Newlyn removed car for CTAX debt - but notice of enforcement is over 12 months old?

[unclebulgaria67]

l/o not renewed, zero and clear done and finished

 

Get it in writing from Harrow council, that the l/o was cleared on receipt of your payment and nothing was or will be passed onto anyone else.

 

Harrow council should have told Newlyn what the score was.

[Peterbard]

 

UB it is not a matter for the council it is a prescription of the legislation, even if they had kept it the sum would still be due.

 

The sum under the collection order was the amount due, that is the sum plus the fees, not the sum due under the order,

 

Sorry just read my post and it is a little hard to understand, I will try again.

 

The sum due under the liability order, is due to the authority. The amount due after the liability is passed to the bailiff becomes the "amount outstanding"

This is the sum under the liability order plus fees( section 50(3)TCE).

 

This is then a single amount, it remains so until the account is passed back to the council and the order for enforcement has ended..

[Bru911]

( section 50(3)TCE).

 

(3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

(a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

 

"the amount of the debt that remains unpaid"...when the enforcement action took place the debt was zero. Even bailiff documentation breaks down, separates and differentiates the two terms debt and fees, so you know they are not one and the same.

[Peterbard]

Being a little selictive here the section really reads

 

50(1)Proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power must be used to pay the amount outstanding.

(2)Proceeds are any of these—

(a)proceeds of sale or disposal of controlled goods;

(b)money taken in exercise of the power, if paragraph 37(1) does not apply to it.

(3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

(a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

(b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

 

62(1)Regulations may make provision for the recovery by any person from the debtor of amounts in respect of costs of enforcement-related services.

[Bailiff Advice]

( section 50(3)TCE).

 

(3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

(a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

 

"the amount of the debt that remains unpaid"...when the enforcement action took place the debt was zero. Even bailiff documentation breaks down, separates and differentiates the two terms debt and fees, so you know they are not one and the same.

 

It is most unusual for ordinary members of the public to be aware of specific legislation regarding bailiff enforcement and rarer still, to be aware of 'Schedule 12' of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 

It would seem that you have sourced information from the internet and in doing so, had the misfortune to come across misleading information that only provides a small 'section' of legisaltion. For example; Item 50(3) does NOT state what you have written above. I notice that Dodgeball has provided an accurate account of what this section actually states.

 

I get the impression that whatever information you are given, you will dispute it. Accordingly, it is best to wait for the response from Newlyn Plc.

[Bru911]

Dodgeball quoted the the section ( section 50(3)TCE). , because I dont know it I have to reference what Dodgeball quotes just to keep up with the knowledge being given.

So i quoted it and then it got more indepth as just that section was deemd selective but that is what I was told was the appropriate applicable section

 

I then question what is being said to gain understanding, "do you mean that "..........what has been quoted in said section means x y z.

I am not disputing the information but merely going over the interpretation of the sections relating to matters in real terms.

 

I thought the purpose was not to solely rely on Newlyns Plc to give their verdict on how they perceive legislation but to come here to get an overview on what is acceptable interpretation; as of course Newlyns are going to say they have made no error.

 

I have been told to wait for Newlyn to self regulate themselves.

 

The conversation has moved through various sections of legislation at present using and incorporating 62(1) which was not apparent when this begun, but I feel waiting for Newlyns to self regulate point of view is really putting the ball in their court, when it would be preferable to know what is, as things stand correct, by outside third parties perspectives not only Newlyn Bailiff perspective.

[Bailiff Advice]

Have you spoken to the council about Newlyn's enforcing payment after the 12 month period? If not, please do so.

 

I should have asked earlier...how much is the car worth that has been taken by Newlyn's?

[brassnecked]

And is it on HP, if so how much is owing?

[Peterbard]

Your best bet is the 12 month issue, however it seems to back up my belief that the seizure was just a short time e after your payment, as if they were waiting for payment of the Balance.

 

Also that period can be increased if the court sees fit, or if there is justifiable reason why the enforcement did not take place earlier, which brings up BA question regarding changes of address etc.

[Bru911]

i have spoken to the council but the person on the phone had no indepth knowledge of legislation they agree the date of notice of enforcement letter and agree it is over 12month that enforcement took place but are unable to address the issue as it was done by the bailiff and only end up saying phone the bailiff company.

 

The car is worth about £1500-1800 not on HP nothing owing.

 

Payment direct to the council 03/08/2016, enforcement of fees 10/10/16 there was no change of address. enforcing 52 days after the expiry of the notice of enforcement letter and enforcing 68 days later from payment made to the council.

 

I would have understood if the bailiff company had sought an extension so making it live via the court but they did not.

