EA Action and Attachment of Earnings

[Bailiff Advice]

Anyway back on topic, this thread is about finding out if the various authorities can add fees to returned failed enforcement actions, as show it seems they can.

 

That is unless any other information comes to light which indicates that for some reason this right is not taken up.

 

As I have said here and elsewhere, this subject is of vital importance and I am not expecting to hear of any progress until mid Jan.

 

What needs to be made clear is that the new regulations have only been in place for 6 months and it is sadly the case that the serious delays meant by the various government agencies meant that local authorities did not fully understand how the new regs would work in practice and this was not made any easier given that training on the new regs was commonly given by the bailiff companies. Over time, many of these councils are now receiving better training from other sources.

 

It is a fact that 6 months into the new regs many LA's have not re-written or amended either their SLA's or contracts. Accordingly, there is still a high level of confusion and I would suspect that this will continue for quite so time.

 

What is becoming clear is that a lot of councils are now taking a serious look at both Attachment of Earnings and also how payments made direct to councils (minus bailiff fees) are deal with and from the information that I am getting the reason for these two subjects to be 'on the radar' is mainly due to the astonishingly high number of Freedom of Information requests that are being made on the subject.

 

As part of the review into the new regulations, various government agencies are looking at the "unintended consequences' of the new regs and high on the agenda is the increasing number of LA's that are looking at taking all (or more commonly) part of bailiff enforcement in house. From the many reports that I have seen each case appears to be for one reason only.....a significant increase in revenue to the LA.

 

I am sure that legal challenges will be made shortly and the new year is likely to bring some interesting developments !!! This subject alone is really worthy of its own thread which I may start later on.

 

One area that is very attractive to LA's is that of 'Attachment of Earnings'.

[Bailiff Advice]

To give an example of how many Attachment of Earnings there are for council tax arrears, one local authority reported the following figures:

 

Attachment of benefit 3,046

Attachment of earnings 3,412

Referred to Bailiff 4,750

 

Attachment of Earnings as a way of clearing council tax arrears can be beneficial for debtors on low salaries. The following are TRUE figures from two debtors who contacted me during this past week:

 

Case One:

 

Debtor has a take home salary of £1870 and the London LA have made an attachment against his salary of £317.90 per month.

 

Case Two:

 

The debtor works as an engineer and had lost his previous employment after the company went into receivership. He managed in the meantime to get temporary work on less than half his previous salary. He was unable to claim benefits and had a Liability Order for 2013/14 and another LO was granted in September for this current year.

 

He managed to get a new permanent job in July this year and the Local Authority has attached both Liability Orders to his salary under Attachment of Earnings.

 

His take home pay was £2,525 in September and October and is now just £1,602 (nearly £1,000 less)

 

The first Liability Order is being deducted at the rate of £595.90 per month

The second Liability Order is being deducted at the rate of £327.95 per month.

 

PS: I have checked the deductions and they are correct.

[Peterbard]

I remember there being talk of the compliance stage being kept in house early on in the consultation and before, personally I am in two minds of the efficacy of this.

It would effectively be a case of re introducing the notice period which was repealed form section 45 and introducing a charge for the same thing, very good for the coffers of the LA but hardly fair I would have thought.

I presume that the fee for the bailiff would then commence on the enforcement stage visit, which i cannot imagine will be popular with them.

[fletch70]

I would imagine it is rare for an account to go to the bailiffs then get returned and an AOE put in place . What as i see as a problem over there is that they take very specific examples and then extrapolate to cover all cases which is not the case.

 

I also find it highly offensive when some idiot uses daily mail style rhetoric about a case that he knows absolutely nothing about, and I do mean nothing. As I said the newspaper report was factually incorrect (since when did a local rag let the truth get in the way) and frankly if it had been as he described I think a jail term would have been appropriate . It didn't help that the Barrister did not understand the facts of the case, probably because he didn't have the time to look at it.

As most people know, or at least the people who matter, I was a very different person then and I have worked very hard at getting to where I am now.

