troll posts

[Guest alreadyexists]

You do want to argue about the word though which proves my point.

 

The other point you miss, is that the section title reveals that only goods which are under control can be sold, the sale cannot commence until goods are under control which contradicts your earlier statement. Are you trying to argue something else only you fail to understand now?

 

It really is back to basics for you I'm afraid. Of course only controlled goods can be sold. Quite what that has to do with the sale fee is anyone's guess.

 

I suggest you start with Regulation 5 of the Fees Regs.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I think the post should now be locked until the OP asks for it to be unlocked.

Grammar critiques, willy waving, point scoring and off topic

 

Correcting dangerous misinformation is not "point scoring" in the real worls. It is something that exists inBAs tiny little bubble.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Well done Glasgow guy.

 

As I previously explained, a bailiff cannot visit a premises simply because a NOE has been sent to the debtor C/O an address.

 

My feeling is that Dukes had no intention of ever visiting your home and sent the notice there in order to attempt to entice yourselves to make payment on your daughters behalf.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Thank you for the update.

 

Unfortunately, as you and your sidekick have previously argued from the rooftops, guidance is not legally binding.

 

Sale fees ARE being added to accounts without goods being taken into control, including High Court enforcement debts.

 

Whilst I agree with CIVEA's guidance, I would urge you to not lead debtors into the false sense of security of believing that further fees cannot be added. Further fees ARE being added and HCEOA guidance is hardly likely to influence any other form of enforcement. Indeed, as I have previously stated, even HCEOs are ignoring it.

 

This is not a debate about when a sale fee can be charged (at least as far as I am concerned). It is a debate about information given out to debtors.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Apologies. I do not agree with CIVEAs guidance (which states that the sale fee may be added prior to goods being taken into control) I agree with the guidance of the HCEOA.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Sadly, as is very often the case with you, you have simply failed to read and properly understand what has been written. It is one of the main reasons why very few people, myself included take you seriously.

 

I did not claim that the sale fee COULD be charged, I claimed that the sale fee IS being charged.

 

As for knowledge, I note that the member Emunch posted the exact same. Apart from myself, Emunch is the only person who has sufficient knowledge on this thread to advise debtors. That is not me blowing my own trumpet, it is simply stating the blindingly obvious.

[Guest alreadyexists]

As somebody who frequently posts copies of important Local Government Ombudsman's decisions here on the forum, I am fully aware that guidance (and LGO decisions for that matter) are not legally binding.

 

Since 2015, I have voicing my opinion on the frequency of 'sale stage' fees being applied. The following are a sample from 2015 !!!

 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453200-Removal-for-sale-fee-when-can-it-be-charged&p=4800719&viewfull=1#post4800719

 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453200-Removal-for-sale-fee-when-can-it-be-charged&p=4800888&viewfull=1#post4800888

 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453200-Removal-for-sale-fee-when-can-it-be-charged&p=4804537&viewfull=1#post4804537

 

I have no interest in your historical posts. Unfortunately, I don't hold the same obsession with yourself that you do.

 

My only concern is that accurate information is given to debtors and you were very wrong to lead the OP into a false sense of security in the original thread yesterday. I note you are also changing your stance regarding the quite shocking claim that "there is nothing the bailiff can do" and you are now quite rightly attempting to ascertain the status of vehicle ownership - Something that should have been done as a very minimum before telling the OP that the bailiff would have little choice other than to cave into his demands.

[Guest alreadyexists]

But what you are saying is incorrect, we always advise that goods should be kept out of the way just in any case, however people are entitled to know the true legal position.

 

In reality your only problem is that you were caught yet gain saying something which has no basis in law, and you attempt to cover it up by saying you meant something else, this is your usual MO.

 

A complete waste of everyone's time.

 

OMG!!!

 

You do realise that nobody mentioned the law was your good self here:

 

Also sale stage fees cannot legally be brought unless good are taken under control

 

When you were asked to provide us (and more importantly the OP) with evidence, your reply was "Ask John". The truth is, you wouldn't know what can and cannot "legally be brought" if it hit you in the face. You are a total bluffer.

