Liability Orders...Government wants to substantially increase Attachment of Earnings Orders...Seeking help from HMRC.

[Consumer dude]

These fines are a criminal sanction CD

 

I understand that is what the local authority imply and do infact say in the wording of such, but can they enforce such a request which is what it is stated as being able to do. After all a request is not the same as a demand or is it ?

[Peterbard]

They are not implying they just are CD. fines are generally criminal in nature these are given under summary judgment (magistrates court)and under section 2 and 3 of the scale, ala criminal justice act section 37.

[Consumer dude]

I ignored it at the time anyway and nothing happened..

[Peterbard]

As I have said above, there are quite a few problems with the proposal and although the '14 day' letter is the main one, there are many others;

 

With the '14 day' letter being revoked, local authorities have naturally made large savings in administration time and postage etc. These saving would come to an end for the following reasons:

 

This proposal would require over 3.5 million additional items of correspondence being sent by the local authority.

 

If the '14 day' letter were reintroduced, it would naturally add significant costs to the local authority. Not only would the local authority have to send these letters, they would also have to deal with the many replies with employment details (and no doubt complaints as well).

 

There would also be additional administrative costs on the local authority in setting up the Attachment of Earnings.

 

Additional administrative costs would also be incurred by the local authorities in making data requests to HMRC for employment details of those individuals who had failed to voluntarily provide their employment details.

 

The above are just a few hurdles that have to be overcome. There are many more.

 

I wonder how many authorities will still have the procedure for sending 14 day letters available( from before 2014) and if they can just be reactivated in an amended version ?

[mikeymack2002]

I would assume that would be a yes as they will still have a post room! Not only that the EA can do the job as it will form part of the enforcement process, so not costing the LA any money....

[Bailiff Advice]

Not only that the EA can do the job as it will form part of the enforcement process, so not costing the LA any money....

 

This is not the case at all MM. In the case of council tax arrears, the enforcement company are permitted to 'take control of goods' (using the procedure in Schedule 12 of TCEA 2007). That procedure has nothing at all to do with an Attachment of Earnings order.

 

As things stand at present,some enforcement companies are administering attachment of earnings order but cannot charge a fee for doing so.

[Peterbard]

And neither can they do this if they are still acting as a bailiff under that enforcment power, with regard to the same account.

[mikeymack2002]

Ba this was not what I said. I stated that why cannot the EA send out the 14 day notice after all giving and extra 7 days will not make any difference to the enforcement and will save the LA posting out the letters. So in reality if the EA'S office write giving 14 days instead of 7 then this will suffice.

 

Plus the cost would not be anything would it? Why because the EA has to by law send the notice.

 

So IMHO 14 vs 7 will always be best... and NO cost...BTW I was just continuing what you and DB quoted earlier...

[Peterbard]

Ba this was not what I said. I stated that why cannot the EA send out the 14 day notice after all giving and extra 7 days will not make any difference to the enforcement and will save the LA posting out the letters. So in reality if the EA'S office write giving 14 days instead of 7 then this will suffice.

 

Plus the cost would not be anything would it? Why because the EA has to by law send the notice.

 

So IMHO 14 vs 7 will always be best... and NO cost...BTW I was just continuing what you and DB quoted earlier...

 

The enforcement agent cannot send the 14 days letter unless he is not working under the schedule 12 procedure, it is not a compliance letter, it is notice to supply information to the LA so it can commence the AOE, which is a different enforcement power.

Edited February 22, 2016 by citizenB

[brassnecked]

 

Getting back to the discussion...if the regulations were to be changed to permit EA's to undertake this task, I would be surprised if the enforcement agency would be permitted to have access to HMRC data to establish the debtors employment details.

That would be a very bad idea to give EA's access to HMRC, the data protection issues alone if the EA is chasing an innocent by mistake would be a good reason nor to. Mind you doeCapita in the guise of an LA have some access, or is it only DWP?

 

There are definitely issues with the 14 days, given that the LA would probably have to send them anyway, and now the duty is on the EA for 7 days. The legislation would have to be amended at the very least imho, as you point out BA.