Sorry I just felt that it needed explaining

Edited December 20, 2014 by fletch70

[Peterbard]

There is no doubt in my mind that the statutory requirment is there for fees to be added to A of Es this is pretty clear

 

(b)in sub-paragraph (1A)(b) for sub-paragraph (i) and the words before it substitute—

“(b)where a person authorised to act under the power conferred by section 14(4) (power to use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) has reported to the authority concerned that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find sufficient goods of the debtor to pay the amount outstanding—

(i)the amount outstanding at the time when the attachment of earnings order is made, and”;

©at the end insert—

“(9)In this paragraph “the amount outstanding” has the meaning given by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.”

 

I do not see how it can be interpreted in any other way. So the question must be asked as to why the authority would refer an account to the E A if a liability order was possible, it just racks up the cost for the debtor.

[Peterbard]

I would imagine it is rare for an account to go to the bailiffs then get returned and an AOE put in place . What as i see as a problem over there is that they take very specific examples and then extrapolate to cover all cases which is not the case.

 

Yes, liability orders do not have a shelf life though, despite what some may say they are not subject to the statute of limitations, I suppose it is possible for an order plus fees to re appear when a debtors income has improved and then be attached at a later date ?

[Peterbard]

It is also intersting to note that the legislation(LGFA) doe not give the option of including these charges, it is a requirement under the statute.

[Peterbard]

Yes, liability orders do not have a shelf life though, despite what some may say they are not subject to the statute of limitations, I suppose it is possible for an order plus fees to re appear when a debtors income has improved and then be attached at a later date ?

 

Just received a query by PM about this.

The statute of limitations prevents "proceedings" being commenced after the prescribed period. In the case of a liability order proceedings have already taken place so the legislation does not apply. The 6 year period which applies under CPR on civil debts where the creditor has to apply to the court to enforce also does not apply to a liability order.

 

Please feel free to ask the questions on the thread no one is going to bite your head off

[Coughdrop]

As most people know, or at least the people who matter, I was a very different person then and I have worked very hard at getting to where I am now.

Sorry I just felt that it needed explaining

 

No need to apologise Fletch. As you say, the people who matter know the truth. I certainly do and admire you for what you have managed to achieve after such an horrendous time in your life.

 

One reason I suggested we move on from that side of things was the fact that things were becoming increasingly inaccurate, people were inventing things to make others look bad and it really was not worth reading. That side appeared to want to move on; this side hopefully might feel able to move on and the whole mad experience can be laid to rest. Only time will tell whether this is going to be possible or not, but the likes of you (or in fact anyone I've seen slated, including myself) do not deserve the appalling publicity they've received.

 

Moving on to AoE's, I was thinking, in fact hoping, they would be used in preference to bailiffs. The FSN gives the clear option of using a range of enforcement solutions of which AoE's are the cheapest, most effective method. Sadly I don't think the money strapped councils will be looking at it this way. I think they will see an opportunity to bring enforcement in house, send a letter to commence the Compliance Stage and then visit seven clear days or so later to claim the Enforcement Stage fee.

 

After that, I see no reason, unfortunately, why they should not proceed to the sale stage (most debtors would not want this), but 'take the debt back' and change the enforcement method to an AoE, thus pocketing £310 extra.

 

Hopefully things like this will be carefully considered.

[Peterbard]

I think that at the moment it is about finding out how things work , or will work when everyone gets used to the regulations. Some will of course try to find none existent loopholes and swear that they are trying to help the debtor or "beat the bailiff" in practice they help no one.

 

What is needed is a thorough understanding of the way things work in reality, then we can advise the best realistic course of action, it is no use advising a course of action, just because someone thinks it is going to get the better of the enforcement officer, they do not care, in the end it is the poor old debtor who suffers from ill informed advice.

[Peterbard]

(1)

This is from the LGFA sched 4 , I have added the amendments from sched 13 TCE and highlighted the parts which should illustrate the answer to any questions raised so far.

 

Regulations under paragraph 1(1) above may provide that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order against a person (“the debtor”) and the debtor is an individual—

(a)

the authority concerned may make an order (an “attachment of earnings order”) to secure the payment of [F1the appropriate amount]F1 ;

(b)

such an order shall be expressed to be directed to a person who has the debtor in his employment, and shall operate as an instruction to such a person to make deductions from the debtor’s earnings and to pay the amounts deducted to the authority;

©

the authority may serve a copy of the order on a person who appears to the authority to have the debtor in his employment; and

(d)

a person who has the debtor in his employment shall comply with the order if a copy of it is served on him.

