For clarity section 17 says

The enforcement agent may not recover fees or disbursements from the debtor in relation to any stage of enforcement undertaken at a time when the relevant enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable

This to me means any enforcement activity at the time, ie underway. If this is the case it would mean that only the compliance stage fee would be due.

I suppose this would make a kind of sense. Once the letter is sent the compliance fee is due, then the EA makes the enforcement call.

The enforcement fee would be due, but if at this stage there was no response and he decided to abandon the action, and return the account, the power would cease and all that would be due would be the compliance fee.

n other words the action he was engaged in "at the time" would not be liable for any fee as per section 17.

From what I can see if you class using vulgar words as being a sign of poor english two of the gang of four are totally illiterate. They also seem to change their mind and only one of them can be excused for being a women . Their is dissension in the ranks. If a debt is passed to the bailiffs who try action and fail the fees stay according to two out of three who expressed a preference (although that wasn't always so)

In another thread our lovely buttery friend starts by blasting someone for saying Lord Dennings ruling in Pelias construction was good law and then two pages later says it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boEph_ic-NM

For clarity section 17 says

 

The enforcement agent may not recover fees or disbursements from the debtor in relation to any stage of enforcement undertaken at a time when the relevant enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable

 

This to me means any enforcement activity at the time, ie underway. If this is the case it would mean that only the compliance stage fee would be due.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I've changed your emphasis in bold to the above. If the EA's visit and thus subsequently add the fees to an AOE, the relevant enforcement power (-ie- the power to visit and charge £235) had not ceased to be exercisable at the point in time of the visit, so the fees are surely chargeable? They become chargeable at the start of the stage which, in the case of the Enforcement stage, is when the first visit takes place.

From what I can see if you class using vulgar words as being a sign of poor english two of the gang of four are totally illiterate.

I am sitting at my computer dumbstruck after deciding to pay a very rare visit (after promising not to do so after being banned for making one post (on the 'Companies House' false statement) and I have read the following post from 'Butterfingers'

This statement sums up what these people are all about !!! Visit the council tax section and look for the poster 'Mr Smith'. The query ran for 6 months with over 100 replies and by the six month Mr Smith had been threatened with an Attachment of Earnings Order and Committal proceedings !!!

Peter North's case is all over the internet and I know this case well as only a couple of weeks ago the forum owner claimed that the poor debtor had lost his criminal case because I had supposedly 'sabotaged' the hearing !!!! Another fairy story and as always, no evidence supplied.

Let me assure you, this is one debtor that I would not touch with a 20 ft barge pole !!! Granted.. he seems to have evaded paying the approx £150 in bailiff fees but in doing so he confirms the following:

PS: He was also convicted for cutting off the wheel clamp.

His story is here:

http://southgloucestershirecouncilarecrooks.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2014-06-11T14:49:00-07:00&max-results=7

I'm not sure I agree with this. I've changed your emphasis in bold to the above. If the EA's visit and thus subsequently add the fees to an AOE, the relevant enforcement power (-ie- the power to visit and charge £235) had not ceased to be exercisable at the point in time of the visit, so the fees are surely chargeable? They become chargeable at the start of the stage which, in the case of the Enforcement stage, is when the first visit takes place.

I see what you mean but to me it says that the enforcement power undertaken, in other works in progress, the removal of the enforcement power would be the withdrawal by the authority or the return of the account by the EA, that is the way I see it.

In other words if the power is withdrawn the power being exercised at the time cannot be charged for, this makes sense because it would be the unsuccessful action which would not merit the fee.

If you were to apply it to the next stage. Say an control had been taken and the EA attended to commence the sale stage, if you ere correct he would get his fee even if the sale did not go ahead. In my analysis he would get the enforcement fee and miss out on the sale.

It is a sad fact on that site that often instead of blatant lies (which are often possible - a comment no doubt they'll pick up on), they don't tell a lie, but instead avoid telling you the truth which is far, far worse as shown above. I wonder how often this happens.

I see what you mean but to me it says that the enforcement power undertaken, in other works in progress, the removal of the enforcement power would be the withdrawal by the authority or the return of the account by the EA, that is the way I see it.

In other words if the power is withdrawn the power being exercised at the time cannot be charged for, this makes sense because it would be the unsuccessful action which would not merit the fee.

 

If you were to apply it to the next stage. Say a control had been taken and the EA attended to commence the sale stage, if you were correct he would get his fee even if the sale did not go ahead. In my analysis he would get the enforcement fee and miss out on the sale.

