Local authorities and 'in house' bailiff operations. A discussion thread.

[Peterbard]

It is the way the fee regs are structured and a reason the fes die when the unsuccessful warrant is returned.

 

Incidentally another incompatibility is the termination of the enforcment power.

 

Since the authority will be presumably endowed with the enforcement powers( as they are one with the EA), when will the power end on an unsuccessful action. (re section 17).

It will not end when the warrant is returned, as it will never be returned just passed back to the authority who are also the EA.

So are we to believe that all orders issued are to be active until they expire after 12 months ?

 

Then we have section 52 of the council tax regulations . which says that no two enforcment powers can act simultaneously. so no further alternative action like an AOE could be undertaken, then what do we make of the subsection which states that alternative remedies can be used in any order once the active one is terminated.

It just does not make sense. The regs are not supposed to work this way IMO.

[Peterbard]

As the following confirms, the EA will be an employee of the council (in this case, London Borough of Newham (and Havering) and their in house operation; One Source):

 

http://www.jobsgopublic.com/jobs/revenues-bailiff-officers-lbn00355-2

 

Thi sounds like a separate firm working on behalf of the authority. This can work as the amounts outstanding would be due to the bailiff firm and kept to fund its employees, there is nothing wrong with the EA funding its employees however it likes. It is like you or i contracting a firm of builders, not the same as taking the builder on and paying him a wage.

 

The important thing is that the EA firm would still be operating as a separate body

[Bailiff Advice]

Thi sounds like a separate firm working on behalf of the authority. This can work as the amounts outstanding would be due to the bailiff firm and kept to fund its employees, there is nothing wrong with the EA funding its employees however it likes. It is like you or i contracting a firm of builders, not the same as taking the builder on and paying him a wage.

 

The important thing is that the EA firm would still be operating as a separate body

 

My personal opinion was that a separate body would need to be created and that 'in house' was not the correct term. Regrettably, I could be wrong.

 

Whenever discussions about the regulations take place on the forum we automatically look to Schedule 12. Schedule 13 rarely gets a mention and I have to be honest here by saying that I had not taken notice before of Item 87 which made amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Most importantly is the insertion of a new section (62A) which states as follows:

 

62A Recovery by taking control of goods

Where a liability order has been made against a person under regulations under Schedule 9,

the billing authority

may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13/crossheading/local-government-finance-act-1988-c-41?view=plain

[mikeymack2002]

Some other interesting points here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13/crossheading/magistrates-courts-act-1980-c-43?view=plain

[Bailiff Advice]

Some other interesting points here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13/crossheading/magistrates-courts-act-1980-c-43?view=plain

 

You will see MM that I specifically refer to the above amendments (to the Magistrate Court Act 1980) in the appropriate thread about court fines.

 

I intend referring to it again in a new thread that I am in the course of drafting regarding the utterly appalling suggestion on the internet over the weekend that the following case (link below) apparently allows a householder to 'beat up' a bailiff if the bailiff fails to show his 'authority' (in this case. a warrant of control).

 

It goes without saying that this dreadful advice once again comes from one individual (with an almost childlike inability to either read or understand legislation) and regrettably, his advice has now been replicated on various 'Beat the Bailiff' Facebook sites.

[mikeymack2002]

I will look in on your new thread. Also using your link above going to previous pages makes for interesting reading. Now added to my bookmarks

[Bailiff Advice]

You will see MM that I specifically refer to the above amendments (to the Magistrate Court Act 1980) in the appropriate thread about court fines.

 

I intend referring to it again in a new thread that I am in the course of drafting regarding the utterly appalling suggestion on the internet over the weekend that the following case (link below) apparently allows a householder to 'beat up' a bailiff if the bailiff fails to show his 'authority' (in this case. a warrant of control).

 

It goes without saying that this dreadful advice once again comes from one individual (with an almost childlike inability to either read or understand legislation) and regrettably, his advice has now been replicated on various 'Beat the Bailiff' Facebook sites.

 

I do apologise. I forgot to post a link to the press article:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3401442/Judge-says-homeowners-beat-burglars-new-householder-defence-does-not-break-human-rights-laws.html

[brassnecked]

I do apologise. I forgot to post a link to the press article:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3401442/Judge-says-homeowners-beat-burglars-new-householder-defence-does-not-break-human-rights-laws.html

No that case does not give the right to beat up a bailiff, if he has entered through an unlocked door then peaceful entry has occurred, the house holder can ask him to leave though.

