Another bailiff discussion thread.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

St

both your point above dont account for the fact that the fees are part of the original debt, not separate. So if you owe £ 1000, prior LO, Add of fees for LO £ 100, then 14 days after ( for ct ), the bailiffs charges come in ( £ 75 and £ 250 i think ). At the point of it being passed to the bailiffs, the original debtit thats enforceable would be £ 1425, not £ 1100 plus fees of £ 325.

So the right to enforce the debt meens the full ammount plus charges, but the debitor has the right to apply to the court to have the charges assessed.

Doubleslapp......... I support baillifs, and have used them n the past. When the operate correctly, there an important part of the finacial systems. I agree with there fee increase, as it will now encourage them to really make an effort when the debtor is playing hide and seek with the intent of costing the creditor more or playing for the 6 year line. There is always a different side to consider, people who should pay but just decide not to, play every angle of the game, and that costs normal consumers more.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

The 14 day criteria has also been repealed btw (45a A&E regs)

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I think you'll find that the compliance stage fee may be repeated (charged multiple times)

ie: 6 separate years of council tax liability orders, 6 x £75 may be charged to the debtor (£450 for the avoidance of doubt)

After that, the bailiff is expected to enforce for them all together, meaning only one £235 fee may be charged.

More than one enforcement power available against the same debtor

11. (1) This regulation applies for the purpose of calculating the fees and disbursements payable to the enforcement agent in accordance with regulations 4, 8, 9 and 10 in a case where—

(a)the enforcement agent receives instructions to use the procedure under Schedule 12 in relation to the same debtor but in respect of more than one enforcement power; and

(b)those enforcement powers can reasonably be exercised at the same time.

(2) In paragraph (1)(b), “can reasonably be exercised at the same time” means in particular—

(a)taking control of goods in relation to all such enforcement powers on the same occasion; and

(b)selling or disposing of all goods so taken into control on the same occasion,

except where it is impracticable to do so.

(3) The enforcement agent may recover the compliance stage fee in respect of each enforcement power to which the instructions relate.

(4) Where paragraph (1) applies, the fee recoverable in respect of the enforcement stage (or stages) and the sale or disposal stage respectively is to be calculated as follows—

(a)the fixed fee for each stage may be recovered only once regardless of the number of enforcement powers to which the instructions relate;

(b)the amount in relation to which the percentage fee for each stage, if any, is to be calculated is the total amount of the sums to be recovered under all enforcement powers to which paragraph (1) applies.

(5) Where this regulation applies, the enforcement agent must, as far as practicable, minimise the disbursements recoverable from the debtor under these Regulations by dealing with the goods taken into control pursuant to the instructions together and on as few occasions as possible.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Yes this particular section refers to at a time, in other words when the power has ceased, it has been withdrawn in other words, has nothing to do with payment as confirmed by subsection 2

I'm not arguing with you on this point. I don't dispute that a bailiff may recover his fees (or at least try to).

I don't deny that an EA may seek to recover fees. if I wanted to be picky, I would question why the word "recover" was used instead of "enforce".

My argument is based entirely on the question of how he would recover the aforementioned fees from an uncooperative debtor.

The actual regulation is (like most) very unclear. Subsection 2 would never apply would it because "the amount outstanding" includes fees? A bailiff would not need to recover fees as per subsection 1 because fees are included in the amount outstanding. Subsection 2 is effectively a complete & utter waste of paper & cyber space.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Crazy C - it was my understanding that an individual using a bailiff pays the fee upfront, so I can't see how the new fees in that situation would encourage the bailiff.

[Crazy council]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

St

both your point above dont account for the fact that the fees are part of the original debt, not separate. So if you owe £ 1000, prior LO, Add of fees for LO £ 100, then 14 days after ( for ct ), the bailiffs charges come in ( £ 75 and £ 250 i think ). At the point of it being passed to the bailiffs, the original debtit thats enforceable would be £ 1425, not £ 1100 plus fees of £ 325.

