Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 - two

Dear Manchester City Council,

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 came into force, has Manchester City Council handed any monies which a debtor has paid directly to the authority in respect of his or her council tax liability to its enforcement agent?

If so, how much and in how many cases?

Yours faithfully,

Paul Smith

Dear Manchester City Council,

Thank you for your response in which you state that Manchester
City Council has paid £16,599.64 in 336 cases.

I would like it verifying that these payments have only been made in one or the other of the following circumstances:

a) The payment(s) fully settled the debt including the bailiff's fees;

b) The debtor clearly indicated that the payment is for the bailiff.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Smith

Dear Manchester City Council,

Once the press and the public are made aware of the fact that their council tax is being increased at the same time local authorities are giving £millions of their money to enforcement agents there is going to be one more monumental blunder for the government to address.

If a payment is made to the council in respect of council tax liability and it not specified that it is intended for the bailiff then if the billing authority to whom it was paid passes those funds on to its contractor then it would be unlawful. The bailiff contractor has not obtained the money from the taxpayer therefore the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 and the pro-rata payments are irrelevant.

You can defend the misuse of taxpayer's money if you like but it doesn't alter the fact that any payments made in respect of council tax which is diverted for the purposes of enriching the council's enforcement agent is money made unavailable for services. Or you might say that every penny not collected means a higher bill for the law-abiding citizens.

Also it would be negligent of me if I failed to point out to Manchester City Council the case law relevant to outstanding monies owing on different accounts, especially where the person owing the money intends payment to be allocated to a specific debt.

It was held in the judgment in the Peter v Anderson case as follows:

"A person who is indebted to another on two several accounts, may, on paying him money, ascribe it to which account he pleases.–and his election may either be expressed,-Or may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction."

By the way, the Peter v Anderson case is relevant today and its ruling is taken into account when parameters are set in council tax payment systems.

It seems that it would be unlawful if money paid to the local authority, with the intention of paying the council tax liability outstanding, is not allocated to that account but instead paid to the bailiff contractor. This would be an entirely different account to that which the debtor intended payment to be allocated.

In light of the council now being aware that there are very good grounds to challenge the lawfulness of its actions, will it be reviewing its policy?

Yours faithfully,

Paul Smith

Dear Manchester City Council,

I have received sufficient information to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that the authority does not raise enforcement fees on the debtors council tax account. Therefore, despite what provisions are made in the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014, it would be unlawful if monies paid to the council intended to reduce the indebtedness of the council tax liability, was diverted to its enforcement agent. The same goes for monies paid directly into the account by means of internet banking etc.

Manchester City Council should therefore publish on its website that a debtor can avoid all Enforcement fees, even after their case has been assigned to its enforcement contractor by paying their outstanding liability directly to the council expressing that payment is made for the purposes of reducing the indebtedness of their council tax liability.

A note of caution should also be added that under no circumstances should the debtor engage with the bailiff and any goods such as motor vehicles be kept out of the bailiff's reach (so he is unable to 'take control' of them) until such time as the liability is settled.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Smith