Another bailiff discussion thread.

[MissFM]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

One small point that is baffling me (although it may be crystal clear to the rest of you) is, if the bailiffs were to attempt to recover their fees from the councils (ie the taxpayer) - wouldn't that anyway trigger further action to recover from the original "debtor" hence more grief and costs for the original "debtor"?

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

If the amount owed has not been paid by the debtor then the bailiff will purse the debtor of course, not really sure what it is you are getting at.

Ok, let's try again. The debtor pays the creditor. The creditor doesn't inform the bailiff of anything (he's happy as he has his money). The bailiff knocks on the door. The (ex)debtor tells the bailiff "sorry mate, I've paid this, you better call them to confirm".

The bailiff calls the creditor. The creditor confirms that the account is settled. The bailiff reminds the creditor that according to legislation that Andy says is clear, "£75 of that is mine". Creditor says "on yer bike".

Now, if the legislation says that the bailiff is entitled to his fee from that payment, at that exact point it is the creditor who owes £75 to the bailiff. What happens if the creditor refuses?

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

One small point that is baffling me (although it may be crystal clear to the rest of you) is, if the bailiffs were to attempt to recover their fees from the councils (ie the taxpayer) - wouldn't that anyway trigger further action to recover from the original "debtor" hence more grief and costs for the original "debtor"?

It depends. Do you consider money paid directly to the council as "proceeds of enforcement"? You seemed to suggest previously that you do.

In that case, the council would be obliged to pay the £75 compliance fee and a percentage of the remaining money to the bailiff.

For the council not to do so, surely they would be putting 2 fingers up to the law in much the same way as the uncooperative debtor would?#

You seem to be suggesting that it is OK for the council to ignore legislation but not the debtor?

In reality, a bailiff would never attempt to recover fees from the council as it would mean them loosing the contract to collect at the earliest opportunity.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Ok, let's try again. The debtor pays the creditor. The creditor doesn't inform the bailiff of anything (he's happy as he has his money). The bailiff knocks on the door. The (ex)debtor tells the bailiff "sorry mate, I've paid this, you better call them to confirm".

The bailiff calls the creditor. The creditor confirms that the account is settled. The bailiff reminds the creditor that according to legislation that Andy says is clear, "£75 of that is mine". Creditor says "on yer bike".

Now, if the legislation says that the bailiff is entitled to his fee from that payment, at that exact point it is the creditor who owes £75 to the bailiff. What happens if the creditor refuses?

Taking Control of Goods: National Standards
April 2014

9.
Creditors must notify the enforcement agency of all payments received and other contacts with the debtor, including repayment agreements made with the debtor.

11.
Creditors agreeing the suspension of a warrant or making direct payment arrangements with debtors must give appropriate notification to and should pay appropriate fees due to the enforcement agent for the work they have undertaken.

[MissFM]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

It depends. Do you consider money paid directly to the council as "proceeds of enforcement"? You seemed to suggest previously that you do.

In that case, the council would be obliged to pay the £75 compliance fee and a percentage of the remaining money to the bailiff.

For the council not to do so, surely they would be putting 2 fingers up to the law in much the same way as the uncooperative debtor would?#

You seem to be suggesting that it is OK for the council to ignore legislation but not the debtor?

In reality, a bailiff would never attempt to recover fees from the council as it would mean them loosing the contract to collect at the earliest opportunity.

No, I wasn't suggesting that - I was asking a question :tinysmile_hmm_t2:

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I know exactly what you were trying to do

[MissFM]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I know exactly what you were trying to do

Oh really? Care to share? :colbert:

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

hi ST

can you point me to this

The 14 day criteria has also been repealed btw (45a A&E regs)

and just for info, remember when i am posting about baillifs, its always in relation to CT and NNDR collection. The 14 days i was on about was ( i think ) a statutory requirment within councils. You had to give debtors 14 days after the LO to give them the chance to pay without further fees or enter into a payment arrangement with the creditor

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Ok, let's try again. The debtor pays the creditor. The creditor doesn't inform the bailiff of anything (he's happy as he has his money). The bailiff knocks on the door. The (ex)debtor tells the bailiff "sorry mate, I've paid this, you better call them to confirm".