Edited February 22, 2016 by citizenB

[Peterbard]

That would be a very bad idea to give EA's access to HMRC, the data protection issues alone if the EA is chasing an innocent by mistake would be a good reason nor to. Mind you doeCapita in the guise of an LA have some access, or is it only DWP?

 

There are definitely issues with the 14 days, given that the LA would probably have to send them anyway, and now the duty is on the EA for 7 days. The legislation would have to be amended at the very least imho, as you point out BA.

 

I think so BN and at a very basic level, two enforcment powers cannot be exercised at the same time as it stands, so the EA could not instigate an AOE. In any case theree is no facility in the fees regs for paying him to do so.

[Peterbard]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/52/made

 

(2) Steps under this Part by way of attachment of allowances, attachment of earnings, distress, commitment, bankruptcy, winding up or charging may not be taken against a person under a liability order while steps by way of another of those methods are being taken against him under it.

 

Power to enforce via bailiffs is one power a power to use an attachment of earnings is another power as per the legislation above two cannot run at the same time

 

Of course as already said if he was not working under a power he could , by why would he, he would not be acting as a bailiff anyway but as a council worker

Edited February 22, 2016 by citizenB

[Peterbard]

I am familiar with this of course and LAs may contract out certain tasks, it does not limit or affect in any way the requirements of the council tax amendments mark, there is no revocation or amendment it is about simultaneous use of powers not the single contracting out of tasks.

[mikeymack2002]

So a question here if I may... If the debtor has fallen in to arrears and has already been to Court, is now the subject of a LO and this is already being done, if the LA then goes for a 2nd LO for PREVIOUS years (same debtor) can the LA now use a 2nd method of enforcement? In as much as just putting it out to the EA for enforcement, therefore there is now two forms of enforcement against the same debtor? But for different years? Just a question that's all!

[Peterbard]

So a question here if I may... If the debtor has fallen in to arrears and has already been to Court, is now the subject of a LO and this is already being done, if the LA then goes for a 2nd LO for PREVIOUS years (same debtor) can the LA now use a 2nd method of enforcement? In as much as just putting it out to the EA for enforcement, therefore there is now two forms of enforcement against the same debtor? But for different years? Just a question that's all!

 

Yes it's fine because it is for different debts. A single LO can only use a single enforcment power at a time.

 

An AOE can be used on the same LO but it would have to be called back from the bailiff first and the new power used or vice versa.

[mikeymack2002]

The reason for my question although may not be clear (recent issue) is if the LA already has the 1st LO with an AoE, do they HAVE to use a second AoE or can they put it out the normal way in as much as straight to the EA to try to enforce, or are they obliged to use a second AoE?

 

 

If they can use the normal enforcement then the debtor will continue in the debt trap and losing money and subject to normal enforcement as well as an AoE!... But this was already covered in asking to suspend a second AoE, to keep them from the poverty trap. Or the possibility of losing what little money they have left to live on. Or maybe relying on food banks and the like or even applying for a payday loan to assist them, either way debts of more than one years worth of CT can and will become very contentious in the very near future.

 

 

I will also add this in as well, with the cutbacks and the Government looking to remove the entitlement to a guaranteed right to social housing.. This I think in the next year or two is going to be even more dire for CT arrears.. Do you not think?

[sillygirl1]

Yes MM, they do go for more money, an LO to them is money in the bank over any other priority debt you may have. It is irrelevant that the debtor may be on minimal money and have no means of paying other bills, council tax comes first and foremost.

[mikeymack2002]

With over 3.5 million Liability Orders being issued each year for arrears of council tax, this new thread is of huge importance as the following proposal from the government will affect many thousands of council tax payers. For this reason I would hope that the moderators will allow this thread to remain on the main section of the forum for a few days before transferring it to the new 'bailiff discussion' section.

 

Today the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) announced that they have issued a Consultation paper regarding proposals to extend the data sharing facility with HMRC to enable them to share data pertaining to higher income debtors. The purpose of which is to enable the local authority to make an attachment of earnings order against the debtors employer.

 

 

Just a question is this related in any way to this >> [PDF]Local authority data sharing guide - Gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/.../data-sharing-guide-april-14.pdf[/url]

• Cached
  
• Similar
  

 

 

 

It is particularly aimed at Housing Benefit teams but will also be useful to ... Work and Pensions and Local Authorities 2013 – 2014 for the Access, handling .... Schedule 5 to the Tax Credits Act 2002: allows HMRC to give LAs data relating to ..... purpose of administration of HB, and is stored on a local database, in order to.