So the right to enforce the debt meens the full ammount plus charges, but the debitor has the right to apply to the court to have the charges assessed.

Doubleslapp......... I support baillifs, and have used them n the past. When the operate correctly, there an important part of the finacial systems. I agree with there fee increase, as it will now encourage them to really make an effort when the debtor is playing hide and seek with the intent of costing the creditor more or playing for the 6 year line. There is always a different side to consider, people who should pay but just decide not to, play every angle of the game, and that costs normal consumers more.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Are you worried about the bailiffs now, not working sith amethyst are you

No room for me mate with your callused bum sat there.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

Yeh, that's gone well hasn't it? The new regs are a mess, even the bailiffs are saying so!

Are you worried about the bailiffs now, not working sith amethyst are you

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

After that, the bailiff is expected to enforce for them all together, meaning only one £235 fee may be charged.

Yeh, that's gonna happen - he'll visit each day from Monday to Saturday enforcing each one in turn.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I think you'll find that the compliance stage fee may be repeated (charged multiple times)

ie: 6 separate years of council tax liability orders, 6 x £75 may be charged to the debtor (£450 for the avoidance of doubt)

After that, the bailiff is expected to enforce for them all together, meaning only one £235 fee may be charged.

Yes as said perfectly straight forward.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

The thing is that the regulations have gone to great pains to simplify and remove the problems which were prevalent in the collection of warrants and the allocations of fees.

Yeh, that's gone well hasn't it? The new regs are a mess, even the bailiffs are saying so!

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I'll take that as the sarcasm I believe was intended. However, Amethyst, why are you continuing to interpret the legislation only in a way that benefits the bailiff? Why do you dismiss any other argument?

Yes Amethyst why is that

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

The thing is that the regulations have gone to great pains to simplify and remove the problems which were prevalent in the collection of warrants and the allocations of fees.
One of the problems was the repeat fees for numerous visits, so they said there will be stages and one fee will only be applicable in that particular stage.

In the first part of section 50 they say that the income generated by any stage will be deemed the proceeds., the latter part says that this pot of money will be used to pay the amount due, it goes on to define the amount due as containing the amount owed to the creditor and the fees.

This is why i say it is straight forward, it was designed to be, and to my mind should work very well.

I think you'll find that the compliance stage fee may be repeated (charged multiple times)

ie: 6 separate years of council tax liability orders, 6 x £75 may be charged to the debtor (£450 for the avoidance of doubt)

After that, the bailiff is expected to enforce for them all together, meaning only one £235 fee may be charged.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

It is not an issue, as far as the debtor is concerned he still owes the £75, because it is part of the amount outstanding, how the creditor and bailiff apportion the proceeds is down to them, it makes no odds to what the debtor owes.

No no no Andy, you don't get off that easily. The question is who does the bailiff now pursue to get his fee? What if the creditor refuses the pay the fee, as (like you say) the legislation is clear about.

[Amethyst]

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

I'll take that as the sarcasm I believe was intended. However, Amethyst, why are you continuing to interpret the legislation only in a way that benefits the bailiff? Why do you dismiss any other argument?

I don't believe I have dismissed any arguments as I really don't know what you are arguing about.

The fees are legally enforceable as set out, the bailiffs/creditors have discretion not to charge or enforce them, the key is to talk to creditors/bailiffs asap, and I really don't give a flying feck how/if the bailiff gets paid.

Re: Another bailiff discussion thread.

To Amethyst:

We've covered it earlier on this thread (I think).

The critical wording is from Reg 17 of the fees regs:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...lation/17/made
17. (1) The enforcement agent may not recover fees or disbursements from the debtor in relation to any stage of enforcement undertaken at a time when the relevant enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply where the enforcement power ceases to be exercisable because the debtor has paid the amount outstanding or that amount has been recovered from proceeds or otherwise.

Yes this particular section refers to at a time, in other words when the power has ceased, it has been withdrawn in other words, has nothing to do with payment as confirmed by subsection 2