Discussion on Payment direct to Council vs paying the bailiff fees

[Neuman]

Milo, that is incorrect. An EA can only take his fees by using the schedule 12 procedure; the procedure is clear that this means taking control of goods and selling them, taking his fees from the proceeds of this. You simply cannot escape that one simple fact, it is written plain and clear in the very first sentence of the schedule.

I have had it confirmed by FOI requests over the past month that councils are split over this issue, with some splitting direct payments, and some not. I would name them but I fear you may contact them to tell them they are 'wrong'. I'll let you have one though - West Somerset DC who say, and I quote;

"I can confirm that if the Council receives full payment of the debt owed to the Council, no funds will be passed to the EA in respect of any fees the debtor owes to the EA. The EA will pursue their fees from the debtor."

So please stop spreading this misinformation.

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

The legislative position is that a bailiff can only collect his fees from the proceeds of taking control of goods and selling them using the schedule 12 procedure. There are no other provisions. A payment made directly to the creditor has not been taken using the schedule 12 procedure so cannot be deemed proceeds.

The bailiff fees will be due, but he must pursue the debtor for these, not extract them from the public purse. I have many FOI's from the past month confirming that many councils are following this.

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

'Jim', Could you post or link to the FOI responses from councils ?

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

Ok, first one;

Dear Requester

Freedom of Information Act 2000
Information Request FOI – 1985WS

Response

This is West Somerset Council’s response to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your request for information has now been considered and the information requested is below:-

I can confirm that if the Council receives full payment of the debt owed to the Council, no funds will be passed to the EA in respect of any fees the debtor owes to the EA. The EA will pursue their fees from the debtor.

Regards

FOI Administration Desk
Taunton Deane Borough Council and West Somerset Council

- - - Updated - - -

Second one;

Dear xxx


Ref Mid-Suffolk District Council FOI MF691 1617

Thank you for your email dated 11 October 2016 requesting information under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.


In response to your request:-

Where a debtor makes a payment to the Council sufficient to clear the debt (including costs) that the Liability Order was issued for, the Council informs the EA, who are then unable to pursue any outstanding EA Fees alone. The Council will then give consideration to payment of EA Fees itself, dependant upon the work carried out by that EA. Any such payment would be paid by the Council, who would not seek reimbursement from the debtor.

- - - Updated - - -

Third one;

Our ref: 2641936 Your ref: Date: 2 November 2016
Dear xxx

Freedom of Information Act 2000

I can confirm that the information requested is held by Westminster City Council. I
have detailed below the information that is being released to you.
Direct payments are entirely credited to the council tax account. Fees are only
usually passed to the EA if the account is in credit once the council tax has been
cleared.

Information Management Team
Westminster City Hall
10th Floor East
64 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6QP
foia@westminster.gov.uk

- - - Updated - - -

Fourth one;

Dear Mr xxx


Information Request 3347

Thank you for your email received 27 October 2016

From your three scenario outlined, the Council would generally follow the process outlined in example a) ie.

a) credit the whole £500 to the council tax account leaving the account at zero but leaving the EA to collect his fees direct from the debtor
I trust this clarifies the situation but should you need any further information, please let me know.


Yours sincerely

Geoff Varney

- - - Updated - - -

Fifth one;

Freedom of Information Request - 01282256

Please find below Gloucester City Council’s response to your request for information.

A. The payment would be credited to the council tax account and the Enforcement Agent would be notified of the payment via a secure website. If the council tax account is overpaid, Gloucester City Council will check to see if there are any fees outstanding. If so, the fee amount is added to the council tax debt and the Enforcement Agent is instructed to invoice us for the fee amount. If the payment is insufficient to cover the Enforcement Agent’s fees they are instructed to continue to collect the fees from the debtor.

Want any more?

[Milo]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

It would be very nice to see more responses. However before doing so, could you post a copy of the template request that you would have made to the councils (which I would assume, would have been the same for each council).

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

This was the template:

What would be your procedure should a debtor with council tax arrears pay the full amount owed direct to the council after the account has been passed over to an enforcement agent (EA)?

For example, a debtor owes £500 in council tax and the EA has tried to enforce and has added fees of £310. The debtor pays £500 direct to the council. Does the council:


a) credit the whole £500 to the council tax account leaving the account at zero but leaving the EA to collect his fees direct from the debtor


b) pass all or any of this payment over to the EA to remove his fees and return any balance to the council leaving the council tax account still in arrears


c) something else?

