Paying the local authority or court direct...who is entitled to these 'direct payments'

[ripvan]

The astonishing number of Freedom of Information requests made regarding 'direct payments' is simply dreadful and I have highlighted this in a number of different threads, one of which is below:...

 

Assuming the requests for information I've seen are the ones referred to by the pro-bailiff contributors, it is clear that on the whole, the relevant legal officers are aware of the law that would make local authorities' actions unlawful if they were to forward monies to their enforcement contractors which has been paid, and the preference expressed that it should be made against council tax arrears.

[ripvan]

Those dreadful freedom of information requests have proved to be an inexpensive way of ensuring local authorities' legal services are conversant with the relevant law. As it is they're typically on six figure salaries, how much would it cost to secure legal officers who knew what they were doing?

[Bailiff Advice]

Assuming the requests for information I've seen are the ones referred to by the pro-bailiff contributors, it is clear that on the whole, the relevant legal officers are aware of the law that would make local authorities' actions unlawful if they were to forward monies to their enforcement contractors which has been paid, and the preference expressed that it should be made against council tax arrears.

 

Your individual theory should be addressed to the relevant authorities.

 

There are simply hundreds of FOI requests presented to local authorities on this subject (many from the same person using a variety of different aliases) and just a fraction of them appear on the WhatdoTheyKnow website. We have all seen many responses from the local authorities confirming that 'direct payments' are dealt with in accordance with the regulations and in this 'Information thread' I have highlighted the view according to the bailiff industry and this is very important indeed to debtors.

[Bailiff Advice]

Those dreadful freedom of information requests have proved to be an inexpensive way of ensuring local authorities' legal services are conversant with the relevant law. As it is they're typically on six figure salaries, how much would it cost to secure legal officers who knew what they were doing?

 

I am sorry but I disagree. The requests may well be inexpensive for the few individuals submitting these requests but they are very costly the local authorities (many of which are being subjected to lengthly internal reviews) and in turn, to the hard working taxpayer who funds the LA's.

 

Furthermore, the more recent FOI requests that I have read on this subject have taken a very disturbing nasty tone to them.

 

I do not wish to comment further on the matter of the FOI requests.

[Peterbard]

Assuming the requests for information I've seen are the ones referred to by the pro-bailiff contributors, it is clear that on the whole, the relevant legal officers are aware of the law that would make local authorities' actions unlawful if they were to forward monies to their enforcement contractors which has been paid, and the preference expressed that it should be made against council tax arrears.

 

There re no pro bailiff contributes on here ripvan, except possible for the bailiffs themselves

 

We are here to help debtors, helping debtors is not just a matter of saying, do not pay your debts, would that it were that easy.

 

As BA says the information threads are important, in that they enable people to know the real situation regarding what bailiffs can and cannot do, as someone said we ensure bailiffs do not "cross the line", but on here we know exactly were the line is.

 

Addressing your point about debtors expressing a preference to where the payment goes, I am afraid they do not have that option once the debt has been passed for enforcment, the debt under the order becomes one with the fees due to the EA and will be apportioned as mentioned earlier.

[DragonFly1967]

the pro-bailiff contributors

 

Sticking my neck on the line here, but...

 

I'm certainly not "pro-bailiff" having had my own run-in's with them in the past. But I must say that in general terms, you've not only got hold of the wrong end of the stick about the people on this forum, but I'm not even sure that you're holding the right stick!

 

 

People like Bailiff Advice (and many others) aren't "pro-bailiff" either. What they do do, is tell people the truth about the situation they they find themselves in. Granted, that might not be what people want to hear, but it is, none the less, the truth of the matter. One cannot shoot the messenger just because one does not like the message!

 

I'm sure there are lots of 'other forums' that will tell you exactly what you want to hear, and I'd wager that you've arrived here from one of them to try and stir things up a little. But I'm rather afraid that you're bound to fail. The advice on this forum, especially from people that are regular contributors here, is, I'd have to say, pretty much second to none.

[Peterbard]

sticking my neck on the line here, but...

 

I'm certainly not "pro-bailiff" having had my own run-in's with them in the past. But i must say that in general terms, you've not only got hold of the wrong end of the stick about the people on this forum, but i'm not even sure that you're holding the right stick!

.

 

lol

[ploddertom]

Thread tidied & reopened.

[daverules]

People like Bailiff Advice (and many others) aren't "pro-bailiff" either. What they do do, is tell people the truth about the situation they they find themselves in. Granted, that might not be what people want to hear, but it is, none the less, the truth of the matter. One cannot shoot the messenger just because one does not like the message!

 

I'm sure there are lots of 'other forums' that will tell you exactly what you want to hear, and I'd wager that you've arrived here from one of them to try and stir things up a little. But I'm rather afraid that you're bound to fail. The advice on this forum, especially from people that are regular contributors here, is, I'd have to say, pretty much second to none.

 

Very well said.