 

As for being "a complete waste of time", remind us again just how many of your posts are stalking me?

 

If its such a complete waste of time, go away and annoy somebody else and leave me to sort out debtors problems for them.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Peter

 

The situation is that you have incurred the £235 fee lawfully.

 

The bailiff is likely to visit you to try to extract full payment from you. In the absence of full payment, he will look to take control of your goods. This MAY involve making discreet enquiries to neighbours as to whether you own a vehicle or not.

 

Your options are as follows:

 

1. To take it on the chin, accept your mistake and somehow get hold of the money from somewhere to pay him off.

 

2. To sit it out, not allow him access to your home and to take a chance that he doesn't find your car.

 

Option 2 is a gamble that only you can decide whether it is worth it. Once the bailiff realises that he cannot get full payment, he will begin to back down and be more open to listen to offers of repayment that you may wish to make.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Thanks for the reply. I don't believe I should have to pay more than I can afford nor take out another loan to pay off the debt. Just to clarify and earlier reply I am not disputing the £75.00 Compliance Fee and that is being paid back as part of the current monthly repayments.

 

When you default on council tax for a third time (as you did prior to a liability order being issued), you lose the right to pay in installments. The total balance was due in full. You were then given a further opportunity to repay in installments but by your own admission, you "stupidly forgot to pay" your last installment. You did not contact the bailiff company so they were left with no option other than to visit you, thus incurring a further £235 fee that is set out in legislation.

 

You have forfeited your one last chance to pay in installments and the bailiff will now seek to obtain payment in full. Whether you believe this is right or not, will not stop the bailiff attempting to extract that payment and you will end up paying the £235 one way or another. It could well be that the majority has already been deducted from payments that you have already made, meaning the balance of your council tax arrears is actually way more than the £62 that you believe it is.

 

If the bailiff cannot gain access to your goods, then he is likely to be willing to allow you to repay the £297 in installments. The problem you face is that there is probably going to be at least one unpleasant confrontation with the bailiff before that happens.

[Guest alreadyexists]

The only thing that will stop the bailiff visiting is if you pay him £297. Of course, your daughter is not obliged to open the door to him and provided that all external doors are locked, he won't be able to gain access to the home.

 

Out of the £180 paid to the bailiffs, they may have deducted the compliance fee at source and then a percentage of the £235 from the remaining £105 that you have paid.

 

What happened when the council contacted you after they had obtained the liability order? Did you respond to them?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Proceeds was not "nonsense". it was a legitimate legal argument in much the same way that HP and this current "sale fee" debate hve two legal arguments. There have been occasions when fees have been removed as a direct result of the "proceeds" argument, two of which are still available online to view today. "Proceeds" was such a complex issue that a judge claimed that he could not determine the outcome without the benefit of legal argument, Bailiff Advice got it wrong in her "sticky", a mistake that was still there last time I looked. I even have correspondence from council legal departments where they have misinterpreted legislation, so please don't kid yourself that it was a simple issue. Proceeds has become a real obsession of yours, due largely to your complete inability to be able to read what was written properly. The proceeds argument was always going to be a very long shot. The world and his wife knew that the intention of the new regulations was to ensure bailiffs were paid. You bet on an almost certainty, it is hardly the stuff that legends are made of. Even then, you only got it right by luck rather than judgement as your original arguments were ridiculous, with your standard quoting of irrelevant legislation.

 

If you disagreed with Munch then it only further demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. here was me thinking that I was a member of an exclusive club.

 

Finally, why do you come out with comments like this?

I would hate to see it closed, so unless some on topic comment is made, I will not respond further

You never stick to them and the only thing that remains is to time how long it takes you to return.

[Guest alreadyexists]

At the risk of bringing the thread back to an adult debate:

 

There is no evidence at all to support Dodgeball's opinion that goods must be controlled before the sale fee is activated. Dodgeball has just repeated what JK has previously stated, word for word as he often does.

 

It is an opinion that I actually agree with.

 

However, it is very wrong to tell debtors that bailiffs cannot add any extra fees once a visit has taken place. UNLESS you also inform them that it is your opinion that they can't.

