Judge orders debtor to pay £7,000 in costs for trying to avoid paying Compliance fee of £75......a discussion thread.

[Whitely]

I would expect he returns the warrant and the fees die.

[Leakie]

Andy

to sum up about 30 posts going around in circles.

 

Whitely is saying

 

If a debtor owes £200, and pays the Creditor the £200, the debt is paid,

Enforcement fees are still due, but not through enforcement of the original debt

if the Creditor pays the £75, or what ever the fee is, out of the monies paid, and the goodness of there heart lol.

that is not down to the debtor, so enforcement is finished.

 

DB is saying if the Debtor pays the creditor, the fee's must come out of the amount paid, to the creditor,

and any outstanding, can be enforced as there is a debt still outstanding. this was as what we were told way back, by BA.

 

So my question is has there been a ruling to clarify, who is correct or wrong?

 

I think that sums it up in one post instead of all the one up man ship before.

 

What people who come here need is solid advise

 

may be this is why we do not have as many posting for help, rather than TCE working

 

this post is not to flame ,

 

Leakie

[Peterbard]

The case was just about if a power to enforce continues after the debtor pays the,authority what he owes them in full without any fees that are due. The court said they can continue to enforce for anything still outstanding, even if it is just fees.

[Leakie]

But has this been challenged in a higher court so it is set in stone?

[Peterbard]

No . the judge did not give leave to appeal.

 

If they want to take it further they will have to apply to a circuit judge for permission to appeal. Then If they get it start the appeal process,

In any case the judgment has been made and it is as it is. You cannot deny a judgment n the grounds that some day kt my be appealed.

[Leakie]

Thanks DB

 

It was a passing Comment

not up with the process 100%

 

Leakie

[unclebulgaria67]

Not sure anyone would take this to a higher court seeking precedent, because those who fight the system would probably not want to have a precedent that wrecks their game. And then there are the cost issues.

 

I am no expert on this subject, but from what i have read, there are gaps in the legislation, which need to be filled in some way. I think there is now too much of a rush to enforce a liability. It seems to be a notice of enforcement and then a visit very quickly after the 7 days are up. Quite often NOE's are not even received. Given many people struggle with money, more needs to be done outside of enforcement activity to obtain longer term payment arrangements.

 

There will always be people who just don't want to pay out of principle, not because they can't pay and they will fight the system. In doing so, they actually make it worse for those struggling with money, as it creates the impression that more people are "won't pays" , rather than "can't pays".

 

I think the £75 compliance fee is too much and 7 days provided is not adequate. I would also require councils and other creditors to take longer to negotiate repayment, before going out for enforcement as an act of last resort.

[Leakie]

The trouble is the council s are making money with the LO's

My council refused to even talk about a repayment plan until they have an LO.

Agree with what you have stated above.

 

leakie

[Peterbard]

Thanks DB

 

It was a passing Comment

not up with the process 100%

 

Leakie

Sok, no resson you should be

[Bailiff Advice]

 

I am no expert on this subject, but from what i have read, there are gaps in the legislation, which need to be filled in some way. I think there is now too much of a rush to enforce a liability. It seems to be a notice of enforcement and then a visit very quickly after the 7 days are up. Quite often NOE's are not even received. Given many people struggle with money, more needs to be done outside of enforcement activity to obtain longer term payment arrangements.

 

I think the £75 compliance fee is too much and 7 days provided is not adequate. I would also require councils and other creditors to take longer to negotiate repayment, before going out for enforcement as an act of last resort.

 

Good post UB.

 

The first point that I would like to say concerns the 'compliance' stage. These regulations were only released in 2014 after many years of research and consultation and the main aim of the government was to introduce legislation that would stop 'aggressive behaviour' and as anyone will observe from the Explanatory Memorandum, a great deal of emphasis has been given to the 'compliance' stage. If a debtor contacts the enforcement company during the 'compliance' period, then a payment arrangement can be set up over a period of approx 3 months. This avoids the need for a personal visit and the debt increasing by £235. Also, the 'compliance' stage is working extremely well indeed. The number of complaints has significantly reduced.

 

I continue to have a great deal of sympathy with anyone facing bailiff enforcement for council tax as I will explain in a moment.

 

With an unpaid penalty charge notice, a person will receive a Notice to Owner. If they pay within the discounted period (of 14 days) they will benefit from a 50% discount. Failure to pay will result in a Charge Certificate being issued and finally, an Order for Recovery....so effectively, they have 3 stages in which to pay prior to receiving a Notice of Enforcement from a bailiff. There is no facility in place for local authorities to accept a payment arrangement.

 

With magistrate court fines the position is even better. Following the conviction, the defendant will receive a Notice of Fine/Collection Order. At that stage, the individual can contact the court and a payment arrangement over a year or even more can be set up with the minimum payment term at just £5 per week.

 

If the defendant defaults, they will receive another letter entitled: Further Steps Notice. So with court fines, there are two stages in which to pay (before the account is passed to an enforcement agency) but payment arrangements are easily arranged.

 

With council tax the position is different again. Before a summons can be issued, the council tax payer would need to have defaulted twice on their yearly council tax bill. They would then be notified of a summons date. Unfortunately, the regulations do permit for the account to be forwarded to the enforcement agent after a Liability Order has been issued.

[AndyOrch]

" Unfortunately, the regulations do permit for the account to be forwarded to the enforcement agent after a Liability Order has been issued."

 

And that is were the problem starts...unlike a CCJ you get a month to pay or facility to vary the payment into manageable monthly payments.

 

But the deeper problem is educating people that Ctax and Mortgage/Rent are priority debts...there are no loopholes or shortcuts......TV/Broadband/Mobile phones are not...but I bet they are paid first.