[outlawla]

Neither Bailiff Advice nor her right hand man, DB, have provided any evidence supporting the lawfulness of a local authority forwarding monies to their enforcement contractor, in respect of bailiff fees which has been paid where a preference has been expressed that it should be made against council tax arrears.

 

Do either of you have it, and if so, where is it?

[Coughdrop]

Isn't it simpler just to sit it out and wait till the bailiffs return the warrant if the LA won't agree to call off bailiffs? Doesn't that avoid all of this can / can't they pass monies on?

 

Surely as long as you write to them and ask them to call of bailiffs, stating you won't deal with them but you're willing to pay the LA what you can afford, then you won't be seen as a 'won't pay' and would still avoid fees, even if it means sitting things out and putting the money to one side?

 

This seems to me an altogether better way of doing things.

[outlawla]

Isn't it simpler just to sit it out and wait till the bailiffs return the warrant if the LA won't agree to call off bailiffs? Doesn't that avoid all of this can / can't they pass monies on?

 

Surely as long as you write to them and ask them to call of bailiffs, stating you won't deal with them but you're willing to pay the LA what you can afford, then you won't be seen as a 'won't pay' and would still avoid fees, even if it means sitting things out and putting the money to one side?

 

This seems to me an altogether better way of doing things.

 

I agree!

[lookinforinfo]

Outlawla in answer to your question-there isn't an option for the late payer to demand when and if any monies paid to the Council for C/T arrears should go to the

bailiff [yeah I still regard them as bailiffs and not EAs].

 

If you read EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO

THE TAKING CONTROL OF GOODS (FEES) REGULATIONS 2014

2014 No. 1

it explains their reasoning for their decision-

8.3 The consultation response stated that in cases where the proceeds of enforcement are less than the amount outstanding, they should be distributed on a pro-rata basis between creditor and enforcement agent (regarding the outstanding debt and the enforcement fees and disbursements respectively). However, it has since been demonstrated that this would cause enforcement agents to operate at a loss for some time before they recovered their fees, undermining the fee structure model by significantly delaying remuneration and preventing the necessary investment in enforcement businesses required to provide a sustainable service. Without this, successful enforcement could potentially decline significantly and enforcement agents may be encouraged to act in an aggressive manner in order to try and recoup the entire debt. It was therefore decided that enforcement agents

should be paid the compliance stage in full first, followed by a pro-rata division of proceeds between enforcement agent and creditor.

 

In other words, were the bailiffs not to be paid their £75 first, they might burst into tears and then get revenge by being overly aggressive and going for the full

amount. Doing it this way therefore helps to stop some bailiffs from breaking the Law.

[Peterbard]

Isn't it simpler just to sit it out and wait till the bailiffs return the warrant if the LA won't agree to call off bailiffs? Doesn't that avoid all of this can / can't they pass monies on?

 

Surely as long as you write to them and ask them to call of bailiffs, stating you won't deal with them but you're willing to pay the LA what you can afford, then you won't be seen as a 'won't pay' and would still avoid fees, even if it means sitting things out and putting the money to one side?

 

This seems to me an altogether better way of doing things.

 

Not everyone can sit it out though, it can make for a very uncomfortable life for most of us, not knowing when the knock on the door will come.

 

The best advice is to address the debt before it gets to enforcment.

[outlawla]

lookinforinfo!

 

Its of no real relevance what the government hoped the new fee structure would achieve. The new regulations don't (and can't see how they could be amended to) provide that a council, which has been clearly instructed to allocate funds to an elected account, pays them into another which is its contractors.

[Coughdrop]

Not everyone can sit it out though, it can make for a very uncomfortable life for most of us, not knowing when the knock on the door will come.

 

The best advice is to address the debt before it gets to enforcment.

 

Yes, I'd agree with that. Unfortunately people who end up on forums are usually beyond that stage though, and even at Compliance Stage it's still an extra £75. This is an enormous amount to find if you haven't got it. If EA's would come to reasonable agreements at the Compliance Stage, over a sensible length of time, it would help. Often they seem to refuse agreements apparently to move it to the Enforcement Stage which is unfair.

[Peterbard]

Yes, I'd agree with that. Unfortunately people who end up on forums are usually beyond that stage though, and even at Compliance Stage it's still an extra £75. This is an enormous amount to find if you haven't got it. If EA's would come to reasonable agreements at the Compliance Stage, over a sensible length of time, it would help. Often they seem to refuse agreements apparently to move it to the Enforcement Stage which is unfair.

 

Yes this this is the area which needs work, EAs must consider all reasonable repayment offers at compliance.

[lookinforinfo]

lookinforinfo!

 

Its of no real relevance what the government hoped the new fee structure would achieve. The new regulations don't (and can't see how they could be amended to) provide that a council, which has been clearly instructed to allocate funds to an elected account, pays them into another which is its contractors.

 

This is covered by

The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

 

Application of proceeds where less than the amount outstanding

 

13.—(1) Subject to paragraph 50(6) of Schedule 12, when the proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power are less than the amount outstanding, they must be applied in accordance with this regulation.

