Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Judgments enforced by High Court Enforcement Officers....can VAT be charged on their fees?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2461 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I had forgotten abut that, the original advice says much the same thing.

 

There really ar no grounds to say the EA cannot charge VAT (currently). As long as bailiffs have to pay Tax on their income, they will have to have a means to recover that payment.

 

This situation may change in the future, but hopefully when and if that happens, there will be new publications to explain how a modified system will work.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There really ar no grounds to say the EA cannot charge VAT (currently).

 

HMRC state quite clearly when VAT should not be charged'

 

As long as bailiffs have to pay Tax on their income, they will have to have a means to recover that payment.

 

What has the bailiff's income tax got to do with charging VAT on fees?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed they do, it is just that everyone else seems to read the guidance differently than you. Not an unfamiliar story for you.

 

Who said anything about income tax? If you mean VAT, the importance is that if the bailiff did not have to pay it there would be no need to recover it from the debtor "?

 

Have ever asked a sensible question?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed they do, it is just that everyone else seems to read the guidance differently than you. Not an unfamiliar story for you.

 

This is what HMRC say:

 

Therefore, where:

 

  • the judgment creditors are registered for VAT; and
  • the debt relates to their taxable business activities

the VAT on the Under-Sheriffs and Sheriffs Officers enforcement services may be recovered by the judgment creditors.

What is your interpretation of that then?

 

 

Who said anything about income tax?

 

Erm, you did - "As long as bailiffs have to pay Tax on their income, they will have to have a means to recover that payment."

 

Tax on their income = income tax. Unless you mis-typed again.

 

Have ever asked a sensible question?

 

Ever written a coherent sentence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The part you quoted relates to tax invoices for services to the creditor creditors fees?

 

As said the service is to the creditor he engages them.

 

Enforcement fees are due to the bailiff as income, VAT is due because of that.

 

Sorry is that not coherent :)( I have told you this before)

 

Oh sorry, tax on a bailiffs income is not income tax, that would be tax on the person, not his job.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is confirmation here, I hope it is not too incoherent for you.

 

Sheriffs are aware that, although judgment debtors pay the cost of sheriffs’ enforcement fees, the supplies are always to the creditors. VAT invoices for the services must be addressed and sent to the creditors. Any documents issued to debtors should make it clear that they are not VAT invoices.

 

 

My emphasis

 

 

:(

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry, tax on a bailiffs income is not income tax, that would be tax on the person, not his job.

:lol: What?

 

Dodgeball, it's very simple. EA's collecting fines, council tax and other debts owed to a Government Agency automatically charge any VAT on fees to the authority who then reclaim it from HMRC.

 

An HCEA will collect civil debts - this could be someone or a company who may or may not be registered for VAT. If the creditor is not registered for VAT then the VAT on fees is recovered from the debtor. If the creditor is registered for VAT then the VAT on fees is paid by the creditor who then reclaims it from HMRC.

 

This is why the guide is in place, to instruct on what to do depending on the circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see, and you are the only one who spotted this unique interpretation no one else has.

 

Have you thought of getting a less cerebral hobby.

Gardening is good.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see, and you are the only one who spotted this unique interpretation no one else has.

.

 

Seems to me that only you are arguing the opposite. Bit like claiming tax on income isn't income tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Income tax is calculated on personal income not business income. You see why it is pointless arguing with you. I will be instructing you on how to do your shoe laces shortly.

 

I am out.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Income tax is calculated on personal income not business income.

 

Indeed it is. Just a shame it's not what you said earlier.

 

tax on a bailiffs income is not income tax,

 

Substitute the word 'bailiffs' for any other profession and you'll see how ridiculous that sounds.....

 

Tax on a doctor's income is not income tax...... tax on a bus driver's income is not income tax....... tax on a carpenter's income is not income tax...... tax on a hairdresser's income is not income tax..... you get the idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

God, you should get a life. Income tax is a personal tax, not a business tax. Do you know this? What you are talking about is a bailiff personal tax. If I would have meant bailiffs personal tax, then that is what I would have said.

 

I don't now what this has to do with the question of VAT.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Income tax is a tax on one's personal income - the clue's in the title. I'll remind you what you said:

 

As long as bailiffs have to pay Tax on their income, they will have to have a means to recover that payment.