But the fees have already been charged at the start of the stage haven't they? Thus the power is there. The fact they are part way through the stage is to my mind not relevant because the fee has already been added. The cessation of the power would mean the sale fee of £110 could not be added, but fees up to that point could rightly be charged.

Yes indeed the fees re due at the start of the stage to the debtor, and if the debtor pays in full the enforcement power will cease, in this case he will owe whatever stage the enforcement is at.

But section 17.2 says that section 17 does not apply to the debtor paying fees, it applies to the enforcement power being withdrawn.This is why section 17/17.2 exists, to differentiate the position between when the enforcement power is withdrawn and when it ceases because of payment, in the first case(enforcement power withdrawn) the power being currently exercised is not added to the amount outstanding in the second case(debtor pays) it is.

I am sitting at my computer dumbstruck after deciding to pay a very rare visit (after promising not to do so after being banned for making one post (on the 'Companies House' false statement) and I have read the following post from 'Butterfingers'

 

There are also the cases of Peter North & "Mr Smith". Both of whom refused to pay bailiff fees and paid the council debt only. Neither were hit with an AOE.

 

This statement sums up what these people are all about !!! Visit the council tax section and look for the poster 'Mr Smith'. The query ran for 6 months with over 100 replies and by the six month Mr Smith had been threatened with an Attachment of Earnings Order and Committal proceedings !!!

 

Peter North's case is all over the internet and I know this case well as only a couple of weeks ago the forum owner claimed that the poor debtor had lost his criminal case because I had supposedly 'sabotaged' the hearing !!!! Another fairy story and as always, no evidence supplied.

 

Let me assure you, this is one debtor that I would not touch with a 20 ft barge pole !!! Granted.. he seems to have evaded paying the approx £150 in bailiff fees but in doing so he confirms the following:

 

I have occupied three whole days of court,

Occupying judges,

Many court staff,

Many officials,

Magistrates,

A dozen plod,

The council chief executive,

Council recovery officers,

The police commissioner and a

Couple of chief inspectors.

 

and:

 

I now face costs in excess of £1000

 

PS: He was also convicted for cutting off the wheel clamp.

 

His story is here:

 

http://southgloucestershirecouncilarecrooks.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2014-06-11T14:49:00-07:00&max-results=7

Yes this is a basic difference between forums like this and the FMoTL type opperations.

What is important here is doing what is best for the debtor, not causing the masimum injury to the enforcement officer.

The later is an exceersise in futility and oftern results in the debtor being worse off.

Yes indeed the fees re due at the start of the stage to the debtor, and if the debtor pays in full the enforcement power will cease, in this case he will owe whatever stage the enforcement is at.

But section 17.1 says that section 17 does not apply to the debtor paying fees, it applies to the enforcement power being withdrawn.This is why section 17/17.1 exists, to differentiate the position between when the enforcement power is withdrawn and when it ceases because of payment, in the first case(enforcement power withdrawn) the power being currently exercised is not added to the amount outstanding in the second case(debtor pays) it is.

I think that it is quite important to understand this.

If I am correct, when an enforcement power ceases either through being withdrawn or through the bailiff returning the order/warrant, the sum outstanding will be only that representing the previous stage/s of enforcement.

This means that given the requirements of the LGFA i that the Aoe contains the amount outstanding, in most case this would just be the compliance fee. this makes sense to me.

The situation if the authority withdrew the action due to an error, in most cases I think I am right in saying that the council would stump up the compliance fee. So the bailiff would be in the same position.

The bailiff has therefore to wait until the compliance stage has ended and made the visit before he can send the account back , if he is able to claim any compliance fee as part as any Attachment of earnings, or alternative enforcement method.

This does not mean that the fee is not due at the beginning of the stage as far as the debtor is concerned if he pays he has to pay the fee reflecting whatever stage the enforcement is at.

So it does seem that there is some advantage to not engaging with the bailiff after compliance stage, at least financially, however I am open to contrary opinions.

I am sitting at my computer dumbstruck after deciding to pay a very rare visit (after promising not to do so after being banned for making one post (on the 'Companies House' false statement) and I have read the following post from 'Butterfingers'

 

There are also the cases of Peter North & "Mr Smith". Both of whom refused to pay bailiff fees and paid the council debt only. Neither were hit with an AOE.

 

This statement sums up what these people are all about !!! Visit the council tax section and look for the poster 'Mr Smith'. The query ran for 6 months with over 100 replies and by the six month Mr Smith had been threatened with an Attachment of Earnings Order and Committal proceedings !!!

