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

[Bailiff Advice]

As an aside in reference ot BAs other comments. It is a shame that these matters cannot be discussed, and the information knowledge uncovered used for the benefit of all, rather than the process being blighted by sniping and point scoring.

 

It would also be right and proper for a public apology to be made to me and particular given, that one of the CS's has today agreed publicly that he has indeed read that bailiff fees can indeed be charged. He is referring to an excellent publication written by a retired Barrister called Alan Murdie. A lovely person who I have met a few times over the past eight years. Until two years ago he had worked very closely with the Reverend Paul Nicolson. He is now retired.

 

I am still awaiting a public apology for the 'Companies House' allegation...and still waiting to see the evidence as to the poster's identity. Promised but not yet forthcoming.

[Bailiff Advice]

The reason why this forum, LB and me in particular, come under attack from this worthless bunch of cyberstalkers is summed up very clearly today in the post made by one of them where he says as follows:

 

It still won't stop me advising debtors of the option to:

 

Fight it all the way,

 

Make it as hard as possible for the bailiffs to get paid

 

and:

 

Prolong the money reaching councils bank accounts.

 

 

I only hope debtors have more responsibility than this individual. If this is not deliberate FMoTL 'debt avoidance' strategy I don't know what is!!!

[Coughdrop]

I don't think apologies are something they understand the meaning of I'm afraid Bailiff Advice. Nor do I think they are good at proof. For a long time they have failed to provide proof of alleged successes (save for two smaller cases). They have failed to provide proof of lots of written allegations about yourself and others. They then choose to blatantly ignore proof of other issues when it is posted up for all to see.

 

This really confirms to me that they are not interested in the truth, but more concerned with targeting individuals to try and push them to breaking point and beyond. This is doubly confirmed by the fact that they refuse to let anyone near their site membership in order to discuss / argue points and post the truth there, on their site, for all their readership to peruse.

 

Sadly, there is no reasoning with such people, as reason is not a word they understand. In fact, there is no point communicating with them, save for preserving ones own sanity and esteem, as communication is not something in which they have any interest.

 

It is all one-sided - their side. They control their site and they allow to be posted what they want, however vile, despicable and low they need to sink to hurt others.

 

Returning briefly to the issue of proof, I was made aware yesterday of one of the tormentors talking about their, 'proven record of success' or words very similar to those. I have seen no proof of any success and would ask, knowing this will be read by them, for a few examples, excluding the two minor ones mentioned, to be posted. I know, of course, they won't, for that is not the way they work. They have one rule for themselves, and one for others.

 

In fact, they are absolutely typical cyberstalkers.

[Coughdrop]

It is interesting from the latest copy I've read they are now taking ALL the credit for Bailiff Advice finding out the truth over AOE's. Bizarrely I discovered this to be the case at a similar time to BA and I have never claimed to be a bailiff expert. It is only a case of reading the legislation as it existed and as it exists. It is really not very hard if one can read legislation.

 

For that site to claim any credit for this is absolutely incredible. Their ability to accept it as correct and do a U-Turn, when they've criticised others for this so often (I believe it's actually called being able to admit one does not know everything - a quality, not a failure in a person). As for their boards being made open - I look forward to joining the discussions, though possibly in a more impartial place than there.

 

For the record, may I make clear I discovered the truth over AOE's and enforcement costs independently, purely by reading legislation. It took about one hour. For people used to reading legislation it is really not hard.

 

ps Ratlabs is NOT me!

Edited November 8, 2014 by Coughdrop
Make it clear to all to avoid any confusion or trouble on this board.

[Coughdrop]

Mr Murdle, now there is a last form the past,good t hear he is still about.

 

Anyway as said back to the subject, i for one have not had the time to pour over the regulations in this regard so I for one would appreciate the procedure where bailiffs include charges in AOE to be spelled out for me.

 

I will email the details to you Dodgeball. I don't believe there is any intent to mention anything publicly other than the FACT they can do so for the moment. Time is needed. It is all there in the legislation - if I forget to email you remind me!

[Bailiff Advice]

Mr Murdle, now there is a last form the past,good t hear he is still about.

 

Anyway as said back to the subject, i for one have not had the time to pour over the regulations in this regard so I for one would appreciate the procedure where bailiffs include charges in AOE to be spelled out for me.