[F2(1A)

For the purposes of this paragraph the appropriate amount is the aggregate of—

(a)

any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made; and

 

 

 

(b)where a person authorised to act under the power conferred by section 14(4) (power to use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) has reported to the authority concerned that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find sufficient goods of the debtor to pay the amount outstanding—

and”;

 

“(In this paragraph “the amount outstanding” has the meaning given by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007(ii)

 

if the authority has applied for the issue of a warrant committing the debtor to prison under provision included by virtue of paragraph 8 below, a sum (of a prescribed amount or an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of the costs of the application.]

[Coughdrop]

That is brilliant, and by far the clearest I've seen it set out to date (trusting everything you've cited is 100% accurate). This then brings us back to this sticky bit debated previously of what are proceeds and what is the amount outstanding?

 

 

 

50(1)Proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power must be used to pay the amount outstanding.

 

(2)Proceeds are any of these—

 

(a)proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods;

 

(b)money taken in exercise of the power, if paragraph 37(1) does not apply to it.

 

(3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

 

(a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

 

(b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

 

 

So what does paragraph 62 (costs) actually say?

 

Costs

 

62(1)Regulations may make provision for the recovery by any person from the debtor of amounts in respect of costs of enforcement-related services.

 

(2)The regulations may provide for recovery to be out of proceeds or otherwise.

(3)The amount recoverable under the regulations in any case is to be determined by or under the regulations.

 

(4)The regulations may in particular provide for the amount, if disputed, to be assessed in accordance with rules of court.

(5)“Enforcement-related services” means anything done under or in connection with an enforcement power, or in connection with obtaining an enforcement power, or any services used for the purposes of a provision of this Schedule or regulations under it.

 

 

 

I think, even if one disagrees over proceeds those two words, "or otherwise" are highly significant.

 

Also (4) gives it over to the court to make the decision if disputed - I suspect we know which way they would rule, though it stands, of course, to be tested.

 

 

 

So much remains to be firmed up still. What we are unpicking here, and others are doing elsewhere arriving at the same or different conclusions is effectively doing the MOJ's work for them. In my opinion, the MOJ would benefit from coming and reading these boards (both sides of the argument) so they can ensure that any amendments made remove, as far as possible, any further doubt or conflict relating to this issue.

 

I agree with your interpretation, but equally, I can see quite easily how something different could be argued. As I said on CAG yesterday, given the volatility of this area and its clearly demonstrated ability to cause huge upset, I believe it is best left for the relevant people to agree to differ, stop making personal comments and continue on the basis that we simply have differing opinions.

 

Obviously it is not in my gift to achieve this, but I can voice what I think would be best for all. The sides are so diametrically opposed that agreement will never be achieved until things are clarified by the powers that be. It's not a case of trying to find arguments for or against paying bailiff fees as far as I'm concerned, it's about getting the law correct and acting in accordance with it. Where bailiff fees can be legitimately avoided without exacerbating things for the debtor, they should be avoided.

 

Just my two pennies worth.

[Bailiff Advice]

The statute of limitations prevents "proceedings" being commenced after the prescribed period. In the case of a liability order proceedings have already taken place so the legislation does not apply. The 6 year period which applies under CPR on civil debts where the creditor has to apply to the court to enforce also does not apply to a liability order.

 

If for instance a local authority carried out an enquiry on a debtor and those enquiries revealed arrears from 2007 the LA would be prohibited from applying for a Liability Order.

 

There are many old Liability Orders outstanding from 10 years ago and these can still be enforced. However, at a very recent meeting that I attended a senior LG Ombudsman gave a presentation about such Liability Orders and the LGO's position is that if a complaint is made the Ombudsman would look first at the amount and secondly to see what prior enforcement action had been taken.

 

On the matter of the 'amount' the LGO could find fault if the LO (or arrears) had been for a low amount (a figure of £75 was mentioned). However, if the figure was for instance £500 then the LGO would want to see whether the LA had tried to previously collect the debt and also, whether the debtor had left a forwarding address or had made any attempts to repay the debt. It was also made clear that LA's need to collect debts as councils are suffering from severe cut backs.

