Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform. [if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] .  register as an individual  note the long gateway number given  then log in .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform .  defend all  leave jurisdiction unticked   goto the defence filing section  file the following:     1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).  2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980.  . If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. .  3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC]  or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. .. ..ends..   dx          
    • I passed on the article and link to friend. Between us we will now try get the required info to the correct location so that they (whoever in the Govt) can sort out what he is owed. I will keep you updated.  This thread may help others in similar situations. Ethel Street - very helpful research.  Thank you.  Seems like you came up trumps!
    • numerous erudio/drydens claimform threads here already - use our search top right.   your appears to be statute barred as you've never heard of erudio so would not have deferred since your last direct deferment to SLC in 2013    if you wish to bother to even send CCA/CPR that's upto you but the bottom line is to erudio you've ignored everything to date yoy might also ignore a claimform.   but ofcourse you are not!!   if the above is true   pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform. [if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] .  register as an individual  note the long gateway number given  then log in .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform .  defend all  leave jurisdiction unticked   goto the defence filing section  file the following: 1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).  2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980.  . If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. .  3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC]  or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. .. ..ends..   dx      
    • Well I would want my £50 back also but hey ho if your satisfied its been resolved.....there was no way you could ever be liable anyway as your contract was with TC not RC.   Thread title updated.   Andy
    • Have you not already served a CPR 31.14 ?   You dont request the agreement by way of a CPR 31.14 you use a CCA (section 78) request which you have already done and they have not complied.Therefore they remain in default of your request and unable to enforce the agreement.   Screen shots of the application/sign up are not compliant with a Section 78 request.
  • Our picks

Bailiff Advice

Court Fines: Warrant of Control does NOT cease when sum adjudged is paid to the court !!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1186 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

In the past couple of weeks I have received reports of six cases where a locksmith had been used to enforce a debt for magistrate court fines after a debtor had relied upon misinformation on the internet and believed that paying the amount only of the court fine (minus bailiff fees) to the court (as opposed to the enforcement company) would mean that the warrant had been satisfied.

 

In four cases, payment had been made to the court on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (when bailiff fees of just £75 had been added). In the remaining two cases, payment had been made following an enforcement agent agent visit (fee of £235 had been applied)

 

In each case, the person had relied upon the following statements featured on social media sites (with close links to the Freeman on the Land movement).

The warrant for court fines only enables the enforcement of the "Sum Adjudged". Section 76 of the Magistrates courts Act 1980.

 

Pay the fine online. That extinguishes the power to control of goods. The warrant only gives a power to take control of goods for the "sum adjudged".

In each debtors case, after making payment to the Magistrates Court they had received notification from the court that their payment had been forwarded to the enforcement company so that the company could properly deduct their Compliance fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation.

 

By following the inaccurate advice, each debtor had incurred substantial additional fees. In four cases, an enforcement fee of £235 had been added and in each case locksmith fee had also been applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In April 2014, Part 3 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 was finally introduced and in order to bring each debt type into the legislation it was necessary for the government to make amendments to previous legislation.

 

Amendments are outlined under Schedule 13 of the TCEA 2007 and in relation to magistrate court fines, these can be found under paragraph 46. This paragraph confirms that from April 2014 a warrant of control may only be enforced in accordance with the Schedule 12 procedure of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12?view=plain

 

On the same date that the new regulations came into effect (6th April 2014), the government introduced the following supporting regulations:

 

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

 

Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

 

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014.

 

The 'consequential' regs above outline once again that enforcement of all debts (including Magistrate Court fines may only be by way of the 'Schedule 12 procedure.