 

(2) Where the goods are sold or disposed of at public auction (other than by internet auction), the proceeds must be applied first in payment of the auctioneer’s fees calculated in accordance with regulation 9(2) or (3) as appropriate.

 

(3) Following the payment at paragraph (2), the enforcement agent may then recover the compliance fee.

 

(4) Subject to paragraph (5), following any payment due by virtue of paragraphs (2) and (3), the proceeds must be applied pro rata in payment of—

 

(a)the sum to be recovered, and

 

(b)any remaining amounts recoverable in respect of fees and disbursements payable to the enforcement agent in accordance with these Regulations.

 

(5) Where the same legal person is both the creditor and the enforcement agent, paragraph (4) does not apply and the proceeds must be applied in payment of the amount referred to in paragraph (4)(b) before payment of the amount at paragraph (4)(a).

 

(6) In paragraphs (4) and (5), references to the proceeds are to the proceeds after deduction of the sums, if any, to which paragraphs [2] and [3] relate.

 

If money is paid direct to the Council and obviously before goods have been auctioned, then still the first £75 amount of the payment must by Law be paid to the

bailiff company and then the balance paid out on a prorata basis.. I don't see any other way of interpreting it. For the

Council not to pay the Compliance fee to the bailiff woud be a breach of the Act.

[outlawla]

....

If money is paid direct to the Council and obviously before goods have been auctioned, then still the first £75 amount of the payment must by Law be paid to the bailiff company and then the balance paid out on a prorata basis.. I don't see any other way of interpreting it. For the Council not to pay the Compliance fee to the bailiff woud be a breach of the Act.

 

You are saying 'for the Council not to pay the Compliance fee to the bailiff woud be a breach of the Act'. That may be so (I have no idea), but it would be unlawful if they paid it out of money which has expressly been nominated by the debtor to be paid off his arrears.

[Peterbard]

You are saying 'for the Council not to pay the Compliance fee to the bailiff woud be a breach of the Act'. That may be so (I have no idea), but it would be unlawful if they paid it out of money which has expressly been nominated by the debtor to be paid off his arrears.

 

Why ?

[outlawla]

Why ?

 

Because a billing authority has a legal obligation to allocate funds to the account which the debtor nominates. It is basically theft or abetting theft if it ignores that and gives it away to a contractor.

 

Notwithstanding the above, there is case law on this which is still very relevant.

[Peterbard]

Because a billing authority has a legal obligation to allocate funds to the account which the debtor nominates. It is basically theft or abetting theft if it ignores that and gives it away to a contractor.

 

Notwithstanding the above, there is case law on this which is still very relevant.

 

Could you link to these legal obligations please, is it statute or common law ?

 

The current statutory obligation to transfer fees whilst under an enforcment power is covered by, the liability order the council tax enforcment regulations, section 60 of the tce, section 50(3) of schedule 12 , section 62 costs and the fees regulations.(sections 3 and 13)

[lookinforinfo]

You are saying 'for the Council not to pay the Compliance fee to the bailiff woud be a breach of the Act'. That may be so (I have no idea), but it would be unlawful if they paid it out of money which has expressly been nominated by the debtor to be paid off his arrears.

 

Not any more. Once the Council take the decision to call in the bailiffs, the Act takes over as to how the debtor's repayments are to be allocated, assuming the whole

amount was not paid in one go. Thus if there is no auctioneer involved, the bailiff gets paid their £75 first then the balance is spread around between the Council and the bailiff company.

Bear in mind that under the current legislation, after the £75 is paid, then the Council gets their money, and if anything is left, the bailiff gets it-eg £235 compliance fee. In the past, the bailiff company would hold on to their fees for 2 visits plus tow away costs, waiting fees and other fees they could [problem] and forward any other

money to the Council. This way the Council do get their money before the bailiffs get their £235 fee.

[outlawla]

Could you link to these legal obligations please, is it statute or common law ?

 

No! It's common sense. However, the case I refer to is Peters v Anderson:

 

"

A person who is indebted to another on two several accounts, may, on paying him money, ascribe it to which account he pleases.–and his election may either be expressed,-Or may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction

.

 

...The current statutory obligation to transfer fees whilst under an enforcment power is covered by, the liability order the council tax enforcment regulations, section 60 of the tce, section 50(3) of schedule 12 , section 62 costs and the fees regulations.(sections 3 and 13)

 

I was under the impression that the Liability Order only included the outstanding monies owed and court costs. The other legislation would appear to relate to debt which the enforcement agent has collected or in the unlikely scenario where the debtor pays the council and gives them permission to give some away to its contractor.

 

If enforcement is in-house then things might be different.

[SabreSheep]

Im not aware of common sense overruling statute or common law?

 

A person who is indebted to another on two several accounts, may, on paying him money, ascribe it to which account he pleases

 

The implication here is that A owes B account X and account Y that he can decide where his payment gets attributed to EG either X or Y

 

Does not correlate to anything to do with Baliff fees