 

Tax on their income - clearly that translates as Income Tax. And which payment would they be recovering due to this tax? This is the problem Dodgeball - you don't seem to stop and think before you post to see if you're making any sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can just remind posters this thread is about Vat charged on fees...not Income Tax or Bailiff Salaries...please lets not have another derailed thread.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

let's just lay out what HMRC say.

 

All EA's charge VAT on their fees. If the debt is under a non-high court warrant, usually owed to an authority for council tax, fines, etc, then the EA charges the VAT to the authority who then reclaim it from HMRC.

 

For a debt under a high court warrant there are two rules. If the creditor is an individual then the VAT is charged to the debtor.

 

If the creditor is VAT registered and the debt relates to their business, then the creditor pays the VAT and reclaims it from HMRC. The debtor does not pay the VAT in these circumstances.

 

The thread that started this debate was about a debt owed to a utility company. Clearly they would be VAT registered so they would need to pay the VAT. The OP of the thread says he paid the VAT - this was wrong.

 

If anyone wants to present an alternative view, please do.

Edited by Andyorch
edited
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the guidance provides the only alternative view necessary.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK one last time.

The section quoted by you. (about the creditor being able to reclaim VAT) does not concern bailiff fees.

 

As said in the explanation several times, this is down to the debtor.

 

The service is due to the creditor, he purchases a service from the HCEO, for that he pays a fee, these fees are also subject to VAT(which he also pays). '

That VAT can be recovered in the normal way as described.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK one last time.

The section quoted by you. (about the creditor being able to reclaim VAT) does not concern bailiff fees.

 

As said in the explanation several times, this is down to the debtor.

 

The service is due to the creditor, he purchases a service from the HCEO, for that he pays a fee, these fees are also subject to VAT(which he also pays). '

That VAT can be recovered in the normal way as described.

 

I'm sorry Dodgeball, it most certainly does concern fees as this part shows:

 

Sheriffs are aware that, although judgment debtors pay the cost of sheriffs’ enforcement fees, the supplies are always to the creditors. VAT invoices for the services must be addressed and sent to the creditors. Any documents issued to debtors should make it clear that they are not VAT invoices.

 

The VAT for the fees must be sent to the creditor, who then reclaims from HMRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i have explained this, I am not going to be explaining it any further, I am sure most on here understand.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodgeball, the HMRC manual on HCEO enforcement states who the VAT on fees should be directed to. If the creditor is VAT registered and the debt is regarding their business, then a VAT invoice is given to the creditor.

 

If the creditor is chasing a personal debt then the VAT is charged to the debtor.

 

Why can't you accept that and be happy that debtor's can avoid a higher debt? It seems to me that you've gone into typical denial mode, raised the drawbridge and refusing to accept the position simply because who has said it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dodgeball, the HMRC manual on HCEO enforcement states who the VAT on fees should be directed to. If the creditor is VAT registered and the debt is regarding their business, then a VAT invoice is given to the creditor."

 

No it doesnt , it explains who is eligible to reclaim VAT. Whoever hires the HCEO SERVICE has to pay the fee plus VAT, but if it is a business and if they are pursuing a company debt they can reclaim the VAT, that is what it says, and all it says.

 

The guidance is very careful to separate the fee for the service and the fees for enforcement.

 

With all due respect, I think you need to look up how VAT works under normal conditions before attempting to understand this.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why can't you accept that and be happy that debtor's can avoid a higher debt? It seems to me that you've gone into typical denial mode, raised the drawbridge and refusing to accept the position simply because who has said i"

 

I wont dignify this with an answer.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dodgeball, the HMRC manual on HCEO enforcement states who the VAT on fees should be directed to. If the creditor is VAT registered and the debt is regarding their business, then a VAT invoice is given to the creditor."

 

No it doesnt , it explains who is eligible to reclaim VAT. Whoever hires the HCEO SERVICE has to pay the fee plus VAT, but if it is a business and if they are pursuing a company debt they can reclaim the VAT, that is what it says, and all it says.

 

The guidance is very careful to separate the fee for the service and the fees for enforcement.

 

Dodgeball - if you truly believe this can you explain why the VAT on fees for non high court enforcement isn't paid by the debtor? In these cases the VAT invoice will be directed to the creditor who will reclaim it from HMRC.

 

Can you not understand why the guidance is needed - HCEOs enforce for companies as well as individuals. Sometimes the VAT will be paid by the creditor, sometimes it won't. The guide explains the two scenarios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...