The bailiff calls the creditor. The creditor confirms that the account is settled. The bailiff reminds the creditor that according to legislation that Andy says is clear, "£75 of that is mine". Creditor says "on yer bike".

Now, if the legislation says that the bailiff is entitled to his fee from that payment, at that exact point it is the creditor who owes £75 to the bailiff. What happens if the creditor refuses?

\ok we will try this again.
\once the amount due has reached the the compliance stage the sum owed will include the £75. so if the debtor pays the creditor just the sum owed to him, the sum owed will not be settled, so when the bailiff knocks on the door and say you owe , and the debtor says I have paid the council, the bailiff rings the council and gets confirmation, the bailiff continues to en force for the rest of it. How they apportion the payment is irrelevant to the debtor he still has to pay the full amount owed.

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

National Standards are not 'the law'. They do not replace local agreements, existing agency codes of practice or legislation; rather it sets out what the Ministry of Justice regards as minimum standards.

[doubleslap2]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

\ok we will try this again.
\once the amount due has reached the the compliance stage the sum owed will include the £75. so if the debtor pays the creditor just the sum owed to him, the sum owed will not be settled, so when the bailiff knocks on the door and say you owe , and the debtor says I have paid the council, the bailiff rings the council and gets confirmation, the bailiff continues to en force for the rest of it. How they apportion the payment is irrelevant to the debtor he still has to pay the full amount owed.

No, the fees are 'supposed' to be paid from any proceeds, either full or part proceeds.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Again the proceeds pay the amount due, the amount due is a composite of the sum due to the creditor and the fees. It is a single sum whoever it is paid to.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

hi ST

can you point me to this



and just for info, remember when i am posting about baillifs, its always in relation to CT and NNDR collection. The 14 days i was on about was ( i think ) a statutory requirment within councils. You had to give debtors 14 days after the LO to give them the chance to pay without further fees or enter into a payment arrangement with the creditor

For CT, it is Part1, 3(d)

NNDR amendments are covered in part1, 2. You'll have to check the NNDR collection regs to see if 14 days notice was required.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/600/made

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

hi ST

can you point me to this




and just for info, remember when i am posting about baillifs, its always in relation to CT and NNDR collection. The 14 days i was on about was ( i think ) a statutory requirment within councils. You had to give debtors 14 days after the LO to give them the chance to pay without further fees or enter into a payment arrangement with the creditor

Is this the 14 days period you are refering to ?

Duties of debtors subject to liability order

36. (1) Where a liability order has been made, the debtor against whom it was made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the billing authority on whose application it was made.(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), relevant information is such information as fulfils the following conditions—

(a)

it is in the debtor’s possession or control;

(b)

the billing authority requests him by notice given in writing to supply it; and

(c)

it falls within paragraph (3).
(3) Information falls within this paragraph if it is specifed in the notice mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) and it falls within one or more of the following descriptions—

(a)

information as to the name and address of an employer of the debtor;

(b)

information as to earnings or expected earnings of the debtor;

(c)

information as to deductions and expected deductions from such earnings in respect of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of “net earnings” in regulation 32 or attachment of earnings orders made under this Part, the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971(1) or the Child Support Act 1991(2);

(d)

information as to the debtor’s work or identity number in an employment, or such other information as will enable an employer of the debtor to identify him;

(e)

information as to sources of income of the debtor other than an employer of his;

(f)

information as to whether another person is jointly and severally liable with the debtor for the whole or any part of the amount in respect of which the order was made.
(4) Information is to be supplied within 14 days of the day on which the request is made.

[Guest]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

No it isn't.

He was clearly referring to the now repealed regulation 45A, commonly known as the "fourteen day letter".

It has been replaced by the 7 day notice of enforcement but of course debtors now pay £75 for the privilege of receiving this notice.

Councils are in general insisting that their recovery agents are actually giving debtors a minimum of 14 days in between notice issued and enforcement stage. This appears to be adhered to quite well by most agencies, maintaining the 14 day window of opportunity to pay/arrange repayment plans; Rossendales being the biggest and most notable exception.