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

[Peterbard]

No the liability order enables the LA to collect the debt, the regulations are used to trigger the section 12 procedures. via the route mentioned in my previous post or in more detail in post 2.

 

You know of course that any common law is superseded by the statute.

 

anyway we have been over this so many times, i am not going over the same ground again(see my avatar)

 

At the end of the day the question of if you understand the legislation or not is irrelevant, as in practice this is what authorities and EAs do.

[ploddertom]

 

 

anyway we have been over this so many times,

 

 

 

It's as if it has been prompted from elsewhere.

[Peterbard]

It's as if it has been prompted from elsewhere.

 

Noo really ?????

 

[outlawla]

It's as if it has been prompted from elsewhere.

 

This doesn't really contribute anything does it?

[Bailiff Advice]

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.

 

Judging from the responses that I have read from the many local authorities faced with this 'theory' , I have yet to see any response that agrees with your viewpoint.

 

Can I just ask a very simple question. If you consider your theory to be correct, could you please outline your suggestion to resolve this issue. For instance, should the legislation be amended?

[ploddertom]

This doesn't really contribute anything does it?

 

May explain where it all comes from - again.

[outlawla]

Judging from the responses that I have read from the many local authorities faced with this 'theory' , I have yet to see any response that agrees with your viewpoint.....

 

I have.

 

....Can I just ask a very simple question. If you consider your theory to be correct, could you please outline your suggestion to resolve this issue. For instance, should the legislation be amended?

 

I don't think the legislation could be amended to provide that the local authority may misallocate funds in the way that would resolve the issue in the favour of enforcement agencies and the MoJ knows this.

[Bailiff Advice]

I have.

 

 

 

I don't think the legislation could be amended to provide that the local authority may misallocate funds in the way that would resolve the issue in the favour of enforcement agencies and the MoJ knows this.

 

Your 'theory' is based solely upon an internal document regarding Milton Keynes Council.

 

Debtors paying the council after bailiff enforcement has commenced are not doing so for convience purposes. Instead, in the main, they are making payment to the council in order to frustrate enforcement and avoid bailiff fees.

 

Can you provide a link to the local authority response that you say agrees with your theory.

[Coughdrop]

I think people remain in the same position as they have for some time now, they are faced with two choices - pay with the EA's fees added, or sit it out until the warrant is returned (or earlier if it is possible to attain that without incurring additional charges).

 

Paying the council directly while any doubt exists over how monies are divided (legal or not), seems mad to me.

[outlawla]

...Debtors paying the council after bailiff enforcement has commenced are not doing so for convience purposes. Instead, in the main, they are making payment to the council in order to frustrate enforcement and avoid bailiff fees..

 

Am I missing the point?

 

 

...Can you provide a link to the local authority response that you say agrees with your theory.

 

There is not just one, but here's an example:

 

East Riding of Yorkshire Council:

 

Payments are forwarded in instances where debts have been placed with enforcement agencies for collection or in accordance with the preference expressed by the council tax payer at the time the payment is made.

 

 

And a bonus (Nottingham):

 

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.

[Peterbard]

This quote refers to the allotment of money between accounts due to the authority, not to expenses uncured by bailiff fees.

 

It does not mean the sum payed is only for the debt and not for the EA

 

Dear East Riding of Yorkshire Council,

 

I thought it would be negligent of me if I failed to point out to

East Riding of Yorkshire Council the case law relevant to

outstanding monies owing on different accounts, especially where

the person owing the money intends payment to be allocated to a

specific debt.

 

 

It is a case of asking the same question over and over again until you receive a reply where you can quote out of context, as said before.

[Peterbard]

sorry I did say I wouldn't reply to this anymore, but there are responses where the situation is made Chrystal clear regarding this, no innuendo no oblique references, they state that the payments to the LA are proceeds and are distributed as per regulation.

[SabreSheep]

My post #50 covers that then

 

Now about your case law you stated. only one that I could find was based in Ohio in the US,,

Please help me find the right case you quoted

[lookinforinfo]

Payments are forwarded in instances where debts have been placed with enforcement agencies for collection or in accordance with the preference expressed by the council tax payer at the time the time the payment is made.

 

I think the Council have been quite cute with their reply but the gist of it could be that if the £75 was due to the bailiff they would pay it. If the taxpayer

was not being pursued by bailiffs then the money goes to the account specified.

[Peterbard]

Payments are forwarded in instances where debts have been placed with enforcement agencies for collection or in accordance with the preference expressed by the council tax payer at the time the time the payment is made.

 

I think the Council have been quite cute with their reply but the gist of it could be that if the £75 was due to the bailiff they would pay it. If the taxpayer

was not being pursued by bailiffs then the money goes to the account specified.

 

No it simply means that if the tax payer has a number of delinquent accounts, the monies received can be divided between them as per the instructions of the debtor. The money received back from the bailiff would of course be less their fees, or if the money was paid to the authority the money distributed would be less any fees due to the bailiff.

 

The question has been asked in a way that does not mention bailiff fees, it simply refers to the distribution of income to be paid off the debts.

[Peterbard]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440100-Freedom-of-Information-requests-Local-authorities-and-Taking-Control-of-Goods-(Fees)-2014&p=4681212&viewfull=1#post4681212

 

Default Re: Freedom of Information requests: Local authorities and Taking Control of Goods (Fees) 2014

Birmingham City Council: 22nd Janaury 2015

 

Payments made towards a debt that has been referred to an enforcement
agent since 6 April 2014 must be apportioned between the debt and the
agent’s fees in accordance with the rules set out in The Taking Control of
Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

 

The rules apply equally whether payment is made to the council or to the enforcement agent.

