Marstons

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

I was quoting the letter from memory. You are correct, it does say that the fine has been paid and that the office will take no further action. The letter has now been edited to display its full contents, presumably to eradicate the need for guesswork.

More importantly, though it blows a hole in the myth that a court office will class money paid direct as "proceeds". I'd wager that theres even less chance of local authorities passing on a share of any monies that they receive directly.

There are now several cases that are covered on other boards where the creditor has been paid directly and up to now, not one debtor has received further visits. I think that it is important to be objective about this. With the exception of court fines, EA's may not force entry. If a debtor has purposely gone out of their way to ensure that the creditor is paid directly, there is a very good chance that they will be trying to avoid paying EA fees. I'm not sure quite what the EA can do in this situation, other to knock on the debtors door and ask nicely for their money. With no car to take control of, the EA's chances of getting this money are somewhere between slim and non-existent.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

I'm not sure quite what the EA can do in this situation, other to knock on the debtors door and ask nicely for their money. With no car to take control of, the EA's chances of getting this money are somewhere between slim and non-existent.

Isn't this in essence all the Bailiff can do in any case ?

[Milo]

Re: Marstons

I was quoting the letter from memory. You are correct, it does say that the fine has been paid and that the office will take no further action. The letter has now been edited to display its full contents, presumably to eradicate the need for guesswork.

More importantly, though it blows a hole in the myth that a court office will class money paid direct as "proceeds". I'd wager that theres even less chance of local authorities passing on a share of any monies that they receive directly.

There are now several cases that are covered on other boards where the creditor has been paid directly and up to now, not one debtor has received further visits. I think that it is important to be objective about this. With the exception of court fines, EA's may not force entry. If a debtor has purposely gone out of their way to ensure that the creditor is paid directly, there is a very good chance that they will be trying to avoid paying EA fees. I'm not sure quite what the EA can do in this situation, other to knock on the debtors door and ask nicely for their money. With no car to take control of, the EA's chances of getting this money are somewhere between slim and non-existent.

Before addressing the above it is important to deal with the initial query raised by 'Tilly' which concerned whether a bailiff needs to be certificated. Apparently the bailiff visit was in June and he gained his certificate in July.

Before 6th April enforcement agents enforcing unpaid court FINES did not require certification. That changed on 6th April when the enforcement of Magistrate Court FINES was included in the new regulations (see Schedule 13 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007). You may care to note as well that from 6th April all High Court Enforcement Officers now have to be certificated.

'Tilly' also mentioned that she had read on a 'government' website that if the amount of the fine is paid that enforcement action cannot continue for the bailiff fees. She has been asked to provide a link to the 'government' site. She hasn't as yet posted back. When she does so I will respond.

She then asks a common question as to whether she can pay the amount of the fine (£190) to the court. I will answer that particular query in a separate post.

However, I would like to make three important points:

Firstly, you have stated that:

'There are now several cases that are covered on other boards where the creditor has been paid directly and up to now, not one debtor has received further visits'

In relation to one particular forum (the one that appears to exist for no other purpose other than as a personal 'soapbox' to post rubbish about me and the Consumer Action forum and to follow every single post that I make on forums) it is noteworthy that nearly all 'debtors' who post an initial query fail to make any follow up posts at all. They disappear. If you believe that this is because no further visits take place then so be it. This is merely your assumption and cannot be evidence that no further visits take place or that the local authority did not make an application for an Attachment of Earnings Order.

Secondly, these new regulations are very different indeed to the previous regs and for regular long standing contributors to forums (such as myself and others on here ) it is difficult as we are expected to forget the past and adapt to an entirely new regime. On a personal basis, I have been fortunate in that for the past 8 years I have been actively involved in the new procedure as a member of Stakeholder Groups. Despite this, I confess to finding parts of the regs very confusing indeed.

Some posters on here may have read a thread on the Consumer Forum last Thursday from a bailiff who has worked in the industry for 10 years. It is fair to say that he does not like the new regulations and apparently, his commission has reduced drastically since 6th April. There are indeed some bailiffs ( in particular those who enforced road traffic debts) who are very unhappy indeed at the reduction in commission and this is because, under the previous regime those bailiffs enjoyed misleading the debtor by charging ATR fees for each visit and charging 'multiple fees' for enforcing more than one warrant. In short, they have serious difficulty in ADAPTING to a completely new regime. Local authorities also have difficulty ADAPTING to the new regulations and this is evident when seeing copies of some of the new contracts between them and the enforcement company that are emerging.

