Attachment of Earnings Orders and bailiff fees......An update

[Bailiff Advice]

In November an innocuous query was raised on this forum from a debtor whose council tax arrears were being collected under a Council Tax Attachment of Earnings Order and the debtor asked whether bailiff fees could be added to the debt. At the time...the answer provided to the debtor was that fees could be added.

 

Unfortunately, within 24 hours the thread attracted personal abuse from ‘new’ members to the forum complaining that the advice was wrong and that fees cannot be added and that paying the council direct meant that bailiff fees had ‘died’ (which is untrue).

 

The extraordinary level of personal abuse against individuals on here from these ‘internet trolls’ led to posters being banned from this forum and threads closed. In fact the same subject was debated on the LB forum and that too came under dreadful attack from the same ‘internet trolls’ (who proudly boasted of their new found skills on their own forum).

 

To sum up the importance of this subject one of the individuals responsible stated that despite what the regulations may say about bailiff fees he would continue 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".

 

Since that time the subject matter of Attachment of Earnings has been debated privately with members of this forum and I stated on the thread that I would not post anything further until I had received responses to my enquiries on this subject....which I am now doing.

[Conniff]

I believe AOE are only advanced when all other methods of collection have failed and that includes bailiffs, so yes there rightly are fees even if on AOE.

[Bailiff Advice]

To clarify the position. At this present time......bailiff fees cannot be added to Council Tax Attachment of Earnings Orders.

 

The starting point is that under the previous regulations, once a Liability Order had been obtained a local authority could enforce the debt by way of distress and the local authority could charge fees as outlined under Schedule 5 of the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement Regulations) 1992. At that time, only a few local authorities had in house bailiffs and they therefore contracted with private sector bailiff companies to enforce the debt and collect their fees on their behalf. This was achieved by introducing the Contracting Out of Council Tax Billing and Enforcement Regulations. To be clear, prior to 6th April the fees belonged to the local authority.

 

The new regulations have significantly changed in that bailiff fees now belong to the enforcement company (which is why local authorities and magistrate courts must deduct the bailiff fees from any payments made to them after warrants (or Liability Order have been issued and passed to enforcement companies).

 

Attachment of Earnings Order are prescribed under Schedule 4 Local Government Finance Act 1992 but when the regs were originally written, there was an error in that there was no allowance for billing authorities to recover any fees raised for AOEO's. This was rectified in 2004, when paragraph 1A was added to Regulation 37.

 

On the April 6th Regulation 1A was revoked by SI2014/600 (para 3) meaning that fees cannot be added to Attachment of Earnings Orders.

 

However, this amendment is completely at odds with a further significant amendment made on 6th April to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (Item 105 of Schedule 13 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007).

 

After my initial thread on this subject, it would seem that local authorities were once again subjected to a barrage of Freedom of Informations requests (one of the 'internet trolls' himself stated that he had made 20 FOI's) and it would seem that local authorities (and others) have since been questioning the new regs (which do not appear to be compatible at all with the amendment outlined above).

 

The reason why this subject is of such importance to local authorities is because many of them are looking at taking bailiff enforcement in house and being able to recover bailiff fees from CTAOEO's could be a significant source of additional revenue to them.

 

As to what will happen next....I do not know.

[Bailiff Advice]

I believe AOE are only advanced when all other methods of collection have failed and that includes bailiffs, so yes there rightly are fees even if on AOE.

 

In fact this is not correct at all and is the reason why local authorities are now 'scratching their heads'.

 

When a Liability Order is issued a range of recovery methods can be used including an Attachment of Earnings Order and crucially, under the Contracting Out regs it allows the enforcement companies to 'make the order' and serve it upon the debtors employer.

 

It is only committal proceedings that cannot be instigated unless all other recovery methods have been tried and it is only now (mainly from the large number of FOI requests) that local authorities are being made aware that fees can no longer be applied.

 

Large enforcement companies such as Rossendales, Equita and Marston's have dedicated staff making Attachment of Earnings Orders and they are a popular method of recovering money given that they are simple to set up and cost very little in admin time.

[Conniff]

under the Contracting Out regs it allows the enforcement companies to 'make the order'

So you are saying that bailiff companies can apply for an AOE ??

