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

[outlawla]

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.....

 

This is something that brings about at least three questions:

 

Firstly, is it lawful for a local authority to pass on a council taxpayer's payment (which he has made in good faith to reduce his liability) to a bailiff who has obviously not been successful in enforcing the debt?

 

Secondly, if it is lawful, do councils actually do this?

 

Lastly, if councils state that they do are the lying?

 

Birmingham City Council have this to say on the matter:

 

Once a debt has been passed to the enforcement agent for collection, and until such time as the debt is formally returned to the authority, payments must be allocated in accordance with The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 regardless of whether payment is made to the authority or to the enforcement agent. In the original example that you used (£420), the Enforcement Agent are allowed to take the Compliance fee of £75.00 first. The remaining balance of £345 is then subject under the regulations to being paid on a pro-rata basis. In effect, although Birmingham City Council would receive £189.31, whilst the Enforcement Agent receives £230.59, unfortunately this is in line with the new regulations and the allocation of this cannot be contractually changed between the authority and the Enforcement Agent.

 

Once a debt is returned to the authority, any outstanding fees owed to the enforcement agent cease to be recoverable by either party.

[elcordobez]

Tom, your advice about enforcement starting when instructed is not what the TCGRs says, unless you can show where i missed it.

[Peterbard]

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

 

Wouldn't be the first time, but not on this occasion. The debate moved on to the fee and its validity, or did you miss it.

[elcordobez]

Outlaw, i don't think we can take a councils own website to accurate when legislation.gov.uk says different.

[tomtubby]

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.

Mark,

 

You are unable to grasp the fact that the Regulation 13 imposes a legal obligation to apportion the payment in the way outlined (which I have explained very clearly). How that Compliance fee is physically passed over to the enforcement agent is wholly irrelevant. What is clear is how the payment is to be allocated. If it is allocated incorrectly by the court or magistrate court then the enforcement company could take legal action against the creditor.

 

The fact remains, that Regulations 13 outlines the way in which the payment must be allocated. How it is actually done is in practice is of no importance.

[elcordobez]

Erm, who is Mark?

[tomtubby]

Tom, your advice about enforcement starting when instructed is not what the TCGRs says, unless you can show where i missed it.

 

You missed it all right. You need to start reading regulation 4 and 5 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) 2014. To make the task easier for you I have copied regulation 5 below:

 

 

Stages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered – enforcement other than under High Court writs

 

5.(1)

The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows—

 

(a) the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;

[tomtubby]

Erm, who is Mark?

 

'Mark' is Mark 1960 also known as The Starving Taxpayer on LB and Butterfingers on Get out of Debt Free.

[outlawla]

Outlaw, i don't think we can take a councils own website to accurate when legislation.gov.uk says different.

 

That is also my opinion hence the 3rd of the 3 questions.

 

This is something that brings about at least three questions:

 

Firstly, is it lawful for a local authority to pass on a council taxpayer's payment (which he has made in good faith to reduce his liability) to a bailiff who has obviously not been successful in enforcing the debt?

 

Secondly, if it is lawful, do councils actually do this?

 

Lastly, if councils state that they do are the lying?

[Peterbard]

Tom, your advice about enforcement starting when instructed is not what the TCGRs says, unless you can show where i missed it.

 

"Enforcement" is the general term for pursuing a debt, as well as the specific term used within this particular regulation, as I am sure you are aware

[tomtubby]

This is something that brings about at least three questions:

 

Firstly, is it lawful for a local authority to pass on a council taxpayer's payment (which he has made in good faith to reduce his liability) to a bailiff who has obviously not been successful in enforcing the debt?

 

Secondly, if it is lawful, do councils actually do this?

 

Lastly, if councils state that they do are the lying?

 

Birmingham City Council have this to say on the matter:

 

Outlawla,

 

You more than anyone else will know from the astonishing work that you have done via FOI requests that almost every local authority that you approached interpret the statutory regulations in exactly the same way in which Birmingham are doing (who are the 4th largest local authority in the country).

[PersonOfInterest]

me thinks u r forgetting one point. if the EA is not certificated the debtor is not guilty and case closed

 

if u paid attention the bailiffs name not being on register have come up a few times not just this case. i am sure you can find this out. after all tom is the bailiff, so tomtubby r u certificated?

[unclebulgaria67]

"Enforcement" is the general term for pursuing a debt, as well as the specific term used within this particular regulation, as I am sure you are aware

 

Legislation is so badly written that it confuses some people.

 

Enforcement includes a compliance stage where the EA company can charge the debtor a £75 fee. Unless the debt is paid including the £75 fee, before the next enforcement stage is reached, then further fees will become due per the law.