[mikeymack2002]

Comment edited as posted on the wrong thread. Sorry for that folks... its now in the correct thread re magistrates and the fee's

[mikeymack2002]

Also this article appears to talk about EXCESSIVE use of force but does not suggest anything regarding the use of REASONABLE force this could have been clarified within the ruling but wasn't.

[Peterbard]

My personal opinion was that a separate body would need to be created and that 'in house' was not the correct term. Regrettably, I could be wrong.

 

Whenever discussions about the regulations take place on the forum we automatically look to Schedule 12. Schedule 13 rarely gets a mention and I have to be honest here by saying that I had not taken notice before of Item 87 which made amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Most importantly is the insertion of a new section (62A) which states as follows:

 

62A Recovery by taking control of goods

Where a liability order has been made against a person under regulations under Schedule 9,

the billing authority

may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/13/crossheading/local-government-finance-act-1988-c-41?view=plain

 

Hi

I think that this provision just echoes the one for domestic premises(the one above is none domestic.)

 

 

Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14)

 

105The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.

106In section 14 (administration, penalties and enforcement), after subsection (3) insert—

“(4)Where a liability order has been made against a person under regulations under Schedule 4, the billing authority concerned may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”

 

Both just initiate the power, they are enacted by section 45 of the regs

[E Munch]

DB I can't easily reply individually to the various points you make as any response I make appears at the end of all the earlier posts so it would be too hard for anyone to follow.

Picking a couple of points though you seem to say though that I'm mistaken about the EA application form EAC1. If that is what you are saying look here https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/update/eac1-0414.pdf at the very top of the third page. Also you FOI should confirm that Brighton Council have employed Bailiffs and now EAs directly for many years.

 

 

You also mention the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations reg 45 as if this still has a scale of fees but it does not. Schedule 13 amended only primary legislation and it was left to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014 amended the various SIs including the CTax Admin and Enf regs. If you or others have missed it, it can be found here:-http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/600/contents/made

 

 

The relevant parts which replace the old Reg 45 detailed wording about distress with an ability to use the Schedule 12 procedure and which deletes the scale of fees that was included in Schedule 5 are pasted below:-

©for regulation 45 (Distress) substitute—

3© “Enforcement by taking control of goods

 

45. Where a liability order has been made, payment may be enforced by using the Schedule 12 procedure.”;

 

 

 

 

3 (j)omit Schedule 5 (Charges connected with distress).

[Peterbard]

DB I can't easily reply individually to the various points you make as any response I make appears at the end of all the earlier posts so it would be too hard for anyone to follow.

Picking a couple of points though you seem to say though that I'm mistaken about the EA application form EAC1. If that is what you are saying look here https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/update/eac1-0414.pdf at the very top of the third page. Also you FOI should confirm that Brighton Council have employed Bailiffs and now EAs directly for many years.

 

 

You also mention the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations reg 45 as if this still has a scale of fees but it does not. Schedule 13 amended only primary legislation and it was left to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014 amended the various SIs including the CTax Admin and Enf regs. If you or others have missed it, it can be found here:-http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/600/contents/made

 

 

The relevant parts which replace the old Reg 45 detailed wording about distress with an ability to use the Schedule 12 procedure and which deletes the scale of fees that was included in Schedule 5 are pasted below:-

©for regulation 45 (Distress) substitute—

3© “Enforcement by taking control of goods

 

45. Where a liability order has been made, payment may be enforced by using the Schedule 12 procedure.”;

 

 

 

 

3 (j)omit Schedule 5 (Charges connected with distress).

 

 

HI Mr Munch, Always a pleasure 

I had no doubt that you were correct about the wording of the form, even though at the time I had not seen one.

You mentioned that the authority I was quoting was not legislation (which was correct), I stated that neither was the form; I don’t think I am wrong with this?

 

Looking at the form you kindly provided I see the section says” are you a member of any other type of organisation”?

 

Then section 7 of the form asks what kind of organisation and what duties they performed. I am not really sure that this is applicable to the subject of our debate .

You mention that an EA had been employed for some years. Does this mean that this EA is now working under the old regime where he is collecting distress for the authority, surely there must have been some alteration to his duties since April 14.

