Another bailiff discussion thread.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Unless of course either of you try advising members on here with this nonsense, then it will be ton of bricks time

I personally wouldn't advise any members to take this route, simply because you would need to be more than a novice to attempt it. I may well be trying is sooner, rather than later a little closer to home for someone that I can offer a more hands on approach to.


As for "ton of bricks" well that would be a first. & just for point of argument, what possible harm would come to a debtor who paid the creditor direct after receiving a visit?

£310 would have been incurred, The bailiff would not be allowed to take control of goods as the car would be well out of the way & no access to inside the house would be granted.

In this scenario, what do you suggest would happen to the debtor? would he/she be jailed? Stoned to death? ordered to stand in a corner with a dunces cap on for an hour?

You really need to think about things a little bit more-Nearly everyone used to advise debtors to receive visits from bailiffs for council tax under the old regs, why shouldn't they receive one (after already being visited) under the new regs?

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Attached:

From https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...bailiff-action

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Its from the enforcement fee structure review document I gave you the other day when asking how the MOJ had come up with the figures. (I have to go pick other half from work put will upload it to here when I get back)

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

We'll need the source of that Amethyst.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

3.
Pro‐rata payment

The original debt and the fees incurred are paid pro‐rata to the amount collected.

For example, the original debt value is £9,000, and £2,000 has been recovered whilst incurring £1,000 of fees. Therefore, 20% (£2,000) of the total amount due (debt plus fees = £9,000 + £1,000 = £10,000) has been recovered. Under a pro‐rata payment mechanism 20% of the debt (20% x £9,000), £1,800, would be repaid to the creditor; and 20% of the fees (20% x £1,000), £200, would be paid to the EAC/ HCEAC.


(( obviously the figures are completely made up just to illustrate ))

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Oh no it doesn't! :fish:

(If you're sure you're correct on that a source wouldn't go amiss )

I already have in post #139. I'll quote the legislation again, TCE 2007 schedule 12, s50 (3):

The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

(a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

(b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).


The debt and the fees are two separate amounts - not bundled together under the heading of 'debt'.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Unless of course either of you try advising members on here with this nonsense, then it will be ton of bricks time

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Banging our heads here So I will leave you to it

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Well you seem to have transformed from a layman to an informed authority in the space of 5 posts.

You do not need to be an expert you just need to be able to understand what you read.

[MissFM]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

No... the legislation clearly defines that the debt and the fees are two separate enitities.

Oh no it doesn't! :fish:

(If you're sure you're correct on that a source wouldn't go amiss )

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I'm so sorry ST and have no desire to be argumentative but I just don't see what you're getting at. The regulations are clear - the "debtor" is liable for the original debt plus prescribed recovery costs.

Are you saying that the bailiff would have to turn to the creditor for recovery of his costs if the payment were not distributed pro rata as per the legislation?

I cannot see what is not being made clear.

Yes, the fees are applied. Yes, the debtor becomes liable to pay the fees. Yes the bailiff can charge the fees. No-one, absolutely no-one is disputing that.

However, if the debtor pays the debt owed directly to the creditor, how can the bailiff subtract his fees from that payment? The creditor is happy as he has his money. This money is not being split pro-rata as assumed.

The only way a bailiff can recover his fees is if you pay him direct, in which case he will take the £75 fee, then (and only then) split the remainder pro-rata; or if he takes control of goods and sells them, taking his fees from the proceeds of that sale.

If, like ST says, you pay the creditor direct, and the bailiff is expecting his share, but this is not forthcoming, who now owes the bailiff?

The debt is satisfied, only the fees are due. The fees as a stand-alone due amount cannot be recovered with the warrant.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Sorry to stick my oar in again, if you have another read of the original calculations for the changes to the enforcement fees it does mention that the fees are set to cover the cost of pursuing I think 5 debtors and collecting on one which then covers the other 4 they didn't collect on. I don't think that is right as it is cross subsidisation however it does appear to be the basis the £75 and £235 amounts were calculated upon and may well be relevant to your discussion (might not be mind but chucking it in there)

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Quite :thumb:

And the debt isn't satisfied if the costs (now rolled up as an integral part of the debt) aren't paid

So where is the disagreement? :caked:

No... the legislation clearly defines that the debt and the fees are two separate enitities.

[MissFM]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Well you seem to have transformed from a layman to an informed authority in the space of 5 posts:bounce:-Do you really need examples (I do have them btw) If you read the thread again, you will also see there are FOI responses from councils stating that they will not be paying money (that they have received directly) to bailiffs as it would be detrimental to their residents.

Surely if the creditor paid the bailiff what you think is lawfully owed, then there would be no argument. If the creditor keeps that money, then it would be the creditor who holds the majority of the fees (according to the distribution of proceeds theory)

I am stating that money paid to the creditor is not proceeds, the creditor is not obliged to hand over any of this sum (& indeed will not). This ensures that the debt is paid in full & the bailiff "may" recover his fees. In reality, he will give up pretty quick;ly and devote his time to cases where he'll get paid.

If central Government, etc order creditors to distribute proceeds from money paid directly at source (which appears to be what Andy is claiming should happen) then that changes things. In this scenario, a challenge would need to be made through the court system and the definition of "proceeds" (for enforcement) would be determined.

As long as creditors continue to (quite rightly imo) hold onto money paid direct, there is a window of opportunity for a debtor to avoid bailiff fees.

Well, I would be delighted if you were correct. There might, though, be cause for caution - and it would indeed be wonderful for OPs on a self-help forum such as this to be provided with concrete examples if you have them:tinysmile_kiss_t4: x

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I'm so sorry ST and have no desire to be argumentative but I just don't see what you're getting at. The regulations are clear - the "debtor" is liable for the original debt plus prescribed recovery costs.

Are you saying that the bailiff would have to turn to the creditor for recovery of his costs if the payment were not distributed pro rata as per the legislation?

Well you seem to have transformed from a layman to an informed authority in the space of 5 posts-Do you really need examples (I do have them btw) If you read the thread again, you will also see there are FOI responses from councils stating that they will not be paying money (that they have received directly) to bailiffs as it would be detrimental to their residents.

Surely if the creditor paid the bailiff what you think is lawfully owed, then there would be no argument. If the creditor keeps that money, then it would be the creditor who holds the majority of the fees (according to the distribution of proceeds theory)

I am stating that money paid to the creditor is not proceeds, the creditor is not obliged to hand over any of this sum (& indeed will not). This ensures that the debt is paid in full & the bailiff "may" recover his fees. In reality, he will give up pretty quick;ly and devote his time to cases where he'll get paid.

If central Government, etc order creditors to distribute proceeds from money paid directly at source (which appears to be what Andy is claiming should happen) then that changes things. In this scenario, a challenge would need to be made through the court system and the definition of "proceeds" (for enforcement) would be determined.

As long as creditors continue to (quite rightly imo) hold onto money paid direct, there is a window of opportunity for a debtor to avoid bailiff fees.