 

Bailiffs ARE charging the sale fee before goods have been taken into control, Bailiffs ARE charging the sale fee on the first visit and the legal opinion that CIVEA obtained is that the sale fee CAN be added before goods are controlled.

 

Telling people that they are safe from additional fees is dangerous and wholly incorrect.

[Guest alreadyexists]

If you took a moment to read posts you would know that this is a subject that has been raised on this forum for a long time !!!

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453200-Removal-for-sale-fee-when-can-it-be-charged&p=5066357&viewfull=1#post5066357

 

With respect BA, if you had not given the dangerous advice that you did to the original debtor, none of this would have been necessary.

 

Instead of accepting that you were wrong for the good of the debtor, you clearly had one of your angry moments, called your lackey into action and have then operated as some kind of tag team, disrupting both this and the OPs thread, ever since.

 

If you want people to respect you, you really need to act more responsibly. Do you ever see any of the people that you love to continually name drop acting as immaturely as you do on the internet? It's what betrays you and separates you from them, every single time.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I think that until you can read, understand and comprehend that we are not discussing when a sale fee should be charged but rather, when it actually is being charged, there is little point continuing to attempt to reason with you.

 

Regarding you not "seeing" where CIVEA have stated when the sale fee can be charged, sadly this is just one more thing in an ever increasing list of items that you either haven't seen or you have misunderstood. I'm long past pointing your shortcomings out but if you want to re-read this thread from start to finish, you will see that you could indeed see what CIVEA had said, once upon a time because you actually commented on it.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Peter. Out of interest, is the second "letter" a notice of enforcement?

 

If so, would you mind confirming the name of the company who sent it?

[Guest alreadyexists]

For clarity, the following points are worth noting:

 

1. The Taking Control of goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 state clearly that the sales fee is activated from the minute that the bailiff attends the premises with the intention of removing goods for sale. There is nothing whatsoever, anywhere within legislation that prescribes a valuation letter should be sent to a debtor before the fee is activated.

 

2. CIVEA have stated that a "step change" is required in order to activate the sale fee. This is obvious to anyone, including the casual reader, that it means goods don't have to be taken into control before the sale fee is activated. If CIVEA had meant that goods were required to be taken into control before the sale fee can be activated, then that is what they would have stated.

[Guest alreadyexists]

My first thought on reading your post was that the enforcement company may have returned your account back to their local authority client and that they in turn, had passed your account to another enforcement company under contract to them (when awarding contracts, most local authorities select anything between 2 and 5 enforcement companies).

 

Why I am being cautious is because it was only last Wednesday (27th September), that the enforcement agent left a hand delivered notice at your property.

 

I am assuming that the letter that you have received (requesting £62) is called a Notice of Enforcement? If so, does it state a date by when payment must be made?

 

The account was obviously not returned because the demand made is £62. If the account had been returned, another £75 compliance fee would have been added.

 

You should not assume that the letter received is a notice of enforcement, given that no compliance fee has been added.

 

It is important not to "assume" anything at this stage and wait until Peter replies, furnishing us with further information.

 

As I see it, the only possible way another NoE MIGHT have been issued is if the council either use in house bailiffs or the second NoE has been sent from Equita, who seem to be spreading currently faster than ants breed.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Goods cannot be sold without a prior valuation notice, however they can be taken into storage

 

Goods may be removed to a place of sale. Once in the place of sale, a bailiff then has 7 days in which to furnish the debtor with a valuation.

[Guest alreadyexists]

And to further clarify, there is no requirement to take goods to storage prior to sale.

 

It is permissible to take goods directly to a place of sale.

 

Once stored in the place of sale, the bailiff then has 7 days in which to furnish the debtor with a valuation.

[Guest alreadyexists]

I have been involved in untold real life situations regarding goods being removed for storage/sale. Would you care to remind us again how many you have been involved in?

 

After all this time, you still don't understand that I base my posts on facts and experiences, NOT what I think should happen (like you do)

 

In the case of a High Court writ, a bailiff is COMMANDED to remove goods and sell them to satisfy a debt. Are you suggesting that he can't do this and must somehow transport them first to a separate premises for no reason other than to satisfy some skewed opinion that you hold? How long would you suggest that goods are stored in this third party place before they can be transported to the place of sale? 10 seconds? 30 seconds? An hour? A day? A week?