 

A link to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014 is below

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ade?view=plain

 

 

This regulation outlines how each debt type has been amended to allow for continued enforcement to be by way of the 'Schedule 12" procedure (and with it the accompanying Taking Control of Goods 2014). For ease of reference the relevant paragraphs are outlined below:

 

 

Part 1: Amendment of Magistrate Court Rules:

 

Section 1: Magistrate Court. amendment of Magistrates’ Courts Rules

 

(d):Execution of Distress Warrant

 

(cc) for “levy the said sum by distress and sale of the goods belonging to the said person substitute “recover the said sum from the debtor by way of the Schedule 12 procedure"

 

 

 

Part 2: Amendment of Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations

 

Item 2 (b) Enforcement by taking control of goods

 

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

 

 

 

Part 3: Amendment of Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

 

Item 3 ©: Enforcement by taking control of good

 

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

 

 

Section 5:Amendment of Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order

 

in paragraph (4), for “execution” substitute “the use of the Schedule 12 procedure”;

 

 

 

Note:

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the Schedule 12 procedure is to be used to each debt type (including Magistrate Court fines). Each debt type has the same fee scale scale (Compliance fee of £75 and Enforcement fee of £235).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the avoidance of doubt, the 'sum adjudged' is the figure that would appear on the Notice of Fine/Collection Order from the Magistrate Court following the court hearing of the matter. The 'sum adjudged' would include the amount of the financial penalty, victims surcharge and prosecution cost.

 

If the debtor failed to make payment to the court then a Further Steps Notice would be issued. Failure to appeal this final notice would lead to a warrant of control being issued and in accordance with legislation, enforcement fees would then be applicable.

 

As outlined in my initial post, each debtor had believed social media advice as follows:

 

The warrant for court fines only enables the enforcement of the "Sum Adjudged". Section 76 of the Magistrates courts Act 1980.

 

Pay the fine online. That extinguishes the power to control of goods. The warrant only gives a power to take control of goods for the "sum adjudged"

 

 

The truth of the matter is that the warrant of control does NOT make reference to the sum adjudged at all !!! Instead, the warrant refers to 'money owed' and states the following:

 

You may take goods belonging to the defendant to the value of the money owed
and any amounts in respect of costs of enforcement related services
which are recoverable in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

I will post up a copy of the official Warrant of Control later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, That there are so many sources of bad information now, Across forums and lately Social Media groups, That the problem is not going to go away as long as the groups are allowed to continue

 

To me, The biggest problem today is that people seem to look for the easiest way out of their problems, And will by default go with the advice that suits them better, And if there are groups out there that will tell them what they want to hear, That is the way they will go

 

As long as these groups are allowed to carry on the way that they are, The bailiff companies will continue to make record profits, And the people that run these groups, Should hang their heads in shame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to all that.

section 76 2

of the Magistrates court says this regarding failed actions.

 

In subsection (2)(a)—

(a)for “warrant of distress” substitute “ warrant of control ”;

(b)for “satisfy the sum with the costs and charges of levying the sum” substitute “ pay the amount outstanding, as defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

 

Which plainly states that all sums under the TCE section 50(3)( sum due to court and fees) must be paid in order to satisfy the warrant


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
The problem is, That there are so many sources of bad information now, Across forums and lately Social Media groups, That the problem is not going to go away as long as the groups are allowed to continue

 

To me, The biggest problem today is that people seem to look for the easiest way out of their problems, And will by default go with the advice that suits them better, And if there are groups out there that will tell them what they want to hear, That is the way they will go

 

As long as these groups are allowed to carry on the way that they are, The bailiff companies will continue to make record profits, And the people that run these groups, Should hang their heads in shame

I agree but :

Unfortunately it seems this particular advice is more sinister than that , at lest as far as the people giving it are concerned.

After the EA returns and takes the car or additional fees, the advice offered is invariably,"go to court" and get them back, and guess who provides the representation, all at inflated costs of course.

The poor debtor is told all this is reclaimable, they only find out that it isnt when it is too late. Of course the cases get laughed out of court.


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

As can quite clearly be seen, the official Warrant of Control has the following wording:

 

To: Enforcement Agent

 

Warrant number: Warrant No.

 

Defendant:

Defendant's Name

Defendant's Address

Address Line 2

Address Line 3

Address Line 4

Address Line 5

Post Code

 

Money owed: £ Total Balance

 

 

Division: Accounting Division

Account number: Account No.

