The response to the following question has just been posted on the what do they know website

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/240747/response/596521/attach/3/FOI%203463.pdf

Do your appointed enforcement agencies (bailiffs) have the authority to initiate attachment

of earning procedures on accounts passed to them for enforcement, or do they have to

pass them back to the authority in order for them to take this alternative enforcement

method.

If the EA do have this facility is it true that the amount of the order will include the sum

remaining on the order plus any fees due to them when the AOE is applied (the amount

outstanding)

If the bailiff passes the account back to the authority because the enforcement was

unsuccessful and subsequently the authority issues an attachment of earnings, will the sum

applied to the AOE include the bailiff fees, or will it just be for the amount due on the

original order

The response is

1. The Local Authorities (contracting out of billing, collection and Enforcement Functions

Order) enables Authorities to authorise a contractor to exercise certain functions in

connection with the collection and enforcement of Council Tax. Included among these

functions are those of making an attachment of earnings order with a view to securing

payment of Council Tax and serving it on a person who appears to have a debtor in his

employment.

2. Regulation 37 of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement regulations 1992 (as

amended) permits the recovery of the balance outstanding under any liability order plus

accrued bailiff charges under schedule 5 and any accrued costs of committal proceedings.

The Enforcement Agents therefore have the statutory powers to recover fees accrued

through an attachment of earnings order

3. If Enforcement Agent fees remain outstanding then the Authority may recover any fees due

under the legislation detailed at point 2.

I make no comment at this point

This seems to upset some parties, I must remind them that I merely asked the question, we all want to get to the truth of this matter.

There is no reason why this should not be used to spark a civilised and useful debate.

In case people have difficulty locating the legislation as quoted as itis an amendment to the regs here (my emphasis)(which is what Tameide say)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/927/regulation/6/made

In regulation 37—

(a)in paragraph (1)(1) for “any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made” substitute “the appropriate amount”;

(b)after paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of this regulation the appropriate amount is the aggregate of—

(a)any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made; and

(b)where the authority concerned has sought to levy an amount by distress and sale of the debtor’s goods under regulation 45 and the person making the distress has reported that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the debtor on which to levy the amount—

(i)a sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connected with the distress, and

(ii)if the authority has applied for the issue of a warrant committing the debtor to prison in accordance with regulation 47, the authority’s reasonable costs incurred up to the time of the making of the order under regulation 37, in making one or more of the applications referred to in Schedule 6, but not exceeding the amount specified for that application in Schedule 6.”.

I've read a few of these, or very similar FOI requests recently. Can I make just one comment for the moment? It is good to see the source not only mentioned, but a full copy of the reply posted up for everyone to see, whether or not they are a member of this site, so we can see it is genuine.

I've read a few of these, or very similar FOI requests recently. Can I make just one comment for the moment? It is good to see the source not only mentioned, but a full copy of the reply posted up for everyone to see, whether or not they are a member of this site, so we can see it is genuine.

Yes I am a believer in the fact that data without authority is just opinion.

So it would seem that for the inhabitants of tameside anyway, not paying the bailiff does not mean that the fees disappear, in that they can be added to an AOE at a later date, i see no reason why this does not apply universally.

As I had stated a while ago, representations have been made to two different government agencies regarding the confusion about the charging of fees with Attachment of Earnings. This is a very serious subject and one that the government need to address and they will certainly do so after the Christmas break.

As we know, Schedule 13 specifically allows for bailiff fees to be added to Council Tax Attachment of Earnings Orders so clearly the ACT provides for it. It is fair to say that from the discusssions that I have had with many local authorities almost all of them were unaware of the provision in Schedule 13.

The next step of course is figuring why they have quoted the position pre April this year.

The reason is that the situation remains the same. although the consequential amendment regulation repeals subsection b of the amendments.

Because the same facility is added to the source legislation, the Local government and finance act.

Schedule 13 of the tce amends this ACT to give the same facility

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13

107(1)Schedule 4 (enforcement: England and Wales) is amended as follows.

(2)In paragraph 1(1) and (2) after “recovery” insert “ , otherwise than under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods), ”.

(3)In paragraph 5 (attachment of earnings etc)—

(a)in sub-paragraph (1A)(a) for “; and” substitute “ (unless paragraph (b) applies); ”;

(b)in sub-paragraph (1A)(b) for sub-paragraph (i) and the words before it substitute—

“(b)where a person authorised to act under the power conferred by section 14(4) (power to use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) has reported to the authority concerned that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find sufficient goods of the debtor to pay the amount outstanding—

(i)the amount outstanding at the time when the attachment of earnings order is made, and”;

This of course is now even more minding as it is legislation rather than a SI

Sorry BA crossed posts

Section 37 (b) was repealed by The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014.

