tomtubby
-
Posts
8,159 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by tomtubby
-
The starting point is regulation 13.1 which clearly states that the payment must be apportioned in accordance with regulation 13. It is therefore not discretionary how the payment is divided. Accordingly, if goods have been auctioned, then the auctioneers fees must be apportioned first and the Compliance Fee (of £75) is the second fee to be apportioned with the balance being split on a pro rata basis (which is roughly 75% to the creditor and 25% to the enforcement agent. If the debtor makes payment to the local authority of less than the amount due (which is what appears to have happened in the case of the person who was arrested) then the local authority are legally bound by Regulation 13 to 'apportion' that payment in accordance with regulation 13. The Compliance fee of £75 must therefore be deducted first. It actually does not matter on bit how the local authority actually account for the Compliance fee of £75 in their books or computer systems or what arrangements they have with their enforcement company to credit the fee to them. All that is important is that they are legally bound by Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) and must first deduct the Compliance Fee of £75. If your 'theory' was correct (which it is not) then it would mean that if goods were sold at auction, the auction house can deduct their fees first.......and keep the rest of the money !!!!
-
I am completely lost by this argument. The debtor may consider that he was assaulted as his finger was cut but the police did not consider it was assault and consequently, NO assault charge was made against the bailiff. How much clearer can this be.
-
Your above comment is almost identical to that read daily on 'debt avoidance' websites that make a full time job of seeking to find the proverbial 'gootcha' clause in regulations that allow them to avoid payment. I will address the answer in a separate post.
-
The debtor stated that his finger was cut but I did not see anywhere that the police arrested the bailiff for assault. Consequently, the police must have satisfied themselves that the injury to the finger not not serious enough to warrant a charge of 'assault'.
-
Thank you Dodgeball The actual legislation is Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/made Firstly, the regulations (Schedule 12 of TCE 2007) are quite specific in that the ‘amount outstanding’ consists of the amount of the debt from the local authority /magistrates court and the amount of bailiff fees owed up to the point of payment. If payment is made of less than the ‘amount outstanding’ then that payment MUST be apportioned in accordance with regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This regulation provides that payment must first be allocated towards discharging auctioneers fees ( if goods had been sold at public auction). Next the enforcement agents Compliance Fee (of £75) is recovered and regulation 13.4 states that following payment of the Compliance fee the payment (referred to in the regulations as ‘proceeds’ must be applied on a pro rata basis towards the original debt (referred to as ‘the sums to be recovered’) and any remaining amount in respect of enforcement agents fee and disbursements.
-
I have been posting on this forum since 2007 and anyone who knows me will know that I will always ask questions to establish the background as this is vital to ensure that an accurate response is provided. What I will not do and have never done is to guess. There is no evidence at all that the bailiff was not certificated and neither is there any evidence that the bailiff assaulted the debtor. This is speculation and is best avoided.
-
This morning an owner of a tyre business realised for himself not to rely upon the HMCS register when evidence was provided that the bailiff (from Equita) had been granted a certificate on 29th July !!! The correct procedure is to request a copy of the bailiff certificate.
-
How much is the Liability Order? Did she receive a Notice of Enforcement (this should have been posted to her BEFORE the visit from the bailiff? You say that she is your 'Mrs' but is classed as a single parent. Are you living at the property and is the council tax debt a joint one? Does she receive any benefits and if so...which ones? Does she work? Does she have a car outside of her property? If so, this is at risk? If you can respond it will assist with giving an accurate response.
-
PT. Thank you so much for this additional information which is vitally important. This demonstrates the reason WHY it is so necessary to make sure that FULL background details are required in order to provide an accurate response. I will look back on the query later on and provide a response.
-
PT Before sending the letter can you please obtain the following: How much is each Liability Order and what period do they relate to? Since her husband was sentenced to prison has Mrs xx been awarded 'single person discount? You say the Mrs xx gets housing benefit. Does she also receive council tax benefit as well and if so, how long has she been receiving THIS benefit? Does the council tax benefit cover the full council tax debt or a proportion? With regards to Mrs x's mental state, has EVIDENCE been provided to the LA or bailiff company?