 

Andy

[Bailiff Advice]

 

There will always be people who just don't want to pay out of principle, not because they can't pay and they will fight the system. In doing so, they actually make it worse for those struggling with money, as it creates the impression that more people are "won't pays" , rather than "can't pays".

 

And this case is a prime example. As the Judge observed, the debtor was a very highly paid individual and one who clearly understood the instructions on how to pay on the Notice of Enforcement.

 

Most importantly, the Judge observed that by the claimant 'paying the wrong amount' that he was 'trying to get away with it'. His solicitor agreed.

[Bailiff Advice]

" Unfortunately, the regulations do permit for the account to be forwarded to the enforcement agent after a Liability Order has been issued."

 

And that is were the problem starts...unlike a CCJ you get a month to pay or facility to vary the payment into manageable monthly payments.

 

But the deeper problem is educating people that Ctax and Mortgage/Rent are priority debts...there are no loopholes or shortcuts......TV/Broadband/Mobile phones are not...but I bet they are paid first.

 

Andy

 

I agree that it is wrong and I have been very vocal about this point for a long time.

 

Up until April 2014, there had been the requirement for local authorities to issue a '14 day' letter advising that a Liability Order had been obtained. Unfortunately, that requirement was revoked under Schedule 13 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act. However, from a lot of discussions that I have had on this point with local authorities, it does seem that the majority of councils are continuing to send a letter (even though they no longer have to ).

[Leakie]

Agree with the last 2 posts with regards to Council Tax.

 

If someone were struggling in the first place, how is it reasonable for the fees to be added,

and then give a repayment period of 3 months.

 

Where it falls short, is when someone contacts the EC, and unless you fit the criteria 3 months is all you will get.

If they can not pay in this time period, how does adding another £235 help.

Most EC will not accept more than a 3 month period of payment.

[Leakie]

A lot of people, fall behind because of changes in the benefit changes,

a small increase in income can change the amount of relief for CT by quite a large amount.

 

An example

some one may pay £30.00 a month CT then get a job for an income of £5000, there new payment would

increase to approx £70.00 a month

this is a substantial increase, which may not be funded in the short notice period given. then the spiral begins!!

[Bailiff Advice]

I think there is now too much of a rush to enforce a liability. It seems to be a notice of enforcement and then a visit very quickly after the 7 days are up.

 

Just a quick observation. With HMCTS court fines, there is always a 14 day compliance period and just now, I have received an enquiry regarding a council tax debt that is with Bristow & Sutor. This is the exact wording from the debtor:

 

'Letter from this company arrived dated 2nd May 2017 giving me 14 days to pay £xxxx. This expired on 16th May 2017'.

 

A further point, the advice given by CIVEA to all itheir members, is to afford a 14 day 'compliance stage'. If an enforcement company are to depart from the specified period outlined in the regulations (or the guidance from CIVEA) you would normally expect that any such decision has been one made by their local authority client.

[ss002d6252]

An interesting read... kept me entertained for an hour or so...

 

With council tax the position is different again. Before a summons can be issued, the council tax payer would need to have defaulted twice on their yearly council tax bill. They would then be notified of a summons date. Unfortunately, the regulations do permit for the account to be forwarded to the enforcement agent after a Liability Order has been issued.

A summons can be issued after the default of one instalment if needed - the only further action then required would be the failure to pay the whole outstanding balance which becomes due on the failure to clear the defaulted instalment within 7 days.

 

 

it does seem that the majority of councils are continuing to send a letter (even though they no longer have to ).

The 14 day notice warning of the enforcement agent being instructed (regulation 45A notice) and the regulation 36 notice (a 'request for information' form) were rolled in to one notification by a lot of local authorities so continue to use the single form they had developed makes sense as the Regulation 36 notice is still an option they have, even without the statutory notice under reg 45A. Warning people of enforcement action never does any harm in my experience and it's good to see they've not all ditched the warning.

 

Craig

[AndyOrch]

Thanks for the clarification Craig

 

Wondered when you would pop in

 

Andy

[ss002d6252]

Thanks for the clarification Craig

 

Wondered when you would pop in

 

Andy

 

Takes a while to work through 11 pages ! Not sure anything has actually come out of those pages that wasn't covered in the early posts but entertaining anyway.

 

So can we debate on how many paracetamol the judge needed by the time he finished ?

 

Overall though the thread shows that a) the law is far too loosely worded b) some people will argue over anything and c) that we need further cases to provide full clarification on the ass that is the TCEA and surrounding legislation. I'm glad in some ways that I moved out of dealing with enforcement and I stick to other issues now.

 

Craig

[Peterbard]

Bit patronising don't you think.

 

Problem is that there are people out there who will use the interpretation of the smallest detail, to make the most damaging claims.

 

Happening right now. And of course is why the claimant here got stuck with a bill for 7 grand.

[AndyOrch]

Not particularly patronising...accurate from the horses mouth I thought ?

[Peterbard]

I didn't see any explanation Andy.

Just critisism of posters because there contribution didn't meet some standard or other

[Vauban]

Am I the only one who thinks Dodgeball and Whiteley need to get a room?

[Peterbard]

Am I the only one who thinks Dodgeball and Whiteley need to get a room?

 

Kinky, but not out of the question big boy

[unclebulgaria67]

These threads often attract spirited debate and some counselling afterwards.

 

IF the law was more straightforward and gave people every chance to avoid increased costs including those due to enforcement being used, then i would think we would see far less problems.

 

I am sure most people want to be able to pay council taxes on time for the amount due, but sometimes this is not possible. Perhaps councils should offer more flexibility and enforcement becomes a very rare option. It should be made illegal for councils to share in the enforcement fee proceeds, as that creates an incentive to rush for enforcement.