 

There is also the matter of a significantly important Tribunal ruling (that was also discussed at the time) which addresses the Statute of Limitation Act. Whilst not a court ruling the case is nonetheless vitally important and is one that I have referred to quite a few times this past year with great success (in getting the LA to cease enforcement of an old LO).

 

Given the way in which this thread is being dissected and ridiculed by some silly individuals elsewhere for nothing more than pure entertainment it would better if I sent links to the Tribunal ruling and Briefing Paper to you by PM.

[Coughdrop]

To give an example of how many Attachment of Earnings there are for council tax arrears, one local authority reported the following figures:

 

Attachment of benefit 3,046

Attachment of earnings 3,412

Referred to Bailiff 4,750

 

Attachment of Earnings as a way of clearing council tax arrears can be beneficial for debtors on low salaries. The following are TRUE figures from two debtors who contacted me during this past week:

 

Case One:

 

Debtor has a take home salary of £1870 and the London LA have made an attachment against his salary of £317.90 per month.

 

Case Two:

 

The debtor works as an engineer and had lost his previous employment after the company went into receivership. He managed in the meantime to get temporary work on less than half his previous salary. He was unable to claim benefits and had a Liability Order for 2013/14 and another LO was granted in September for this current year.

 

He managed to get a new permanent job in July this year and the Local Authority has attached both Liability Orders to his salary under Attachment of Earnings.

 

His take home pay was £2,525 in September and October and is now just £1,602 (nearly £1,000 less)

 

The first Liability Order is being deducted at the rate of £595.90 per month

The second Liability Order is being deducted at the rate of £327.95 per month.

 

PS: I have checked the deductions and they are correct.

 

Why, in case two, is the amount deducted for LO2 less than LO1?

[Peterbard]

If for instance a local authority carried out an enquiry on a debtor and those enquiries revealed arrears from 2007 the LA would be prohibited from applying for a Liability Order.

 

There are many old Liability Orders outstanding from 10 years ago and these can still be enforced. However, at a very recent meeting that I attended a senior LG Ombudsman gave a presentation about such Liability Orders and the LGO's position is that if a complaint is made the Ombudsman would look first at the amount and secondly to see what prior enforcement action had been taken.

 

On the matter of the 'amount' the LGO could find fault if the LO (or arrears) had been for a low amount (a figure of £75 was mentioned). However, if the figure was for instance £500 then the LGO would want to see whether the LA had tried to previously collect the debt and also, whether the debtor had left a forwarding address or had made any attempts to repay the debt. It was also made clear that LA's need to collect debts as councils are suffering from severe cut backs.

 

There is also the matter of a significantly important Tribunal ruling (that was also discussed at the time) which addresses the Statute of Limitation Act. Whilst not a court ruling the case is nonetheless vitally important and is one that I have referred to quite a few times this past year with great success (in getting the LA to cease enforcement of an old LO).

 

Given the way in which this thread is being dissected and ridiculed by some silly individuals elsewhere for nothing more than pure entertainment it would better if I sent links to the Tribunal ruling and Briefing Paper to you by PM.

 

 

Received Many thanks, and don't worry BA people always ridicule what they cannot understand

[Bailiff Advice]

Why, in case two, is the amount deducted for LO2 less than LO1?

 

Looking back on the notes from my conversation with the debtor in case number two, the Liability Order for 2013/14 is £1,900 and for this current year is just over £1,800. Both Liability Orders are now subject to Attachment of Earnings with the first one being deducted at source from his salary at £595.90 per month with the 2nd LO being deducted at a lower rate of £327.95. Deductions started to be made in his October salary.

 

The statutory regulations provide that deductions are set at 17% in respect of the first £2,020 of net wages and 50% in respect of the remainder.

 

After deducting Liability Order one (£595.20) the NET wages amount is considerably reduced to approx £1,900 and this is the net figure that the 2nd LO is calculated on.

 

PS: In this particular case (which is a true example), deductions for Liability Order one will finish after the December payment and accordingly, the debtors net pay will once again return to £2,525. The figure for the 2nd Liability Order will then be amended and will rise from the current figure of £327.95 to £595.50.

