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

[Bailiff Advice]

 

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 ).

 

UB

 

If we are dealing with a PCN then the debtor should have received a Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate and an Order for Recovery before the warrant is issued. The regulations state as well than a warrant must be send to the enforcement agent within '7 days' of being authorised.

 

With council tax, it is the case that almost every local authority are continuing to send a '14 day' letter before passing the debt to the enforcement agent and therefore the debtor should know with a fair amount of certainty the date on which the debt was passed by them to the enforcement agent.

 

With a Magistrate Court fine, the debtor should have received a Further Steps Notice stating that the period of 'appeal' is '10 working days' and failure to contact the court could lead to a warrant of control being issued and the debt being passed to the enforcement agent. Once again, the debtor should know with a fair amount of certainty the date on which the debt is passed by the court to the enforcement agent.

 

I have seen probably thousands of 'screen shots' over the years and it is usually the case that the initial letter (now called a Notice of Enforcement is send within 48 hours of receipt of the instruction from the creditor.

[unclebulgaria67]

UB

 

If we are dealing with a PCN then the debtor should have received a Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate and an Order for Recovery before the warrant is issued. The regulations state as well than a warrant must be send to the enforcement agent within '7 days' of being authorised.

 

With council tax, it is the case that almost every local authority are continuing to send a '14 day' letter before passing the debt to the enforcement agent and therefore the debtor should know with a fair amount of certainty the date on which the debt was passed by them to the enforcement agent.

 

With a Magistrate Court fine, the debtor should have received a Further Steps Notice stating that the period of 'appeal' is '10 working days' and failure to contact the court could lead to a warrant of control being issued and the debt being passed to the enforcement agent. Once again, the debtor should know with a fair amount of certainty the date on which the debt is passed by the court to the enforcement agent.

 

I have seen probably thousands of 'screen shots' over the years and it is usually the case that the initial letter (now called a Notice of Enforcement is send within 48 hours of receipt of the instruction from the creditor.

 

As long as the debtor gets notice of when the EA is being instructed, then there is no problem.

 

I think it should be a compulsory element to the regulation that notice is sent to the debtor that on X date the enforcement period begins, with a £75 compliance stage fee being due to the EA. That an enforcement notice will be issued and if this is not dealt within the time allowed, than an enforcement visit will be made incurring a further £235 fee.

[elcordobez]

The subject of debtors paying the amount only of a Magistrate Court fine or a Liability Order for unpaid council tax direct to the court or the local authority is one that is causing problems for debtors given that there is a huge level of misunderstanding about the Compliance Fee of £75 that is applied to the account as soon as the debt has been passed to the enforcement agent by either the court or the local authority.

 

Confusion arises for debtors because if they make payment of the court fine or liability order after the debt has been passed to the enforcement agent the regulations state that the Compliance Fee must be deducted from any payment made (whether made to the court or the council or whether in person or on line) and the balance apportioned on a pro rata basis.

 

Given the confusion, it may be useful to know the reason why the government imposed this provision into the regulations.

 

The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 took effect on 6th April and on the same day, the Ministry of Justice also released the Explanatory Memorandum to The Taking Control of Goods (Regulations 2014.

 

This document is not only extremely useful but it's importance cannot be underestimated given that it was laid before Parliament on 6th April by Command of Her Majesty (Item 1).

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

 

TT you still havnt explained the law that says councils have to give money paid direct, must be split pro-rata and a share given to bailiffs.

 

I see the bit about pro-rata applies to proceeds of enforcement, not disputing that.

 

I also dont understand where you think proceeds of enforcement is money other than money raised from the sale of goods.

[Bailiff Advice]

As long as the debtor gets notice of when the EA is being instructed, then there is no problem.

 

I think it should be a compulsory element to the regulation that notice is sent to the debtor that on X date the enforcement period begins, with a £75 compliance stage fee being due to the EA. That an enforcement notice will be issued and if this is not dealt within the time allowed, than an enforcement visit will be made incurring a further £235 fee.

 

UB.

 

If debtors wants to ensure that a bailiff never attends their premises then they should engage with the creditor beforehand. With court fines as an example, the courts are very willing to accept a minimum payment of £5 per week.

