Another bailiff discussion thread.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Ha ha I was waiting for this

Its only your arguments against the Judge in the Quinlan case that made me think this.

You're ok aren't you? You aren't going to receive a visit from a bailiff who is driven by commission?

I've yet to see any glimmer of hope that you give genuine debtors who are being shafted by fatcat, expense fiddling, clueless MP's. You know which side your breads buttered alright don't you?

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

You see what is happening here.
You and certain other forums are using the same methodology that they have been pedaling on the earlier common law requirements of bailiff law, that is misquoting odd bits of case law and legislature order to try and circumvent the intention of that legislation and common law.

This never worked before and it most certainly will not now because the legislation is all in one place and really very straightforward, however I am sure that it will not stop you trying

I am actually fully aware that old case law will not make any difference post April 6th. It was you who started off on pre April 6th & then asked to see evidence (which I posted and you still try to dismiss)

Part of the reasoning behind the new legislation is to tighten the "loopholes" as you so fondly refer to them. To a certain extent, this has been achieved. The "proceeds" issue is still very much open to debate & challenge. It is one I would be confident in challenging in court. I'm not so confident in the wording of the "EA may recover fees" argument, but at this stage, I'd give it a go.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are here to promote the bailiffs side of the argument.

Ha ha I was waiting for this

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

You see what is happening here.
You and certain other forums are using the same methodology that they have been pedaling on the earlier common law requirements of bailiff law, that is misquoting odd bits of case law and legislature order to try and circumvent the intention of that legislation and common law.

This never worked before and it most certainly will not now because the legislation is all in one place and really very straightforward, however I am sure that it will not stop you trying

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

When all else fails, throw the FMOTL template in.

My God, you lot are so predictable.

I've quoted case law, the findings of a judge & evidence that Reg 45 only applies to "the debtor". In addition, the judge found that if the council were paid directly and before goods were levied upon, then Reg 45 did not apply as the person was no longer the debtor. It's so simple, even a schoolchild could comprehend it.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are here to promote the bailiffs side of the argument.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

But only if that person qualifies as "THE DEBTOR"

I think a basic understanding would be a good starting point in your case. We'll progress onto what constitutes evidence once you've concurred this elementary step.

The two aspects of the "appropriate amount" are not separated in the above quote, it does not say that the person is the debtor in one and not the debtor in the other.

Nonsense with respect. What you have done here is taken a piece of unrelated case law and applied it to statute in an inappropriate way, this is par for the course in FMOTL doctrine, it is always absurd when you look at it rationally.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Thought i would do it for you for the avoidance of doubt
45. (1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.(2) The appropriate amount for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the aggregate of—

(a)

an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

(b)

a sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connected with the distress.

You see on this forum we like to evidence claims with actual authority, that way no one gets misled.

But only if that person qualifies as "THE DEBTOR"

I think a basic understanding would be a good starting point in your case. We'll progress onto what constitutes evidence once you've concurred this elementary step.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

OK-Last time, after this, you're on your own:

Reg 45 of the CTA&E regs state that a bailiff may levy the appropriate amount of distress and sale of goods of the debtor.

Thought i would do it for you for the avoidance of doubt
45. (1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.(2) The appropriate amount for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the aggregate of—

(a)

an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

(b)

a sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connected with the distress.

You see on this forum we like to evidence claims with actual authority, that way no one gets misled.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

As regards the regs quoted look up the definition of "appropriate amount."

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

OK-Last time, after this, you're on your own:

Reg 45 of the CTA&E regs state that a bailiff may levy the appropriate amount of distress and sale of goods of the debtor.

In the case of Quinlan v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [1989] RA 43, it was found that if the amount of tax had been paid at the time of distress, the levy would be unlawful, as the liable person no longer qualified as "the debtor"

Yes I am aware of this case and do you have one winch is relevant to the point , this involved a taxation issue. One which showed that baiiffs could not enforce for fees would be more to the point.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Only sums paid after the enforcement stage?

You couldn't make it up.

I wouldn't place much faith in many £75's being paid if your theory was true.

Ha now your spiting hairs, i meant the enforcement obviously, referring to the enforcement power, this is split into the three separate stages. (as said earlier)

For the avoidence of doubt

tages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered – enforcement other than under High Court writs

5. (1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows—

(a)

the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;

(b)

the enforcement stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the premises in relation to the instructions up to but not including the commencement of the sale or disposal stage;

(c)

the sale or disposal stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the property for the purpose of transporting goods to the place of sale, or from commencing preparation for sale if the sale is to be held on the premises, until the completion of the sale or disposal (including application of the proceeds and provision of the information required by regulation 14).
(2) Where the goods against which enforcement is sought are securities, the sale or disposal stage commences with the provision of a notice of disposal in accordance with paragraph 49(2) of Schedule 12.
Stages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered – enforcement of High Court writs

6. (1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power conferred by a High Court writ are as follows—

(a)

the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the first enforcement stage, or, where sub-paragraph (c)(i) applies, the commencement of the second enforcement stage;

(b)

where the enforcement agent and the debtor enter into a controlled goods agreement, the first enforcement stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the premises in relation to the instructions until the agreement is completed or breached;

Getting boring now

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I really do not want to get bogged down in ancient history, what is more important to people on her is the rules as they apply now.

However as a matter of interest bailiffs I believe have always been able to enforce for fees, I am not aware of any case law which showed otherwise under the old situation however if you have a link I would be interested to see any binding autnority that shows otherwise. As said I am certainly aware of bailiffs pursing enforcement for fees many times over the last 30 years or so.

OK-Last time, after this, you're on your own:

Reg 45 of the CTA&E regs state that a bailiff may levy the appropriate amount of distress and sale of goods of the debtor.

In the case of Quinlan v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [1989] RA 43, it was found that if the amount of tax had been paid at the time of distress, the levy would be unlawful, as the liable person no longer qualified as "the debtor"

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

It is not a matter of dressing anything up it is really very simple, you are attempting to complicate it in order to create some kind of loophole which does not exist.
Simply, the bailiff is the agent of the creditor, any sum paid after the enforcement stage has begun becomes proceeds of the enforcement, this much is clear from the quote, it is irrelevant to whom they are paid, the proceeds contain the fee, and will be apportioned by either party to the other as stated elsewhere,

With respect there is only you that seems not to understand this, and you aren't open to seeing the logic here so I will ot waste my time further, if anyone else is confused over this I will of course try and clarify further , although to be honest it really is not that complicated.

Only sums paid after the enforcement stage?

You couldn't make it up.

I wouldn't place much faith in many £75's being paid if your theory was true.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I really do not want to get bogged down in ancient history, what is more important to people on her is the rules as they apply now.

However as a matter of interest bailiffs I believe have always been able to enforce for fees, I am not aware of any case law which showed otherwise under the old situation however if you have a link I would be interested to see any binding autnority that shows otherwise. As said I am certainly aware of bailiffs pursing enforcement for fees many times over the last 30 years or so.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Oh and incidentally I know of many cases where bailiffs have enforced for just therre fees , or more correctly for a balance of the sums due.

Post or pre April?

Levied goods changed the ball game but without a levy a different situation entirely existed. Indeed, for the recovery of council tax, the courts actually found that bailiffs COULD NOT enforce just for their visit fees.