 

He is a very knowledgeable man. I believe that he is still the editor of the Child Poverty Action Group publication.

 

I only have access to my laptop until I go to work on Monday so I will leave CD to send all info over to you. A short while after being contacted by a barrister yesterday CD sent me a pm as he had researched the subject himself. I will need to read through everything to see what the position is regarding 'charging orders'. Interesting times.

[Bailiff Advice]

PT.

 

It would be sensible to split both threads as in that way once further information is forthcoming I can post back with an update. I have drafted letters for both the Department for Communities Local Government and the Ministry of Justice as it is vitally important to obtain clarification on the actual amount of additional 'costs' that may be included in an Attachment of Earnings Order.

 

At it presently stands, the council tax regulations very clearly provide that if a bailiff attends a debtors property and for whatever reason is unable to levy upon goods (either because there are no goods or the goods are not worth enough to cover the debt and bailiff fees) then any bailiff fees incurred up to that period are added to the Attachment of Earnings Order.

 

It could be argued that under the old regulations the bailiffs fees would be limited at £42.50 but whether that is correct or not is open to debate. I would suspect that I am wrong on this.

 

Under the new regulations I fear that the actual 'costs' could indeed include the 'enforcement fee' of £235 as well as the Compliance Fee of £75. This would certainly appear to be the case, in particular given that it would not be until the bailiff actually makes a visit that he will be able to ascertain whether or not there are sufficient goods of the debtor to cover the 'amount due'.

 

Given that the regulations have only been in place 6 months Attachment of Earnings Orders are only just starting to come through and this query will no doubt be very significant indeed.

[Bailiff Advice]

The reason why this forum, LB and me in particular, come under attack from this worthless bunch of cyberstalkers is summed up very clearly today in the post made by one of them where he says as follows:

 

It still won't stop me advising debtors of the option to:

 

Fight it all the way,

 

Make it as hard as possible for the bailiffs to get paid

 

and:

 

Prolong the money reaching councils bank accounts.

 

I only hope debtors have more responsibility than this individual. If this is not deliberate FMoTL 'debt avoidance' strategy I don't know what is!!!

 

The above was quoted elsewhere.

 

The above highly irresponsible comment (akin to that of a Freeman on the Land supporter) is clear enough evidence that despite what the regulations say this person will nonetheless contine advising debtors to "Fight it all the way"..."Make it as hard as possible for the bailiffs to get paid" and "Prolong the money reaching council's bank accounts".

 

Regular posters on here have been provided with the relevant regulations allowing for bailiff fees to be added to AOEs.

 

There is no point whatsoever is providing any further details on the forum regarding this matter as it will not change the person's advice to debtors in any event. The advice will continue to be misleading and irresponsible.

 

The Freeman on the Land cyberstalkers have used this thread for their own 'entertainment' and in so doing, have once again publicly attacked individuals. As they cannot attack the advice given to debtors it is their only 'weapon'. They have nothing else.

 

Accordingly, I will not be posting any further on this subject until I receive responses to my correspondence. Thank you.

[Clunks]

It is my understanding that under the new regulations the fees incurred cannot be included under any Attachment to Earnings Order. The reason being that the enforcement power has ended, so fees cannot, therefore, be collected. Exactly is the same way fees can no longer be collected at Committal stage, as the enforcement power has ended.

 

Enforcement Agents can set Attachment to Earnings Orders, but being unable to collect their own fees I would have thought will not make this action common place.

 

Obviously if the debt is still being enforced under Schedule 5 as had a levy in place prior to 6th April, then the Enforcement Agent could collect their fees under the Attachment to Earnings Order.

 

Right or wrong?

[Bailiff Advice]

It is my understanding that under the new regulations the fees incurred cannot be included under any Attachment to Earnings Order. The reason being that the enforcement power has ended, so fees cannot, therefore, be collected. Exactly is the same way fees can no longer be collected at Committal stage, as the enforcement power has ended.

 

That was my own thought and was the reason why I had posted the same in my initial response.

