Debtor charged under section 68(1) of TCEA 2007 with "intentionally obstructing a bailiff".

[tomtubby]

I'm sorry TT, but I cannot see in those regs you quoted where it says that if you pay the creditor direct, the creditor must pass on any fees.

 

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 !!!!

[Peterbard]

there is gbh & abh & comon assault if i touch u without your permission that is assault

 

Nope

[Neckbeard]

I didn't say the auction house keep the money, just they take their commission first.

 

Anyway your argument is still wrong. Section 13 is about what happens once the enforcement stage has started, not the compliance stage. If no enforcement has begun, section 13 does not apply. Absolutely no-where does it say that if you pay the creditor direct at the compliance stage the creditor is legally bound to pay the £75 to the bailiff. Please show me where it does if I'm wrong, please.

[Peterbard]

then why regulation 17 talk about outstanding amount and fees separates? this taking xontrol of goods regulations is so complex

 

As TT says they are all proceeds as regards the act, incidentally I think the regs are quite simple to understand, it is just that some try to complicate them in order to try and find loopholes which do not exist.

[elcordobez]

Taking money (which wasn't taken by the bailiff anyway) is not proceeds of enforcement. The CT seems to have been paid before enforcement letter was sent.

 

Isn't "proceeds of enforcement" the money from the sale of goods? Nothing was taken except a mobile phone.

[Peterbard]

I didn't say the auction house keep the money, just they take their commission first.

 

Anyway your argument is still wrong. Section 13 is about what happens once the enforcement stage has started, not the compliance stage. If no enforcement has begun, section 13 does not apply. Absolutely no-where does it say that if you pay the creditor direct at the compliance stage the creditor is legally bound to pay the £75 to the bailiff. Please show me where it does if I'm wrong, please.

 

The regulations state that the fees are due on the commencement of the stage of enforcement, once the debt has been passed to the bailiff the fee is due, it does not matter what actions have been taken to collect. Paying the authority will not negate the action of transferring the debt

[Peterbard]

Recovery of fees for enforcement-related services from the debtor

 

4. (1) — The enforcement agent may recover from the debtor the fees indicated in the Schedule in accordance with this regulation and regulations 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17, by reference to the stage, or stages, of enforcement for which enforcement-related services have been supplied.

(2) The fees referred to in paragraph (1) may be recovered out of proceeds.

 

(3) The enforcement agent may recover under this regulation the whole fee provided in the Schedule for a stage where the amount outstanding is paid after the commencement, but before the completion, of that stage.

[Neckbeard]

The regulations state that the fees are due on the commencement of the stage of enforcement, once the debt has been passed to the bailiff the fee is due, it does not matter what actions have been taken to collect. Paying the authority will not negate the action of transferring the debt

 

What I am saying is that reg 13 does not apply unless the enforcement stage has begun. Can't you get that?

[Neckbeard]

(2) The fees referred to in paragraph (1) may be recovered out of proceeds.

 

TCE 2007 sch 12 50:

 

(2)Proceeds are any of these—

 

(a)proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods;

 

(b)money taken in exercise of the power, if paragraph 37(1) does not apply to it.

[elcordobez]

That is how I understand it as well.

 

I dont think dodge's and tom's twist on it is right.

[Peterbard]

Not sue what you are saying to be honest, what i am saying is that as long as he debt hs been passed to the bailiff then the first stage is actioned and the fee is due,nothing the debtor can do will alter that fact it is plain from the regulation that the fee is due.

 

Any proceeds collected will naturally reflect the fact that the fee must be debited first.

 

You seem to want to attach some significance to the fact that the constituent parts of the proceeds are itemized, there is none, why should there be?

[tomtubby]

It should be made clear the reason why I started this thread but one important point to make here is that I have not named the website that reported this story (and there are MANY websites) that it could relate to. Although some regular posters on here may know which website, the other 1,000 visitors would not be aware and that is very important.

 

Anyone reading my posts will know that I will always ask a number of questions from any poster to ascertain the background to their dispute and this is vital so as to ensure that an accurate response can be provided. This will naturally include dates of notices and how payment was made and whether any previous visits had been made and crucially, whether there is any vulnerability.