Regarding section 45 of the council tax enforcement rules.

 

Not sure what you mean here

“You also mention the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations reg 45 as if this still has a scale of fees but it does not. Schedule 13 amended only primary legislation and it was left to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014 amended the various SIs including the CTax Admin and Enf regs. If you or others have missed it, it can be found here:-http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/600/contents/made “

 

You seem to say that section 45 only enforces the procedure because the fees are amended by the consequential amendments. But section 45 is modified by the consequential amendments?

 

©for regulation 45 (Distress) substitute—

“Enforcement by taking control of goods

45. Where a liability order has been made, payment may be enforced by using the Schedule 12 procedure.”; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/600/schedule/made

The" schedule 12 procedure" includes the fees regs, so yes I suppose it does hav a fee scale.

 

The fee scale is part of schedule 12 as it is an instrument made under it. The modification also deletes the old shed 5 scale as I said previously. This is the enactment used to trigger section 62 and the ability to use schedule 12.

[brassnecked]

At this rate we will have judges looking in on this thread to assess interpretations.

[Bailiff Advice]

I am in meetings for much of the day so can only be brief. Last night I was made aware of a new tender document for a very large local authority and the tender is only for the enforcement stage with the Compliance stage being undertaken by the local authority. With the greatest of respect, this type of contract will quickly lead to bailiff's using aggressive methods to ensure that they recover the enforcement fee. The private sector enforcement agency will still be required to set up and manage accounts without being able to fund their costs by way of the compliance fee. I wil post more in this subject later today.

[Peterbard]

At this rate we will have judges looking in on this thread to assess interpretations.

 

Nice to have a proper debate on the bailiff forums I must say.

[Peterbard]

I am in meetings for much of the day so can only be brief. Last night I was made aware of a new tender document for a very large local authority and the tender is only for the enforcement stage with the Compliance stage being undertaken by the local authority. With the greatest of respect, this type of contract will quickly lead to bailiff's using aggressive methods to ensure that they recover the enforcement fee. The private sector enforcement agency will still be required to set up and manage accounts without being able to fund their costs by way of the compliance fee. I wil post more in this subject later today.

 

I can remember this option being discussed back in 2007 and a few commentators saying exactly what you have just said.

[brassnecked]

I am in meetings for much of the day so can only be brief. Last night I was made aware of a new tender document for a very large local authority and the tender is only for the enforcement stage with the Compliance stage being undertaken by the local authority. With the greatest of respect, this type of contract will quickly lead to bailiff's using aggressive methods to ensure that they recover the enforcement fee. The private sector enforcement agency will still be required to set up and manage accounts without being able to fund their costs by way of the compliance fee. I wil post more in this subject later today.

This could become very nasty indeed for debtors within that LA. Might even have an influx of debtors on here for advice, as the EA's use aggressive tactics to impose the Enforcement and Sales Fee at first call.

[mikeymack2002]

Talking of advice there is a new thread that needs it if others can pop in to advise please

[Peterbard]

Talking of advice there is a new thread that needs it if others can pop in to advise please

 

Where is that MM, last one I can see in the bailiff section was 6th ?

[E Munch]

BA Are you able to name and shame the authority? Presumably it'll be in the public domain soon if not already.

 

 

As you've said the complaints have died down as the government hoped when designing the fee scale to adequately reward EAs but perhaps this was just a temporary amelioration like an interstadial (warm period) in a long term ice age. With this new move we will be back to private EA firms working for skimmed milk whilst the council sit licking the cream from their lips. It could be like the situation where firms that used to run old folks homes go out of the market leaving inadequate provision. Imagine the post apocalyptic world with half starving former EAs in ragged clothes and gaunt expressions begging for alms at the local authority offices whilst piles of liability orders lie rotting and uncollected in the streets!

 

 

DB Did you see beneath the question ” are you a member of any other type of organisation”? the wording eg Local Authority? As you say it isn't law but it is an indication that others do not agree the council cannot do the work themselves.

 

 

If you do your FOI to all councils you can find out what changes they have made. As I say there were council employees with County Court Certificates to act as bailiffs under the old regime and by now all of them will have had to renew their certificate which would allow them to act as EAs.

