Attachment of Earnings - can a Bailiff do this & if so what about his fees?

[Peterbard]

Must admit I was un aware of this. The AOE orders i have been involved in in the past have always been set up directly by the authority.(I of course accept that this is the case)

 

I notice the section quoted states the amount due under the order, so how does the bailiff obtain his fees in this case if he sets up the order, i presume the order would be set op post compliance stage ?

[Peterbard]

I will come back to your later on this point but you will note that I have not mentioned anywhere here that bailiff fees are added to a CTAOEs order.

 

No of course, it just occurred to me that if the bailiffs where setting up these orders then they would require payment for doing so

[Peterbard]

I would also expect that if the fees could not be included there would be some conflict of interest, as the bailif would naturally be more inclined to pursue the conventional enforcement as this would ensure payment of his fees.

[Peterbard]

Hmm yes that is what I thought.

Sometimes the debtor would prefer to have an attachment of earnings order and may decide this within the initial compliance stage, the problem, as I see it, is that it is not within the bailiffs interests to encourage or indeed enable this arrangement.

As far as they are concerned it would be much more profitable to continue to enforcement stage, otherwise they stand to loose the fee.

[Peterbard]

As I have stated earlier, the reason why bailiff fees cannot be added to an Attachment of Earnings Order is simply because fees and disbursements may only be recovered if either goods have been sold or the debtor has made payment (irrespective of whether the payment is made to the bailiff company or the local authority).

 

There are good and bad points with Council Tax Attachment of Earnings and each case needs to be decided on it's merits. There is a lot to take into consideration (including whether it can affect your employment...which sadly it can).

 

Yes I understand fully, however it would be helpful if things where different, if bailiffs have the facility to enable AOE agreements then they should be encouraged to do so IMO, this means having thier legally approved fees included in the order, better still would be if the authority exhausted the possibility before it was passed for enforcement, then the additional cost to the debtor would not be incurred. As it stands it seems to me that the contracting out provisions are impractical IMO.

[Peterbard]

DB

 

As you will see from my recent posts it would seem that I had made an error and that in fact, an Attachment of Earnings Order also includes bailiff fees. As you have past experience of AOE's I will send you full details and supporting documentation.

 

I thanks BA, and don't worry about it until recently i did not even know bailiffs could do AOEs at all TBH.

[Peterbard]

I doubt any of us knew bailiffs could indeed do AoE's, anyone can make a mistake but it needs someone special to admit to it:hug:

 

Absolutely, and not really a mistake, it is after all what the regulation says, it is just our good fortune to have someone with their finger on the pulse so to speak, so that we can keep up with any new developments/amendments.

[Peterbard]

I cant take the credit for it I'm afraid.

 

If fact, it was my posts on here that led to me being contacted 'off the forum' by a Barrister with an interest in the subject matter. His 'speciality' is in regards to charging orders.

 

During the course of the afternoon he has provided me with lots of background working papers, legal papers and statutory regulations. Lots of weekend reading but it is clear that the Council Tax regs do indeed provide for bailiff fees to be provided. As to the actual 'amount' that can be charged....that will not become clear until next week.

 

Oh good, so it was my questions then, I do not mind taking the credit

[Peterbard]

And pleased to give it to you.

 

Such an ordinary thread and yet, within 24 hours almost a 1,000 viewings. Evidence enough to prove why it is so important that the correct information is given to debtors.

 

Since most of it has been copied and commented on, on another forum probably 1000 and 5

[Peterbard]

Lets not knock it DB...on the posiive side, people reading the current thread on the other forum will be wondering what the hell all the ramblings are about, fortunately there are enough links on there to direct people over here where they can get a balanced view and accurate information to the op's original question....

Can a bailiff apply for an attachment of earnings order?

 

Yes bit of a risk putting links on to here really, once they get here they wont want to go back

[Peterbard]

I should say in answer to the question at least, yes fees can be added to the amount of the order dependent on the stage of enforcement when the bailiff decides to do the AOE, it makes a bit of a lie of the idea that fees die when debts are returned to the council I am afraid.

[Peterbard]

I have to say also that is why BA does not like sharing information on here, other sites seem to pick it up an misinterpret it before even our members do, sorry Mark you have the wrong piece of legislation keep looking.

 

It really is very tiresome.

[Peterbard]

I know, i found another route to the same information myself.

 

Not bad for a "chimp". I can see why this gets BA down, the constant bitching.

i can also see why it is frustrating for them, as no decent forum will let them post so they are not allowed to put their point, but you know really, speaking as one who knows, you only have to remain within the rules and resist the urge to insult and most forums let you talk.

 

Chimp LOl good one, not going to get back on here calling p[people childish names mark

[Peterbard]

Yes and many others. I think the problem there is that they are used to arguing the FMOTL stuff, it puts them on the defensive, because most people realize it is all garbage, so naturally the only way the can argue having no rational ammunition is by making puerile comments or childish insults

I jst tried to log on there to see if I could see what they were getting at, but of course my account b=has been terminated, it is what they do when they are afraid of being asked questions they cannot answer.

[Peterbard]

Yes BA and this is my last comment on the subject, otherwise we are begin to be hypocritical.

The forum in question uses its ability to restrict responses in order to slander and liable other people with impurity,

 

If you look on there over 80% of the content is taken up with quotes form here and other forums and character assignations of the contributors involved, the forum is supposed to be bout helping people, i see no evidence of this.

 

Some sincere advice to the moderating team over there, if you ever want to be taken seriously as a consumer help forum you really must allow the input of knowledgeable posters and some times even the not so knowledgeable ones, who may disagree, and more importantly you must learn to treat people with a little respect.