Correct see my previous post

Tameside were somewhat remiss I believe in quoting the situation regarding the position pre April, however I do not think that anyone would believe that he new regulation would remove a facility from the enforcement, would they ?

In any case as shown the facility is maintained by the amendment to the source legislation.

 

As we know, Schedule 13 specifically allows for bailiff fees to be added to Council Tax Attachment of Earnings Orders so clearly the ACT provides for it. It is fair to say that from the discusssions that I have had with many local authorities almost all of them were unaware of the provision in Schedule 13.

Yes it would seem that Tameside is amongst those who have yet to get to grips with the changeover, it seems that this is their practice so it really makes little practical difference because as said the new legislation support it in the same way in any case

As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it, my intention was to give a structured analysis of the situation(as I see it)

[And yet the Freedom of Info replies say different.

This was a FOI i have given the link, I have not seen any which contradict this.

I thin k you have to go back to the legislation and really it is clear here it is again

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13

“(b)where a person authorised to act under the power conferred by section 14(4) (power to use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) has reported to the authority concerned that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find sufficient goods of the debtor to pay the amount outstanding—

(i)the amount outstanding at the time when the attachment of earnings order is made, and”;

(i)the amount outstanding at the time when the attachment of earnings order is made, and

Perhaps some authorities do ot do tnis , although I tink it unlikely that EA waould forgo their fees when they did not have to.

It is interesting the ay that this facility was moved form secondary legislation to primary, primary legislation really cannot be "ignored by authorities" they would be sanctioned, in any case why would they.

Hmm it would seem that there is a little difficulty in reading the legislation and the reply given by the authority, again here is the supporting legislation I have highlighted the parts which refer to your point

(b)where a person authorised to act under the power conferred by section 14(4) (power to use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) has reported to the authority concerned that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find sufficient goods of the debtor to pay the amount outstanding—

(i)the amount outstanding at the time when the attachment of earnings order is made, and”;

(i)the amount outstanding at the time when the attachment of earnings order is made, and

Perhaps some authorities do ot do tnis , although I tink it unlikely that EA waould forgo their fees when they did not have to.

"Amount outstanding" is defined in section 50(3) as including costs, costs are deific=ned in section 62 as including fees.

Be very interested to hear any informed views which either confirm or refute this.

Or even just anyone who expresses an interest.

It is quite important, as it does give a lie to the idea that you should just not pay the bailiff and the fees will just go away.

Naughty Dodge, I can think of two people (sorry 3) who will currently be having seizures over your post , lets hope they are not too serious.

And they accuse here of censorship, pot kettle black anyone?

Naughty Dodge, I can think of two people who will currently be having seizures over your post , lets hope they are not too serious.

Wel fletch it is a sign of a losing argument when you have to resort to personal abuse, but we know how the FMOTL forums work'

Not seen you about on here for a while, nope you are well.

Thanks Dodge , yes I am well. Busy now I am at Uni . I can't even be bothered to set up a profile on that site

Thanks Dodge , yes I am well. Busy now I am at Uni . I can't even be bothered to set up a profile on that site

Lucky devil, I loved UNi, it was all quills and parchment of course when i went.

It's all IT, podcasts and powerpoints now not to mention e-books and e-journals . Whats wrong with a real book?

It's all IT, podcasts and powerpoints now not to mention e-books and e-journals . Whats wrong with a real book?

LOL didnt do me any good fletch still never learned to spell. I know what you mean though my granddaughter does all her homework on line at our house, marked automatically and she instantly knows how well she did, scary.

Sorry if i hijacked your thread Dodge. Seems the woman who has to use a fictions characters name and her real life model legs thinks she has outed me. She has a lot to learn

BTW that is Amelia Pond / Karen Gillen for those non Dr Who fans. I will leave it now to get back on track.

What annoys me is that the law quoted are clearly sound bites taken out of context. For example the pay the creditor direct as fees can not be added once the debt is paid however no mention that any fees added before payment is received become part of the debt. Hence if you only pay the original amount the debt is not discharged and hence further action can be taken.

Wel fletch it is a sign of a losing argument when you have to resort to personal abuse, but we know how the FMOTL forums work'

Always the case...but much more noticeable after a new poster arrived and decided that he wanted to use the site in order to vent his own anger and rage. But the question is:

Who is being used?

Interesting question and fascinating to watch from the sidelines.