[brassnecked]

MM Reboot your router and your IP address will probably change. They are dynamic set on demand by the ISP unless you pay extra for a fixed IP if available. That is why they cannot rely on IP address as evidence for stuff like use of certain Torrent sites.

 

Anyway, back to the topic, the government is anxious to digitise finance as much as possible as it is easier to get at money via attachment and direct debit.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

The correct position is that if the local authority consider that the total arrears would not be paid off under a Attachment of Earnings Order before the next council tax year, then they can use another method of enforcement (in this case, referring the 2nd account to JBW Group).

 

It is always worthwhile reading back on recent Local Government Ombudsman decisions and in particular, as there have been many complaints regarding Attachment of Earnings Orders. The following recent decision is almost identical to the case of the young lady above:

 

 

Broadland District Council and decision 1st July 2015

 

 

Mr X agrees that he owes council tax. He says

he earns the minimum wage

and has been unable to find better paid employment.

 

Mr X did not maintain payments as set out in the instalment plan for 2013/14. The Council agreed proposals to pay off the arrears, but these were not adhered to. The debt was referred to court and the Council obtained a liability order for £957 plus costs. The Council obtained an attachment of earnings order.

 

Although payments were made for the 2013/14 arrears, through attachment of earnings, Mr X did not pay the charge for the following year, when instalments fell due.

The Council obtained a second liability order. Mr X suggested the Council could deal with this debt also through an attachment of earnings. The Council did not agree to this because the total arrears would not have been paid off before the next council tax year.

 

I have reviewed the background correspondence and am satisfied that the Council has offered appropriate advice to Mr X at each stage. It advised him of the availability of council tax benefit, subject to an assessment of Mr X’s income, and he was provided also with details of the Council’s Debt Advisor.

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/14-014-572

[Peterbard]

There seems to be some confusion about how an enforcment power is made on attachment of earnings.

The power originates from the local governance finance act 2992 and is issued AFtER the liability order has been obtained

 

here is th section:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/14/schedule/4

 

Attachment of earnings etc.

 

5(1)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] ;

 

my emphasis

[mikeymack2002]

Does the AoE have an expiry date? No so why the need to push two in one go, leave one suspended until the 1st is clear, this allows the debtor time to catch up an not run the risk of arrears in the next year! My thoughts

[Peterbard]

Does the AoE have an expiry date? No so why the need to push two in one go, leave one suspended until the 1st is clear, this allows the debtor time to catch up an not run the risk of arrears in the next year! My thoughts

 

If you read BAs post you will see it repeats the point I made earlier

 

LA.s do not want a situation where the tax is perpetually being paid a year late.

The purpose of the AOE is not for that. The idea is that it is used in exceptional circumstance to enable someone to work towards paying their bill on demand.

Continuingly applying AOEs every year for the previous year is not the answer, as the debt will be there forever.

[Bailiff Advice]

Does the AoE have an expiry date? No so why the need to push two in one go, leave one suspended until the 1st is clear, this allows the debtor time to catch up an not run the risk of arrears in the next year! My thoughts

 

For the past week or so I have been reading through many Local Government Ombudsman reports and the overwhelming message in each one of them is that the local authority are obliged to ensure that they collect council tax and that debtors should pay what they owe.

 

Given the importance of these LGO decisions, (almost all of which are decisions made under the new regulations) it may be a good idea to publish copies here in the discussion part of the forum. In order to avoid confusion, it would probably be better to separate them under different threads (Attachment of Earnings/Council tax/road traffic debts).

 

Turning back to your question; the deduction rate is set by law at a high rate as the governments aim is that this will likely lead to the Liability Order being repaid within the current council tax year. This would avoid the debtor getting into further arrears under the new council tax year.

[mikeymack2002]

No need to publish them just a link will do... Unfortunately neither you nor Db has confirmed nor denied that a debtor can reasonably ask the LA to suspend a 2nd LO. Neither of you will look for my post from the post I made on a different thread regarding what has been written on the NDL site...