[Case number: Case Number]

[born: Date-of-Birth]

 

 

Directions

 

1. You may take goods belonging to the defendant to the value of the money owed and any amounts in respect of costs of enforcement related services which are recoverable in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

2. The goods may not be sold without giving at least 7 days clear notice unless the court has ordered otherwise or the goods are perishable.

 

3. If the goods are sold you must pay the money owed to the address at the top of this order. You must give the court a statement of any costs on the attached sheet.

 

 

Conditions

 

 

1. If the money owed and the costs are paid, you must not take control of and sell the defendant’s goods.

 

2. You must not take goods which are exempt under regulations made pursuant to Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated above, the 'sum adjudged' is the figure that appears on the Notice of Fine/Collection Order when the case has been heard in court.

 

Recently, another debtor attempted to evade paying bailiff fees by paying the sum stated on the notice and he too discovered that his payment had been forwarded by the court to the enforcement company. The Magistrate Court explained the reason why this happens. The following is copied from their letter:

 

 

 

Dear xxxx

 

The purpose of this office is to collect and enforce payment of financial penalties imposed by the Courts. If defendants do not comply with the court order a designated officer will review the account and decide what is the most appropriate action to enforce payment.

 

Designated Fines Officers have the power to issue Distress Warrants/Warrants of Control under schedule 5 of the Courts Act 2003, a court hearing is not required for this sanction to be issued. Further steps notices having been sent warning of the consequences of non-compliance and the DWP system showing that a deductions from benefit was not possible, Warrants of Control were issued to Marston Bailiffs for the balances outstanding.

 

Once a Warrant of Control has been legally issued HMCTS is unable to take any further action in relation to payment or enforcement of the associated case until the Approved Enforcement Agency return the Warrant.

 

The existing fee structure forms part of the contract with Marston
and is set down in legislation
, and the act allows for three stages of enforcement.The relevant extract from the act is:-

 

There are three stages of enforcement for which fees are applicable. They are:

 

(a) The compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;

 

(b) The enforcement stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the premises in relation to the instructions up to but not including the

commencement of the sale or disposal stage;

 

© The sale or disposal stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the property for the purpose of transporting goods to the place of sale, or from commencing preparation for sale if the sale is to be held on the premises, until the completion of the sale or disposal.

 

Once a Warrant of Control has been issued the act instructs that the first £75.00 received is retained by the Enforcement Agent (in our case the AEA).

 

After the first £75.00 is taken by the AEA all subsequent payments are divided pro rata, 46% to HMCTS and 54% to AEA.

 

Any payments received by the court office after the Warrant of Control has been issued must be forwarded to the AEA to be allocated in this manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes seems to be a few every week appearing a the moment, i bet Marstons have this letter on template.

 

At least we haven't seen much of the corresponding council tax (proceeds) nonsense for a while.

 

I wonder how long it will be before the consumer(or even the practitioner) comes to realise this is just a twist on the same old FMoTL nonsense.


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

I have been asked whether I could respond to a comment made on a social media site yesterday in relation to this thread. The relevant comment is this:

 

 

The warrant allows the EA to take goods, an action that the EA can charge for. He can recover these fees from the proceeds of selling these goods. However, that warrant was issued for non-payment of sum adjudged. It was not issued because fees were due. Once the sum adjudged has been paid, the reason for the issuing of the warrant has been satisfied. No enforcement has occurred.

 

 

For ease of reference, I have broken the comment down into separate sections. My response is as follows:

 

 

The warrant allows the EA to take goods, an action that the EA can charge for.

 

In fact, there is a strict condition of the warrant (see Item 1 under heading of Conditions) that goods may only be taken if the money owed
and costs of enforcement related services
remain unpaid.

 

 

He can recover these fees from the proceeds of selling these goods.

 

Not true. The enforcement agent can also recover his fees from the
proceeds of money received
. See Paragraph 50(2)(b) of Schedule 12.

 

 

However, that warrant was issued for non-payment of sum adjudged.

 

Not true: The warrant of control was issued because the defendant had defaulted in paying the
sum due
as outlined in the Collection Order.

 

 

It was not issued because fees were due.

 

Correct. The warrant has been issued because the defendant had defaulted in paying the
sum due
as outlined in the Collection Order.