-
The following story features in today's Daily Mail and quotes comments from Marc Gander (Consumer Action Group) and Martin Lewis (Money Saving Expert) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763083/Victory-bank-charges-open-payout-floodgates-Court-backs-customer-hefty-overdraft-fees.html *
-
It also needs to be remembered that the Compliance Fee is legally applied once the local authority has instructed the enforcement company and will appear on the Notice of Enforcement. Although it becomes PAYABLE when the Notice of Enforcement is sent it is INCURRED before the notice is sent and this can cause a problem if payment is made during the period when the EA are instructed and the actual letter is sent to the debtor.
-
Thank you for your second PM !!! As mentioned above the debtor confirmed that he had not known about the Liability Order until he received the Notice of Enforcement. It would now seem that he then received a FURTHER letter BEFORE the visit on 17th September. The following is what the debtor has stated: "In the "Additional Compliance Letter", it clearly states Debt Type as Council Tax. "In the "Notice of Enforcement Agents Attendance", it clearly states warrant of control, with "unpaid council tax" circled".
-
No. In the council tax section entitled: "Arrested for obstructing a bailiff" PS: But you need to read it soon as the thread is about to be moved into the 'private members areas'. This is where cases that look likely to lose are moved into so as to ensure that the outcome is never known.
-
Exactly, we only have one side of the story and have no idea at all what else took place or the reason why the police felt it was appropriate to arrest the debtor. We can only assume that there is more background to this matter. As an example, around 5pm yesterday I spoke with a man who had been arrested the previous day under the same section of law (section 68) and has spend 4 hours in police cells. He too has been charged. Not until asking him a number of questions was it established that he has 22 PCN's and has two vehicles (one of which he claimed had been sold to his brother). He did not have a receipt for the sale and he remains on the insurance. He then told me that he had already been arrested a month ago after cutting the clamp off his first car !! This second arrest the day before yesterday was for cutting the clamp off the car that he 'sold' to his brother. They both live at the same address. From the many years that I have been posting on here everyone who knows me will be aware that I will always ask questions to establish the background.
-
I have just received a PM advising me that the debtor CONFIRMED that he had indeed received the Notice of Enforcement. The debtor confirmed this by stating the following on the website: "Had council tax issue, wrote letter to council, no reply. They then took out an LO without informing me. Only know about it when I received a supplementary Notice of Enforcement". "However, I had fully paid up the council tax, no existing monies owed, apart from £75 charge" The debtor confirms that he had he only knew about the Liability Order when he received the Notice of Enforcement (he has not stated the date of this notice). He then made payment of the amount only of the Council tax on 8th September leaving the Compliance Fee of £75 unpaid. The regulations have been in place for nearly 6 months and it is very well known that the Compliance Fee of £75 is first deducted from any payment made. It is shocking that knowing the extreme vulnerability of this debtor that not one person has the common decency to ask the debtor to exhibit a copy of the Notice of Enforcement showing the date that he received it and advising him that he may well owe the amount of £75 and that he has been wrongly advised. This debtor has now been arrested and has confirmed that he cannot get legal aid and has spoken to three firms of solicitors and is looking at facing solicitors costs of between £1,000 and £2,000.
