Ministry of Justice explain why the Compliance Fee of £75 is deducted first.

[Bailiff Advice]

However, legislation did not give them the right to expect local authorities to pass on payments made directly to them.

 

Thankfully almost all local authorities and HM Courts disagree with you and do indeed pass on the Compliance fee that has been wrongly credited into their account.

 

As I said last night, just take a few moments to visit one or two other websites and you may come across one in particular who have openly confirmed that they have seen 'hundreds' of letters from courts confirming that they have forwarded payments made into their account after a warrant had been issued back to the enforcement company so that they can distribute the payment in accordance with Regulation 13.

[Neckbeard]

Thankfully almost all local authorities and HM Courts disagree with you and do indeed pass on the Compliance fee that has been wrongly credited into their account.

 

As I said last night, just take a few moments to visit one or two other websites and you may come across one in particular who have openly confirmed that they have seen 'hundreds' of letters from courts confirming that they have forwarded payments made into their account after a warrant had been issued back to the enforcement company so that they can distribute the payment in accordance with Regulation 13.

 

Thankfully??!! Thankfully!!! Wow, that really shows where your interests lie. Why should you be thankful for that situation? OMG. And why is it 'almost' all authorities? It seems there are a few who have seen through the lies.

 

The LA or court has no right to act as an agent for the bailiff and collect it's fee for them. If the legal position really is that this fee must be paid, the LA must surely return it to the debtor.

[Bailiff Advice]

It would be interesting to know how the fee allocation would work in the following scenario.

 

Here it is:

 

 

Assuming they did instruct the bailiffs. They'd be able to claim a maximum of £310 for their fees (being unable to take control of goods and add the £110 "sale or disposal".

 

The bailiffs of course would not be dealt with and payment to the council would continue as normal for my current year's liability.

 

Because the debt relates to a previous year, the council would be breaking the law if it allocated monies with respect the bailiff's fees, especially if it was stated (or implied) for which years debt my payment was intended. If payments matched exactly the instalment amount (current year), this would be enough to imply that the payment was paying off the current year's liability. I don't see how the council, in these circumstances, could lawfully pay the enforcement contractor unless it paid it itself.

 

 

Outlawla. With your extensive knowledge I have to confess to being very surprised indeed at your question.

 

If you are paying your current years council tax then any payments made by you are clearly going to be allocated to the current year.. This is exactly the same as what happens to the other 3.3 million people who are subject to a Liability Order.

 

If the bailiff was to be instructed for the £60 Liability Order then from what you have said above, he would be unable to 'take control of goods' and naturally would eventually return the Liability Order back to the council. If the Liability Order is returned then the 'power' to use Schedule 12 ceases and the bailiff fees (of £310) die. Simple.

[brassnecked]

Outlawla. With your extensive knowledge I have to confess to being very surprised indeed at your question.

 

If you are paying your current years council tax then any payments made by you are clearly going to be allocated to the current year.. This is exactly the same as what happens to the other 3.3 million people who are subject to a Liability Order.

 

If the bailiff was to be instructed for the £60 Liability Order then from what you have said above, he would be unable to 'take control of goods' and naturally would eventually return the Liability Order back to the council. If the Liability Order is returned then the 'power' to use Schedule 12 ceases and the bailiff fees (of £310) die. Simple.

 

Thanks for that bit, as it has been said that the £75 never dies on other threads and forums even if it is returned.

[Bailiff Advice]

Thankfully??!! Thankfully!!! Wow, that really shows where your interests lie. Why should you be thankful for that situation? OMG. And why is it 'almost' all authorities? It seems there are a few who have seen through the lies.

 

The LA or court has no right to act as an agent for the bailiff and collect it's fee for them. If the legal position really is that this fee must be paid, the LA must surely return it to the debtor.

 

I am very thankful indeed that local authorities and courts are treating the Compliance Fee of £75 in the correct way. This is what Parliament intended and this is also what those who bothered to respond to the Consultation Paper suggested as well.

