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

[Peterbard]

Looking at this thread today, it is clear that Whitely joined here purely to take it off topic. Proceeds and the question of payments from authorities are not relavant to this discussions in that whichever side you take, enforcement was still legal!. The points although favourites of parties involved have no bearing on this decision. I personally i will be ignoring them.

Can't believe i let myself drawn in by the sillyness.

 

I will however be contributing if i am permitted.

[Peterbard]

Sorry i was going to add this just to illustrate

 

Para 14

 

It is clear to me that whether the £172-odd that was paid was apportioned or not (and it is accepted by the defendants that it was not, that Harrow kept the full amount in payment of their debt) is irrelevant to the right or the power of Newlyn to enforce what had then become due by reason of their appointment, being the compliance fee. So they were entitled to take control of the goods as they did. It therefore matters not that they then traced the vehicle which had been hidden by the claimant and removed it. They were entitled to do so.

[Bailiff Advice]

The starting point is that he claimed to have incurred bills for the hire of a replacement vehicle of £4,932. Despite the fact that he had been asked for over 6 months to provide evidence in support and was only able on the morning of the hearing, a bank statement showing a payment of £1,644, we nonetheless have to assume that he really did incur these hire costs as otherwise, it would indicate that he was attemtping to make a fraudualent claim.

.

 

As was made clear yesterday, Mr Bola had initially contacted an individual on the internet for 'advise' and that person at some stage (we don't know when), passed Mr Bola's case to 'legal'. The rest as we say is history.....

 

Many people will be wondering why Mr Bola hired a vehicle the day after his Audi had been removed by the enforcement agent. What is more curious...is why he continued hiring the vehicle for an astonishing period of 3 months. There is something more......in his proceedings, he claimed £4,932 in rental costs and yet, for six months, he had been asked to provide evidence of the bills and it was only one the morning of the trial that he managed to produce a bank statement showing a payment of £1,644 leaving his account around the time of the vehicle first being rented.

 

Perhaps 'Whitley' would be kind enough to ask the individual above whether or not he had a part to play in arranging a replacement vehicle for Mr Bola? The reason for asking is because, a short while ago, the individual had the following on his website. It has since been removed !!!

 

We provide our clients with funding for a solicitor and create the materials to bring these claims to court. A successful claim only returns our original investment, and the profit is made from a share of the award for the client.

 

We also act as intermediary to car rental companies and vehicle transport services. We always retain this aspect of the client's business. These services provide our clients with a rental car while their own vehicle is unlawfully taken and a transporter for collecting their vehicle from a bailiffs compound and taking it to a garage for the safety inspection and any repairs.

 

The cost of these are added and recovered from the creditor whom the bailiff company is acting for.

[Bailiff Advice]

Over the weekend, I have received many messages asking for details of the arguments that the claimant had used at his trial, to support his theory, that as he had paid the principal debt to the council and they had not deducted the compliance fee that somehow, this meant that the council had accepted his payment in full settlement and the power to enforce the warrant ceased.

 

I will provide bullet points of his arguments in the morning.

 

I will also provide a brief guide as to how the Bola v Harrow and Newlyn judgement affects debtors who make payment to the local authority (instead of the enforcement agency) after a Notice of Enforcement has been issued.

[Bailiff Advice]

For any viewers who have not read the background to this case, the following link will be useful:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477808-Paying-the-creditor-direct-to-avoid-paying-bailiff-fees-has-landed-a-debtor-with-a-%A37-000-cost-order.&p=5028349&viewfull=1#post5028349

 

In the first instance, from reading the above, it would seem that Mr Bola did not make payment to Harrow by accident. This is evident by the fact that over the next 2 days, he sent a series of correspondence to Newlyn.

 

In the first, he informed the enforcement company that he had paid Harrow (instead of Newlyn) and warning that they could no longer 'take control' of his goods. This was followed by a Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access threatening that any visit would be considered trespass. The final notice was entitled Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Such a notice is popular with individuals who support the Freeman on the Land (FMoTL) ideology.

 

In the first instance, Mr Bola relied heavily on a County Court case from 2015 (Murgatroyd v Mrs Wilkinson). The court dismissed any reference to this case at an early stage.

 

In relation to the compliance fee of £75, he claimed through his solicitor the following:

 

1). That when he visited Harrow's website and input his PCN number, it told him an amount to pay and so that meant that Harrow were accepting payment for that PCN. They were asking him to pay money for a specific debt and that money can only be appropriated for that debt.

 

2). That if creditors accept payments directly, that they allow a debtor not to have to pay the compliance fee.

 

3). That as Harrow had not appropriated the £172 and that instead, they keep the money it meant that they had accepted the payment in satisfaction of the debt.

 

4). That the compliance fee is only due if goods have been sold (as the regs state the sequence of proceed for that stage......compliance fee paid first followed by auctioneers fees etc).