 

Peter North's case is all over the internet and I know this case well as only a couple of weeks ago the forum owner claimed that the poor debtor had lost his criminal case because I had supposedly 'sabotaged' the hearing !!!! Another fairy story and as always, no evidence supplied.

 

Let me assure you, this is one debtor that I would not touch with a 20 ft barge pole !!! Granted.. he seems to have evaded paying the approx £150 in bailiff fees but in doing so he confirms the following:

 

I have occupied three whole days of court,

Occupying judges,

Many court staff,

Many officials,

Magistrates,

A dozen plod,

The council chief executive,

Council recovery officers,

The police commissioner and a

Couple of chief inspectors.

 

and:

 

I now face costs in excess of £1000

 

PS: He was also convicted for cutting off the wheel clamp.

 

His story is here:

 

http://southgloucestershirecouncilarecrooks.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2014-06-11T14:49:00-07:00&max-results=7

I had not realised until I read all Peter North's blog pages that he not only lost his court case for criminal damage for removing the wheel clamp from his car but he then appeal and lost that case as well.

Most significantly, you need to look back to his blog page from 2013 to see how Peter North got into this dreadful mess in the first place. He cut the clamp off his car because he had believed the utter nonsense that he had read on a website that the bailiffs had committed an offence under section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act !!!!! As has been stated so many times on here, section 54 has nothing whatsoever to do with bailiffs. It is only concerned by 'rouge' private clampers who used to clamp motorists cars for parking on private ground (such as motorway services, supermarket car park, etc, etc.

I am very interested indeed to read that Peter North's case involved Avon & Somerset Police !!!

His blog pages also reveal the name (the false one) of a website owner who assisted him. No wonder he lost his case.

I think that it is quite important to understand this.

If I am correct, when an enforcement power ceases either through being withdrawn or through the bailiff returning the order/warrant, the sum outstanding will be only that representing the previous stage/s of enforcement.

 

This means that given the requirements of the LGFA i that the Aoe contains the amount outstanding, in most case this would just be the compliance fee. this makes sense to me.

The situation if the authority withdrew the action due to an error, in most cases I think I am right in saying that the council would stump up the compliance fee. So the bailiff would be in the same position.

 

The bailiff has therefore to wait until the compliance stage has ended and made the visit before he can send the account back , if he is able to claim any compliance fee as part as any Attachment of earnings, or alternative enforcement method.

 

This does not mean that the fee is not due at the beginning of the stage as far as the debtor is concerned if he pays he has to pay the fee reflecting whatever stage the enforcement is at.

 

So it does seem that there is some advantage to not engaging with the bailiff after compliance stage, at least financially, however I am open to contrary opinions.

As I have said I would prefer to wait until January to get further answers.

As I have said I would prefer to wait until January to get further answers.

Yes i know but it i interesting to theorise, I get the feeling that most authorities are unaware of the legal situation regarding much of this.

It doesn't really change the situation regarding advice in any case, basically do not let the bailiff in. Better still address the debt as early as possible and at the latest during the compliance stage.

The situation regarding bailiffs getting in and seizing goods really is similar if you think about it to what it used to be , in that if they do get in and get control of goods they can then claim the enforcement stage should the account be returned under section 17(1)once the sale stage commences. Payments under 17(1) do not come out of proceeds, so they may have to wait until some alternative method is actioned, but the sum will at least be due.

Strikes me that everyone is scared to death of venturing an opinion because of some idiots on another forum, I say bugger it, lets hear any views anyone has, doesn't matter if they are wrong on this thread, and someone may come up with a diamond, as long as we get the right answer in the end what does it matter.

Sorry my thought for the day

I'm with you Dodgeball. Their intimidation tactics have gone on too long, they are best ignored and we can theorise to our hearts content. Whether or not they agree is not important, it's interesting to have the debate. Anyway, for some of us all they can do is repeat the same old rubbish. Having been sent a copy of some of the things repeated about me or the way I've been slated recently I was sorely tempted to remove the holding page on a website I have and recommence the thread showing inaccuracies. It's certainly not a bad idea.

I think that it is quite important to understand this.

If I am correct, when an enforcement power ceases either through being withdrawn or through the bailiff returning the order/warrant, the sum outstanding will be only that representing the previous stage/s of enforcement.

 

This means that given the requirements of the LGFA i that the Aoe contains the amount outstanding, in most case this would just be the compliance fee. this makes sense to me.

The situation if the authority withdrew the action due to an error, in most cases I think I am right in saying that the council would stump up the compliance fee. So the bailiff would be in the same position.