 

Complaints have now reduced significantly and the Compliance Fee is also leading to many more people having payment proposals accepted.

 

You fail to grasp the point. The LA or court are not 'acting as an agent and collecting a fee'. In fact far from it. The truth of the matter is that debtors seeking to avoid paying the Compliance Fee of £75 are merely making the payment to the council and the council are powerless to refuse online payments.

 

You mention that 'some councils have seen through the lies'. Which councils are these?

[Bailiff Advice]

Thanks for that bit, as it has been said that the £75 never dies on other threads and forums even if it is returned.

 

If the warrant or Liability is returned to the creditor by the enforcement agent his 'enforcement power' 'ceases to be exercisable' and accordingly, all bailiff fees die.

 

The local authority may ultimately refer the debt for committal proceedings but the enforcement agents fees will not be included. Neither will they be included if the creditor sought to recover their debt by either bankruptcy or a charging order.

[unclebulgaria67]

I am very thankful indeed that local authorities and courts are treating the Compliance Fee of £75 in the correct way. This is what Parliament intended and this is also what those who bothered to respond to the Consultation Paper suggested as well.

 

Complaints have now reduced significantly and the Compliance Fee is also leading to many more people having payment proposals accepted.

 

You fail to grasp the point. The LA or court are not 'acting as an agent and collecting a fee'. In fact far from it. The truth of the matter is that debtors seeking to avoid paying the Compliance Fee of £75 are merely making the payment to the council and the council are powerless to refuse online payments.

 

You mention that 'some councils have seen through the lies'. Which councils are these?

 

Why is the date of the EA instruction by the creditor, not communicated to the debtor ?

 

It is an important date to know, as a £75 liability has been created by an adminstration process.

[Neckbeard]

I am

 

You mention that 'some councils have seen through the lies'. Which councils are these?

 

Just responding to your mention of 'almost all' are passing on the fee. Obviously that means some are not - why are they not being forced to if the law says they must?

[Neckbeard]

I am very thankful indeed that local authorities and courts are treating the Compliance Fee of £75 in the correct way. This is what Parliament intended and this is also what those who bothered to respond to the Consultation Paper suggested as well.

 

However, despite what you believe were the intentions, the legislation did not make it so - it made no provision for authorities to collect and pass fees on to the bailiff. It legislated on what happens should the bailiff collect less than what was owed, but did not legislate if the bailiff collected nothing. No matter how hard you try to assert that it did, I'm afraid it didn't and you have yet to show where it did - in legislation, not consultations. Not everything in consultation becomes law y'know.

[elcordobez]

Neckbeard, you might as well be talking to a lemon. Bailiff Advice mind is set and wont be changed.

[Bailiff Advice]

However, despite what you believe were the intentions, the legislation did not make it so - it made no provision for authorities to collect and pass fees on to the bailiff. It legislated on what happens should the bailiff collect less than what was owed, but did not legislate if the bailiff collected nothing. No matter how hard you try to assert that it did, I'm afraid it didn't and you have yet to show where it did - in legislation, not consultations. Not everything in consultation becomes law know.

 

Please read what I have said and visit other websites (and in particular the one that openly confirms that they have seen "hundreds" of letter from the courts confirming that payments made direct to the court after a warrant has been issued are being forwarded to the enforcement company so that the allocation under Regulation 13 is applied.

 

Look too at the many responses that Outlawla has received from his FOI requests which confirm that local authorities do indeed apply payment made into their bank accounts in the correct way as outlined under Regulation 13.

 

In your continued quest to exploit a 'loophole' you may well find that your own local authority is one of the very few in the Country which are slow to grasp the new regulations properly.

 

Your posts have made clear to me at least that there is a desperate need to start a new thread regarding Freeman on the Land (and other such movements ) and Bailiffs.