[Bailiff Advice]

So you are saying that bailiff companies can apply for an AOE ??

 

Absolutely and they have been doing so for years. The changes to the regulations can be seen here:

 

Regulation 23.b

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1880/article/23/made?view=plain

 

 

And Regulation 29.a

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1880/article/29/made?view=plain

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Unfortunately, within 24 hours the thread attracted personal abuse from ‘new’ members to the forum complaining that the advice was wrong and that fees cannot be added and that paying the council direct meant that bailiff fees had ‘died’ (which is untrue).

 

The extraordinary level of personal abuse against individuals on here from these ‘internet trolls’ led to posters being banned from this forum and threads closed. In fact the same subject was debated on the LB forum and that too came under dreadful attack from the same ‘internet trolls’ (who proudly boasted of their new found skills on their own forum).

 

I would just like to add to the above comment in my initial thread.

 

Since this subject was first raised in November the website (forum) in question (that is well known to most on here and closely linked to the Freeman on the Land movement) have demonstrated their extraordinary obsession with this forum and my own advice by deciding to start threads with running commentaries on every post made by any of us on here and each post is ridiculed and the posters subjected to personal abuse (with some posters on here even being referred to by their real names).

 

The FMotL members on there are doing the exact same to posts on the bailiff section of the LB forum as well. Their obsession with both sites is rife.

 

Today's obsession appears to be posts made by us all on this thread. Please everyone...ignore these silly internet trolls. They have no purpose. As they cannot complain at the advice given to debtors they have to instead resort to attacking the individual person.

[Coughdrop]

BA - What are your thoughts on this?

[Bailiff Advice]

BA - What are your thoughts on this?

 

My 'personal' opinion (and it is only that) is that the amendment made under Schedule 13 of TCE 2007 (item 105) to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 cannot be ignored given that it is an amendment to 'primary' legislation and Parliament's intention is therefore clear in that fees should be applied.

 

My personal opinion is that 'the powers that be' had very likely been unaware that enforcement companies can set up Attachment of Earnings.

 

If any amendment is now to be made it would be to 'secondary' legislation and with a lot of LA's now questioning this subject (following a string of FOI requests) this may well happen.

[Peterbard]

My 'personal' opinion (and it is only that) is that the amendment made under Schedule 13 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 cannot be ignored given that it is a amendment to 'primary' legislation and Parliament's intention is that fees should be applied.

 

My personal opinion is that 'the powers that be' had very likely been unaware that enforcement companies can set up Attachment of Earnings. An amendment would need to be made to the 'secondary' legislation and with a lot of LA's now questioning this matter (following a string of FOI requests) this may happen.

 

Yes i agree with this as well

 

I think though that the reason the amendment to the secondary legislation was removed was because it clashed with other sections of the regs.

 

In any case the amendment to the source legislation cannot be ignored.

 

It is to be hoped that there will be some clarification of this matter, not only for us but for the LAs who seem to be equally confused about the matter.

[Bailiff Advice]

As I have mentioned above, when the regs were originally written, there was an error in that there was no allowance for billing authorities to recover any fees raised for AOE's. This was rectified in 2004, by inserting paragraph 1A into regulation 37 or the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

 

The Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 gave all government bodies the opportunity to "clean up" legislation and accordingly, revoking section 1A and at the same time....amending the primary legislation (The Local Government Finance Act 1992) has meant that everything to do with Council Tax Attachment of Earnings Orders is now in the right place.

[Peterbard]

Yes the beauty of amending statute is that it overrides any anomalies in the regulations.

 

I am convinced that this is the situation as it stands legally now, however it is a matter of informing councils of the way the legislation works, i suppose it will take time.

[mikeymack2002]

This thread has now made SCOOP

 

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news?page=2

[Peterbard]

In November an innocuous query was raised on this forum from a debtor whose council tax arrears were being collected under a Council Tax Attachment of Earnings Order and the debtor asked whether bailiff fees could be added to the debt. At the time...the answer provided to the debtor was that fees could be added.

 

Unfortunately, within 24 hours the thread attracted personal abuse from ‘new’ members to the forum complaining that the advice was wrong and that fees cannot be added and that paying the council direct meant that bailiff fees had ‘died’ (which is untrue).

