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

[Peterbard]

 

In the normal sense, costs and fees have different meanings - costs are an initial outlay, fees are a financial gain.

 

In the TCE costs are regarded as anything taken in relation to the exercising of an enforcment power section 62. Fees are itemised in the associated regulations.

 

You are not now saying the costs and fees are different things under the TCE ?.

It was never pleaded.

I dont think anyone would dare do so.

[Peterbard]

 

Because I cannot see where the legislation says fees alone can be enforced. It only says the EA may recover fees, it doesn't clarify further.

 

 

All this is covered in the judgment which you say you have read.

 

The section 50(2) Definition of ammount outstanding says that collection of sums due to the creditor together with the fees can be enforced.

[Peterbard]

I dont see how anyone who advises people fees are void, could call themselves an advisor after this judgment, not and keep a straight face.

 

Particularly since there has never been a judgment or LGO decision which does not echo its findings.

[Whitely]

They can decide if they pass the payment on or not. That is the point.

 

Under what power? If they did, it would be voluntarily and not at the expense of the original debt.

[Peterbard]

Under what power? If they did, it would be voluntarily and not at the expense of the original debt.

 

Under what rule and It is not what the judge said in this case.

 

The authority has an ordinary duty to pay its contractor for work done. the fees are set.

 

Again the court did not concern itself with this, although the judge did confirm .

 

It is also off topic, as the judgment here was ab out the ability to continue enforcment, not about your theories regarding proceeds, again the judge said tht this was irrelevant to this case.

[Whitely]

Under what rule and It is not what the judge said in this case.

 

The authority has an ordinary duty to pay its contractor for work done. the fees are set.

 

Again the court did not concern itself with this, although the judge did confirm .

 

It is also off topic, as the judgment here was ab out the ability to continue enforcment, not about your theories regarding proceeds, again the judge said tht this was irrelevant to this case.

 

What are you talking about? Fees are only recoverable from the debtor. If the authority voluntarily recalls the warrant then sure, they should pay what is due, but should certainly not be making that payment from the payment made by the debtor.

 

What you're saying is that if a debtor owes £200 and pays it directly to the council, they will then say to the bailiff "ah you've been so good, take £75 out of that". Really?

[Peterbard]

The judgement says

 

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

[Peterbard]

Also as confirmed by many previous LGO actions, councils ,FOI requests.

 

The debt was being enforced, under an enforcment power Therefore any payment due whilst that power persists is proceeds of tht power.

[Peterbard]

It is obvious what the repeated reference to this is about.

YOU have taken this to mean tht the sums paid to the authority have to be retained by them . It does not , it merely refers to the sectin 13 procedure, it says nothing about the authority retaining fees.

 

So any thought you may have abut advising debtors to pay direct and then cease interacting with the bailiff.

 

So when the warrant dies and there will be no fees payable, is wrong I am afraid.

[Whitely]

The judgement says

 

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

 

You've completely ignored what I asked.... again.

 

I asked under what power does the authority pass on direct payments if they feel like doing so. You said "The authority has an ordinary duty to pay its contractor for work done. the fees are set." So I put this to you:

 

"What you're saying is that if a debtor owes £200 and pays it directly to the council, they will then say to the bailiff "ah you've been so good, take £75 out of that". Really?"

 

You've sidestepped the issue again. The council would only have a duty to pay an EA if they request the recall of the warrant. They would not be paying that out of any direct payments they've received from the debtor.

 

You simply cannot abide that I've been correct for 3 years - direct payments are not subject to s13 as they are not proceeds of enforcements. A council would have no legal argument if they were to apportion a direct payment leaving the original debt at a loss. All you've done is try to hide the truth with 'contracts', 'duty' and even trying to say that the council can decide to use s13 if they want to despite having no legal authority.

 

You truly never fail to amaze with your ability to embarrass yourself.

[Peterbard]

Nope. I said because they hired ia bailiff who has to be paid, that's why they must pass on some of the payment, if the payment is made by the debtor whilst an enforcment power is active and is therefor proceeds of that enforcement. As the judge sys. Just because oo do ot understand the answer does not mean it has not been given.

 

Just try and claify further the fees are due because of the general duty of the employer to pass on fees, as defined under the act, not because of the act.

 

You have zero chance of understanding this i know, but a court will.

[Whitely]

It is obvious what the repeated reference to this is about.

YOU have taken this to mean tht the sums paid to the authority have to be retained by them . It does not , it merely refers to the sectin 13 procedure, it says nothing about the authority retaining fees.

.

 

Oh. My. God.