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

Two more

Ref No: 2016 – 536 Date : 26^th October 2016
Dear Mr xxx
Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Request for Information
If a direct payment is received in relation to an outstanding Liability Order that has been passed to EA for collection then the Council Tax balance would be reduced accordingly.

Susanne Malmgren AEA (Cert)
Freedom of Information Officer
West Lancashire Borough Council

Ref: (16906)

I can confirm that Wycombe District Council does hold information falling within the description specified in your request. Please find the relevant details as follows;

Under a local agreement with our EA’s, due to administrative restrictions, the Council notify the EA of the direct payment, the EA then adjust the balance accordingly and they then may issue an invoice for fees if applicable; the Council do not automatically forward fees onto the EA.

Yours sincerely


Adrian Green
Court Officer – Local Taxation

Wycombe District Council
Queen Victoria Road
HIGH WYCOMBE
HP11 1BB

[Amethyst]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

Thank you

[Milo]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

The bailiff fees will be due, but he must pursue the debtor for these, not extract them from the public purse. I have many FOI's from the past month confirming that many councils are following this.

Clearly some councils have failed to grasp how the 'pro rata' distribution of payments is supposed to work. Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide some examples from councils who have the correct procedures in place.

The country's expert on bailiff law; John Kruse, wrote an article recently on this subject. I will post an extracts from it on here. Perhaps it will assist these errant local authorities to understand where they are going wrong.

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

Clearly some councils have failed to grasp how the 'pro rata' distribution of payments is supposed to work. Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide some examples from councils who have the correct procedures in place.

The country's expert on bailiff law; John Kruse, wrote an article recently on this subject. I will post an extracts from it on here. Perhaps it will assist these errant local authorities to understand where they are going wrong.

Or clearly some councils understand that fees can only come from the proceeds of enforcement using the schedule 12 procedure. Just so you know, I too have been in contact with JK several months ago - he has no strong feelings either way but agrees this is persuasive.

Perhaps you could take the time to give your interpretation on the first sentence of the schedule 12 procedure, plus 62(1) of the TCE.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

Clearly some councils have failed to grasp how the 'pro rata' distribution of payments is supposed to work. Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide some examples from councils who have the correct procedures in place.

The country's expert on bailiff law; John Kruse, wrote an article recently on this subject. I will post an extracts from it on here. Perhaps it will assist these errant local authorities to understand where they are going wrong.

I can't see how these local authorities are going wrong, but even if they were, wouldn't they be going wrong in a good way for a change?

[Milo]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide some examples from councils who have the correct procedures in place.

If you could assist, I would be grateful.

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

I'm also confused about the 'pro-rata' split. In Sep 2015, Milo said it was 70/30 in favour of the creditor. In April 2016 it was 46/54. By May 2016 it was back to 70/30, and now it seems to be 60/40.

The truth is, a pro-rata figure has never been legislated for. There's nothing to stop this split being 100/0.

- - - Updated - - -

If you could assist, I would be grateful.

Oh, I'm sure you have some of those already.

[Milo]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

I'm also confused about the 'pro-rata' split. In Sep 2015, Milo said it was 70/30 in favour of the creditor. In April 2016 it was 46/54. By May 2016 it was back to 70/30, and now it seems to be 60/40.

The truth is, a pro-rata figure has never been legislated for. There's nothing to stop this split being 100/0.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I'm sure you have some of those already.

You are more than likely confusing yourself because you are 'going around the houses' here. Much better if you stick to just one subject (which is the one concerning your recent Freedom of Information requests).

[Jim Bowen]

Re: Default Notice of immobilisation sticker but no clamp?

You are more than likely confusing yourself because you are 'going around the houses' here. Much better if you stick to just one subject (which is the one concerning your recent Freedom of Information requests).

I don't quite get what you're saying. You want me to post the ones that agree with your interpretation? For what purpose? Of course some do, I'm just showing there will be just as many that do not. FWIW, I did 20 FOIs to random nationwide councils, some agreed with you, some did not and some were ambiguous.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps, as I have asked, you could give your interpretation of s1 of schedule 12?