I started an important thread earlier today concerning a recent court judgment where a debtor was ordered to pay £7,000 in costs after losing his claim against Harrow Council and their agent; Newlyn. The background and Judgment can be read by way of the following link: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477808-Paying-the-creditor-direct-to-avoid-paying-bailiff-fees-has-landed-a-debtor-with-a-%A37-000-cost-order.(32-Viewing)-nbsp To ensure that the original thread does not go 'off topic', discussions about the judgment can be posted here.

A few days ago a vitally important judgment was released concerning (once again) the matter of Liability Order 'costs'. This particular case was an appeal and was heard in the High Court but unlike in the recent case of the Reverend Nicolson, this particular local authority (East Northamptonshire District Council) had prepared a schedule of standardised costs of the type encouraged by Judge Andrews in the Reverend's case (paragraph 46). The claimant; Edward Williams represented himself and his appeal concerned (amongst other points) the following: One: That the summons served was an abuse of process because within it, it included an amount of costs (£75). He contended that the Regulations make no provision for the summons to include an amount by way of costs and that costs could only become due once, and if, a liability order were made Two: That including the amount of costs on the face of the summons was an abuse because it was an unlawful demand for money which the local authority had no right to make at that time. He contended that the costs were not due and owing at the date of the summons . He pointed out that the complaint on which the summons was based made no reference to the costs of £75. He submitted that it was an unfair manipulation of the Court process to include an amount for costs on the face of the summons, particularly when the only real summons cost was £3. He suggested that the recipient of a summons would be misled into believing that the costs of £75 were fixed and could not be debated or challenged. Three: He wanted to appeal the earlier decision regarding the sum of £75 and whether the costs had been 'reasonably incurred'. Most importantly; (and this is of significance to all local authorities who had been waiting for this case to be heard), Mr Williams considered that when compiling a schedule of costs, East Northamptonshire Council were wrong to include figures for: Information and Technology costs. Chip and Pin costs. Pension deficit funding.

Today I have had the misfortune to be made aware of yet another person who took internet advice after receiving a Notice of Enforcement and was led to believe that if he made payment direct to the Magistrate Court that he would be able to avoid bailiff fees. This person took the advice and paid the court direct and;.....as it always the case.....he received a letter from the court to advise him that his payment had been forwarded direct to Marston Group. He too has now found himself in a position where an enforcement agent has made a personal visit...and the debt increased by way of an enforcement fee of £235. He now owes £310 (to also include the Compliance Fee of £75). This inaccurate advice is costly debtors many thousands of pounds and given that the debt is for an unpaid court fine....the enforcement agent is permitted to force entry. For the avoidance of doubt, all debt streams (council tax arrears, unpaid local authority penalty charge notices and unpaid magistrate court fines) may only be enforced by way of the procedure outlined under Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act and the fees that can be charged are those under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Worryingly, the debtor has been advised today (by the person responsible for this highly inaccurate advice) that the Magistrate Court have supposedly given him the wrong advice. He claims that the warrant 'ceased' when the payment was made to the court and that the debtor can rely upon section 52.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014. Not true: Section 52.8 was substituted under The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 !!!!

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) was raised to £85,000 per account in 2010 following the financial crisis and specifically the collapse of Northern Rock. However, EU regulations mean that this amount is going to change, and it’s going to go down by £10,000. The Bank of England has announced that the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) is making changes to the protection under FSCS. For most savers currently covered by the FSCS, the existing level of deposit protection (£85,000) will be maintained for six months before changing to £75,000 from Jan 1 2016 http://www.bitterwallet.com/fscs-protection-to-be-cut-by-european-directive/86392

http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/new-job.html The worst part of this is she went from being deemed unfit for work indefinitely to a £60k salaried management position, a nice point for IDS to press i am sure. Is she a sellout or could she do some good from within? (Her own words)