 

My opinion changed after being contacted by a barrister late on friday and it would seem that there is serious doubt and frankly, this issue would be an excellent one on which to debate on the forum as it has a potential huge impact for Freeman on the Land supporters seeking to 'fight it all the way" and 'prolong the money reaching councils bank accounts'.

 

However, mainly for the sake of others, I will not debate the subject any further on this forum and instead, will continue the debate in private off the forum.

[ploddertom]

I've started this thread to debate whether Bailiffs can actually make Attachment of Earnings/Benefits Orders, if so then we need to know what powers they are using to do so & whether or not they can include any of their fees that may have been incurred previously.

[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.

[Coughdrop]

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.

 

It's actually rather easy, you just need to be able to read. I really don't see the problem!

[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

[Coughdrop]

Indeed, I know we're drifting very slightly off topic, but you and I have been involved in some prolonged discussions on this site which have lasted days, possibly weeks. Despite intense disagreement and differences of opinion, they have never been moderated, moved, or anything. The discussion between those of us having it has been allowed to run its course. That is what a forum does - discuss.

[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.

[Coughdrop]

Indeed, I have heard many people complain of the same issue. Like most FMOTL stuff you never actually get to see the ending where you can congratulate them on their successes and modify one's own advice accordingly. As I said above, and believe I was criticised on their site for saying, proof is not a word they understand, or truth for that matter.

 

Anyway, better get back to subject and await the responses to Bailiff Advice's letters. That is where she wins all the time see - she is so incredibly thorough. A true asset to CAG.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

I just 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.

 

Quite right. Despite them thinking otherwise....( and I would willing swear to this on oath) I have only actually posed a question on there on one occasion. Clearly the question was one that a certain individual was very concerned about and I too was promptly banned.

[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.

[Bailiff Advice]

Like most FMOTL stuff you never actually get to see the ending where you can congratulate them on their successes and modify one's own advice accordingly. As I said above, and believe I was criticised on their site for saying, proof is not a word they understand, or truth for that matter.

 

Anyway, better get back to subject and await the responses to Bailiff Advice's letters. That is where she wins all the time see - she is so incredibly thorough. A true asset to CAG.

 

You will not see evidence because it does not exists. Instead, it exists in the imagination of one person.

 

Back to the subject matter.

 

The new regulations were implemented just six months ago. It may be that fees can be applied to Attachment of Earnings and maybe not. By far the best solution is to ask the relevant government body. I have done so and will await their response.

 

A point that needs mentioning here is that as most people know, I rarely ever answer a question on this forum by giving the debtor a link to statutory regulations. That is frankly a dreadful (and indeed lazy way) in which to answer a debtor's enquiry. Debtors visiting a forum are seeking an answer to a query...not a link to statutory regulations written in goobledegook and frankly misrepresented by the individual answering the query.

 

Before the trio of cyberstalkers take to their keyboards they should reflect on the frequent advice given to debtors that under section 17.1 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 an enforcement process ceases once payment of the amount of court fine or council tax (minus bailiff fees) has been paid to the debtor. It does not. What they fail to tell debtors is what section 17.2 says......

 

Paragraph (1) does not apply where the enforcement power ceases to be exercisable because the debtor has paid the amount outstanding.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/17/made

[Bailiff Advice]

Quite right. Despite them thinking otherwise....( and I would willing swear to this on oath) I have only actually posed a question on there on one occasion. Clearly the question was one that a certain individual was very concerned about and I too was promptly banned.

 

As I said earlier, this subject ( and thread) is one that is best left for the moment until clarification is obtained one way or another.

 

For those who are interested, I would not have been allowed to pose a question on that website as my real name...or that of Bailiff Advice. Instead, I registered under the user name of Launcelot and I posted a question on the 'Marston Group Fingerprint' thread a week ago. I used a Yahoo email address (not a proxy).

 

In my post I provided a copy of an email that I had received from Companies House that confirmed that the person who had started that thread was a liar.

 

The moderator of the thread indicated that she had proof that another person (not me) had posted the question (impossible and a lie).

 

I was promptly banned.

 

Given that this matter is being dealt with elsewhere....I will not be making any further comment. Thank you.

[ploddertom]

I believe we have now gone as far as we can with this and until we can find the definitive answer will close this temporarily. Once we do have confirmation or otherwise the thread can be reopened for discussion.