 

Stop posting what you THINK is the correct procedure and listen to those who are actually involved on a weekly basis.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Can I just correct one bit of misinformation here without upsetting anyone please?

 

Regulations DO NOT state that the compliance fee should be discharged first if payment is made directly to the council.

 

Regulations actually state that the compliance fee should be discharged first out of proceeds if a sale takes place. If no sale takes place, there is no requirement on the creditor to discharge the compliance fee and many councils do not.

 

This may well be an unintended consequence of the new(ish) regulations as I believe the intention was to ensure that the compliance fee was paid t the bailiffs. However, there is no obligation on the creditor to do so and indeed, many do not.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, if a debtor wishes to legally avoid the bailiff fee, (s)he would need to "sit it out" which effectively means refusing the bailiff entry and waiting for the account to be returned to the council. Whilst doing so, the debtor should notify the council and inform them of what is going on and ask to be notified when the debt is returned, in order to make payment. Each case is different and people need to make their own minds up as to whether they want the hassle of a bailiff calling, just for the sake of saving £310.

[Guest alreadyexists]

There is indeed no 'unintended consequences' of the regulations.

 

The government have been very clear with their intention that the 'compliance fee' of £75 should be deducted first. A very important part of any regulations is the Explanatory Memorandum. In this respect, the following is from Item number 8.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2014:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

 

 

 

 

PS: Please note the reference to 'proceeds of enforcement' and NOT....'proceeds from a sale'.

 

Yes, I am aware what the explanatory memorandum states. That is why there is clearly an unintended consequence in the fact that legislation does not prescribe monies to be first allocated to discharging the compliance fee.

 

I think you really need to differentiate from an explanatory memorandum that quotes from a consultation response and what is actually written in legislation.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, here is the relevant legislation:

 

13.—(1) Subject to paragraph 50(6) of Schedule 12, when the proceeds from the exercise of an enforcement power are less than the amount outstanding, they must be applied in accordance with this regulation.

 

(2) Where the goods are sold or disposed of at public auction (other than by internet auction), the proceeds must be applied first in payment of the auctioneer’s fees calculated in accordance with regulation 9(2) or (3) as appropriate.

 

(3) Following the payment at paragraph (2), the enforcement agent may then recover the compliance fee.

 

(4) Subject to paragraph (5), following any payment due by virtue of paragraphs (2) and (3), the proceeds must be applied pro rata in payment of—

 

(a)the sum to be recovered, and

(b)any remaining amounts recoverable in respect of fees and disbursements payable to the enforcement agent in accordance with these Regulations.

(5) Where the same legal person is both the creditor and the enforcement agent, paragraph (4) does not apply and the proceeds must be applied in payment of the amount referred to in paragraph (4)(b) before payment of the amount at paragraph (4)(a).

 

(6) In paragraphs (4) and (5), references to the proceeds are to the proceeds after deduction of the sums, if any, to which paragraphs (2) and (3) relate.

 

Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods (fees) regulations 2014.

 

Readers will note that regulation 13(2) clearly refers to goods that are sold or disposed of at public auction. There is no requirement anywhere for a creditor to divide payments received directly. Given the wording in the explanatory memorandum, it should be clear to anyone that an unintended consequence was to omit a requirement to divide monies paid directly.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Can I just point out that I am not arguing any point. I have no point to argue either way. I simply wished to highlight the misinformation regarding the so called requirement to divide payments made directly. There is no such requirement and it is clearly an unintended consequence.

[Guest alreadyexists]

For those who like Dodgeball, are not familiar with the wording of a writ of control, here is an example:

 

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Commenwealth, Defender of the faith:

 

To xxxx xxxxx an Enforcement Officer authorised to enforce writs from the High Court

 

YOU ARE NOW COMMANDED to seize in execution the goods, chattels and other property of the defendant authorised by law and raise therefrom the sums detailed in this schedule (together with fees and charges to which you are entitled).....