 

 

As for the regulation 45 talk I was responding to your comment in post #21 which said "Section 45 relates to which fee scale is used. as you know the fee scale is not always utilised alongside the procedure." I did not know what you meant and I'm even less sure now. The new wording for 45 makes no mention of a fee scale so the only fee scale is the one in the schedule to the TCoG (Fees) Regs 2014. Unlike you I cannot see any reason why a council employee cannot recover those fees.

[Peterbard]

BA Are you able to name and shame the authority? Presumably it'll be in the public domain soon if not already.

 

 

As you've said the complaints have died down as the government hoped when designing the fee scale to adequately reward EAs but perhaps this was just a temporary amelioration like an interstadial (warm period) in a long term ice age. With this new move we will be back to private EA firms working for skimmed milk whilst the council sit licking the cream from their lips. It could be like the situation where firms that used to run old folks homes go out of the market leaving inadequate provision. Imagine the post apocalyptic world with half starving former EAs in ragged clothes and gaunt expressions begging for alms at the local authority offices whilst piles of liability orders lie rotting and uncollected in the streets!

 

 

DB Did you see beneath the question ” are you a member of any other type of organisation”? the wording eg Local Authority? As you say it isn't law but it is an indication that others do not agree the council cannot do the work themselves.

 

 

If you do your FOI to all councils you can find out what changes they have made. As I say there were council employees with County Court Certificates to act as bailiffs under the old regime and by now all of them will have had to renew their certificate which would allow them to act as EAs.

 

 

As for the regulation 45 talk I was responding to your comment in post #21 which said "Section 45 relates to which fee scale is used. as you know the fee scale is not always utilised alongside the procedure." I did not know what you meant and I'm even less sure now. The new wording for 45 makes no mention of a fee scale so the only fee scale is the one in the schedule to the TCoG (Fees) Regs 2014. Unlike you I cannot see any reason why a council employee cannot recover those fees.

 

Hi EM.

 

Yes i saw the questions on the rest of the form, it just sems rather odd, as the EA if he was already in employment as such would presumably have a personal licence anyway, so why the application in the first place.

 

I think i will restrict the FOI just to the one for now as they are one of the few who apparently operate a scheme of this type.

 

Section 45 you say" The new wording for 45 makes no mention of a fee scale so the only fee scale is the one in the schedule to the TCoG (Fees) Regs 2014. Unlike you I cannot see any reason why a council employee cannot recover those fees."

 

The new wording of section 45 says Use schedule 12 procedures.

 

The definitition of schedule 12 proceedures in schedule 12 says :

 

1(1)Using the procedure in this Schedule to recover a sum means taking control of goods and selling them to recover that sum in accordance with this Schedule and regulations under it.

[Peterbard]

BA Are you able to name and shame the authority? Presumably it'll be in the public domain soon if not already.

 

 

As you've said the complaints have died down as the government hoped when designing the fee scale to adequately reward EAs but perhaps this was just a temporary amelioration like an interstadial (warm period) in a long term ice age. With this new move we will be back to private EA firms working for skimmed milk whilst the council sit licking the cream from their lips. It could be like the situation where firms that used to run old folks homes go out of the market leaving inadequate provision. Imagine the post apocalyptic world with half starving former EAs in ragged clothes and gaunt expressions begging for alms at the local authority offices whilst piles of liability orders lie rotting and uncollected in the streets!

 

 

 

Do I sense a little irony here EM ??

 

I do think that if something is working, leave it alone or if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[E Munch]

DB. The council will often get one of their staff currently doing another job to get a certificate so no they would not necessarily arrive at the council already holding a certificate. Furthermore the form us used for renewals as well as first applications so every EA will have to fill one out every 2 years. There is a couple of tick boxes right at the start of the form. Someone renewing a certificate will give their works details that apply at the moment they fill out the form. They may at that time be employed by a local authority.

 

 

As for the scale we seem to agree there is only one scale of fees and it is applicable to all EAs (other than HCEOs) whether or not they are employed by a local authority. There is no need to continue discussing but I will end by saying I thought your comment in post # "So does this meant that the council consider that their own fees scale is applicable when bailiff are in house" meant you believed a council had their won fees scale separate from that in the TCoG(Fees) Regs.

[E Munch]

DB Irony? Would I? I don't think it is bust and you don't seem to think so either. It might however be changed by councils adopting what BA is suggesting.