 

5). That by paying £172 on 14th January 2016 there is then no amount outstanding. The Judge disagreed and reminded Mr Bola's solicitor that there is the £75 Compliance fee.

 

6). That even if the compliance fee were due, that it cannot be enforced against.

 

 

Mr Bola attempted to blame Harrow Council's computer system. At his trial he claimed the following:

 

1). That if Harrow had been sensible they should have created a system which as soon as they sent to account to an enforcement agent, something could be added to the computer system to inform debtors how their payment would be allocated (pro rata). It was argued that apparently, this would require a very simple code to ‘tweak the programme’.

 

 

2). That Harrow’s computer system should have added an algorithm to their computer programme which automatically adds the compliance fee as soon as the matter is sent to the enforcement agent and that such a system would not require 'much tweating'.

 

 

Mr Bola then referred to the supposed failing of Harrow in relation to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents: Taking Control of Goods. He claimed the following:

 

 

1). That the National Standards are an agreement that all local authorities have signed up to and that under Paragraph 9, Harrow were under an obligation to inform Newlyn of his payment.

 

2) That under Paragraph 31 of the National Standards, enforcement agents must not seek to enforce for the recovery of their fees where the 'enforcement power has ceased'

[Whitely]

Bailiff Advice - do you really think it is your position to dissect Mr Bola's evidence already given in court in front of a barrister and judge much more learned and experienced than yourself? Do you think it's appropriate to use these public boards to ridicule and defame Mr Bola?

 

I suggest that the mods remove your post (#81), followed by this post. I think it is shameful that you're acting in this way.

[Peterbard]

Bailiff Advice - do you really think it is your position to dissect Mr Bola's evidence already given in court in front of a barrister and judge much more learned and experienced than yourself? Do you think it's appropriate to use these public boards to ridicule and defame Mr Bola?

 

I suggest that the mods remove your post (#81), followed by this post. I think it is shameful that you're acting in this way.

 

Why, does free speech only work on your behalf? By your logic the whole of bailii should be deleted to .

[Whitely]

Why, does free speech only work on your behalf? By your logic the whole of baiil should be deleted to .

 

Why, does bailii try to take apart evidence and judgements?

[Peterbard]

Why, does bailii try to take apart evidence and judgements?

 

Bailii provides the documents so other can do so. Can't believe I am having to explain this.

 

The court provided this so others may do the same.

[Whitely]

|Were analysing a court case ??

 

THis is a public record you know ?

 

No, Bailiff Advice is implying that Mr Bola committed perjury.

[Peterbard]

I cannot believe you are actually saying this TBH.

 

YOur forum has pushed a procedure to advise debtors that if they pay direct they can avoid fees. What kind of public service is that.

 

BA is helping debtors by showing the court ruled(yet again) that the advice is dangerously flawed.

The debtor here incurred costs of over £7k because of your "help".

[Whitely]

Stop avoiding the issue Dodgeball.

[Peterbard]

No, Bailiff Advice is implying that Mr Bola committed perjury.

 

BA os stating the facts, as far as i can see. It is for a court to decide what is or is not perjury.

 

If you dispute the facts then lets see your argument on that.

[Whitely]

BA os stating the facts, as far as i can see. It is for a court to decide what is or is not perjury.

 

If you dispute the facts then lets see your argument on that.

 

Read post #81 again. She is questioning his evidence, implying he lied. I notice she has gone very quiet.

[Peterbard]

Stop avoiding the issue Dodgeball.

 

I have no idea what the issue is. All I can see is someone trying to restrict free speech and opinion because it is not convenient for them and shows they have been wrong.

[AndyOrch]

Play nicely......

 

Posts unapproved

[Whitely]

I have no idea what the issue is. All I can see is someone trying to restrict free speech and opinion because it is not convenient for them and shows they have been wrong.

 

Free speech can only exist if it's not abused. Bailiff Advice has no justification to use these public boards to accuse someone of perjury. The evidence has been heard and accepted. Not quite sure why you think it would inconvenience me - what has come out of this case has accorded with my argument that an authority has no legal obligation to apportion payments taken directly from the debtor. To apportion payments would be, as was said, a 'legal nonsense'.

 

The matter of whether fees alone can then be enforced will be dealt with in the next few months, so perhaps you'll want to get your arguments in early.

[Bailiff Advice]

Read post #81 again. She is questioning his evidence, implying he lied. I notice she has gone very quiet.

 

Pote, could you please calm down. I have not stated that the claimant was lying...if you read what I have said properly, I have stated my opinion that Mr Bola did not seem to have made payment to Harrow by accident. You have also now indicated that you have also read the transcript...you will therefore know that the Judge made a lot of comments about this.

 

There are two other points as well. Over the weekend...you confirmed that the claimant had been a client of the website where you post and that he had passed the claimant 'over to legal'. Under questioning, Mr Bola denied knowing that person. So was he telling the truth or not?

