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.

When the enforcement regulations were overhauled in 2014, they provided a radical change whereby, a debtor could repay their debt by way of a payment arrangement (usually over a period of approx 3-4 months). Such payment arrangements need to be set up within the very strict time frame outlined on the Notice of Enforcement. This period of time is referred to as the 'Compliance stage' and as long as a payment arrangement is agreed by the date and time given on the notice, an enforcement visit will not be required, and this will save the debtor incurring an enforcement fee of £235. The ‘compliance stage’ is also the period when cases of ‘vulnerability’ should be bought to the attention of the enforcement company (and evidence provided where possible). When the Notice of Enforcement is sent, a Compliance fee of £75 will be added to the principal debt. It is important to make clear that the Compliance fee (of £75) is not a fee for just sending a letter. It is a fee that covers many different costs incurred by the enforcement agent including the setting up of Welfare Departments, training and setting up and managing payment arrangements etc, etc. The second radical change introduced in 2014 was the provided that where the proceeds of enforcement are less than the amount outstanding, that the payment should be distributed on a pro-rata basis between the creditor and enforcement agent. With the ‘Compliance stage’ allowing for short term payment arrangements, the government were concerned that this could cause enforcement agents to operate at a loss until the total debt was paid (and they recovered their fees) and that this could undermine the fee structure and could lead to enforcement agents acting in an aggressive manner in order to recoup the entire debt. It was for this precise reason, that the regulations provide that enforcement agents should be paid the compliance stage in full first, followed by a pro-rata division of proceeds. This is explained in more detail in the following Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf It has been interesting to observe over the past 3 years the way in which 'debt avoidance' websites reacted to the compliance fee with literally hundreds of Freedom of Information requests being made to councils around the country questioning how each council dealt with 'direct payments' and whether they retained the payment...or forwarded it to the enforcement agent. The advice from these groups has remained unchanged...pay the council direct online the principal debt (minus enforcement agent fees). With Magistrate Court fines, in every case where a payment is received after a case had been passed to an enforcement agency, the court will forward the payment to the enforcement agent so that they can deduct the compliance fee (of £75) and apportion the balance in line with legislation. If the debt in question is a local authority issued penalty charge notice or a liability order, some councils manage direct payments in different ways. Some forward the entire payment to the enforcement agent....some forward just the compliance fee and others keep the payment. Regardless of the internal procedures, the fact remains, that paying the council (or creditor direct) does not avoid paying bailiff fees and this has been the subject of an important legal case details of which are posted below.

Hi, I rent some therapy rooms and book via an online system. These rooms are billed at £15 p/h and I make payments via PayPal. The booking system is quite bad and lets you mark rooms as paid (without paying) and can cancel and re-arrange appointments without notifying the owners of the therapy rooms. The owners stipulate that if you do not pay for a room on the exact date it is booked the a £50 fine will be added. They also stipulate that if you do not ask permission before re-arranging or cancelling an appointment a £50 fine will be added. This is not a signed contract, just simply an email they sent out last year. In the last week I have received numerous emails requesting amounts in regards to fines for rearranging or cancelling appointments from April 15 - April 16. Email One: Requested £400 Email Two: Requested £1400 Email Three: £400 Email Four £1400 Email Five: £3500 with a PayPal invoice attached Email Six: They have changed it to £7500 In truth, I probably have rearranged many clients without notifying them before hand, however I have always paid for the room used. The amount they are requesting is solely for fines. Is this possible? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. There is no way I could even give them this money if I even had it. Thanks in advance!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/halifax-bank-scotland-fined-7500-2034517

Injured troops to receive £7,000-a-year for life to spare them extra medical tests under welfare reforms New Armed Forces Independence Payment to be paid to maimed forces veterans Disability minister Esther McVey reveals claimants will receive £6,988.80-a-year, more than £200 extra than expected http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274429/Injured-troops-receive-7-000-year-life-spare-extra-medical-tests-welfare-reforms.html

Wizz air introduces new cabin bag charges. If anyone is confused about why some airline companies have reduced card surcharges following the OFT investigation,then even more confusing is how some are seemingly already taking measures to recoup any shortfalls by introducing new baggage charges. Now traditionally the major airlines have included hand baggage within the base ticket. Up until 9th July Wizz Air did so too...and 10kg at that. Today they announced their so called "New Cabin bag policy" So for those who are wondering,Wizz are now defining between a small cabin bag and a large cabin bag. A small cabin bag is what they deem as 42x32x25cm or smaller.The weight allowance of 10kg remains the same. This size bag will be free from further baggage charges from 9th July. Any bag that exceeds this size,will now cost 10 euro. But it still must be the same size as the prev limits for fitting into the overhead bins. Wizz say they are introducing this new baggage policy as a trial to "Incentivise passengers to bring smaller baggage aboard the aircraft " This seems odd since there are very few passengers who board flights with only a laptop bag. Wizz claim this trial on selected routes will improve on time performance and result in better travel experience... although they are not so quick at how they have arrived at this amazing feat of ingenuity. They add; With fewer large items onboard, the cabin will be less crowded and the boarding process will be easier and faster for the benefit of all our passengers. Now assuming that the smaller baggage will all be under the seats (which they tell) that means LESS space around the seating. No I am afraid I am not convinced at all. Even if they were to scrap the £14 per return card surcharges...they will still be 6 euro in pocket. Nice try. They have not updated their website either with this as of 16.49 on 9th.July. The notification has gone out by emails. http://wizzair.com/en-GB/useful_information/baggage