 

I cannot stress the importance of making sure that if the debt has been passed to an enforcement agent that they must engage with that company asap and set up an affordable payment proposal. This will avoid the debt increasing by £235.

[elcordobez]

UB.

 

If debtors wants to ensure that a bailiff never attends their premises then they should engage with the creditor beforehand.

 

This is pie in the sky.

[Neckbeard]

UB.

 

I cannot stress the importance of making sure that if the debt has been passed to an enforcement agent that they must engage with that company asap and set up an affordable payment proposal. This will avoid the debt increasing by £235.

 

Of course that is assuming the bailiffs are sending the NoE properly, rather than the repeatedly reported practice of saying it's been sent, or sending it to ensure its arrival is timed to arrive on the day of a visit.

[unclebulgaria67]

UB.

 

If debtors wants to ensure that a bailiff never attends their premises then they should engage with the creditor beforehand. With court fines as an example, the courts are very willing to accept a minimum payment of £5 per week.

 

I cannot stress the importance of making sure that if the debt has been passed to an enforcement agent that they must engage with that company asap and set up an affordable payment proposal. This will avoid the debt increasing by £235.

 

There will be occasions where the debtor is dealing with illhealth, either personally or within the family. They may be away from their home for periods. They may have other debts to deal with and be struggling to feed the family, heat their home etc.

 

There is a difference between won't pays and can't pays. From what we read on CAG, creditors and EA's don't appear to look into circumstances. They just want to be paid. Some still ignore vulnerability issues, even though these are now written into the rules.

 

Some of the FMOTL type advice is given by people who can afford to pay amounts owed, but sometimes they don't want to. They give advice to people who can't afford to pay and some of them will believe it to be true.

[elcordobez]

It doesnt matter if they say the NOE has been sent. if Unclebulgaria wants a flaw in the legislation, heres one to have a look at, regulation 7© of the TCGRs. Now look at at regulation 6(1). Whats the point of putting a date on the NOE when the regs say taking control of goods starts from 7 days the NOE is given.

[outlawla]

In relation to debtors making payments direct to the Council where arrears have been referred to the Enforcement Agent, one council is saying the following:

 

If the amount paid is a monthly instalment amount or an agreed arrangement with the Council for a current years charge which has not been referred to the Enforcement Agent, the payment would be allocated against that charge. If debts have been referred to the Enforcement Agent and the Council receives a payment which does not match a current instalment plan, the Council would check all recovery levels for that charge payer before notifying the Enforcement Agent of the payment.

 

It then goes on to say that "once debts have been referred to the Enforcement Agent debtors are informed all payments must be made direct to the Enforcement Agent until paid in full"

 

What the council has provided is only half an answer because although we're told that the Enforcement Agent would be notified of the payment it doesn't tell us whether payment with respect to enforcement fees would be forwarded to the contractor.

 

This does raise a more serious issue as to whether the council's contractor is allowed access to the debtor's account via the authority's council tax software.

[Bailiff Advice]

Outlawla.

 

How many FOI have you made on this same subject ? I can see this many on this page but are there any more?

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/similar/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_4?page=1

[outlawla]

Outlawla.

 

How many FOI have you made on this same subject ? I can see this many on this page but are there any more?

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/similar/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_4?page=1

 

What leads you to assume these have anything to do with me?

[Bailiff Advice]

What leads you to assume these have anything to do with me?

 

I generally assumed that they were yours as you had posted details on the forum as soon as responses were received. Another clue was that one of the first FOI requests on this subject in May was to North East Lincs Council (which I know from your previous FOI's is a local authority that is of interest to you).

 

If I am wrong I certainly do apologise.

[unclebulgaria67]

I generally assumed that they were yours as you had posted details on the forum as soon as responses were received. Another clue was that one of the first FOI requests on this subject in May was to North East Lincs Council (which I know from your previous FOI's is a local authority that is of interest to you).

 

If I am wrong I certainly do apologise.

 

Your last few posts have made you sound like Big Brother !

[Bailiff Advice]

Your last few posts have made you sound like Big Brother !

 

Not at all. Outlawla has made some excellent FOI requests in the past about 'Head H fees' and 'Summons Costs' and he asked me the reason why I thought that the newer FOI's about the allocation of payments under Regulation 13 are his. He asked me the question and I responded.

