Bailiff fees unpaid by debtor for council tax recovery

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request which was received by
the Vale of White Horse District Council on 3 May 2011.

Please accept this email as confirmation that your request has been
received and forwarded to the relevant department and that a response will
be sent to you within 20 working days. The reference number for this
request is 11/26.

I trust that this email is sufficient to assure you that your request is
being dealt with. However, should you have any queries in the meantime,
please do not hesitate to contact the FOI team at
[1][Vale of White Horse District Council request email] .

Regards

FOI Team
Vale of White Horse District Council

>>> Neil Gilliatt <[FOI #70057 email]> 03/05/2011
16:04 >>>
Dear Vale of White Horse District Council,

In cases allocated to bailiffs for collection of council tax; do
Vale of White Horse District Council pay the bailiff their fees for
work carried out by them when the debtor does not because of direct
settlement of the account with the authority?

If compensation to bailiffs is paid by the council due to debtors
not paying bailiffs their fees; what are the annual figures for the
years 2002 to date with respect to this payment?

Yours faithfully,

Neil Gilliatt

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

Re: Bailiff information, FOI 11/26

Thank you for your email, dated 3 May 2011, which was passed to me to
respond accordingly.

Firstly, please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. Your
request has been treated in accordance with our Freedom of Information
procedure and logged under FOI 11/26.

Under Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the 2000 Act)
you are entitled to be informed in writing whether the council holds the
information specified in your request and, if that is the case, to have
that information communicated to you unless any of the statutory
exemptions apply. I have considered your request and can confirm it is
possible to provide the information specified in your request and that I
do not believe any of the statutory exemptions apply. As such, please
find the answer to your request below:

The Vale of White Horse District Council do not pay the bailiff their
fees for work carried out by them when the debtor does not because of
direct settlement of the account with the council.

However, I would like to explain that the council (Capita) does notify
the bailiffs on a regular basis of any direct payments made to the
council by the council taxpayer where the council tax account has
already been escalated to the bailiffs. This is so the bailiffs can take
account of this amount and reduce the balance owing under that liability
order accordingly. The bailiff will continue to enforce any remaining
debt until the full balance has been settled, which does include any
bailiff fees incurred along the way. Any payment made will be allocated
against costs incurred first, before reducing the amount originally
specified under the Liability Order.

If no additional bailiff fees have been incurred and the taxpayer does
make full payment to the council then the bailiff will return the case
as 'paid in full'. However, this situation is extremely rare, as more
often than not it is bailiff action that prompts a payment being made -
in which case the account would have already been subject to bailiff
fees, i.e. normally the statutory first and second visit charges.

No compensation is paid by the council due to debtors not paying
bailiffs their fees so there is no data from 2002 to date concerning
this particular part of your request.

I hope this is of help but please do not hesitate in contacting me if
you require any further clarity about the external bailiffs used by the
Vale of White Horse District Council.

Kind regards,
Trevor

Trevor Gaffney
Revenues Manager
Capita, for & on behalf of Vale of White Horse District Council

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

Thank you for your email.

Firstly, please accept my sincere apologies that no reply has been issued to you until now. This was an oversight on my part for which I am extremely sorry.

I also apologise if you felt my previous email contradicted itself. As such, it may be easier to explain the position further using an example.

Example:
1) Debtor originally owes £150.00
2) Case subsequently referred to the bailiff to collect
3) Bailiff fees of £42.50 incurred (in accordance with council tax legislation)
4) £192.50 now payable to settle the account
4) Debtor pays £100.00 direct to the council
5) The council simply notifies the bailiff of the direct payment made by the debtor, which reduces the balance accordingly
6) £92.50 remains the amount outstanding with the bailiff
7) Further action continues & further costs incurred
8) Any subsequent payment made by the debtor to the bailiff will continue to reduce the sum owing (fees element first)
9) Any subsequent payment made direct to the council then step 5 will be followed.

I read your original question as asking if the council paid bailiff fees where the debtor had not, and the answer to this is no. However, on occasions the council will forward money it receives on to the bailiffs should it be necessary, as explained below.

If both the original debt and enforcement fees are paid directly to the council by the debtor then the council will notify the bailiff of the direct payment, as explained above, and the debtor's payment allocated accordingly. i.e relevant part of the debtor's payment being directed to the bailiff.

In conclusion, the council does not cover any shortfall (costs or otherwise) on behalf of the debtor to the bailiff and no compensation has been paid by the council to the bailiff either.

I hope this helps clarify the position and once again I apologise for the delay in replying.

Regards,
Trevor Gaffney

show quoted sections