 

 

Once the sum adjudged has been paid, the reason for the issuing of the warrant has been satisfied.

 

This comment would only be true in cases where the sum due had been paid
prior
to the issue of a warrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correcting n9ne sense from that place is a full time occupation.

I thought this particular theory had been a abandoned last year, mind this particular member is notoriously slow in catching on.


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

Interesting response in John Kruses bulletin regarding paying the creditor direct. The experts in the field have not commented on this to my knowledge, as it has been considered a none issue, however in his usual courteous manner, he responded to a readers question.

 

Needless to say he reiterates what has been said on here for the last couple of years.

 

"Debtors like to think that by direct payment they have discharged the debt and left the bailiff without his fees, but this cannot be an honest interpretation of the wording or intention of the Regulations. There will still be a balance of the debt outstanding and this may still be quite properly enforceable- with extra fees of course being a possibility."

 

That that the FMOL will seek to misinterpret this simple statement, but that is par for the course.


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
In the past couple of weeks I have received reports of six cases where a locksmith had been used to enforce a debt for magistrate court fines after a debtor had relied upon misinformation on the internet and believed that paying the amount only of the court fine (minus bailiff fees) to the court (as opposed to the enforcement company) would mean that the warrant had been satisfied.

 

In four cases, payment had been made to the court on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (when bailiff fees of just £75 had been added). In the remaining two cases, payment had been made following an enforcement agent agent visit (fee of £235 had been applied)

 

In each case, the person had relied upon the following statements featured on social media sites (with close links to the Freeman on the Land movement).

The warrant for court fines only enables the enforcement of the "Sum Adjudged". Section 76 of the Magistrates courts Act 1980.

 

Pay the fine online. That extinguishes the power to control of goods. The warrant only gives a power to take control of goods for the "sum adjudged".

In each debtors case, after making payment to the Magistrates Court they had received notification from the court that their payment had been forwarded to the enforcement company so that the company could properly deduct their Compliance fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation.

 

By following the inaccurate advice, each debtor had incurred substantial additional fees. In four cases, an enforcement fee of £235 had been added and in each case locksmith fee had also been applied.

 

Yesterday, yet another individual publicly stated on the internet that locksmiths had attended his property after he too was encouraged to make payment to the court of just the amount of the court fine (minus bailiff fees). The debtor not only had to pay the bailiff fees of £310...but he has incurred additional locksmiths fees.

 

He has been advised that he can apply to the court for 'Detailed Assessment'. This is yet another 'myth' that looks likely to cost debtors dearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that the public are still receiving advice to pay the court direct as if none of the above has ever been shown.

There really is no excuse for pushing this wrong advice, they must know it is flawed.


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

The trouble is DB

Not everyone has the knowledge of the rules and regs.

and it is pot luck where there advise comes from.

If you are desperate for advise you take what you find.

 

 

Leakie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it hard to believe that the public are still receiving advice to pay the court direct as if none of the above has ever been shown.

There really is no excuse for pushing this wrong advice, they must know it is flawed.

 

There is not one court in the country that will accept payment in relation to a court fine once a warrant has been issued.

 

In every case, the court will write to the debtor to advise that the payment has been received and that it has been forwarded to the enforcement company. That payment will then be allocated in a pro rata basis with the enforcement company entitled to retain the £75 Compliance fee.

 

If there is any further doubt on the position regarding payments made to the court after a warrant has been issued, they should read the following:.

 

 

 

 

In April 2016 the Labour party MP; Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) raised a series of Parliamentary questions in the House of Commons regarding magistrate court fines.

 

His questions were answered by Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice:

 

 

Question from Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the
number of instances in which enforcement agent fees paid by a defendant
were transferred directly by HM Courts and Tribunal Services to enforcement agents in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the amounts transferred in that period.

 

 

Reply from Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice.

 

If an offender makes a payment on a financial imposition after a warrant of control has been issued and referred to the EAE, HMCTS transfers the full payment to the AEA to enable them to reconcile their accounts and take the fee owed to them and they then return any balance owed to HMCTS.