 

Where payment is made direct to the council and an amount is required under the regulations to be set towards the fees, the appropriate amount is remitted to the
 enforcement agent.

[outlawla]

My post #50 covers that then

 

Now about your case law you stated. only one that I could find was based in Ohio in the US,,

Please help me find the right case you quoted

 

Peters v Anderson

[SabreSheep]

Ahh thank you

 

OK a nice case from 1814

Sadly again appears to deal with multiple accounts and not "Baliff fees"

Does not override recent statute which however does override older case law.

[Peterbard]

Ahh thank you

 

OK a nice case from 1814

Sadly again appears to deal with multiple accounts and not "Baliff fees"

Does not override recent statute which however does override older case law.

 

Yes indeed this is the usual situation when statue is enacted which conflicts with earlier case law. In the TCE this precept is confirmed within the legislature also

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/section/65

Common law rules replaced

 

(1)This Chapter replaces the common law rules about the exercise of the powers which under it become powers to use the procedure in Schedule 12.

(2)The rules replaced include—

(a)rules distinguishing between an illegal, an irregular and an excessive exercise of a power;

(b)rules that would entitle a person to bring proceedings of a kind for which paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 provides (remedies available to the debtor);

©rules of replevin;

(d)rules about rescuing goods.

[mikeymack2002]

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)

 

 

I fell asleep writing this reply sorry

 

 

By asking Google the stupid question of "what years do arrears get paid for Council tax", the replies you get do not answer your question, but by rephrasing your question to "allocation of council tax arrears" you get a list as always, as you will see.... About 380,000 results (0.37 seconds)

 

This is what I found out in just 5 minutes of reading your post... (As I was watching a court case at the same time....) Regarding Atos

 

 

Results on the page (Google) line 3

 

 

{PDF} Council tax investigation Milton Keynes Council dated the 04/03/2009 and it has a pdf (see attachment) for ease if you can not follow the link not only that I even took the time to highlight the relevant sections for you.

 

 

May I kindly suggest that you actually spend some quality time using search engines instead of relying on other posters to find your answers for you. This could actually be beneficial to you as you will learn a lot quicker on how to obtain relevant information in a much shorter time. This paragraph is not being horrible it is just an observation ok.... Asking the search engine to look for you can produce results in less time that it takes to sneeze in this case....... About 380,000 results (0.37 seconds).

 

 

I often spend many hours asking Google specific questions, sometimes not getting what I want so talk to it like a petulant child and ask it a very stupid question the above worded differently and get the answer i was looking for in the 1st place..

 

 

Links sometimes break so I got it for you.... try the link below first

 

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.milton-keynes.gov.uk%2Finternal-audit%2Fdocuments%2FE426-09_COUNCIL_TAX_INVESTIGATION_-_REPORT-_FINAL.pdf&ei=wSBZVdCeL4yf7gaF-IK4Cw&usg=AFQjCNHGEST3H7ERx5UNCVThS1G_jyg3ag&sig2=lIxLuGt7AuCxnqefNgjnQw

[mikeymack2002]

Looks like I missed quite a few replies whilst asleep please edit or remove my comment if inappropriate

[Peterbard]

I am unsure if this is addressed to me. But it seems that if you consider your reply inappropriate you should delete it yourself.

 

As for using google for information, there is always the problem that whilst providing the specific information it does not give the context in which it applies, this results in post of completely unrelated facts which share common tags with the subject under discussion.

 

There is no substitute for studying the subject from the ground up, rather than thinking you can become an expert by "asking a question on google".

 

For me i study the legislation and authority and make my own determination, the fact that other informed source reach the same conclusions is basically because they have done the same.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Links sometimes break so I got it for you.... try the link below first

 

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.milton-keynes.gov.uk%2Finternal-audit%2Fdocuments%2FE426-09_COUNCIL_TAX_INVESTIGATION_-_REPORT-_FINAL.pdf&ei=wSBZVdCeL4yf7gaF-IK4Cw&usg=AFQjCNHGEST3H7ERx5UNCVThS1G_jyg3ag&sig2=lIxLuGt7AuCxnqefNgjnQw

 

 

 

In my post number 58 you will see that I mentioned that this 'theory' of Outlawla's relates to an internal document from Milton Keynes Council. Thank you MM for providing the copy (my copy is on my office computer system).

 

It is from reading this document (item number 3.3.1) that Outlawla hit on the idea about the 200 year old legal case of Peters v Anderson and he wrote about in on this very forum way back in 2011. Perhaps he would be kind enough to let us all know whether Milton Keynes Council were sent the same Freedom of Information request as many other councils:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_34#incoming-608517

 

If so, perhaps he would be kind enough to post a copy of their reply.

 

In any event, I will be writing to them myself today.

[mikeymack2002]

I think I remember ready something along those lines. It was covered before..its always been the case that you can ask for credits to be made to a specific year. Having more than one LO is always going to be a headache. I also remember that using old case law was not akways a good thing, due to changes in the law. But if it is still appropriate then I cannot see why you shouldnt.

 

Take the the stac dec its very old but still very much current. .. As is the Vagrancy Act for being in an enclosed space still used today...

[Peterbard]

I think I remember ready something along those lines. It was covered before..its always been the case that you can ask for credits to be made to a specific year. Having more than one LO is always going to be a headache. I also remember that using old case law was not akways a good thing, due to changes in the law. But if it is still appropriate then I cannot see why you shouldnt.

 

Take the the stac dec its very old but still very much current. .. As is the Vagrancy Act for being in an enclosed space still used today...

 

This particular case law is not appropriate, to either the matter in question or the Tribunals courts and enforcement act, which is the CURRENT regulatory path regarding the allotment of fees to enforcment agents.