[elcordobez]

Thanks for that bit, as it has been said that the £75 never dies on other threads and forums even if it is returned.

 

I disagree. other forums say its unrecoverable and some say its eventually statute barred.

[elcordobez]

Please read what I have said and visit other websites (and in particular the one that openly confirms that they have seen "hundreds" of letter from the courts confirming that payments made direct to the court after a warrant has been issued are being forwarded to the enforcement company so that the allocation under Regulation 13 is applied.

 

Lets see them.

[Bailiff Advice]

Neckbeard, you might as well be talking to a lemon. Bailiff Advice mind is set and wont be changed.

 

Not true. It is the local authorities and HM Courts that will not change the way in which they are allocating payments made direct into their accounts after a warrant or Liability Order has been issued.

[elcordobez]

That's right. Perhaps now you can visit some other websites and pass these words of wisdom on to them and stop them advising their poor debtors to make payment to the creditor !!!

 

they have a statutory duty to pay the creditor....

[Bailiff Advice]

I disagree. other forums say its unrecoverable and some say its eventually statute barred.

 

I am sorry...what do you mean by its 'eventually statute barred'

[elcordobez]

Not true. It is the local authorities and HM Courts that will not change the way in which they are allocating payments made direct into their accounts after a warrant or Liability Order has been issued.

 

Who says?

[elcordobez]

I am sorry...what do you mean by its 'eventually statute barred'

 

the limitation act.

[Neckbeard]

Please read what I have said and visit other websites (and in particular the one that openly confirms that they have seen "hundreds" of letter from the courts confirming that payments made direct to the court after a warrant has been issued are being forwarded to the enforcement company so that the allocation under Regulation 13 is applied.

 

Look too at the many responses that Outlawla has received from his FOI requests which confirm that local authorities do indeed apply payment made into their bank accounts in the correct way as outlined under Regulation 13.

 

In your continued quest to exploit a 'loophole' you may well find that your own local authority is one of the very few in the Country which are slow to grasp the new regulations properly.

 

Your posts have made clear to me at least that there is a desperate need to start a new thread regarding Freeman on the Land (and other such movements ) and Bailiffs.

 

Regulation 13 is about what happens if the amount recovered by the bailiff does not reach the value of the debt. In fact it states:

(3) Following the payment at paragraph (2), the enforcement agent may then recover the compliance fee.

 

Paragraph 2 is about selling goods at auction, so that part deals with what happens with the proceeds of that sale in that the bailiff can take his compliance fee. It then goes on to explain that the remainder is to be split pro-rata.

 

There is nothing in reg 13 about what happens if you pay the LA direct. If they are quoting this as the reason for passing on the fees, then they are wrong. Reg 13 has nothing to do with passing on fees from direct payments. (we can all do colours)

[elcordobez]

Please try not to find a 'loophole' in what I have said.

 

The only one looking for loopholes is you. you bleat on about courts giving money to bailiffs and say its regulation 13.

[elcordobez]

Needs a Test Case to clarify the position, as all law and legislation is open to interpretation.

 

Who says?

 

All I see here is the bailiff experts misinterpreting.

[elcordobez]

 

There is nothing in reg 13 about what happens if you pay the LA direct. If they are quoting this as the reason for passing on the fees, then they are wrong. Reg 13 has nothing to do with passing on fees from direct payments. (we can all do colours)

 

Thats how I see it.

[elcordobez]

And the legislation most certainly doesn't say that the council must pass on the bailiff fees.

 

Bailiff Advice, If you dont agree then lets see the legislation, otherwise quit with your rubbish.

[elcordobez]

 

Your posts have made clear to me at least that there is a desperate need to start a new thread

 

Another thread?

[elcordobez]

 

Your posts have made clear to me at least that there is a desperate need to start a new thread regarding Freeman on the Land (and other such movements ) and Bailiffs.

 

You slate the freeman of the land yet you preach your own movements on their board.