Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Bailiff Advice

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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1559 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Turning back to my question which was to suspend I did not even mention the rate you added this yourself, a suspension has nothing to do with the amount it simply has to do with the 2nd LO nothing more nothing less. But you quoted this this for some strange reason! >>

 

 

'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.'[

 

 

But I will no longer contribute to a thread where you or DB cannot even quote properly So with that cheerio that's all folks..


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

Sorry MM, I was only intending providing links.

 

I will read back on your thread later but I am sure that I did provide an answer.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, yes, of course a debtor can ask the LA to suspend a 2nd LO. However, if the council refuse, the Local Government Ombudsman would be very unlikely indeed to find fault in the council's decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that BA I will of course reply when I dig out the response from my PDF files, (far too many I might add so might be a while)


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter BA as since these were written some of the inform needs to be updated by the LA in question. As it is now out of date and wrong.. but the bulk of it is correct.

 

On this topic I would have thought you could of read it regardless... I will email the LA later to ask for the most upto date version they have....

 

The Torridge Council Debt Policy document that you have exhibited is similar to one that all other 300 or so local authorities in England and Wales must issue. The document is dated February 2016 so it is clearly not out of date.

 

I know that you like sourcing documents from the internet and that you provide many links to them on the forum but it really would assist (as least for the discussion thread) if you could indicate which part (or page number) you wish viewers to comment on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying. But, if I have to look for the information and read all of it then surely others should too this is how we learn to resource information and how to find it. Although I am not in the trade or have any issues with any Court orders of any type I just like to help out.

 

Once many moons ago I was badly in debt but no more. Some information from CAG but most of it was sourced independently.

 

Since I am on a mobile device atm I cannot see the attachment as I would like. If you wish to do so please check the amount for bankruptcy as it was pointed out that indeed the rules changed last October to 5k.

 

When I source my pdf's many are from the central judgment office.

 

So I learned to quote by page para sentence or MS style and more. Not everyone wants to read an entire document but it's a must to understand the contents fully.

 

This is how I learn it may be different for others by its my way. So my moto is learn or crash and burn... If it makes it easier and quicker and without learning I could easily just put a quote in to save you time and effort. But nah I'll continue to post the link and hope you will read it.. If not that's up to you..P's I love to read...


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM this is an identical document to the one produced by all authorities, only a small section of it relates to the subject under discussion, and even that only vaguely

 

Most of us will be familiar with the contents in any case as it is really just basic informtion.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since I am on a mobile device atm I cannot see the attachment as I would like. If you wish to do so please check the amount for bankruptcy as it was pointed out that indeed the rules changed last October to 5k.

 

I was specifically looking for references to Attachment of Earnings and therefore had not noticed the reference to the error with the bankruptcy figure (not £750 but £5,000).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken the liberty of unapproving a lot of posts and editing others.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is titled....... Liability Orders...Government wants to substantially increase Attachment of Earnings Orders...Seeking help from HMRC....It was started by BA and placed in this forum to enable a discussion as to the impact such a coalition could/would have on debtors.

 

Those that take part will IMO, have basic understanding to the current system for collecting outstanding CT. This debate should therefore focus on the pro's and con's of collecting outstanding CT (that are subject to Liability orders) by way of an attachment of earnings order as opposed to the current situation of passing them straight to enforcement stage? Should HMRC take on the role of provider to debtors employment status to achieve this?

 

I agree with BA," 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)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i agree, it would also clarify the way the LGO work, which is something that is widely misunderstood, and would in itself lead to fewer inappropriate claims being made.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...