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

[Bailiff Advice]

the limitation act.

 

I am very familiar indeed with the Limitation's Act but unsure what you are referring to when you state 'eventually statute barred'. Are you saying the council tax becomes statute barred or are you referring to other debts such as CCJ or Magistrate Court fines?

[unclebulgaria67]

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.

 

Still have not had an answer to this question !

 

The date on which the EA company is instructed is VERY important. This is the date when enforcement starts and liabilities are created. So why is there no notice sent out the same day as the liability is created, so that the debtor knows they are going to be liable for additional sums.

 

It is an obvious flaw ( if it am correct ).

[Neckbeard]

Still have not had an answer to this question !

 

The date on which the EA company is instructed is VERY important. This is the date when enforcement starts and liabilities are created. So why is there no notice sent out the same day as the liability is created, so that the debtor knows they are going to be liable for additional sums.

 

It is an obvious flaw ( if it am correct ).

 

It's so the bailiff company can pretend they've sent a compliance stage letter, then make a doorstep visit.

[elcordobez]

I am very familiar indeed with the Limitation's Act but unsure what you are referring to when you state 'eventually statute barred'. Are you saying the council tax becomes statute barred or are you referring to other debts such as CCJ or Magistrate Court fines?

 

the £75 fee.

[unclebulgaria67]

It's so the bailiff company can pretend they've sent a compliance stage letter, then make a doorstep visit.

 

I think there may be reluctance to answer the question, as it is a problem area.

[elcordobez]

Still have not had an answer to this question !

 

The date on which the EA company is instructed is VERY important. This is the date when enforcement starts and liabilities are created. So why is there no notice sent out the same day as the liability is created, so that the debtor knows they are going to be liable for additional sums.

 

It is an obvious flaw ( if it am correct ).

 

I really dont get this, nobody is bothering to read what the law says and starts posting all this rubbish about the law is flawed. enforcement starts seven days from the point the notice is given to the debtor.

[unclebulgaria67]

I really dont get this, nobody is bothering to read what the law says and starts posting all this rubbish about the law is flawed. enforcement starts seven days from the point the notice is given to the debtor.

 

The enforcement period starts as soon as the EA company receives the instruction. There is then an intial compliance stage where they send an enforcement notice. The debtor is liable for the £75 compliance fee as a result of the EA company being instructed.

[elcordobez]

that my friend, we agree on.

 

I dont agree wit this crazy idea councils give money to bailiffs.

[elcordobez]

I think there may be reluctance to answer the question, as it is a problem area.

 

Why do you see it a problem area?

[%Ostrich%]

Whilst I am happy to continue on this point I cannot see much point in doing so for the reasons outlined in my above post number 65.

 

What I would like to say to those few posters seeking to exploit a loophole is that they should read section 8.3 of the Explanatory Guidance to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 carefully and take note of the following comment from the Ministry of Justice:

 

 

"Without this, successful enforcement could potentially decline significantly and enforcement agents may be encouraged to act in an aggressive manner in order to try and recoup the entire debt.

 

It was therefore decided that enforcement agents should be paid the compliance stage in full first, followed by a pro-rata division of proceeds between enforcement agent and creditor".

 

The new regulations have been debated for 12 years and what is very clear indeed is that they are working and many more people are agreeing payment arrangements at the Compliance stage and; with the exception of 'debt avoidance' websites.....complaints have reduced significantly.

 

Section 8.3 of the Explanatory Guidance to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 are flawed from the outset while Enforcement companies still contract self employed bailiffs to execute their warrants of control.

 

Are you aware of any Enforcement companies who pay out a proportion of the compliance fee to the bailiff BEFORE the debt is collected in full? The company itself may pocket the £75 fee but the bailiffs invariably get nothing until the debt is fully collected..... While the sentiment in the guidance notes is good natured, it doesnt work in reality.

[elcordobez]

I am very familiar indeed with the Limitation's Act but unsure what you are referring to when you state 'eventually statute barred'. Are you saying the council tax becomes statute barred or are you referring to other debts such as CCJ or Magistrate Court fines?

 

Just read it again. I see how you twist it. Are you saying.........

 

psssst, read my lips, what im saying, not you THINK im saying. (cant do blue yet)

[elcordobez]

# The company itself may pocket the £75 fee but the bailiffs invariably get nothing until the debt is fully collected....

 

Another time another place. The discussion is about deducting £75 from money paid to the council/court.

[unclebulgaria67]

Why do you see it a problem area?

 

Because I think some councils have made EA companies an integral part of their tax collection process. They may pass lists to them of loads of liabilities and it may take the EA company quite awhile to work through them. It is quite possible that during this period when the EA company is not really working on the cases, for the debtor to pay the council any tax owing. If the EA company is not actually working on a case, why should they be entitled to £75, when all they have received is a name on a list.

 

Think that neither councils or EA companies want to advise the actual date of when the EA company was instructed to be known at the time. I suspect that they may make up the date to suit them later.

[Neckbeard]

Section 8.3 of the Explanatory Guidance to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 are flawed from the outset while Enforcement companies still contract self employed bailiffs to execute their warrants of control.

