Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Perhaps of you read it again you will see that it says "ant amount outstanding"

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

How is quoiting legislation "clutching at straws" what you forget is that it is you who are swimming against the tide here, everyone else understands the situation.

Quoting 22 year old legislation that was drafted before private bailiffs were used doesn't help. The charges in that legislation relate to the council's own charges and costs.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Perhaps of you read it again you will see that it says "ant amount outstancing"

It doesn't matter if I read it, or you read it; the FoI has set that council's position. E. Northants also does the same. It's proving that there is no legal obligation to pass on the bailiff fees.

[Amethyst]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

You mean the FoI I posted? 24-11-2014.

Thank you xx

While you're all pondering on that please could you take five minutes to complete the Big Advice Survey - help to improve accessibility of free to consumer advice services - https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BigAdviceSurvey

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

It doesn't matter if I read it, or you read it; the FoI has set that council's position. E. Northants also does the same. It's proving that there is no legal obligation to pass on the bailiff fees.

Why does here have to be a "legal obligation". The authority employs the EA to collect the revenues on its behalf, it can handle the disbursement of any proceeds in any way it seems fit, the point is which ever way you look at it the debtor has to pay the full amount due and this includes any fees.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Why does here have to be a "legal obligation" Mark. The authority employs the EA to collect the revenues on its behalf, it can handle the disbursement of any proceeds in any way it seems fit, the point is which ever way you look at it the debtor has to pay the full amount due and this includes any fees.

No, what has been continually asserted by some members is that legislation states that if the councils take direct payments, they have to pass on the bailiff fees. Clearly this is not the case, unless you are saying some councils are wilfully breaking the law?

[Wombats]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

I think there is little doubt some councils willfully break the law. Whether or not they do so for enforcement activities is another question. The fact remains that while a few may not pass on the fees, the majority do.

It is still a time of change for enforcement, with LA's constantly looking at the situation. The issue of many possibly switching to in-house enforcement has raised its head quite significantly recently as you know, along with the further issues this would raise. We await also further amendments which will tighten things up.

My previous posts from several weeks ago set out both camps pretty clearly. Things don't really seem to have changed, despite the ongoing debate in the meantime. Both ways are still ways which will potentially work. As you have said elsewhere, by far the easiest way is to engage early on and sort things out. For the extra amount if things can be caught at this stage then it's not worth trying the alternative approach. Where the amount is higher, if the debtor wants to avoid bailiffs and hide their car away for however long the contract with the council dictates, or until such time as the debt is handed back, then bailiffs fees can be avoided.

There's not really much more to it than that I don't think. I stand, of course, to be corrected.

[Guest]

I haven't seen any "repeated mantra" it is entirely irrelevant what the authority does with the proceeds, the fact is taht until the amouint outstanding is paid in full the order will not be settled and the EA will be authorized to collect the renaming sum, as stated in the FOI you posted.

Are you joking? It was repeated yet again today;

The new regulations are very clear indeed in that from any payment made (whether to the local authority or the bailiff company) the Compliance Fee of £75 is first deducted and the remaining part of the payment is split on a 'pro rata' basis and is allocated towards the debt to the local authority and the remaining bailiffs fees.

And here; http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ht=#post493591

If you make payment of an amount that is less than the amount due then the regulations are very specific in that the Compliance fee of £75 is deducted first and the balance is split on a 'pro rata' basis with part of the payment being allocated towards the remaining bailiff fees and the debt to the local authority.

And here; http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ata#post487976

If you want to make payments to the council then please do so. The council should not refuse but you need to be aware that they are duty bound to deduct the Compliance Fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis so that the enforcement fee of £235 also gets paid. Addressing the matter during the 'Compliance Stage' is the only way to avoid this I'm afraid.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

I feel you are missng the point, it really does not matter however it is accepted practice as stated here
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/...-standards.pdf
11. Creditors agreeing the suspension of a warrant or making direct payment
arrangements with debtors must give appropriate notification to and should pay
appropriate fees due to the enforcement agent for the work they have
undertaken.