[Peterbard]

Nice to see the thread still open after over a hundred post, unusual on bailiff discussion threads these days#

 

Thanks to bailiff advice for showing the evidence regading the dispersment of the proceeds whn paid to the authority.

 

Most of the thread was taken over by members who seem to think that this issue had something to do with the idea that the fee can be avoided by paying the authority, in fact it doesn't of course.

Even if the evidence shown regarding the payment of the fee was all wrong (which it is not)it would still not alter the fact, that until the total amount outstanding was equal to the amount of proceeds recovered during the enforcement process the bailiff would continue to seek recovery of the balance.

It was of course inevitable that the discussion would be derailed in this fashion as it seems to be the current misconception and hobby horse of the more ill informed posters.

[elcordobez]

 

Thanks to bailiff advice for showing the evidence regading the dispersment of the proceeds whn paid to the authority.

 

What evidence?

 

Legislation.gov.uk doesnt say that.

[elcordobez]

TT you still havnt explained the law that says councils have to give money paid direct, must be split pro-rata and a share given to bailiffs.

 

From post number 128.

 

I see the bit about pro-rata applies to proceeds of enforcement, not disputing that.

 

I also dont understand where you think proceeds of enforcement is money other than money raised from the sale of goods.

 

I see where this side-step comes from. Didnt really expect an answer anyway. Its all rubbish as we thought it was.

[Neckbeard]

What evidence?

 

Legislation.gov.uk doesnt say that.

 

Dodge, I too would like to know which post TT / BA has quoted the legislation that clarifies or confirms the disbursements when you pay the council direct. You seem to have access to a post no-one else can see.

[%Ostrich%]

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

 

If you're going to quote me, at least include the entire quote to keep it in context.

 

My comment was based on the guidance notes Bailiff Advice had linked to that explain the reasoning for the compliance fee deduction.

 

As such, it's wholly relevant to the topic IMO.

 

If the reasoning behind the deduction of the compliance fee is an attempt to stop aggressive bailiffs trying to collect in full, then it's flawed while bailiffs remain self employed.

 

That is all.

[Peterbard]

Dodge, I too would like to know which post TT / BA has quoted the legislation that clarifies or confirms the disbursements when you pay the council direct. You seem to have access to a post no-one else can see.

 

I don't remember saying anything about legislation, the evidence i was referring to is on of the practice, which is endorsed by the information mentioned.

This is the way it works, now if some do not like it, it would be for them to find a reason why they cannot operate this way. Perhaps there is some "legislation " which says fees cannot be debited in this fashion.

 

Apologies in advance for explaining, what will be blindingly obvious to the more informed members

 

It is a problem with FMOTL doctrine, when legislation does not agree with an opinion, then they are not bound by it because they are free men, then when a procedure is created which they equally do not agree with, they say where is the legislation to support it.

 

The facts are that while we live in a free society people can adopt what ever system they like, unless there is a legal reason why they should not, the evidence shows that this is the system in operation here, the reason for adopting it has been discussed and explained and there are no reasons why it cannot be used.

 

D

Edited September 26, 2014 by Dodgeball
spell

[Bailiff Advice]

Nice to see the thread still open after over a hundred post, unusual on bailiff discussion threads these days#

 

Thanks to bailiff advice for showing the evidence regarding the dispersement of the proceeds when paid to the authority.

 

It was of course inevitable that the discussion would be derailed in this fashion as it seems to be the current misconception and hobby horse of the more ill informed posters.

 

Thank you Dodgeball

 

I started this thread purely to let viewers know the reason why the government drafted legislation in such a way that provides for the Compliance Fee of £75 to be deducted first from any payment made by the debtor. It is a very important subject indeed. New 'posters' quickly descended onto the thread and once again a familiar 'pattern' emerged.

 

If a thread is started that has the potential to damage ‘debt avoidance’ websites it common to find “new posters” quickly signing up to the forum. A familiar trait will be for one of them to start posting in an almost childlike manner (PersonOfInterest) on this thread that was closed last week is an excellent example:(see page 2)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433030-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-.