 

The extraordinary level of personal abuse against individuals on here from these ‘internet trolls’ led to posters being banned from this forum and threads closed. In fact the same subject was debated on the LB forum and that too came under dreadful attack from the same ‘internet trolls’ (who proudly boasted of their new found skills on their own forum).

 

To sum up the importance of this subject one of the individuals responsible stated that despite what the regulations may say about bailiff fees he would continue 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".

 

Since that time the subject matter of Attachment of Earnings has been debated privately with members of this forum and I stated on the thread that I would not post anything further until I had received responses to my enquiries on this subject....which I am now doing.

 

It is a sad fact that lately it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion about the regulations, without any remarks being picked up by the FMOTL and distorted in an attempt to create some kind of loophole.

 

In this case, fees have always been included in AOE's, there was an error in drafting the new regulations , this has been rectified, end of story.

[Bailiff Advice]

It is a sad fact that lately it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion about the regulations, without any remarks being picked up by the FMOTL and distorted in an attempt to create some kind of loophole.

 

In this case, fees have always been included in AOE's, there was an error in drafting the new regulations , this has been rectified, end of story.

 

As I had pointed out in my initial post, an everyday question had been raised on the forum about fees in relation to an Attachment of Earnings and the thread quickly came under the most hostile of attacks from internet trolls with associations to the Freeman on the Land movement. One of them decided to make endless Freedom of Information requests to local authorities and carried on 'debating' the subject for weeks (including registering under new user names on the LB this weeks and where yet again...the thread was locked.

 

As I said a few days ago, I am certain that a simple error had been made and it will very likely be amended and in particular given, that it is clear that Parliament's intention is that fees can be applied and that has been the case since 2004.

 

When anything further is known I will update the thread.

 

PS: I will be starting a new thread in the morning about Magistrate Court fines.

[Peterbard]

As I had pointed out in my initial post, an everyday question had been raised on the forum about fees in relation to an Attachment of Earnings and the thread quickly came under the most hostile of attacks from internet trolls with associations to the Freeman on the Land movement. One of them decided to make endless Freedom of Information requests to local authorities and carried on 'debating' the subject for weeks (including registering under new user names on the LB this weeks and where yet again...the thread was locked.

 

As I said a few days ago, I am certain that a simple error had been made and it will very likely be amended and in particular given, that it is clear that Parliament's intention is that fees can be applied and that has been the case since 2004.

 

When anything further is known I will update the thread.

 

PS: I will be starting a new thread in the morning about Magistrate Court fines.

 

Yes I had to PM the owner of that forum an request the thread be closed as the usual suspects where about to obscure any informed argument with the usual FMOTL nonsense.

 

It is difficult to argue intelligently with those who have the agenda as illustrated in your first post, you end up spending most of your time debating unrelated points which most informed people regard as common knowledge.

 

As you say the matter is best being left until we can post up the confirming information from the MOJ.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

It is difficult to argue intelligently with those who have the agenda

 

 

And the 'agenda' is to get unsuspecting debtors to believe the nonsense provided and and the same time, ensure that they pay a fee to download worthless template documents.

 

I wondered whether any of them would put the same amount of time into discussing the following thread that I started this morning??? Somehow I doubt it....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?439806-Criminal-Procedure-(Amendment)-Rules-2015-and-unpaid-Magistrate-Court-Fines.(15-Viewing)-nbsp

[Peterbard]

And the 'agenda' is to get unsuspecting debtors to believe the nonsense provided and and the same time, ensure that they pay a fee to download worthless template documents.

 

I wondered whether any of them would put the same amount of time into discussing the following thread that I started this morning??? Somehow I doubt it....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?439806-Criminal-Procedure-(Amendment)-Rules-2015-and-unpaid-Magistrate-Court-Fines.(15-Viewing)-nbsp

 

I kind of doubt it, that particular barmy advice as proven to be an embarrassment to even the most deluded followers of the guru.

[wonkeydonkey]

And the 'agenda' is to get unsuspecting debtors to believe the nonsense provided and and the same time, ensure that they pay a fee to download worthless template documents.