 

The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act states that the AEA is entitled to retain the first £75 of any amount paid on a warrant and then their fees are retained on a pro rata basis with the balance paid to HMCTS.

 

A link to the full list of questions and answers is below:

 

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...l%22#g34637.r0

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?463958-Government-Minister-s-statement-regarding-court-fines-bailiff-fees-pro-rata-distribution-and-paying-the-court-direct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The trouble is DB

Not everyone has the knowledge of the rules and regs.

and it is pot luck where there advise comes from.

If you are desperate for advise you take what you find.

 

 

Leakie

 

Yes I understand, and I do not blame someone accepting advice in good will. I do blame people giving this advice when they know damn well it is flawed and can only result in additional cost to the debtor.

 

I thought this was a dead issue now, I was supprised to see it raise its head again.


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

Totally agree DB

 

I try to research first, not just take the first opinion this how I found CAG

 

most of the time great advise, on here, even if opinion vary.

 

Leakie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is being reported elsewhere that apparently Section 75a of the Magistrates Courts Act, and in particular; section 75(A)(6) does not permit costs to be applied to magistrate court fines. This suggestion is wrong and anyone taking notice of it should be very careful indeed.

 

Section 75A is very well known to me and in fact, a number of solicitors have approached me over the last few months asking for my thoughts on this specific part of legislation. I responded by providing a copy of a media article that I wrote on this subject.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to ‘collection costs’ in section 75A(6) is wholly different to enforcement agent costs relating to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations. They are not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, so that is why we see a resurgence of this nonesense.

 

Another case of not knowing how to read legislation. As you say section 75A is nothing to do with enforcement fees, this is stated quite clearly in the subsection. This section has been there for a while.

 

Enforcement and fees charged are within the enforcement regs(TCE) strangely enough :)As you say BA something else entirety, I would be interested to see the article is it avai!able ?

 

 

Fees are charged as we know courtesy of section 50(3) where it says, including costs of enforcement,coxts are defined as fees under section 62..


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
Lol, so that is why we see a resurgence of this nonesense.

 

I would be interested to see the article is it avai!able ?

 

..

 

I thought that I had posted a copy on here some time ago. For some reason, I cannot search back on any threads that I started before April 2016. In any event, I will get a copy over to you later today . I will also provide the backgroutnd info as well.

 

Providing the information and explanation on section 75A on the forum may well be useful but I would not want to risk this thread escalating to too many pages or worse still...to provide a reason for trolls to disrupt the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that I had posted a copy on here some time ago. For some reason, I cannot search back on any threads that I started before April 2016. In any event, I will get a copy over to you later today . I will also provide the backgroutnd info as well.

 

Providing the information and explanation on section 75A on the forum may well be useful but I would not want to risk this thread escalating to too many pages or worse still...to provide a reason for trolls to disrupt the thread.

 

No not really, unless someone is confused about this, gave me a welcome chuckle this morning though :)


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
No not really, unless someone is confused about this, gave me a welcome chuckle this morning though :)

 

I was at an industry conference this week (the best one so far). Almost a third of all local authorities were represented with many bailiff companies and other agencies also in attendance. I intend writing later regarding some important changes that are being planned but time and time again, it was reported at the conference that complaints about bailiff enforcement have dropped significantly with some CAB advice centres even reporting that they have had NO complaints about bailiff enforcement this year.

 

What did come across (and I find the same with queries that I receive on a daily basis) is that 'complaints' tend to stem from the individual believing inaccurate information that they have read on the internet. The present discussion elsewhere regarding section 75A of the Magistrates Court Act is a prime example with one person stating that:

 

 

"Link all that together then 75(a)(6) clearly means EA fees"

 

and other person stating this:

 

"Nobody has ever suggested that 75A is connected to enforcement costs"

 

For the avoidance of doubt, that particular section has no relevance at all to the charging of enforcement agent fees following the issue of a warrant of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other said at 10:57 this morning; "it appears (to me anyway) that specific mention has been made, that costs related to enforcement may not be added to the sum adjudged."

 

Although mysteriously the post has dissapeared now LOL. Soo funny


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...