EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

[Big Al]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Being able to provide the debtor with accurate information which will help their situation makes me happy

But this information has been confirmed time and time again, from LA's all over the country with no deviation. The info is clearly correct.

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Yes and this is something else. We are straying into looking for loopholes here, loopholes do no good, because they are easily closed.

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

But this information has been confirmed time and time again, from LA's all over the country with no deviation. The info is clearly correct.

no it hasn't.
Nothing has been confirmed

[Big Al]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Yes and this is something else. We are straying into looking for loopholes here, loopholes do no good, because they are easily closed.

he
I really don't get that. What is 'something else'? What loopholes? The FoI's have even quoted the legislation that says fees are not added. It is clear - the 1992 act didn't allow them, the 2004 amendments changed that, the 2014 amendments changed it again. The present situation has been confirmed that fees cannot be added - no loopholes, just the position.

[Big Al]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

no it hasn't.
Nothing has been confirmed

Oh for God's sake, it has been confirmed about 2 dozen times from an individual source each time.

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

I thought i would address this because it is the cause of much of your misunderstanding.
You are correct in believing that the word"may" means that it is not mandatory, but it means that the authority has the option to create an order, they do not have to.
The word may is used in much legislation instead of must, because if must was used then they would have to issue orders on all occasions , this would not always be appropriate.

OK this is my last post on the subject, after that we'll just have to agree to disagree. "May" is normally used in the context of giving permission ie:

"a bailiff may enforce anywhere in England or Wales"

Where the term has been abused in the past is by bailiff companies who state that the word "may" gives them an option ie in the case of PCN's ,when the debtor moves address:

"the council may approach the TEC if it wants a new warrant"

Bailiff companies argue that it is an option and not mandatory which we all know was not the authors intention.

In the case of the LGF Act, the quoted paragraph is not giving the authority the option of making an order. It is providing for regulations to include for the option. To put is simply, it says:

REGULATIONS may provide........

This is the bit above what you are referring to. It over rides it, which is irrelevant in any case, if the regulations haven't provided for it:

"the authority concerned may make an order"

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

he
I really don't get that. What is 'something else'? What loopholes? The FoI's have even quoted the legislation that says fees are not added. It is clear - the 1992 act didn't allow them, the 2004 amendments changed that, the 2014 amendments changed it again. The present situation has been confirmed that fees cannot be added - no loopholes, just the position.

You seem not to read what anyone else writes, this was an error, there was always an intention to add fees to AOEs.

If there was a failure for authorities to add fees it would not be an intention of the legislation or parliament that it was there, therefore a loophole.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Well that seems to have got us nowhere, anyone fancy helping http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...tes-court-fine here ?

[Guest]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

OK this is my last post on the subject, after that we'll just have to agree to disagree. "May" is normally used in the context of giving permission ie:

"a bailiff may enforce anywhere in England or Wales"

Where the term has been abused in the past is by bailiff companies who state that the word "may" gives them an option ie in the case of PCN's ,when the debtor moves address:

"the council may approach the TEC if it wants a new warrant"

Bailiff companies argue that it is an option and not mandatory which we all know was not the authors intention.

In the case of the LGF Act, the quoted paragraph is not giving the authority the option of making an order. It is providing for regulations to include for the option. To put is simply, it says:

REGULATIONS may provide........

This is the bit above what you are referring to. It over rides it, which is irrelevant in any case, if the regulations haven't provided for it:

"the authority concerned may make an order"

Sorry but as you have illustrated here in every case the word may does in fact give the party the option.

[Amethyst]

Re: EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

Well that seems to have got us nowhere, anyone fancy helping http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...tes-court-fine here ?

instead