 

I wondered whether any of them would put the same amount of time into discussing the following thread that I started this morning??? Somehow I doubt it....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?439806-Criminal-Procedure-(Amendment)-Rules-2015-and-unpaid-Magistrate-Court-Fines.(15-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Discuss it ...No. But in all likelyhood they will spend a considerable amount of time trying to 'discredit' your reseach and when that fails they will resort to personnal abuse toward anyone who dares to agree with the facts of the matter.

 

After all that is (to coin their favorite quote) their 'Modus Operandi', is it not?

[Peterbard]

they will resort to personnal abuse toward anyone who dares to agree with the facts of the matter.

 

After all that is (to coin their favorite quote) their 'Modus Operandi', is it not?

 

Yes WD right on cue.

 

What they fail to understand is that the provisions for adding fees to AOEs is included in the TCE schedule 13 section 107, no one can make the powers that be add fees, only parliament, and they already have.

[Peterbard]

Just incase some have not seen the above here it is

107(1)Schedule 4 (enforcement: England and Wales) is amended as follows.

(2)In paragraph 1(1) and (2) after “recovery” insert “ , otherwise than under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods), ”.

(3)In paragraph 5 (attachment of earnings etc)—

(a)in sub-paragraph (1A)(a) for “; and” substitute “ (unless paragraph (b) applies); ”;

(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”;

 

For those who do not understand the way that legislation and secondary legislation(regulations) work.

 

Secondary legislation cannot repeal primary legislation.

 

The various amendments were made to the council tax reinforcements REGULATIONS, not the legislature, the only way the Local government finance ACT could be modified would be by another ACT the tribunals courts an enforcment ACT.(in this case schedule 13 section 107 above)

Please excuse the spelling

 

This feature is still in place it still modifies the council tax enforcement regulations(via the local government finance act), and provides the definition of the "appropriate amount" in that regulation which includes fees for attachment of earnings.

[Peterbard]

You see the amendments to the council tax regulations were removed by the consequential amendments, for the same reasons that all the other amendments were made, they referred to bailiffs instead of EA. to distress instead of taking control of goods and more importantly to schedule 5 instead of schedule 12 of the TCE, when this was removed it was replaced by the same definition but using the TCE terms and in the source legislation, this was to counter any problems with conflicting provisions in the regulations, now it may be that this did not work, I think it did, but if it didn't it does not really matter because the parliamentary intent was there to add these charges (The TCE has not been repealed, it would take full parliamentary session)and if it is not effective now then with a few tweeks of the regs, it will be in very short order.

 

if there is anyone on here who does not understand this situation please ask, the on;y people who appear not to are on another "specialist forum" LOL but please, it is not simple it is just that I have been doing this stuff a long time as BA will tell you.

[Peterbard]

Ok I made the mistake of thinking I could introduce a measure of sense in the other forum, I will have to go back to ignoring them, thee really is no hope I am afraid they do not have the capacity to understand,they are t far into the FMOTL ways,unfortunately it does not stop them giving advice it is a shame as I am sue at least one has the basis of an idea about how things work, and shows this by posting completely different advice on other forums under other user names, he needs to get away form the guru IMO. my advice to him would be to get off there and put it behind him, he knows who he is. .(and I do no think he is "thick".

 

edit Cant say the same for the other fellow though(you know the one I mean, honestly do you think he has any kind of grasp on what he is continually going on about, I am sure you know that he does not. must be constant source of blood curdling cringing embarrassment to you, really, scrape em off.

 

You have a shot at a descent forum now, behave yourself keep giving good advice and they will welcome you with open arms. But what you say on the other place is being watched and it does you no favors.

[Bailiff Advice]

There is nothing further to gain on this subject and in the goodness of time, errors with legislation will be sorted out.

 

As I said yesterday, the most important subject must be that of unpaid court fines and the changes made to the legislation a few days ago under the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015.

[Peterbard]

Yes I know, just a vain attempt to describe how the thing works, it amazes me that they seek to give advice when they do not even understand the basics of how legislation and statutory instruments are produced, and there interrelationship, talk about trying to run before you can walk.

 

Anyway we will see as you say if further amendments are required to the regulations.