Likewise I can understand if there was a pro rata distribution and a portion of the debt amount was still outstanding but none was and is .

If i had entered into some agreement or arrangement with Newlyn but again I did not.

 

When the bailiff company are acting on notice of enforcement letter that is out of date and thus invalid, I should not have to pay of have any action taken against me or my property as per legislation.

An expired notice of enforcement letter should not be enforced.

[Peterbard]

Who said the bailiff could make a representation to court for extension ?

[Leakie]

I think it was you DB

 

If the council had made a mistake, and not past the payment over it is hardly the OP fault.

 

leakie

[Peterbard]

No need it would hardly make any difference, the Bailiff would still want his fees he would just say until the account went back or they would be credited to his account.

[Bru911]

I would have thought as you said "Also that period can be increased if the court sees fit" the party to approach the court in this instance seeing as the debt is paid in full to the council and the council have zero interest as they have nothing left to recover, the only party left to approach the court for an increase to the period would be the bailiff company as no other parties have any interest in enforcement.

[Leakie]

But I will be corrected if wrong, and I will apologies DB if I am incorrect.

[Peterbard]

And no I did not say anything about an application.

[Leakie]

Bru911

 

DB is correct in saying the way it should happen is if you pay the council direct, and it is with an EC then the council should

pass the payment on, too the EC.

 

 

But in my opinion if you have it in writing that the LO is settled then it is between the council and the EC.

 

The council has made the mistake not you.

 

Also the council are responsible for the actions of the EC.

[Peterbard]

I would have thought as you said "Also that period can be increased if the court sees fit" the party to approach the court in this instance seeing as the debt is paid in full to the council and the council have zero interest as they have nothing left to recover, the only party left to approach the court for an increase to the period would be the bailiff company as no other parties have any interest in enforcement.

 

The debt was not paid in full,, the Bai!llf can make an applicatin under 84.5, not something widely known...

[Bru911]

The debt was paid in full.

 

As you say if the circumstances were different and figures changed to show debt still owed to the council maybe so. But as they stand with the debt being cleared to the council due to the council not pro rata which is nothing to do with me and no arrangement in place with Newlyns and the date of notice of enforcement being expired; I cannot see where they are correct in taking action when they do not meet legislation as it stands.

[Peterbard]

There seems to be inconsistency in proffered knowledge being demonstrates here.

 

However if this did happen the op would loose a proportion off his payment to the bailiff In any case, as he paid whilst the debt was under an enforcement power.

 

Bru911 said:

The debt was paid in full.

 

As you say if the circumstances were different and figures changed to show debt still owed to the council maybe so. But as they stand with the debt being cleared to the council due to the council not pro rata which is nothing to do with me and no arrangement in place with Newlyns and the date of notice of enforcement being expired; I cannot see where they are correct in taking action when they do not meet legislation as it stands.

 

The regulations do not apportion proceeds until the account is going back

[Bru911]

but the council are saying they have not pro rata any sums from this payment to the bailiff company and they have accepted the payment and the account is now zero and paid in full the bailiff firm were left to collect the outstanding sums within the set guidelines of legislation .

the facts stand me paying the debt whilst the notice of enforcement is valid does nowhere in legislation increase the notice of enforcement period and the bailiff fees whilst still outstanding should for all intents and purposes be held under the time scale set out for the notice of enforcement letter being exercisable within 12months which still appllies and expired well before they began the action.

[Peterbard]

The fact is that you paid whilst the amount owed included fees, you did not therefore payy the full amount outstanding, you therefore still owe.

 

If you would have waited the extra few days the full sum would have been allotted to the council as by then tne power would have ended.

[Bru911]

paying the council precisely the sum that the council has asked for does not extend to a fact of me making an arrangement in any way with a bailiff company, and the bailiff company cannot enforce where no arrangement is in place with them and the notice of enforcement letter has elapsed due to the 12 month period passing, this should mean that enforcing is going against what is stipulated in legislation.

 

If i look at it your way regardless of money owed they cannot enforce when the 12 month has expired and no arrangement is in place. They should have sent a new notice of enforcement which they did not, they lost the power to enforce once that benchmark passed. They should have checked everything is valid before enforcement and in this instance they were out of time.

[Leakie]

That the trouble if you make the mistake they ramp up the fee's

 

If they make the mistake they still expect you to cough up

 

I will be honest

I do not think you will get any where on this, and have to pay to get your car back , and the amount will have gone up by another £110 at least.

[Bru911]

cheaper for me to make a civil action against the bailiff firm to recoup the loss and present the facts as they stand. They can judge the facts and what is not acceptable. i will like to hear them over ride what they have put in legislation.