Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

OK, seeing as you are all so eager;

Freedom of Information Act 2000
Request Reference: 12254
Information Disclosure notice
Date: 20 November 2014



Request: Council Tax arrears and Enforcement Agent fees

This is a Freedom of Information request regarding Council Tax arrears and Enforcement Agent Fees.

I have seen information that should a liability order be made against a debtor and the account has been passed to an Enforcement Agent; and should the debtor then pay the amount stated on the Liability Order only (not EA fees) direct to the council, whether in person or online, then your council will deduct from this payment any EA fees incurred to that point and pass them on to the EA, thus leaving the account still in arrears.

Please can you direct me to the relevant legislation that compels your council to do this, specifying the exact passage of legislation that you follow?


Response:

East Northamptonshire Council holds the following information in relation to your request:

From the 6 April 2014 new legislation came into force regarding Enforcement Agents fees.

See attached link to Statutory Instrument 1/2014, ‘Enforcement, England and Wales, The taking control of goods (fees) Regulations 2014’. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0140001_en.pdf

The council’s current working procedure is; if the debt is paid to the council less the statutory fees, the Enforcement Agency is informed and they decide if they will continue recovery action to collect their fees.


Email: foi@east-northamptonshire.gov.uk
www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/foi

[Wombats]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Shall we post the 34 replies by Outlawlaw which state differently?

It is really boring to be honest. I've just had a month or so out. I come back and exactly the same discussion is going on. That sort of makes me think people will have to agree to differ, one person especially - that's not having a dig at all, it's stating a fact.

I cannot see any point in repeatedly going round in circles discussing exactly the same issue. We all know what each person thinks, why can we not just live and let live?

This area of the site used to be a highly respected area. Now I feel it is a place of mediocre advice and bickering. It is simply not enjoyable posting here anymore as it appears impossible to actually help anyone without external interference.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

OK, seeing as you are all so eager;

Yes it still says the fees are due o the enforcement process is continuing. Which would seem to imply the warrant had not been settled. unless you re now saying that a bailiff can enforce a warrant which has been settled.

Incidentally there still seems to be some misunderstanding about section 45.
As said the only difference is that section 45A had been deleted and the various terms have been updated in addition the reference to section 5 costs has been changed to schedule 12 in section 45(2) . Obviously if this section had been deleted it could not be amended. Oh and the section has a new heading.
“Enforcement by taking control of goods

45. Where a liability order has been made, payment may be enforced by using the Schedule 12 procedure.”;

(d)

omit regulations 45A (Information preliminary to distress) and 46 (Appeals in connection with distress);

(e)

in regulation 47 (Commitment to prison)—

(i)

in paragraph (1)—

(aa)

for “levy an amount by distress under” substitute “enforce payment by use of the Schedule 12 procedure pursuant to”;

(bb)

for “person making the distress” substitute “enforcement agent”; and

(cc)

for “on which to levy the amount” substitute “to enforce payment”;

(ii)

in paragraph (4)(a), for “the appropriate amount mentioned in regulation 45(2), or (as the case may be) so much of it as remains outstanding” substitute “the amount outstanding (within the meaning of Schedule 12)”; and

(iii)

in paragraph (6A)(a), for “the appropriate amount mentioned in regulation 45(2) (or so much of it as remains outstanding)” substitute “the amount outstanding (within the meaning of Schedule 12)”;

[Milo]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

My other advice was, if nothing outside is at risk, to let the bailiff play his game,

This sentence sums up the difference between your advice and mine. To you it is just a game. To me it is a bailiff enforcing a warrant and the inevitable stress that this can bring to the debtor and his or her family.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

This sentence sums up the difference between your advice and mine. To you it is just a game. To me it is a bailiff enforcing a warrant and the inevitable stress that this can bring to the debtor and his or her family.

Amen to that

[Milo]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

This 'new' poster will take no notice at all of me or any other poster on here and instead; looks towards bailiff enforcement as merely a 'game'. My last post on this thread will be this one.

If he (or the small handful of local authorities) continue to struggle to understand the new regulations then it may help to read what Parliament intended when setting the fee scale and providing how payments should be allocated.

Hopefully they will take note of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 Explanatory Memorandum. (see link below). This is a Statutory document prepared by the Ministry of Justice and laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.

The following clauses clarify Parliament's intentions very clearly indeed:

8.1 The “Transforming Bailiff Action” consultation sought views on the proposed fee structure. The consultation, which ran from February 2012 to May 2012, received 254 responses. The majority of respondents to that consultation were in favour of the proposed structure; it was seen to be transparent and weighted to encourage debtors to engage with the process at an earlier stage. However, two elements of the fee structure have been revised following consideration of consultation responses and further work with stakeholder groups.

8.3 The consultation response stated that in cases where the proceeds of enforcement are less than the amount outstanding, they should be distributed on a pro-rata basis between creditor and enforcement agent (regarding the outstanding debt and the enforcement fees and disbursements respectively).

However, it has since been demonstrated that this would cause enforcement agents to operate at a loss for some time before they recovered their fees, undermining the fee structure model by significantly delaying remuneration and preventing the necessary investment in enforcement businesses required to provide a sustainable service.

Without this, successful enforcement could potentially decline significantly and enforcement agents may be encouraged to act in an aggressive manner in order to try and recoup the entire debt.

It was therefore decided that enforcement agents should be paid the compliance stage in full first, followed by a pro-rata division of proceeds between enforcement agent and creditor.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

[Tools]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Thanks both, and thanks once again for all your help!!

Since mr_g has not revisited their thread for some time and since that point there has been nothing but argument, I have temporarily closed the thread. [MENTION=56322]mr_g[/MENTION] , when you come back please contact me and I will reopen if you need further help.