 

Dodgeball.... seriously? That's what you think it says? Sums paid to the authority are not proceeds of enforcement and cannot be treated as such. The barrister stated that fees cannot be part of that payment, that the authority cannot treat any part of that payment as EA fees. It was their's to keep. He was clear that the debt and the fees were two separate enitities.

 

Why oh why can you not grasp that the authority has no legal authority to decide that a direct payment must have EA fees subtracted and given to the EA?

[Peterbard]

You've completely ignored what I asked.... again.

 

I asked under what power does the authority pass on direct payments if they feel like doing so. You said "The authority has an ordinary duty to pay its contractor for work done. the fees are set." So I put this to you:

 

"What you're saying is that if a debtor owes £200 and pays it directly to the council, they will then say to the bailiff "ah you've been so good, take £75 out of that". Really?"

 

You've sidestepped the issue again. The council would only have a duty to pay an EA if they request the recall of the warrant. They would not be paying that out of any direct payments they've received from the debtor.

 

You simply cannot abide that I've been correct for 3 years - direct payments are not subject to s13 as they are not proceeds of enforcements. A council would have no legal argument if they were to apportion a direct payment leaving the original debt at a loss. All you've done is try to hide the truth with 'contracts', 'duty' and even trying to say that the council can decide to use s13 if they want to despite having no legal authority.

 

You truly never fail to amaze with your ability to embarrass yourself.

 

You have been saying that not passing money to the bailiff stops fees, Pote ? Anyway apparently you do ot believe a word this judge says

[Whitely]

And you've still sidestepped my question, so I'll try to make it simpler.

 

A debtor owes the council £200 and it's gone to the bailiffs. The debtor pays £200 direct to the council. The council take that payment and give £75 to the bailiff for his fees and keep the rest meaning some debt is still owed to the council. Is that what you think the council can do despite the barrister calling this a legal nonsense?

[Whitely]

You have been saying that not passing money to the bailiff stops fees, Pote ? Anyway apparently you do ot believe a word this judge says

 

Dodge, Dodge, Dodge. Please, for the love of all things holy, lead me to where I have stated that. Once again, just for you, I have never said that paying the creditor direct stops the fees. I have said I question whether the EA can use an enforcement power to then recover them, but they are still due. Whether they get paid or not is another matter.

[Peterbard]

And you've still sidestepped my question, so I'll try to make it simpler.

 

A debtor owes the council £200 and it's gone to the bailiffs. The debtor pays £200 direct to the council. The council take that payment and give £75 to the bailiff for his fees and keep the rest meaning some debt is still owed to the council. Is that what you think the council can do despite the barrister calling this a legal nonsense?

 

No again the barrister said that the ides that the authority was bound to use the procedure under section 13 was nonsense

 

I must have said about a dozen times now, We know this because some authority(actually most authorities ) do.

[Whitely]

No again the barrister said that the ides that the authority was bound to use the procedure under section 13 was nonsense

 

I must have said about a dozen times now, We know this because some authority(actually most authorities ) do.

 

So they have no legal obligation to follow it?

[Peterbard]

Dodge, Dodge, Dodge. Please, for the love of all things holy, lead me to where I have stated that. Once again, just for you, I have never said that paying the creditor direct stops the fees. I have said I question whether the EA can use an enforcement power to then recover them, but they are still due. Whether they get paid or not is another matter.

 

So you agree with the judgement now, make your mind up.

[Peterbard]

You are so petulant. I said I question whether the power to enforce for fees alone does exist after the original debt has been paid, so clearly I am not in full agreement. Now answer my question.

 

Sorry being rude, didnt have to look far

[Whitely]

No again the barrister said that the ides that the authority was bound to use the procedure under section 13 was nonsense

 

I must have said about a dozen times now, We know this because some authority(actually most authorities ) do.

 

I'll ask it again - so they are not legally obliged to follow it?

[AndyOrch]

Posts unapproved......if this is not going aware apart from in circles..it will be closed shortly...we have posters to help rather than be monitoring this nonsense all day.

 

Andyorch

 

Site Team Manager

[Peterbard]

Perhaps if anyone wane to comment or ask, or offer an opinion, if not it should be left open IMO I will not be further engaging with Whitely any further.

[Whitely]

Perhaps if anyone wane to comment or ask, or offer an opinion, if not it should be left open IMO I will not be further engaging with Whitely any further.

 

So my question goes unanswered again. Ho hum.

[josephbloggs]

I don't want to get involved in your discussion / argument but i want to make a point that was raised earlier about the councils passing payments over to companies.

I asked a friend who does a lot of council tax for one of the big companies and he confirmed that non of the councils hes had work from have ever passed a direct payment over to the bailiff company. He would prefer if it was but it doesnt happen. He usually gets an email along the lines of crack on for your fees.

[Peterbard]

So what if he does not recover any further sums ?