 

In the case of the debtor who had been arrested, he confirmed that he had not known about a Liability Order until he received a Notice of Enforcement from the bailiff company. He did not state the date of the NoE and none of the posters on the website even bothered to ask the question.

 

He made payment on 8th Sept direct to the council but did not pay the Compliance Fee of £75.

 

He confirmed that he then received a supplementary Notice of Enforcement. Again he does not give the date....and nobody bothered to ask the question.

 

As there was still a balance due of council tax of £75 a bailiff visited the property on 17th September and a dispute arose that led to his arrest under section 68.1 of Schedule 12 of the TCEA 2007.

 

Crucially, without even asking any questions the website advised the debtor that the only way in which bailiff fees can be recovered is for the enforcement agent to take 'civil action' against the debtor and by way of 'evidence', the website quoted section 92.8 of the Courts Act 2003. This incorrect misinterpretation section 92.8 has been banded around 'debt avoidance'/Freeman on the Land websites for a long time now and in the public interest, I highlighted why this 'advice' is wrong.

[Peterbard]

 

I dont think dodge's and tom's twist on it is right.

 

 

I think perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

[unclebulgaria67]

What I am saying is that reg 13 does not apply unless the enforcement stage has begun. Can't you get that?

 

Enforcement stage starts as soon as the EA company receives the instruction from the creditor to collect the debt.

[tomtubby]

Not sue what you are saying to be honest, what i am saying is that as long as he debt hs been passed to the bailiff then the first stage is actioned and the fee is due,nothing the debtor can do will alter that fact it is plain from the regulation that the fee is due.

 

Any proceeds collected will naturally reflect the fact that the fee must be debited first.

 

You seem to want to attach some significance to the fact that the constituent parts of the proceeds are itemized, there is none, why should there be?

 

Absolutely correct.

[Neckbeard]

Enforcement stage starts as soon as the EA company receives the instruction from the creditor to collect the debt.

 

Er no, that is the compliance stage.

[Neckbeard]

There still has been no direction from anyone here that shows if the debt is at the compliance stage, which part of any legislation says that if you pay the creditor direct, they are legally bound to pay the £75 fee to the bailiff. This is what the bailiff's are no doubt arguing and the creditors are too ignorant of the legislation to challenge it.

[elcordobez]

Dodge i think you are missing the point. No money or goods changed hands so there are no proceeds to be divided up.

[elcordobez]

Tom, the date on the NOE isn't relevant. The poster said he didn"t get it until after he paid the council.

[elcordobez]

Uncle, who says enforcement starts when instructed?

[Peterbard]

The regulations state the the sums collected form part of the proceeds, the fees regulations state that the compliance fees must be paid out of the proceeds.

It does not matter who the debtor pays.

 

The fact is that the sum due includes the fee of the particular stage, if the sum is not paid in full the shortfall will be due, it is really not that complicated.

[Neckbeard]

It does not matter who the debtor pays.

 

 

But where does the legislation back that up? Just because some people are saying it must be paid does not make it true. It must be backed up with legislation. Where is it??

[tomtubby]

Enforcement stage starts as soon as the EA company receives the instruction from the creditor to collect the debt.

 

You are correct and this is the point that 'Mark' is failing to grasp.

[tomtubby]

I didn't say the auction house keep the money, just they take their commission first.

 

Anyway your argument is still wrong. Section 13 is about what happens once the enforcement stage has started, not the compliance stage. If no enforcement has begun, section 13 does not apply. Absolutely no-where does it say that if you pay the creditor direct at the compliance stage the creditor is legally bound to pay the £75 to the bailiff. Please show me where it does if I'm wrong, please.

 

this taking xontrol of goods regulations is so complex

 

Yes it is and this is why it is better to leave it to those that understand the regulations....instead of trying to misinterpret what they say.

[Peterbard]

But where does the legislation back that up? Just because some people are saying it must be paid does not make it true. It must be backed up with legislation. Where is it??

 

The EA is collecting on behalf of the authority ?

How they handle there internal invoicing is to any concern of us(to be honest I couldn't care less) as far as the debtor is concerned he owes the amount on the order plus the fee due at the particular time it becomes due under the regulations, if he does not pay tihs in ful then he owes the balance, as said not rocket science.