 

Typically that posters opening comment will be "which legislation (post 24 to 27).

 

Another "new" poster (in the above thread; 'elcordebez') will quickly sign up on the forum to also ask for a link to 'the legislation' (post 31) The same question is posed by these 'new users' time and time again.

 

You can almost make a hobby of out deciphering the user names..many have been "Star War' characters and others are just downright obvious. "PersonOfInterest" for example is likely to be from the popular TV series and where one of their main characters in "Harry Finch....a software expert who is also known by a number of other aliases!!!

 

Another common feature is that once they have tried to disrupt a thread they disappear. They are not here to assist debtors at all. They are here to stop accurate information being made available to the public.

 

Obviously they like nothing better than to ensure that the thread gets closed as in that way the page will very quickly fade from public view. The tactics are as transparent as a net curtain.

 

The posts are aimed to discredit rational posts that are made (in particular by me) and most importantly; are aimed to ensure that the thread quickly turns into what one website commonly term a ‘flame war’.

[brassnecked]

If you're going to quote me, at least include the entire quote to keep it in context.

 

My comment was based on the guidance notes Bailiff Advice had linked to that explain the reasoning for the compliance fee deduction.

 

As such, it's wholly relevant to the topic IMO.

 

If the reasoning behind the deduction of the compliance fee is an attempt to stop aggressive bailiffs trying to collect in full, then it's flawed while bailiffs remain self employed.

That is all.

 

Absolutely agree.

 

As a case in point, I have recently dealt with an issue around the £75 and £235, whilst not strictly to do with apportionment per se is an issue that the new rules will do nothing to prevent.

 

Mrs Jones does a mutual exchange of a HA property with Mrs Davies. Mrs Jones tells the council who start to bil her for Council Tax. Mrs Davies owed £56 as she missed her last payment on leaving, a few motnths down the line, as the council messed up, a LO is granted, bailiff turns up at old address, is sent away with flea in ear, as debtor gone. Bailiff tries to claim Fees at least are owed by Mrs Jones and the debt is to the address, so she must pay the £75 at least.

 

Suffice to say council pulled the case and were made to feel suitably chastised. But what if Mrs Jones did not seek help and paid up?

 

As Ostrich has illustrated until self employed EAs and bailiffs are abolished the old lying cheating ways will persist whatever.

[elcordobez]

Instead of playing guessing games TT, just answer the question in post 128.

[Peterbard]

Thank you Dodgeball

 

I started this thread purely to let viewers know the reason why the government drafted legislation in such a way that provides for the Compliance Fee of £75 to be deducted first from any payment made by the debtor. It is a very important subject indeed. New 'posters' quickly descended onto the thread and once again a familiar 'pattern' emerged.

 

If a thread is started that has the potential to damage ‘debt avoidance’ websites it common to find “new posters” quickly signing up to the forum. A familiar trait will be for one of them to start posting in an almost childlike manner (PersonOfInterest) on this thread that was closed last week is an excellent example:(see page 2)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433030-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-.

 

Typically that posters opening comment will be "which legislation (post 24 to 27).

 

Another "new" poster (in the above thread; 'elcordebez') will quickly sign up on the forum to also ask for a link to 'the legislation' (post 31) The same question is posed by these 'new users' time and time again.

 

You can almost make a hobby of out deciphering the user names..many have been "Star War' charachters and others are just downright obvious. "PersonOfInterest" for example is likely to be from the popular TV series and where one of their main charachaters in "Harry Finch....a software expert who is also known by a number of other aliases!!!

 

Another common feature is that once they have tried to disrupt a thread they disappear. They are not here to assist debtors at all. They are here to stop accurate information being made available to the public.

 

Obviously they like nothing better than to ensure that the thread gets closed as in that way the page will very quickly fade from public view. The tactics are as transparent as a net curtain.

 

The posts are aimed to discredit rational posts that are made (in particular by me) and most importantly; are aimed to ensure that the thread quickly turns into what one website commonly term a ‘flame war’.

 

Yes it is a problem on a few forums, frustrating because it stifles useful informed debate, though as you say this is probably the intent.

[elcordobez]

There is no debate here at all. Post 1 of this thread is a statement, and the 2nd paragraph is wrong.