 

Are you aware of any Enforcement companies who pay out a proportion of the compliance fee to the bailiff BEFORE the debt is collected in full? The company itself may pocket the £75 fee but the bailiffs invariably get nothing until the debt is fully collected..... While the sentiment in the guidance notes is good natured, it doesnt work in reality.

 

And there we come back to intentions. No doubt the intention was that the bailiff is fairly paid... however the reality is different.

[elcordobez]

Still have not had an answer to this question !

 

The date on which the EA company is instructed is VERY important. This is the date when enforcement starts and liabilities are created. So why is there no notice sent out the same day as the liability is created, so that the debtor knows they are going to be liable for additional sums.

 

It is an obvious flaw ( if it am correct ).

 

Ive looked in the regulations and its not there. I cant see how that is a flaw because the debtor only knows enforcement period commences on the NOE. the debt is paid to council, it leaves £75 unpaid. someone has to sue and prove the date the enforcement period started.

[Neckbeard]

...Think that neither councils or EA companies want to advise the actual date of when the EA company was instructed to be known at the time. I suspect that they may make up the date to suit them later.

 

I don't see why they can't send all letters registered - surely the £75 fee can cover an extra £1.10 for the service? Ah, but that would mean a possible reduction in opportunities for doorstep visits and an extra £235.

 

Where's the 'slaps head' emoticon?

[elcordobez]

Because I think some councils have made EA companies an integral part of their tax collection process. They may pass lists to them of loads of liabilities and it may take the EA company quite awhile to work through them. It is quite possible that during this period when the EA company is not really working on the cases, for the debtor to pay the council any tax owing. If the EA company is not actually working on a case, why should they be entitled to £75, when all they have received is a name on a list.

 

Think that neither councils or EA companies want to advise the actual date of when the EA company was instructed to be known at the time. I suspect that they may make up the date to suit them later.

 

I dont see the gain by giving the instruction date. council tax has lots of letters and notices already so if one is missed then all are missed wrong address, and nothing is due.

[unclebulgaria67]

Ive looked in the regulations and its not there. I cant see how that is a flaw because the debtor only knows enforcement period commences on the NOE. the debt is paid to council, it leaves £75 unpaid. someone has to sue and prove the date the enforcement period started.

 

Think of the date the enforcement period starts ( when EA instructed) as a taxi meter. As a debtor you need to know when they have switched the meter on.

[Neckbeard]

Ive looked in the regulations and its not there. I cant see how that is a flaw because the debtor only knows enforcement period commences on the NOE. the debt is paid to council, it leaves £75 unpaid. someone has to sue and prove the date the enforcement period started.

 

What about someone who is aware of the liability order who then makes a payment, say, 6 weeks later. The matter may have been passed to the bailiff but no NoE has been received due to a backlog. The bailiff will press for his £75 fee saying he was handed the account 4 weeks ago even if the NoE never had to be sent.

[elcordobez]

I see what you are getting at, but is there a case the date is disputed? if it were needed, if ever, then the councils records would provide it.

[elcordobez]

What about someone who is aware of the liability order who then makes a payment, say, 6 weeks later. The matter may have been passed to the bailiff but no NoE has been received due to a backlog. The bailiff will press for his £75 fee saying he was handed the account 4 weeks ago even if the NoE never had to be sent.

 

Thats right. The £75 fee is not dependent on a NOE, only the £235 one is.

[unclebulgaria67]

I see what you are getting at, but is there a case the date is disputed? if it were needed, if ever, then the councils records would provide it.

 

I cannot believe that you do not believe the date on which the EA company is instructed as being important ?

 

This is the date that the debtor becomes liable for a £75 compliance fee. You don't think this is important information to know.

 

Why should this information be a secret and you have to submit an SAR to get hold of it ?

 

Everyone that may be subject to a liability, needs to be informed of the date of the liability. Otherwise using the example of council tax you could be charged £75, when you have paid the council directly, before the actual hand off to the EA company is made.

[elcordobez]

I dont think its important because the debtor doesnt even know enforcement period has started until he has a NOE. before that its a liability order notice and council tax bills. a SAR isnt needed because you can phone the council and ask for it.

 

The same could be argued about applying for a liability order £100+ and theres no notice of the date of the application is made. You dont know about a camera ticket until after you got one.

[unclebulgaria67]

I dont think its important because the debtor doesnt even know enforcement period has started until he has a NOE. before that its a liability order notice and council tax bills. a SAR isnt needed because you can phone the council and ask for it.

 

The same could be argued about applying for a liability order £100+ and theres no notice of the date of the application is made.

 

I am going to remain civil on this, but won't be answering any more of your posts.

 

Knowing the date a liability is created is important information to know. If you don't understand that after many replies, I don't think you will ever grasp it.

[elcordobez]

I grasp only that you say its important to know the instruction date, so if a debtor pays council tax after instruction but before getting a NOE, he wants to know the instruction date whether he is liable for the £75.

 

You also said there is a flaw in the legislation, so how would you change it?