Thirdly, unlike large organisations (British Telecom is an excellent example) each local authority has their own collection department and most LA's have a completely different contract with their enforcement companies. Some LA's use the 'Model Contract' provided by the British Parking Association (BPA) but by and large, they mainly have different contracts.

The new regulations have been in place just 3 months and it is certainly the case that protocols will need to be established with local authorities as to how to deal with payments received directly and processes need to be put in place for remitting the monies to the Enforcement Agent. This is necessary because the new regulations provide that:

distribution of payments is mandatory.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

Regarding the bailiff on the other forum and his complaints about his reducing income, I cant help thinking that reading between the lines this at least in part reflects a reduction in the opportunity to make charges which were commonplace but somewhat suspect under the old regime, this is encouraging IMO.

As far s the new regime is concerned I agree that we are pretty much all in the same boat and it is early days, but we have to start with what the regulations actually say.

[Milo]

Re: Marstons

Regarding the bailiff on the other forum and his complaints about his reducing income, I cant help thinking that reading between the lines this at least in part reflects a reduction in the opportunity to make charges which were commonplace but somewhat suspect under the old regime, this is encouraging IMO.

As far s the new regime is concerned I agree that we are pretty much all in the same boat and it is early days, but we have to start with what the regulations actually say.

I will respond later regarding 'proceeds' and the 'pro rata' application but you are perfectly correct, this is still very 'early days' and protocols and processes need to be put in place by local authorities. With Magistrates Courts (for court fines) the position appears to be a lot clearer given that most (but possibly not all) courts are simply forwarding payments made either 'on line' or by way of courts 'ATM' drop boxes to the enforcement companies for them to apply the mandatory 'pro rata split'.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

So as far as magistrates fines are concerned it makes little difference who the debtor pays in this case, as their payment will end up with the bailiff anyway, who then processes the payment and sends the appropriate amount back to the court.
What about in the case of council tax where the debt has been passed to the bailiff and the letter (compliance stage)has been sent. Then the debtor pays the council direct ?

[Milo]

Re: Marstons

What about in the case of council tax where the debt has been passed to the bailiff and the letter (compliance stage)has been sent. Then the debtor pays the council direct ?

Sorry Andy I am a bit confused by the question.....

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

OK
Common problem on here

The debtor gets intro arrears of council tax and the a liability order is obtained, this is then passed to the bailiff for enforcement, the debtor when reviving the first letter form the bailiff goes to the council and mangesto make a payment of the arrears direct to them or indeed gets the consiclil to take the order back so what about the fee

[Milo]

Re: Marstons

OK
Common problem on here

The debtor gets intro arrears of council tax and the a liability order is obtained, this is then passed to the bailiff for enforcement, the debtor when reviving the first letter form the bailiff goes to the council and mangesto make a payment of the arrears direct to them or indeed gets the consiclil to take the order back so what about the fee

Andy,

I now see what you mean. I assume as well that in your example the payment being made to the council is the amount shown on the Liability Order. If so, I will address this very important point later on when I get home.

PS: It is important to mention as well that if one local authority (or indeed a Magistrate Court) fail to correctly apportion the payment this does NOT mean that the regulations can be ignored. It merely means that ONE Local authority or Magistrates Court have made a simple error ( and frankly this is not surprising as we are still in the very early stages of the new regulations).

A perfect example of this was outlined yesterday by 'Starving Taxpayer' when referring to a letter displayed on a website. Hilariously the various posters responding to the debtor (Solid Smoke) claim that the short letter:

'debunks the theory that fines are redistributed pro-rata to split the debt and the fees".

Such comments are bound to to be expected from sites desperate to prove one successful case. Any one will do...even hopeless ones.

It is noteworthy as well that since 11th July the document exhibited only showed half of the letter. I mentioned this in my post number 15 yesterday. The good folks over there have obviously been following what I wrote yesterday and promptly AMENDED the post to enable the full letter to be viewed.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons

You're a bit confused?

.

We are trying to clarify the situation, there is a similar situation here
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ht=#post451742

[Amethyst]

Re: Marstons

Posts removed and thread closed. My apologies Tilly.