 

His last payment should be at the end of February 2015.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/927/regulation/6/made

 

As you have quite rightly stated, Regulation 37 (1a) is the outstanding sum remaining under the Liability Order but sub section (b) is the important figure as this amendment provides for the bailiff fees incurred under Schedule 5 of the previous regs to also be added to the amount of the Attachment of Earnings.

[Peterbard]

There is also the idea which says that the individual authorities may negotiate their contracts on a no win no fees arrangement,( I have just seen this elsewhere) this is indeed a possibility in my opinion, at least it was under the old regs, I am unsure if the authority will still have the choice now the requirement is under statute, as pointed out the legislation does say " may," however this refers to the making of regulations under it I think I am right in saying and not to the requirements of the TCE.

 

Because of this under the old system where the requirement was in the regulation they may have had the leeway it is debateable that they still do.

Incidentally I have never said that the EA can add fees before they have even got the account, that would be just silly.

[outlawla]

....I am unsure if the authority will still have the choice now the requirement is under statute....

 

The requirement was similarly under statute pre April, but the difference was that the fees were always the local authority's so I should say that is a key consideration.

 

Regulation 52 sub-paragraph 4 SI 1992/613

[Bailiff Advice]

There is also the idea which says that the individual authorities may negotiate their contracts on a no win no fees arrangement,( I have just seen this elsewhere) this is indeed a possibility in my opinion, at least it was under the old regs, I am unsure if the authority will still have the choice now the requirement is under statute, as pointed out the legislation does say " may," however this refers to the making of regulations under it I think I am right in saying and not to the requirements of the TCE.

 

Sorry DB but I am unsure what it is that you mean about 'no win, no fees' arrangements ??

 

It is not for the local authority to say whether or not the bailiff may recover fees...the legislation provides for the enforcement agent to charge fees. That right is set in statute law so a 'no win, no fees' provision cannot be applicable. I would be interested to know which LA has such an agreement.

 

The position is clear in that if the bailiff is unable to secure a payment arrangement or alternatively, cannot 'take control of goods' then he can return the warrant/liability order back to the creditor. If the bailiff voluntarily returns the warrant then his enforcement power ceases and any bailiff fees die. That is clear in the regulations.

 

Many contracts provide that warrants should be retained for a period of about 3-4 months and as long as the debtor is prepared for the fact that the bailiff can make repeat visits then in theory, the debtor could simply refuse to deal with the bailiff. If of course a debtor has a car then they risk the vehicle being taken. My personal opinion, is that a sensible payment proposal should be set up during the Compliance Stage and in that way, bailiff fees are limited to £75.

 

If the debtor wants to only deal with the council then surely they could have done so before the debt was passed to the bailiff company. It is my understanding that so far....almost all LA's are continuing to send the '14 day' letter so if a debtor wants to avoid bailiffs all together then they need to make sure that they address the matter as soon as the Liability Order is issued !!

[outlawla]

If you have Nottingham City Council as your local authority it seems like you're in luck as the bailiff fees appear optional.

 

 

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 were introduced monies paid to the Council are handed onto a bailiff in the following circumstances:

 

a) The payment fully settles the debt with the bailiff including their fees. In this case the value of the fees is passed to the bailiff;

 

b) The debtor clearly indicates that the payment is for the bailiff.

[Bailiff Advice]

To try to keep it simple:

 

The Local Government Finance Act 1992 provides for council tax.

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/613) outlines the detailed provision for the administration and enforcement of council tax.

 

The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996 allows the local authority in relation to council tax and non- domestic rates, to authorise another person, or that person’s employees, (a “contractor”) to exercise functions relating to the administration and enforcement of council tax.

[Bailiff Advice]

The following is 'word' copy of the official Attachment of Earnings template that is sent to the debtors employer.

 

 

[Name of billing authority]

 

 

Regulation 37 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

[Debtor’s name and address] [Payroll/Works No.] [billing authority’s reference]

 

 

To any person who has in his employment the person named above.

 

On [date] the [name] magistrates’ court made a liability order under regulation 34 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 against the person named above.