 

He also denied cutting the clamp off both cars or knowing who had done so. The Judge stated that he was satisfied that the clamps had been illegally removed by either the claimant or somebody known to him.

[Peterbard]

The fees issue has been resolved by this cases (and others) there was a judgment?

 

If you are waiting for another bite at the apple then , when and if that happens come back.

 

You cannot keep saying tht a case i is irrelevant because it shows you to be wrong.

 

You seem to think you can just keep asking until you get the answer you want. Like a petulant child.

 

I will not respond any more to you in this.

[Whitely]

Pote, could you please calm down. I have not stated that the claimant was lying...if you read what I have said properly, I have stated my opinion that Mr Bola did not seem to have made payment to Harrow by accident. You have also now indicated that you have also read the transcript...you will therefore know that the Judge made a lot of comments about this.

 

I'm afraid you did BA, by following up your 'opinion' with what you say is 'evidence'.

 

There are two other points as well. Over the weekend...you confirmed that the claimant had been a client of the website where you post and that he had passed the claimant 'over to legal'. Under questioning, Mr Bola denied knowing that person. So was he telling the truth or not?

 

You have misread what I posted. I said I'd not seen any posts on the matter but 'believed' he had been passed to 'legal'. I haven't had that confirmed - he certainly made no posts.

 

He also denied cutting the clamp off both cars or knowing who had done so. The Judge stated that he was satisfied that the clamps had been illegally removed by either the claimant or somebody known to him.

 

That is the logical conclusion but of course, as before, the evidence was heard and the matter was put to bed.

[Whitely]

 

You cannot keep saying tht a case i is irrelevant because it shows you to be wrong.

 

I have said for years that direct payments should not be split, apportioned, passed over, or however you want to term it. This case has shown that this stance is correct. To sound persistent, to argue that direct payments are apportioned is a legal nonsense. Direct payments are not subject to s13. No ifs, no buts, no coconuts.

[Peterbard]

Cag is also my forum

[Peterbard]

I have said for years that direct payments should not be split, apportioned, passed over, or however you want to term it. This case has shown that this stance is correct. To sound persistent, to argue that direct payments are apportioned is a legal nonsense. Direct payments are not subject to s13. No ifs, no buts, no coconuts.

 

Pote read the judgment , your claim here is irrelevant to this debate and this thread, and therefore off topic.

 

Para 14

 

It is clear to me that whether the £172-odd that was paid was apportioned or not (and it is accepted by the defendants that it was not, that Harrow kept the full amount in payment of their debt) is irrelevant to the right or the power of Newlyn to enforce what had then become due by reason of their appointment, being the compliance fee.

 

If you want to discuss this i suggest you start a thread elsewhere.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

The matter of whether fees alone can then be enforced will be dealt with in the next few months, so perhaps you'll want to get your arguments in early.

 

I'm sorry, but it won't. The Judgment has outlined the position very clearly and most precisely. As I will explain later on today, the Judge found that the regulations have to be read separately and not collectively and accordingly, Newlyn (and by definition; any other enforcement company) having being instructed, and having incurred the compliance fee have a right to enforce it as provided.

 

Counsel for Newlyn stated that the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 stands alone and in so doing, entitles the enforcement agent to enforce the debt where:

 

1) There is any debt outstanding....

 

2) Whether it be the original debt....

 

3) Part of it....

 

4)

Or the enforcement agent's fees....

 

The Judge stated that he agreed with Counsel's submission and in his official judgment stated this:

 

'Having considered carefully the provisions, I find that I agree with the defendant, and no amount of reinterpretation of the Regulations, it seems to me, comes to the aid of the claimant.

 

In other words, no purposeful reading of the Regulations can, it seems to me, support the claimant’s contention. It is clear to me that whether the £172-odd that was paid was apportioned or not (and it is accepted by the defendants that it was not, that Harrow kept the full amount in payment of their debt) is irrelevant to the right or the power of Newlyn to enforce what had then become due by reason of their appointment, being the compliance fee. So they were entitled to take control of the goods as they did.

 

It therefore matters not that they then traced the vehicle which had been hidden by the claimant and removed it. They were entitled to do so'.

[Bailiff Advice]

I have said for years that direct payments should not be split, apportioned, passed over, or however you want to term it. This case has shown that this stance is correct. To sound persistent, to argue that direct payments are apportioned is a legal nonsense. Direct payments are not subject to s13. No ifs, no buts, no coconuts.

 

I have also spent the past 3 years endlessly advising debtors that paying a local authority (or court) direct does not stop the enforcement company from enforcing for their fees. I have also been proved right ....so what.

 

And that is precisely why this judgment is so very important. As JK has stated, there is a desperate need for courts to analyse the various legation and this case has done just that. As I said earlier, I will provide a short overview as to how the case of Bola v Harrow and Newlyn affects debtors making direct payments to creditors.