A man who was not given notice before bailiffs tried to seize goods from his home has opened up about his ordeal.

Colin Phillips, 53, received a letter from enforcement agency Newlyn PLC in February 2022 telling him one of its agents had visited his address on behalf of Buckinghamshire Council.

📢 Have you been targeted by bailiffs for council tax debts? Contact charlie.smith@newsquest.co.uk📢

The bailiff said they intended to take his possessions, including any vehicle he owned, to potentially sell them at a public auction unless he settled a ÂŁ1,600 council tax debt within 24 hours.

However, Colin was not given prior notice of the visit, which by law, enforcement agencies must do before sending a bailiff round.

“That was the first I heard about it because the other letters had gone to my old address,” Colin told the Bucks Free Press.

READ MORE: Bailiff referrals rise by 42% for Bucks Council tax debts amid cost-of-living crisis

“I had no idea what it was about. That is not right. A lot of people would have folded because they are scared of having goods taken away.”

Newlyn sent a notice of enforcement to Colin’s old house after it was given the wrong address by the council, which took it from his estate agent but failed to verify it was his current home.

Council officers also failed to use the email address on file for Colin to send him bills and inform him of his council tax liability.

The project manager from Wolverhampton previously lived in Chesham, but later moved to Tring and then to a property Stafford, which the bailiff visited in February 2022.

The resident rented out his Chesham property before selling it, but did not realise he would be liable for the council tax while the property was empty as he was already paying Stafford Borough Council.

Colin’s debt to Bucks Council was only £1,139.52 but he was told he owed an inflated sum of £1,600 due to added bailiff fees.

He said: “Trying to extort £500 out of somebody over a mix-up is absolutely and utterly morally wrong and could tip somebody over the edge if they were on the breadline, a single parent or unemployed.”

The council refused to acknowledge it had not sent him a notice of enforcement, but Colin pushed back and lodged a formal complaint, while also using a subject access request to reveal the council had his email address all along.

An investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found ‘fault’ with the way the council dealt with Colin’s case and the fact it had his email address but did not use it.

The council eventually relented and agreed to wipe the nearly ÂŁ500 worth of bailiff fees from his bill, plus ÂŁ100 court costs.

Once Colin ‘knew the facts’ he paid his £1,139.52 debt minus the fees as he accepted, he owed the money.

However, the resident said the ‘appalling and shameful practice’ whereby bailiff fees are applied ‘should be stopped and the culprits brought to task’, warning that other more vulnerable people may be at risk of being exploited.

He said: “It makes you doubt yourself. It is just incredibly frustrating that they can get away with this stuff all the time.”

John Chilver, the council’s cabinet member for accessible housing and resources, acknowledged the LGO’s decision on Colin’s case.

He said: “We are sorry that on that occasion, our correspondence with the complainant was lacking and he was given incorrect information.

“We do have processes to manage cases where residents who owe council tax have since moved from the property and in this case the correct procedure in terms of assuring correspondence was sent to the correct address was not followed.”

The council said it apologised to Colin and ‘reached a resolution’ over his case and ‘fully acknowledged the anxiety this process must have caused’.

Cllr Chilver told the Free Press: “We have ensured our teams are fully trained on the correct processes where residents have changed address to avoid a repetition of this in future, and fully appreciate the stress enforcement activity can result in.

“We have a legal duty to collect council tax, which pays for local services, and only use enforcement agents as a last resort.”

Newlyn PLC declined to comment.