 

Under regulation 37 the authority which applied for the liability order, [name of authority] may make an attachment of earnings order to secure the payment of the appropriate amount, which under regulation 37 (1A) is the aggregate of -

 

(a)any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

 

(b) such additional sums and costs as are specified in regulation 37 (1A) (b).

 

Calculated in accordance with regulation 37 (1A) the appropriate amount in relation to this order is £ [amount].

 

YOU ARE ORDERED by [name of billing authority] to make deductions from the net earnings (as defined in regulation 32 of those Regulations) of the person named above at the times and at the rate specified in regulation 38 of those Regulations.

 

The first such deduction shall be made as soon as reasonably practicable after the service on you of a copy of this order. A copy of regulations 32 and 38, together with regulations 39 to 42 and Schedule 4, are set out at the end of this order.

 

YOU ARE ALSO ORDERED to pay each sum deducted to [name of billing authority and address for payments] within the period of 19 days beginning on the last day of the month in which the deduction was made.

 

Dated , 20...........................................

 

Proper officer of the authority

 

*Indorsement on copy sent to person appearing to have the debtor in his employment

 

It appears to [name of billing authority] that you have the above-named debtor in your employment. You must notify [name of billing authority] in writing within 14 days of the date of service on you of this copy of the order if you do not have the debtor in your employment. You must also notify [name of billing authority] in writing within 14 days of the day on which the debtor leaves your employment. Failure to do so may render you liable to a fine.

 

*Indorsement on copy sent to debtor

 

This is a copy of an attachment of earnings order served on your employer. If you leave his employment or become employed or re-employed you must notify [name of billing authority] in writing within 14 days, giving the particulars specified in regulation 40(1) of the Regulations mentioned in the order. Failure to do so may render you liable to a fine.

 

Italics indicate words or figures to be inserted.

 

Delete whichever indorsement is inapplicable.

[Peterbard]

Yes and up until the implementation of the TCE the provision for attachment of earnings was contained in the council tax regulations. After this date the provision was removed by the consequential amendments, at which time the provision was taken up by the LGFA, via an amendment implemented in schedule 13 of the TCE, as said previously the LGFA is now responsible for the AOE.

 

The LGFA now says that on failure of an enforcement action(for any reason) an AOE will contain amounts owed under the action at the time.

 

My problem is that I cannot square this with the idea that the fees should die when the enforcement action ceases.

Section 17 of the fees regs, says that when an enforcement action ceases then fees stop from the time when the action steps, so this means that , if for instance if the EA is at enforcement stage then the enforcement stage fee will not form part of the "amount outstanding" and thus not make up part of the amount applied to the AOE under the LGFA ?

[Bailiff Advice]

Yes and up until the implementation of the TCE the provision for attachment of earnings was contained in the council tax regulations. After this date the provision was removed by the consequential amendments, at which time the provision was taken up by the LGFA, via an amendment implemented in schedule 13 of the TCE, as said previously the LGFA is now responsible for the AOE.

 

The LGFA now says that on failure of an enforcement action(for any reason) an AOE will contain amounts owed under the action at the time.

 

My problem is that I cannot square this with the idea that the fees should die when the enforcement action ceases.

Section 17 of the fees regs, says that when an enforcement action ceases then fees stop from the time when the action steps, so this means that , if for instance if the EA is at enforcement stage then the enforcement stage fee will not form part of the "amount outstanding" and thus not make up part of the amount applied to the AOE under the LGFA ?

 

You need to remember that a lot of AOE's are set up as soon as an LO has been obtained and before the debt is passed to the bailiffs.

 

However, for many years, the bailiff companies have also been administering AOE's and they are permitted to do so under the Contracting Out regs and their fees have been legally included.

 

The present position would seem to be that as long as the warrant/ liability order is still with the enforcement company then the EA can set up and administer the AOE and include their fees.

 

If however the EA voluntarily return the liability order back to the council then their enforcement power ceases and fees die. The return could be for any number of reasons but most likely to be, as the debtor had no funds or assets and had been unemployed. If at some future stage the debtor returned to employment the LA could attach an AOE to his wages but no fees could be added.

 

The 'key; is whether or not the EA return the debt back to the council.

 

PS: Much more serious is what the position would be if the LA decides to take bailiff enforcement 'in house'. At what point could it be established that the 'enforcement power ceases' !!!!!