 

The bailiff has therefore to wait until the compliance stage has ended and made the visit before he can send the account back , if he is able to claim any compliance fee as part as any Attachment of earnings, or alternative enforcement method.

 

This does not mean that the fee is not due at the beginning of the stage as far as the debtor is concerned if he pays he has to pay the fee reflecting whatever stage the enforcement is at.

 

So it does seem that there is some advantage to not engaging with the bailiff after compliance stage, at least financially, however I am open to contrary opinions.

17.2 only ends the enforcement power because the debt has been paid. If paid, of course it is going to cease.

That leaves this:

 

17. (1) The enforcement agent may not recover fees or disbursements from the debtor in relation to any stage of enforcement undertaken at a time when the relevant enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable.

 

Reworded, at the time when the enforcement power ceases, so the EA can't take any further action, he can't recover fees relating to ANY stage of enforcement (Compliance, Enforcement or Sale).

The definition of the word 'any' in this context could be critical.

It is better to forget other sites and what they are up to - for me the only reason for doing so is because they think they can belittle people. Since becoming part of the Site Team here I have got to know quite a few different posters and note that the likes of wonkeydonkey has been accused of being a Sue B*****we who supposedly lives on the South Coast or South West. Not only do they have the wrong name but the wrong area - if you look at any posts made by WD you will see it says she is in "rural Northumberland" which for me is borne out by her dialling code - unless of course she spoofs it which I would doubt very much.

She has also been accused of being complicit in making a spoof LGO Report a couple of years ago. The fact of that being it was made by another well known CAG Member who also posts regularly on their Forum about Councils & Council Tax issues. The point the LGO Report was labelled as a "spoof" seemed to completely escape them.

I have spoken to WD about the content of making this post and have her agreement to do so.

 

Having been sent a copy of some of the things repeated about me or the way I've been slated recently

 

Or take a leaf out of Danniela Westbrook's book.

n relation to any stage of enforcement undertaken at a time when the relevant enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable

Ii think the word any is qualified in the paragraph, "any stage of enforcement", this specifies a stage , not the enforcement in general.

So this must mean that the individual stage cannot be charged for.

All section 172 does is dissociate section 17.1 from the payments which are drawn under an enforcement power, because that power would have ceased, this is why it says not out of proceeds.

You know it makes sense CD

Wouldn't mind if there was anone over there that knew what they were on about in any case, with one minor exception they just make it up as they go along.

The thing is that this is new legislation until these sections are used , no one really knows how they will play out, even the authorities do not seem to have a clue. Which is why it is pointless asking them really

Mind I think i have read enough case law and legislation in my time to make a pretty accurate guess at it, others may not agree and they are more than welcome to pull me up on anything they like,the more the merrier. You never know they may just prove me wrong, (NAH)

In a nutshell this is how i think AoE will work when an account is unsuccessfully enforced, incidentally I see no reason why the same procedure would not apply to in house enforcment agents.

The EA receives the liability order from the authority and sends the letter, compliance stage begins and the fee is due(£75).

NOw it would be silly at this stage for the EA to return the action to the authority as being unsuccessful, because he would not know. so this fee is safe.

If no contact has been made or no arrangement the EA calls, the enforcment fee is due at this point the "amount due is supplemented by £235.

Should the debtor not allow a controlled goods agreement or if for any other reason the action is unsuccessful he may return the accoun. The enforcement ceases.

This is where section 17.1 of the regs comes in together with the appropriate section of the LGFA, the latter says that the sum owed and liable for the AOe includes fees. HOwever section 17.1 says that no charge can be made for an action which is in progress at the point the power ceases.

So since the power which was in action when the account was returned, was the enforcement power the EA cannot charge the 235, just the 75 for compliance, and this is the figure which will be included in the amount outstanding and therefore be included in the Aoe order.

Maybee

This has been an excellent debate and has given food for much thought, thank you to all those who have contributed. Even an old dog like me can learn new tricks and I look forward to January to get further answers.

Have a read more on this later

"​By law, costs are payable when a liability order is obtained. Once a Summons has been issued, the only way to stop the council from asking for a liability order is to pay the full amount before the hearing. Even when an arrangement is made, the council still has to obtain a liability order, but will not take any of the actions which it allows it to take as long as you keep to the arrangement they have made with you."

If you take the above steps and contact the LA BEFORE they send this to the EA you WILL save money and that of fees, this must be done when the LA sends you the notice of the LO as it will give you a small window of opportunity to act on this matter

Not finished yet WD

Yes MM another reason to address the debt early rather than wait and hope you can avoid paying by the use of some none existent loophole.