And also I think in regulations, however as said it does not really matter the point i that the authority will not pay the full amount of the order until the total amount outstanding is settled, this includes any fees due, until this time the warrant remains active and the EA remains able to enforce.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

I feel you are missng the point, it really does not matter however it is accepted practice as stated here
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/...-standards.pdf
11. Creditors agreeing the suspension of a warrant or making direct payment
arrangements with debtors must give appropriate notification to and should pay
appropriate fees due to the enforcement agent for the work they have
undertaken.

And also I think in regulations, however as said it does not really matter the point i that the authority will not pay the full amount of the order until the total amount outstanding is settled, this includes any fees due, until this time the warrant remains active and the EA remains able to enforce.

Seems to be an awful lot of posts being deleted - not sure why. The FoI's say what they say Andy, no matter how hard you want to not believe or disprove it.

However, again, the hub is that there is no law that compels the council to pass on fees.

[Milo]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

No, what has been continually asserted by some members is that legislation states that if the councils take direct payments, they have to pass on the bailiff fees. Clearly this is not the case, unless you are saying some councils are wilfully breaking the law?

No, councils that do not apportion direct payments in the correct way or not breaking the law. It is simply the fact that a small handful have yet to grasp how the 'pro rata' allocation works. Most of them now understand the legal procedure.

If members of the public want to waste hard earned tax payers money on making another 300+ FOI requests then they can do so. It will not change what happens in reality. After all, another poster on here by the anme of Outlawla has already made FOI requests on the exact same issue to 10% of all local local authorities !!!

It should be borne in mind that local authoritites are continually adapting their appraoch and with this in mind, an answer to an FOI request that may have been made a month ago may elicit a completely different answer today.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

No, councils that do not apportion direct payments in the correct way or not breaking the law. It is simply the fact that a small handful have yet to grasp how the 'pro rata' allocation works. Most of them now understand the legal procedure.

If members of the public want to waste hard earned tax payers money on making another 300+ FOI requests then they can do so. It will not change what happens in reality. After all, another poster on here by the anme of Outlawla has already made FOI requests on the exact same issue to 10% of all local local authorities !!!

It should be borne in mind that local authoritites are continually adapting their appraoch and with this in mind, an answer to an FOI request that may have been made a month ago may elicit a completely different answer today.

It is very condescending to assert that some councils have 'yet to grasp' how it works - perhaps it's these councils that have fully grasped what the legal position is. The fact remains that if it was law, then all councils would be following it. The often quoted section is reg 13 of TCG 2014, the part that deals with controlled goods not covering the debt.

Direct payments are not controlled goods.

[Milo]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Remind them of Regulation 45(3) of the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

The entire regulation 45 has been subsituated to provide that where a Liability Order has been made, payment is to be enforced by using the Schedule 12 procedure under TCE 2007.

Furthermore, it is wrong to state section 45.3 without referring to regulation 45.2 which states that the 'appropriate amount' consists of:

a) An amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made

AND

b) A sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connect with the distress.

However, as I say, part 45 has now been subsituted.

[Guest]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

The entire regulation 45 has been subsituated to provide that where a Liability Order has been made, payment is to be enforced by using the Schedule 12 procedure under TCE 2007.

Furthermore, it is wrong to state section 45.3 without referring to regulation 45.2 which states that the 'appropriate amount' consists of:

a) An amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made

AND

b) A sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connect with the distress.

However, as I say, part 45 has now been subsituted.

If it had been 'subsituated' as you say, it would have been repealed. It has not, therefore it is still active.

Y'know, rather than trying to disprove that any suggestion that someone can lawfully avoid bailiff fees (lawfully avoid, not evade), something that clearly benefits hard-pressed debtors, you should be pleased that perhaps fees can be reduced or removed. What benefit do you gain from constructing arguments that benefit the bailiff.

I'm here for the debtor, showing them that fees can be reduced or removed. I wonder when I'm going to get my 2 lovely emails from the site team thanking me?

[Amethyst]

Re: Advice on Newlyn's tactics...

Why two ?