-
You are correct. The debtor himself confirmed that he received a letter from the bailiff company for arrears of council tax and that he then paid the amount only of the Liability Order to the council leaving the Compliance Stage fee of £75 unpaid. He has made the point clear in that he knew that he had not paid the Compliance Fee. The new regulations are very clear indeed in that from any payment made....whether to the local authority or magistrates court (and whether online or in person) the Compliance Fee of £75 is first deducted and the balance will be allocated on a pro rata basis with approx 75% being allocated towards the amount on the Liability Order and 25% towards the fees to the bailiff. In this particular case given that payment had been made to the local authority within the 'Compliance stage' then the only deduction would have been just £75. As an example, a Liability Order is issued for £525 and passed to bailiffs. A Notice of Enforcement issued with a Compliance Fee of £75. Amount due is now £600. Payment made of £525 to the council. Compliance fee of £75 deducted and the balance of £450 is credited towards the council tax debt leaving a balance due under the Liability Order of £75 Given that thee is still an amount due of £75 the bailiff is legally entitled to continue with enforcement and most importantly, he is NOT enforcing for his fees. In fact.....far from it given that his fee Compliance Fee of £75 has ALREADY BEEN DEDUCTED !!!
-
. I first saw the thread very early yesterday morning (around 7am) and it is fair to say that I was very disturbed indeed at the contents of some posts that had been made by the debtor in the early hours of the morning. The posts appeared to me to demonstrate a serious level of 'vulnerability' and for that reason alone I copied the thread. A short while later those posts disappeared.
-
A good read
tomtubby replied to mikeymack2002's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
MM The position of the government is that they consider that the running of the court should be borne by those who USE the court. The present position is that the actual AMOUNT of the new charge is not known but I will post a link to a recent debate on this important matter later today. -
A good read
tomtubby replied to mikeymack2002's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
Mikeymack The actual charging of 'costs' is not a novel idea and has been considered by HM Courts for at least the past 3 years that I know of. In fact, as you may well know, local authorities are permitted to charge a fee to cover THEIR COSTS in issuing a summons and applying for a Liability Order and typically, they charge a fee of approximately £100 to each debtor !!! -
A good read
tomtubby replied to mikeymack2002's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
Mikeymack The document that you have provide a link to is a 'Research Paper" from March 2013 regarding the Committee Stage of the Crime & Courts Bill. Research Papers are vitally important and are provided for Members of Parliament and are kept in the House of Commons Library. Regarding Part 6 on Page 9 you may be aware that I have made frequent mentions recently to these new proposals. One of the proposals is to contract out the functions of the FINES OFFICERS. This is actually at a very advanced stage. Tenders documents were issued earlier this year. The current position is that there is now a shortlist of three companies. The new contracts were due to take place very shortly (within the next two months) but have been slightly delayed. This new contract will change the way in which court fines are enforced. At present, HM Courts have allowed just four companies to enforce criminal fines. When the new 'contracting out' contract is awarded, just one company will enforce all criminal court warrants. The second proposal is in respect of additional 'costs' that will be charged PRIOR to a warrant of control being authorised and this 'charge' relates to the costs of the FINES OFFICERS and is intended to cover the COURT COSTS of sending a letter, tracing offenders, arranging deductions from benefits or earning and sending a Further Steps Notice. As you will see on the Research Paper the actual 'level' of this additional 'cost' is not mentioned. In fact, only about a month ago (18 months after the Research Paper) a further debate took place in the House of Commons on this very subject and it is fair to say.....there is a fair amount of concern at this proposal....and we still do not have any details of the 'actual' amount of the charge !!! -
Section 68 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 was only introduced on 6th April 2014 and is a very serious offence indeed as the regulations confirm that a person guilty of such offence is liable on summary conviction to either of the following: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or; A fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale ( currently £2,500) OR BOTH !!
-
As mentioned above, a debtor has been arrested and charged under section 68(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Act 2007. He is due in court in early October. The reason for his arrest are outlined in a new thread that I started this morning (link below). Once again this case has highlighted the dangers of believing what is written on websites. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433030-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-.(20-Viewing)-nbsp
-
The following link is to a new thread that I started yesterday regarding Section 92(8) of the Courts Act 2003 which demonstrates clearly that this regulation has nothing whatsoever to do with bailiff fees and instead is applicable to court fees. It would seem that yet again, misinformation on the internet has proved very dangerous. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433007-Section-92(8)-of-the-Courts-Act-2003...does-NOT-mean-that-bailiffs-can-only-recover-their-fees-by-taking-civil-action
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS