stand up for their rights. The government, HMRC, Council, Courts are all corporate companies. Therefore you have to give your consent to be in contract with them.
We are NOT governed by Acts (Admiral Law – Law of the sea) we are governed by Common Law (Law of the land).
Hannah is the perfect example of an internet solicitor. She reads a few chat threads and instantly assumes that it's 100% accurate and foolproof. She has forgotten article 8, CL application, Stature and Common agreement, Commercial Law Integration and Admirality to say the least. Does she really believe that it's a simple as she makes out? If she's so confident, why doesn't she use her method on Caerphilly council and end up the centre of attention in an article on this website?
Hannah, in an ideal uncomplicated world that would be the scheme of things, but, it is not, we all suffer from ` Common Purpose` and until there is a real revolution against it it will `govern` the way we all live, in order and discipline.
The fact is that in order to facilitate what you say is the `rights` of us all, have to start by individuals NOT being registered at birth, but not to do so is a crime, so what you propose is a non starter.
Not to respond to a court order is also a crime, whoever your are and what ever status you claim to have, I bet you were registered at birth? therefore you are member of the club I`m afraid, you are compelled to abide by all the laws of the country, including the consequences of all enacted legislation.