[elcordobez]

Tom, the law says just that. It doesn't say he pays £75 if the compliance stage hasn't been started. The EA couldn't revover it anyway because enforcement power conferred had ceased when the tax was paid.

[elcordobez]

Uncle, i don't agree. The law on this is very clear.

[Sweetlaw]

Post Deleted

Edited September 21, 2014 by Sweetlaw

[unclebulgaria67]

Uncle, i don't agree. The law on this is very clear.

 

Citizens Advice and numerous other organisations have looked through the legislation getting legal advice on it.

 

See CAB advice on this.

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/bailiffs_e/bailiffs__fees_and_charges_e/fees_bailiffs_can_charge_e.htm

 

You will see that the compliance stage is part of enforcement and incurs a £75 fee.

[tomtubby]

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

 

A person has been arrested and it is only right that you rely upon facts.

 

In fact, what the debtor said is that he did not even know about a Liability Order until after he had received a supplementary Notice of Enforcement but by this time he has paid the council tax debt to the council.

 

Now, common sense alone will tell you there is something wrong here. If as he says he did not know about a Liability Order then are we to assume that he has not paid the summons costs or the liability order fee as well?

 

All of these are simple questions (just like the dates on the notices) and should have been asked of him. If an error has been then it can be corrected. What we have now is that this poor debtor is facing paying between £1,500 and £2,500 for legal representation.

 

Once again, this case has proved how important it is to not ignore correspondence. If as he says the debt had been paid to the council and he then received a letter from a bailiff company then it is crucially important to make contact with either the local authority or enforcement company. Again, nobody has even bothered to ask the debtor whether he did this.

[Neckbeard]

Streetlaw, couldn't quote your post before you deleted it. You talk about compliance stage, first enforcement, second enforcement, disposal stage. That is for high court bailiffs. CT bailiffs have 3 stages - compliance, enforcement, disposal. Reg 13 as already referred to deals only with enforcement stage onwards.

 

No matter how many times TT says it, it still doesn't make it right. It states nowhere that any payment direct to the council at the compliance stage must be legally subject to a £75 deduction to the bailiffs. In fact legislation is clear that bailiffs can only take their fees from proceeds. A debtor paying direct can never be described as proceeds.

 

I'm not Mark btw.

[tomtubby]

Citizens Advice and numerous other organisations have looked through the legislation getting legal advice on it.

 

See CAB advice on this.

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/bailiffs_e/bailiffs__fees_and_charges_e/fees_bailiffs_can_charge_e.htm

 

You will see that the compliance stage is part of enforcement and incurs a £75 fee.

 

Correct. In case anyone is not aware, with CAB, John Kruse was the lead person advising them.

[tomtubby]

me thinks u r forgetting one point. if the EA is not certificated the debtor is not guilty and case closed

 

if u paid attention the bailiffs name not being on register have come up a few times not just this case. i am sure you can find this out. after all tom is the bailiff, so tomtubby r u certificated?

 

This is a serious thread and your contribution is zero.

[Peterbard]

Legislation is so badly written that it confuses some people.

 

Enforcement includes a compliance stage where the EA company can charge the debtor a £75 fee. Unless the debt is paid including the £75 fee, before the next enforcement stage is reached, then further fees will become due per the law.

 

Yes it does of course.Personally if find these regulations quite transparent, although i have been involved with the TCE since 2006.

 

The debt is sent for enforcement, the complication is some peoples minds begins because the regulations coin the phrase"enforcement stage" but is just a label for the stage where the EA actually makes the visit, really it is all enforcement(small e)

[tomtubby]

Streetlaw, couldn't quote your post before you deleted it. You talk about compliance stage, first enforcement, second enforcement, disposal stage. That is for high court bailiffs. CT bailiffs have 3 stages - compliance, enforcement, disposal. Reg 13 as already referred to deals only with enforcement stage onwards.

 

No matter how many times TT says it, it still doesn't make it right. It states nowhere that any payment direct to the council at the compliance stage must be legally subject to a £75 deduction to the bailiffs. In fact legislation is clear that bailiffs can only take their fees from proceeds. A debtor paying direct can never be described as proceeds.

 

I'm not Mark btw.

 

Really!!

 

You are 'clutching at straws' and know perfectly well that 'proceeds' include money.

 

What will be your next 'gootcha clause'....that money is only cash and does not include a debit card !!!

 

This thread was started to demonstrate that this debtor (and others) was wrongly advised that bailiff fees do not need to be paid and that if a bailiff company wanted to recover their fees that they would have to take civil proceedings in the County Court under section 92.8 of the County Courts Act 2003.

 

Strange.....that not one of the 'new posters' has even bothered to comment on this serious matter. Not one of you.

[Peterbard]

I don't think it is that strange TT

[tomtubby]

Gardening, feeding horses and roast lunch need attending to.